HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report & Exhibits PC 02.25.20261
Garfield County Planning Commission Public Hearing River Edge PUD Revocation and Rezoning to Residential Suburban And Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning Files No. PUDA-07-25-9079, PUDA-12-24-9048 Applicant: Harvest Roaring Fork LLC. Representative: Tim Coltart Date February 25, 2026 Exhibit Number Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information Form & Attachments 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 4 Application Submittal 5 Staff Report 6 Staff Presentation 7 Referral Comments from CDOT 8 Referral Comments from City of Glenwood Springs 9 Referral Comments from Town of Carbondale 10 Referral Comments from Colorado Geological Survey 11 Referral Comments from Colorado River Engineering 12 Referral Comments from Corps of Engineers 13 Referral Comments from CPW 14 Referral Comments from RFTA 15 Referral Comments from RFSD 16 Referral Comments from SGM 17 Referral Comments from Chris Hale Consulting Engineer 18 Referral Comments from Carbondale Fire 19 Referral Comments from Xcel 20 Referral Comments from RFC 21 Referral Comments from RFWSD 22 Referral Comments from Vegetation Management 23 Referral Comments From Public Health 24 Public Comments
EXHIBIT 1
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. ln addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
tr' My application required written/maited notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
ownerS.
Mailed notice was completed on tfre*Jffoay of &"r.Lr.cr.v"r.l.--, zoZGJ
E All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
)f All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
theClerkandRecorderorAssessor,orthroughothermeans[list]-
t]
tr
a
Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
My application required Published notice.
X- Notice was published on the 2Q auyol&{Y*r' vq , 2oZG
Please attach proof of publication in the nin" Ciii.un f"fit * T
My application required Posting of Notice.
--X Notice was posted on t; t t day of t-ld'nls.vr-\ . 202/e
--
-<J-
I Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate
Name:Jut.-s-
Signature:
Date:
Garfield Coun$
l- zl - zozb
0"[#tffi*ffu miff ""srs
h?r. puo EXHIBIT 1
See Proof on Next Page
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF GARFIELD }
ss
l, Peter Baumann, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of , says: The Rifle Citizen
Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in
the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said
newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of
Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first
publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been
admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly
newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the
meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire
issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that
the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 20th day of
Jantary 2O26 in the issue of said newspaper.
Total cost for publication: $1.265.00
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates.
,&o*,',
Publisher
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 27th day of Janvary,2026
CI*SK*
@oo
My commission expires: February 22,2026
Advertiser:
Swift Communications
200 Lindbergh Drive
Gypsum, Co 81637
970.777.3L26
Stitt
,2022.4072ta
Colo,rdo
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD - Page 1 of I
ru€ugxdf€
lrefioliEhrr'..ultu*inl&&.ucbsdidb&kHc'ilishb.rcobrriqbe{',{sordb.nAsd nnc€c9j{lflsiltalorG$nrvrslmLYUkE{mril6tsrftlfl}fllflFrfTslYfr't-
rinr lbd.rdsr{Fst'n F.r*i3!.:!ndn !h &u'/ds'rdd,sr;.orc.rdda b 'n IrllrnlXAmfi*lo..rr". ^.*o*o*.,*,"n.Lo-r1r+*6m rwop,@ns:
*Sl-Bl_a.j!98 SsArnnd&trblA
&didlrqgls nr&rl..1d!r.sdl..r.ledd{gdtnsd?lD,b5!d!oilsa.tolgrrasd$p,nq.{
dJ Crbrd. $1$r ltdl'i/ & d rno.rt ry Azk-. PislNlntr! 239l0zotl l. iiltll rJ0i61.
:tlJl l:tlfi:f ,IS0l:Oi& 1. anr zJBl16(rll ftn d trn pdenla '51!t!61d 1315 St$.lklt,*ti
92. Gdd4Sstq!.COAla0i.$d 6.oirttd5br4.d b6,:'rdtCdi{Yhd!.3-
esllls4fs IttrASldliid4q"trg.?fir*rrrrralltilrlOt.angFetrut.Btlt0&{ltddntri'"!6nn't
4l 1fl0dldtdrnt,tdid!6iryrnislti.m!.E ifld..ra^flh:d*,.6.dyrhndr"!d
'N.tinn !d*. rndd.n *d' r dfi (dd{ ryt 3,,lnq *iS e drdlrq dtntitad 61tfr 69*d
q.tr!td fi td!.j96!S ld s .$mr{rrrln.lb b!i idatldtd trE !q{:*1t&O s Xl{d.
ttlb.sd **-ld.*€ {il be toridd 6r lh nd1j.{ to& l\hF d &idin o.i.nr &*-, h o! d
Cohinr 6trk ri]nf,{ S ?ih odardi rd,ij-l ,tf,isnoiydtnrrFdr;t. Th aeiti4 6s;nn
mir dldtriry !$b9 add,4 Cdnnedrrli*nl\f, /Cn. nddfr rJS,&tiln 1lA1. td na *!s. Ed96
Cob.ddrrtddUnr kdsnqllSrO)%tid i.na-!'ad€$i.*i*r !rt.odandrh ftlOld
*r d n.tr?eb. fL[..trJD i? 23 9w]
$ F&rd SkS b] nn gs4.d AFy''4inr n hiibr t .Ss &J tttr tb..lia.t, tolax ot arn. , P{ rnmd
?at Featlt s.4in b&.4 rk1 lqr rd {.9d! ,11. ?ar nds s/rds d dxnl ld lh&eAagiri&@tisgl{
,rd a frrlardqrt{l&otdrKy,: s ttu A,siE C*d;tq ril 9[6.$dad'e ItlrB @s@d, d e]tnrd:ry
,Brdt/ r^ndr. nd aie.&.id i4 &a-% andld lo odJtm{*l lhrr n. 8.!d d Caidt Cdtli'inldr grYa d.
d&a i..quri td &4lrddi nuy h r.,irn*! s t. orF o, tr6 fr*.iq Oenltnl bdild !l 1S &n Sd. 3rib
4r. 6$rdn C.dt *tj 0u1dn9, fi.niud t)nn#, a:olgdo td',!6 s! tus! {l t @ lri rd ! j *4 rrdr&t
thldr ai.er N:ret?dt tu i6jiiill6 d & \itid #, ItE,loe<ltjd@dis$ll*l"it-ts&2
@rfj&rfn !$5an:G.6d:ji14{f!.!,P.,\itor€!nreodtbdd*{sG;Iddtuid}C!!,t!trlyo4.dtt/ndlr!i84.i p11.
r.3?3J10. rV- e35 A[nltlqc63.0f{st.'w-{*ollsa$Tau uHEs nl{AfmosammmwAD gtglsfAr!&3t
agirugc: guto $0 usslY uE & 8a s1o" L 139 ruT TO nlz etrr OF eCrlKO gcuuffc.
rovatt;rvpwr* e p&c& 2 *o/on sneL 3L&aEol{ s slcno&ritftGUu:
LOl33 Ap/OR{ ITESEOfAtAO €glryl UT,AsAGC@DS lX MtnOCOOW,CASASIIWngcmfl ilo. srs&
laca.{Aao[ScsnaoA$sr[rA'ztfllrcus*&n[coiloeoJAI!&Y2.,261,40od126f 9 G
oo *ndcEm xo-6r0&!
A tucr G so gu^Tao n sclol ,, 16w&ilF t ffiTu, sNG 0a Nar s llt 6il Ps- cellY ffgF*u. er^r€orosiloo. &orilcrtrtaloosre ffi8PAfirulrnv Dgna&aSaamm:
cryac&ott tt€ *c&x& @ 9tclsl l. rovlsP ? mn,a&@ & $!str TIE gl9.u- 1sIx aLa4nG cott{tm lms Ffro aaffw lo A awlm osl- 0dlolgr a. gm*a lt{ $ csilsalo
TrE s v. cfrts of sD scno* r):
tnacS *- s s'tora ?&-.t tg ro Affl{oasa pounwaT @ff8tol2 M !ffi68t lT pre 6$}
ril! rRurPmrS oedilill&ft&c€ tfftlttrc!otlt lvfSllilvlse f IIIATProBW O[rcflEto { gg9mK-6{l lT P&0S0drer,titffa€aewc ga tNs$u ufte us [sc lls ruTilsLY DsxosY lfrE or ss ms€flrYAl.I ES,TO lP&TS nlg IWSTSry n&llS'WlYOFSt TElglWAYfO- gi
rilglc€ tgwca{o$@ttffiU !l€ s.35 2?lot e adcsD w6TfnlvFgll d wAY a2{;4, To Arcfrl* xi qklac Ek& se:ne€f ruutos6NffiSLYa&r-*r$v|t"& 1ruvw-almsbusriteagc€La€28gcE Io
lxG tquE pmr ot *slxfro, EKflllo.mil lsuMlce Alo gfrwYNcE ne a&wnc uce!{G
FAC&Sd,qCgrfro sF66aAlo gceTfl c9arcB t
a tMcr o{ tao g{ruarfo t nG wnl&3l@Amm oa s6R i alo rfl€ was nAu s $clnx l?,
TStN&tS t S1r, na& s wM. ao r{ nG wr$l€sr qlstta 6 $gTs t &} ll{€tm;il ulf ssclil t{ToR$tp tMl!.na&atwas ff nl6gril Pnilc?llrcnw.c0uTYoFdtlm.aIArEtr c*otAm.aao lronE trAlE0a*lv rrcaas€ rous8:
or&tc at rrE pmT oat Txf WELY nglr o, w Y B! of Tt[ noH{o fsx 1ls&t aurbHwi&$mArd cfrnw ama sltNc€A 2le'msacrp.6uilolr 4tr€llogfiEcllY MsKto6 Tfrs4wrascfitisGss xcl& t o4B6.ra9*'E Assaff€€s{l$r8tsinlsce UFmllOspn< 6wAYua€t ts3gg'WAwmc€qf lr2l.l0l6i ltEilc€'f, asrJ3' lvlwac€ wd3g5r8tn
Iptr lsertrtr r*kndns,M d&rdl{lott dth airldd
I4drry5,&A d&6P[ h tt**n!g!ffigallrE CrcSPm!bhy
6r.bgr, {&6&, 8 !0Ol ,
c{tntnsdr!&n(arincn*tud.r gc{&gpac[LglAsxrctaEoffnaTA*dlrc6ilol&xc$troKY20.262Nadlsoar
Cry;lr$&Ce.tytund lld&awd P& SoAAnECgPt&lO. 6t @
l tmcr c No mATe t c(lu 1 lm${P, Snj. ula €a Msl ff ll€ oril Fr' cfiilry s
6S$D.8ilr€Of 6UMOO, $O&CT S UOAgrc ms pAtrfalufl of$caasaSf*6tscwacilcaT nE s€ 6sns*61& r,rsvilslp t 8ot lN. tulsa9relffnle nllp.*lslli&L8W{6 COtlAt6 tiffi& CflG nMlW lO i 8trlk orx.00lo!s'E stTWil trc * ce{uAlo
Iil€t t/a CqXmS&P g3ll* lll
Tnac€1,00 ItG" g. &sosra€6re$l{9l.ti nn,rolaxT*ilrnQ{llllfLY mRoAtr uxgtrilrl mffinsn6 moffDAsntcmlw ro,dstx nlgc[rFlo celwilSts ffrsund{*OSflW RAT8. TIE TruE ruXI S EdI'IC;ttrtce cotrixtqo tlotlc $& scrpt u€ N.0oro$t' €.2$ tffi To A Pql ol nlg $o(nlsrY
AUloMvl&€ Oc ni! FtmOStgmfnwAo SffiOt RAli
TX*C[6UXcM goltd S€X- B'13'&'&AtqO$D SUTtt&Y SUIUW Sa€ ES'rtilcr !f,twc so stfislY muxuw urc3.@'418'e l2St*f 10i SSr il a tr$llc rilcr
LIf,r TtE*e€X.{trat'l1t !9 &QO3F gC€ ulf,62tSrEIilnqc[cfrnilulc[so u0tEicatftsil. &'s1i'Itr2q# t[n10lne sxls uqNc;
qcqqo P{c& ! as usflotoBulatrAfl wlrcuHlm nlcfrooatlufiY3'sol l{!g l6
Ar Pffi A!AS nECEpnd to. t?$90):
a 1MCT ff lAO WAT& .l SCln
',
lsqglp r ruT$. gilg 8a wT s TflE {1, ps- cfl{IY ssras. sAlgo[ m6Mm. iloIucTtrL&oaqre mEP KElta[Y iHffElOASaASlW:
cwacsgttl!6 sc&il$ s 8f,cml Lfwlsln , mril.M& g wtr w nls sr t-u' (sllt &l9$il6 COttAno rt$l milAnf$lw TO AAmlm of [- 00 10!s'€- snwu ff * c6lm alo
111!€ t/. CSts S qDaZCllS Itrrtuc€r-ocrd6' L smcgpsglfi lflEn2t.l0Eg,loaMNTsrnElfflilaY snoift !liqs
TlAt m€t3 saw nt660€oAlR€cgPno{ lo. s il rfl I s*l&o€ogxry ilodf s ilFgulda
i1ilig8H'ffil-d [6;l[""imllff':".mif8i r*' ad orrs. p
^?mr
ft Aa q'ilor&cf, uKi
rroicf lIAuilC$D&CnSLl[g.0g3tla! aA&CANqHgO mC€!l€2&d tEfli
fil&C€CSTliUlGAqG N gtslllCf $CE Ln€a 8G an t1& ll&AIgrtr
T{txcf &trtuilc aox6 $0 fscc KE a s'3lli' e 928 Ecr, to a gkl o{ so lfirllnlY
sotffom)tlilfrcf astososslxa&cEttfN.00oefr's.ao|l!$alfrTtlery oosoffi 4c,fl
tm, il t{EQntrtro{&{txo
acfl*G P&CC? iS O&n{€o ry €Ei6r A n rut€ ao sM.clnrcw }lo. s9'nfR6r c&gT
fr sogsTN€ c6!worsfetAtD8rg€ scsmlmn€coeosfficsrcn 16"lBtl{ 8ffi301 Al
Pl6{ t. ts mcffi* la2s726lj
lmET m ?scf! ff uilo s, I ggv ? ff1ilf, wammT s rluNiYE. sln wcos^@. mafcT
!o-a otslrolilLorS2sD I r *$Clq !.TOvlBlpt iltil,sxeaw[s.trns6TllP[-l{Nt&ocqrry. dorbnm. wDTnrcTsp rcBodsffeP miduRY oEsaaoatFqrcl6:
BtilNngrr A srroN tri! $ts rle s &11,scxfr ?,ToMsilP7$ult gfftr06wff,fnswrlBtl
Tlt* csxrAss€ctm l.lsxarp ? mntnAilc{80w6shn$i r9'Fn'!tr,AR$IAlCs 6 i$o!-
f EIiuactslrl a*on€ !*3r sl€s loT!,sfr|& t a srAlcs0l rq-, &r:ailcac g,{!o' e. AaSlaxcGff ?3t.0r&l;
TXACIa S.t4',e .AOgACf Of g2tF re ArutllL{€o!}l€ ffiffisliltace ^oroa wTri u€slil€ mffir,1l.a9 !2 E-aslaca s llu t6lorile ffiulf s!o1
2, SCrnX tlitilcaa&R6rtsasrsEof oT 2,8tclu ?,sunl 48l&cf cdi E€rlorxrry-cslseLoTt,s[cTw t:ltsc{aoHgnEsstr uilEf ior rl,s3Tnl,{.8'at'4.'AosAxc€s 26tEFirlrflc€atrcrilgancsa GUnEToluqff x ulGAguustr q{$nf !fr A w8ca6 la.t fEllllE
ctfr 0s rnts 6c awa il.4'r3'19,1 slffc€s 1r{f Er}iTlAe€l.I A'W.. ASnAHG S3t!.lfEATi
ilt&Ggtr..2 as'lv.aNfucstrddi EEl,rcE mlm. Tonl[P&l of &qfliaa
tumil$ mFnG nla6nw aw tmilm s ltla stD lvtrnu 3Tff !&lsaY No. & €dftry *srf6,s rEof 60mN.
PtrC&CiMsrSfCAl:
CJn'r!dt/ D,d(Er6tofrhd C idd Co'd7
!.3*5gA' W. qt 0 r €T:
rtilcq
s.3538'
TH$CS, a
lriolct.6sa5: f !
waw&cf s
MIACI
Tt&ca,s 361 r.i2&r3t€6:wace *
€kwa6.4O2!&
?Ad. A EA3T FACA!
9€Cnfr r. TSVflSp
o€cnilflcArlPa]{iTfr lltE w8E&Y agl6llgril{0t60sM@srffE nstrvAv @,wfflcf a 2 l$'
aM& cp, f&rorft ucEArocsgfcrrYumr&l8ltif illlssrcsNsRor $ssscl# r, &ff8
663'Jfd's A UATAilCt# !liS5fffi:tilscr, {or{c rlewagr{8rv n&rl of waY rilG * @pruoc STAll lglwAY 021d 0llr w a 0flan€t
0f tdt-90rff;rt&cf,.tr 6,$a'stsl&cg s &o3otc**0o l{&'wl lsrac€of aln0tESr
{ sdo l!O' lv A mT A6t f ?0.D tffii l d &!0' W A OIaTASG OF al&& f gi
n€xcE t4& f&l aQG rti€
^ffc
* a c0qw ro ltl€ 6T ffAuffc A Splua s loa& t&a a csrq&{l&a s ro'g&rt106[taecacxsoamsfiG6l l6:6'6'.wawsc€ocld.mfgl
IICXC&S l1'SS' WANIACA tr 9t.& ff,fll
TIACe lSS rg aqc llsam oFl cum lo Tlt€ gfl, uvfra A Moils s ls"ootsL l cgroascu#rare.lffo3!!rdmclcn606trtlotrfi anslo'waol6t ltr s50i0EtEnilcE x $,lrB'l!A slac€ tr 12u2rtrt:
IHBCE{iSlrOS'WA ggtActr.S ElrO lSStfff}lEruftLv tlcs lPAc& *woo&nao
a ssnu*lTngcsw!JN!&v?4, &or Ar nlcffpl lo.5xd3ntflct lf,soa& *Tsu s€ s$'21!'tA usrax€ 6 1/6 F8 TO Tt€ $WSE 4LY CmUstrgnp8c&;
Tl&ce &*G nlE wrnslY uxE oF 9D Pltr&. d 8Et?!f W A qSTl{Ct Of 442a ER tO TIEwr|w614rYc$rm of *omcf!Trilcf.x & su.sA *TAcf soas EEl;tflmct, {e'9n8'!aotsI&c€ sctl mi
TtacExoo20@ 8A0narcEoFot9f E reBf mrlaSrmu*lmGApscacNo*sAafo* ilanumlncctrffo&Y &,til?Argactpts lro. e3r0qllucrAorolrEtomimu ux[s $p ptmelTlf aousf .lc nln$ cois
xtqaatr" \{1wA{cf s0.6 fcm
x Jotl!3,WiW XC8Sa5!0ffTl*6d,.t'1t'w4WAilC€OF6.S lF tOllf SntgSgU eSlS ffSnPAm: nlHof. il m'ar'11'SAgf&Gff tatAlElilrlscL{ s3'rt'saobt4c€ s gilr :!t1rrgcE I €'3to'lv A NrxreE oF 100toa*l Io A m&I&l rru asnlY nElT s r$v lile ot lwOWrlOfg{ BilSlltt0FrTg}$rylAIN €mlffi WrelTi
rnucLAtqoMD iltlulYntqrr ffwAY ufEa l0 $&'gA 0ETAilCEff l@MttEr;rltucg ?s2 rr lLilo TffE ac tr A cufiw ro llls fldlT tuwc leiwt tr 2ol6notEr,a caln&sff ff t3f0'AtosorgrMqaclsoowilc #3it5rlt'c AqSrNc€ s a& rrlDtac€.DfPtrtHcsoffreYnlctTf llAYlEl8t595!'c^mTAc€@ fl .q EGIT0AP*TqllE
vcartrntY q&f oF l{av LrE tr cilsm arAT€ rilgN v c2, es ElG rlS pmr of Eallilc.
nscl a FomBAficfq:
"mce I { affiflnsrR oEEo nEcmo€oilAY l0, r991il !K loo ATP6E s3Al nrcPrtr lO- efll!
, mAcf truffogulrslx 612@aaGrfi t,tovttsPt ffirff, ulcaBw€st6trlE6Tilps. cmilrys Gr[io. iffee cfls& LtNo lqllga8LYs ]lf tt€s fio $ufl ln[s tr $a @T2 alo
wrnwf{t8tYoFTtt ryT!tr3tsg l&[s wAYln[oF SancnsrNAY{q & a trcoilsnuq€t uj9fl,*0tBAfl otrcna&s filda
nf&lflftC AT JliE Wl{*sr 6frlg Of g{O lS 2 iue ffiKO lwtl A aod Pil: Wlgc! S nNsgtrvmtAS4$ crprdrow Rra[ so nmlv ssp ton lilE$uni€srcoR€ns3{cfl0l,
TSVI$? r$Un( SA@ S WTGTlaOtrl P* gSr& S3ltqW-tr{fg:ilai{cEx,&G9 dGttdo ntE wsmtYu[ tr6AnloT2lo lFmroxnlEFWlllllsslY sdlTff
N vstrofs{oilB(s n
n{acE& Ii6!0. g a.tttaTAL*6Tllaa&rhlamlY &arswAY lnllolsoilHwAY;?filcf & $,[s. f, lfl f*TA6m nrs 8c{rrlw:tlslYRdrTof wAY tfrE s gaollolw Ylo A roetI ttE MnttnLY r{f s so lot 2ilr*cE\lsTl?-efln [Qrolll€ wTtlslYLfttr G $Dlgt2ro tlE wTn\!€scsxs or$oLoT
a 1iltr
eilrtr aEdllto.
mcT OF c&trtY surcs"
cwaGflGAtnre scdugffsEcrprl.rffiNqP 7 sll,nsc owstsT{E frilPs- {sTxatasfrs coltAr*& rt&ff silc aaalw ro a affls of il.0010to L aElEs lE s cfiflmANo
Itr€ E t/a cattr tr s0scrtq 1l;
TfiSCtt. $'&10'[:€al fSTO AreNOlfnnisllw$rcsxfff LoT2En DisnHslfff,csm
NFa b. !UnlX m* 67AIPAtr0$ IlernUEPdTS OtqkMilC4rtlacs Nfirn aa6 ltt tE8r6f Ll€ fr rntrPn(mry mqgm il 3P Em( flt AT 9*g 0&
r?6sfF: IHACS lgVlilC$6 *SIslY !l€ ll, a'010'W. ISC TllC WllmLY awxD&Y UXE qD
stilSlY ffilOAry UflEqUOS * flg ffECqO@ AgO& frftVADqffilo RAt le.8 tgi
r{4cc isTtlttso&qo so $unl€*Y sudoAd 0ilg &o &urlGtuY niloAfr ult glam a-
@?ct6'
a b4 ra.to lP*lr{ a rcnxstfl ce lsqflrgcf Lgwo$osnmrYs@NoaYff&MASti6andsl{ofilcguN€rlcf&!otfloilEE
$lcoms&a a'rt1t" ars3 rsTr
& s 31'{'46s6 &Ti
6 &'ttu'g0.stg, Torila rnutmnltr o€gnlH&
9$Ctrt& {S lre€SSS nOCtL?S OUTCUtr OfSOE{tr&OSY?qd2lX&q lS64rp&€!4lStfcmil m.slrooIs Aa Esn6&aa ff{gtA.3 n ftllcdu tgro EcsmJs!4tr 24" aol tlsg 1a At pm s0A6 n:cpT$n lo. 5rg&l
r rucr s tao $ual$ fr scls t lMg{P , dffl, gl& 80 l[al @ llE nrll P.u- ctr{]Y surfs. flAtt ot @rcm@. so tilcTs soogN st plmrlllEv ff$ntrFo A8f4sffi
ffisrc*car trrc $ csEss €fire r.ffltslp ? soljtt, Mlc€8sM$ snle arf P-ullsls &lowil@ coxTxt€o nffiil cnc ng{rw lon 3*lm oF(. r01o!s'a 8€rwal IIE $ eoai{s Afto
nl8e trt CSA6 f $DSonoa llt
nt€tc€ t.itioto. e tgl trtfoi fsfloigs sorlilwglT sBeg lol2 pg sffi g7 { gmE sq:rilacEilqTrAutGnt€wt$t8tYu€ s nATtretnry oE&saslxso0M68l ATPre 601&srF,tre rruG Qtrso€ata&
3*7t fm: llSCG, SeJ l6Sr IVAffiI&Ct Of 5tr.g€61Iil*C€. fi
r6qt0 101$roil nl€ \we LY lrE tr T{€ m4ilG f*x
Wml ISC a S'S'&' \l A OSSCT tr tt1.6 tf,qi llqcE A Oq2l'$' E A
3r{rola. gaGTAcE d lal&rg1
trtr
t STSC€t8.n til0
A NlAtCq S
OBTAICS 6 m.A ffti
TilSC€.
os&g€ff
12 f6i talgef. Xs 10120 fgl
A OISAIC€ S to.S [E[TiTl€lcf" x
a osrscr oF
Harvest Roarir-rg Fork PUD - Page 2 of 3
!7.3'l'NO" w a uSlANcF oF 0it,0r Fls$ Tlltilct, il 2e0"ll" ti, A DlsnilcE oF 30,00 ltE[
THg{cr, { tc.54'2a" w A Drgraltcr oF 4lloll FEFt r}{;iltq l'l ,st0'04' s,l ol6TAl,lcl oF
t07.1? rErI! TIIENCG, al Sort{t0tr w A Dldl }lcE oF i64.?l rcgq
THEI|CE, X 11.t0'01" w A otFt xcE oF 107,90 F€rq lHlllcE, N t4'6d1n' E A oISTANCE of
16!.!0 FEEf, THEiloE, l{ tltloI,.1" E A OI8I$&E OF l7?3t fE€l ileNCg l{ 8il0l4'.13' E A
Ol$fAiloe OF 09051 rurti 'rlBilCe il 0?'t! ' rV A O|SIAI{CE oF 2t,?t FGSIi ttlEHCg, N
s0."'r1i ! l olSt llcE of r0.oo flEt ltlEflce] il e"t!!o' I A o$tA]loE oF {a!0 rgEt
Tflsilct, N t?"6doa'gtDtglArlc* or$.12]gEttHsNcg,804'5t'16" EA DlBtarcE oFts.ot
rESl? tttEl{Cq I 0ti$f,6di E A pt8lAt{CE OF 8t61 FEgl tllEtlc€, l,l 6d"01'0O' I A ol8tAl{cE
OF 203t lEql rl{3i{CB, N ot${0r3l'E A OllttAt'lcg OF Cl,93 rrE'Ii lfi€t'lcE tl 3?"4t'Ar W
A DTSTA{C€ OF 10.{a rEE? rHSilCg t'l !0',00',1t' I A OFTAIICE OF 2z2a rEE: ltlENCe a{
or?alo' E A oATAIilcE OF ltrto FCFI IHINCE !L'9't'38' I A DlsLxCE OF ttl00 FlEti
tHEa,tct, s /l.l'"!o5s" g A DlSTAilcs oP e0,05 FEEIi lHgilC€r 0 t4'rta'zof G A Olgr$lcg OF 2t t8
rggr: TfiEileC, I 1l!l't?" * A l)l8t 0lcE oF atufia FEfn tllEf{cE, t 1a"d8'41" e A DaTAncE
oF 9'1{ fEEtl fller{cq s /(l"4a'!0" 6 A oltT tlc€ or 6t77 FEfll rHElrcg s a.l|3o'6tn E A
OtttTANC€OF66,?6FgmTHEI{CG,e4f30',1$"€iOl3T l{CgOrr0,llFEEtilHGliCC'845'30'66i
r A d8nr*E OF,l{1"08 FEqn THEiloE, S 00lo3s" a A Ol9lAt{OE OF (l30 rEstl ThEt&e' i
79.10'2a" E A DISXAI{CE OF 6?,60 flrt ?lllt{oq a tit"oglf I A Dl$T NcF oF 1t,06 rEE]:
THEa{e*, A 6a.87'30" E AltStAilCE OF retl rle!|fi8,1C8,8 0i'l8i2l' S A OlsTAilcE OF 4At5
rtgQ fHefiCt' t'|889d2r E A OtgtAXCs Or 01.0a fESl l}rsUCq I 0t"6goOr E A OlarAllCE
OF {?.0? F€Eli TtlEltc€, ll 06'84'38' € A O'alAl.lcc of 34.18 FEEri fiENc€' tl ?r'm'o?i 6 A
otstANc€ oF 7.0ar FEEI THEilo€, I 24"51 ',03' G A OlgTAtlC€ OF t2,08 FEEI] ltlENCe S 4l '6a'|47tr
r A USTAa{CE OP 0o.tl FFET THEHCE. 8 Ff'/14'2t" 5 A DlgIAtlCE Or i&9, rlgt'l'l{EllOE, I
0f30'9r s A olgtAn cE or 87.1! FEati rfleilcE, I grll'ls E l DlsrAroE of 77,{n FEEI;
THFltcE,8dt'6t'10'Ei olsTAtlc€ oFNSroFEEn l'lgllc€.8 6?"3dls'€ AolSTAilcE oFnc.00
fset fi$rct, I 490,6,081 3 A usrAilcs oF ?..t6 ?Eel fl|!!tcE, s 6l"o{'s!* t A o|a Arcu
OF 'tira fE€X Ttl€l'lc€, S 7!!46ut' E A DlSlAtlcE oF 6515 fEED THGllCg, il 0*35'df W
A Dl8YAT,lcE of 09.88 fEst fH;*CE ll i0.s'1,(' f,, A DlflYAttCE OF fL,l6 FEEI) Tll8l{cg ll
49'!4'10'W A Dl$TAllCE OF a{?a FEgt} fltEllCE, l{ 4tr!,1'10' W A DEIAiICE OF t0"9? }iEn
TfiENCs, il {0'il'tQ" W a rxsr rcE oF !1.30 ftsli r}lEl{cE, x to'a727. w i tlSTANcE oF
129.C? rsFl THSflC3, a{ 8S'47'la9 W A OI'TANCT SF 00.00 rren tHFilce. N 2s00'{t- w A
otgTAfict oF rie,6s FEel} TtlEileE, N 70$',&' rt A Dl8?tllcE oF s.s4 les[ ?HEllcE, e
re?41,4atd w A ot$rAi$e oF 37J0 FEEI
'HENCE,
I rt'67'52" W A OIEIANCE OF 60i5 IGHI
THENCE, s t0.3t'6?r lYA DlSTAllCE of ,16.46 rlEt nirt{Cf, { 0f92'36'WAol8TAllcEor2r:3
FEEI: TNEI{CE" N !0r0t'&" l{ A OlslAHcE OF 0!,71 FEEI T]lEllcE, !l ?1,e0'4,1' W A DlSfAllCE
oF 6t,t3 r:t.n t}legc*, il 0fa{t'le w A u8tr|xcE oF 03.2a FEFI} rHfilcEr tl alfiE2r |v
A Dl$Tlt{Ce OF l8l,ra ttE'n
'tl${cg
H i6'l0l'l" W A OlCfAliCE or 0&€ FEEt l?l$rcq 6
66rfl?3$ Ur A HSIA'{CE OF sA-ro rEFt rrFl,lcg, I r6'gg'6t} w a ugraflcE or a33t ftETi
TgEtree,gro.!lo,ai"wA or8TAllc€of r:Leerfllrml'|cF,83?'a74t'FAorsnilcEof 21.60
FrE ! TITENCEi il r7'@!7* W i DT8T NCE OF €O,io rrsli tl{Ellc€r I ?vL'16" lY A OLltAllcE
of 1006 tEm TilEHcE, N 80'60',011'w A olstAllcE oF t6J6 F€€l: lxEllcE. S 84"28'64" W
A DlgtAl{Cg OF 49.0C FEAI Yllxllcs, N l4'2?'a0" s A OEI&&E Ot !8'20 rEFIi ll{gl{CB, N
05'fi.4e u, A ot8tAilcg or t|,m Feg4 l}lfilc*, il t8"20t6" 3 l ol6T*llcg oF 10,0, Fgel}
TligilcE,l{ *.at,40i f Ao|8lAt{clof 14"t{?Bgl}lll?l{cE.l{ 1094'E8" eA DlgrANcg oF35.',lt
r€m fxENcs, N o0te'61' € l tl$rAXcE oF {?.16 FEFI)
TNEfice n00'40!0' IA0ISI NCEOT$.48rEErl TgEl,lCE, ll0l',10'6z"F4OlSrAllC: Of 7t'00
FEEn ilrElrcl. il 0rt7&i E A olsTANc€ oF &,at rEEx 't?lEa{cE, ll 20'28't'1" lv l olst^racE
Or 6it 08 reel! fifNCG" ti 0?00'i/+' w A DlgtAllCg OF 6l'0t fSEn Tll3ltcEr ll 10f1729 w
A DlSIAr{ce oP 8&f:t FEfl} ni:r'&g{ il 3a1a'36' w A DldYAllce oF {4.90 Feg4 TSSNCS, }l
&,fi3,l. w A bt$lAt{cE or 3?.?3 FEgt tHEllcEr il rvat"l8" st A o$rAt$E of 64.16 FrEtl
THEtrtCE, || 81,Arto{, W I OlSlAilCE OF 38.}? rlfi:1HE}iCG, l{ 6?$ll'{?"1'Y A olStAllCE OF
0!.?0 FFgl: THEtc€, il 8!.!oa? !v A olSlAl{cg oF 8e0, fE€l} l}l€Nc€, N 0anl'29' $t A
,I8TA!{CE OF t!0.!6 rE6I rHs}lOF! ll 05'60',41" X, A DlsrAt{CE OF {t,3O F EI} l}lENCE, ll
'{',xl{o"
W | ,lSTAtCt Ol 24.?0 trgfl lll[NCE ttl ,f'tt'4i" rY A oISIAXCE OF z,t 0o fgFt
tHE IC€,l{ lr'38'3?'WAI}|STANCgOFtS.0,lrEEfiTrlEXCf,.l{ 4tt0',t0" gADlSlllle€Ort&19
fcErirlGUcE, ttt06.,arr*lYA olSfAl{cE o} 11t.20 r€6l} tllcilcE, N t0'06'1/ wA DElANc€
op 04.ai FqEr} THENCe, il 'r13t'03tr W A DlSlAllCE OF 6lt8ll FEEI ?fieilCE, tl 0r67{a! W
A Olgrffi0€ OF t{1,46 rEtl: t}lENCq ll !e"!0'14' € t olgrANcE oF !0,?e rtgt rHEl{cE tl
lftt',L" W A DlETAtrlCE Or $'04 fEFn *lrNfE tl 4411'!0' W A 9ISI^NCE Of tcl,56 aEsl
ylltNc*, fi 19'r3'{e" w I Dls?Al{cE or 7i.18 ruFt r}lE}lcEf I rra!'00" w A olct tlcg or
{r2t rs*t rt€ricE lt 2t.9o0r" u, a olSTAllcl oF ??.23 FEtt
THrfiCqlEpAftTh{C8 l!EASElrErtlTU}lEil0f1000FEAOlgrAilC€OF21?,?FEEIITHEiICE,
il{x,'10'30' EA DISIANCE OF3t49,l FEEI
?fl8il46,9 6e"/*l'30'E A Dl$r$lcE Or 1O0a'44 rEFr tO A polrT OI lllt lfEgtERLY ilOH?
oF w Y uilr oF THr noARrNo toRX TRANglf AutfiOnlw tnAt{spoRlAnoil conRlDon
f, E€ilBilr, AISO 8erx8 fiE polfil Or 8trdr{Nlilo,
COUI{TY OF GARFIELO 8'ATE OF COLOIAOO
PARCEL O {IK'U'II PASQELI:
A rnAcT of LAt'lD olruArE lil 1lr€ EAAI S^LF of 8scnoil r& ?owNsHlP ? *outl, F^NGE
80 $/S8t AflO lX tnE WeST {Alr Or SBeTlotl ? ANl, lN rxe ilOnfll ilALf OF 8gCloil
{0, t0WtlS}llp 7 gdt THt nAilOs ts WFgt OF Tlle Al}l pnlNcpAl. l,lsmoUl' cOUt*w OF
GANREU',8'AT6 Of COIORADO,
'BIIC
MONE RARTIOULARLY
'E
CRAED AS FOILOWST
agotNl{two AT A PotxY ol{ rr€ wEitEnlY nloxr oF wAY ut{s oF 60l"oRADo $TAre
tllolllv Y 02, lt lfiNCc A 2 t/2" 8n^8$ CAP, rOirHO ll,l Pl"AcE AllD COTACeTIY ITARXFO As
TtE SOUTllEAEt CORN€R OF gllD 8lcnoN 7' SeARS I ?8"'ldl0' E A OlgrillCE oF 1180.1{rrq
TXENC€,^toilA 3llD Rrottt OFWAYUIIE 30e136t0' EAOISIANCE Of401,?9 FEgt filNo€,
I00'30'e'4 E A tnrnnoE oF llaar? Fe6ll
THEilC*.000,0iF8ETALONOtflElRC OFAOURLSTOTIIE lErTfiAYl!{OAAAOIUS OF l48ll.to
flCr, AeF{mAlAflsrSOFr.',r'r'{4"tltlo SuoTll{olHc*c}lonDalAFlllc of I21"$\7 e
A OlElAttCs Of<,4t FEsrl
TtEilC€, 8 r3.48't4" E A OISTAXCE OF i8t.* FFfl,,
TllEt{CE. 20/t.0il FEet Al.otlo lttE Ane Of A ct RvF TO IHE Rlolll. }lAVll.lQ A nADtUs of
28|',m rEEI A 4ETTRAL lNOt€ OF a'6|l'46" lt{O suaTENoltlo A ollono oGARlilo of s
3tr47'tt' E A DlStAl'lcs or 2ta,l8 FEgl:
rnEflc€, oFmnnl& tlrD Ftolrr of wAY uile il 89'10't0" w A olsrAl{ce oF s18,07 rsgn
THEltCt.ll,lll '30i lil A O|8?AI{CE 0F00J8 FErl!
THEilCC, 8 8?.2AAf W A $$l flCE OF 38J5 FEE|) rHEllCl, S 8it'64't!" W A OXITA'ICG Or lO80
rl€tt rfiEt{oE, il 68 CE OF al.l! FEEIi IHENCE, il ,9'[t'|3tr W A OfttIANCE
Of e?8 rEE.ll figilgE, ll 24'l!'24" lV A OUffArilCE Or 20.2S rEEl'i l}lFNCg, tt io"oola' W
A DIETAfiCE Or t67 FIE* THsflCs, S sl'tl'a,l' W r l)lgllll{Cg OF 2ac0 rEs[ TL$lor' ff
rr.2r'o!' w A Drsl ncg or t?,28 FgrB ilttNcF, tl !0'lt9rt0' w a ol8rat'lcE of 28.o? FaEIi
T}|ENC6, N {0141'!zr VtA DI$A{GE OFe,ie F€Hl T}lEilcE, H,l{ t6'W A Olg?At{Cg OF2l.46
regc rH6ttcE, il06.60!8' w A olgr rc€ of a0.06 rEET tHrNca N {096'40' Itv A olglAncE
oF /g.el rgEr: THEIC€. N 0112'?3{ W A DISIAI{CE OF 30'a6 FE€A fiEilo€, ll $"44'04i W
A OISTA{CE Of {&r8 FEFl.r lttEireE, il 60f4s?1i 1r{ A oET&rce oF 25,t't FEEI rflsllcE, tl
{r41,!e u A olnrAficE of ?0,78 PsEt lreficB, ll 3{P26'{f w A oltTAilc€ oF 2r.!8 *E'tt
THEXCT, il 2n {?!1. W A USr$}CE OF t0ig F*Ft fHEtlCl. l{ !trit',$r W A OlSfAl{Cl OF
3a6t FEEl'l
THEI|C€, N0f60'2'r,w^sl$ru{cEoF20.s2FEE!ltt€[ce ilfl'6sl{'llAtl$rAt'lcEor1?.60
rrgl rilEilce il s cE oF 2rt7 Fgell THF|CE, N 26'{1'!38" W A OlSt tlOE
oF r@.4r rccri rHcNcf" lt 4t"1?88" E A OfstAr{cE Or Aat! lls* THlilcg il 4634'0?' t A
olgrAtlcs oF rt s fEEli r}lcilcr, ir !4"r4',t4' !9 A O8lAilc& Of 2se.0 Fltlt lHEHCl, l{
6r!OOe' W i O|STA*C€ OF loat? f€erl l}lEllcE, N 53'19'|31n $ A ualAilct of 10638 FE6l:
TltEilcg, I't 55.68"t{ w A oa? }lcE oF 110.rt FEF4 ll{E}lcE, l* 56't{'8?x w A lxglAt{cE oF
It&41 FFAI ?HENct, il 40'16's{i W A ol$TA}lcE oF'l3lt{$ FEg$ THEilcE il ,H'tO6f w A
0('TANC€ oF 160n6 FEg* lHEflCF,
'l
3?4lv6t" W A DIgTAllcE OF loela FEEI: rH€ilcA fi
!r+t,t9r t{ A orsTAttrcG oF !0213 fsgli TxENcr, il telo'or w A olslA{cE oF /t?.20 tert
THENOC, tl gt'58't9' W A OI8IAIICE OF 1oit,to F€FI TflEl,lCE, N 3xt!t'30' lV A OlgIAl{cE OF
7r.00 FEE!: rHEHcE, N 4r'3e',4?', w A olsIAXcE Or Fr"lOfIFl nF}lhfl $F2'.c4' st A
olsTANcE oF $era FEEI THErlc€, il 0/t 'al" w ,fllqnllFt|qflltF IEEC IllENcE, N
/&rroogt' w A otarAxcE of 52/ir FEEri tHEncE il 1FB74r'il A 6tEllt{c! or ltds6 tEEtl
TltEt{cE, N 3rgs'r*'v, A orsT^llcE oF 0a6s r€€I Tl{Ealc€, ll 6t'01's2'w A Drrar*cE
oF *a,& Flsrl THENcG, X r0.lr',le' w l DlcrANcE oF 8t72 Ft3'l: fHErc[, N aro'or w
A DrSrAlrcE OF t .0g FEEII
'|{Er,rCE,
}l0132'00" Ylf A DlstAilCe OF 0St2 FEEQ flEt{€E N
,0.04't6" w A olgt ilcE oF 30.08 FEel} THEtlcE, ll 300{a2l{ w A DtSTAtlcE oF {zoa FEEI
Tr$tCC, il e6'30!,{" W A DgrAt{CE OF l07'l? FgEll TtlEtl€6, ll sr"t4t0r W olSl tlCE OF
tlr.r2 FEr[
'l$r{ca
il r1b0!}l' w A Dls?atlcF oF 10t.9o rEcll l'lEHce, { il'€400' g A
orStAilce oF r&,00 rgEn rHExcE, I $'se'3f, e A ol81 ilQs oF 1?711 FEfll lfietlc€, lt
i!.14,43' E A ot$tAilcE OF 00&il FIEI ffrilcs" I 0?'tt'r0" w A ols,tAl{GE of 11.t9 ?8Ea
TH€il0S, X Ao'fi'tl" EA D|8TANCEOFnoro FEEII*lEfiCE, tl 00'ls!6" EAolsTAr{oE oF66,{c
rEEn ?HENCE, lt 67"Cd04'E A DltrtAIlCE OF !O.t2 FE€I TH€llC€, I 84"!trl6'E A o,lStAilCS
oF rt.oa mE l ltl€xcE, I 8t{30!(r E a DlstAlloG oF 80.6t rEErl THENCE, ll t6t?to' €
A OlSTANcg OF a6.Ei FE€t) ?HEllCE ltl07"*?i* E A OlglAl{CE Or t.eo fgE t 1}a6t{CE, ll
$'4r'tr w a olSTAfIce of 1&06 FrEEt rSENCE, t'l !oe0o'tt'a A ol6r^Nc* or !2,23 F8F[
TtEt{cd, t{ 8a'02,30, I A DInArc€ ol 06,10 rcgl} TXExcq I 09's4'$r E A tlSTAtlCs oF 5{.05
rEH! ?lrEl{cl, I 4tt'to'!r I A DlsTtl{cl of 20.06 F8€l! lllExcg, I t4'a4's' B i o8lA*ce
ot ,o"i8 rEFn TfiENCF, S lt'tt'l?r w A tlSlAtlCG oF a.a* rEEt *lFagCE I t{"!all' E
A OlStAllCg OF ffIl,l tEEl} lHENce, I ]l3'/ln0" E A OISTAI{CE OF 8t'?7 IEET! tHFllC€, 8
3r.3d'5e* € a rlsrAilcE or 56.1n fEE4 Tll€ilcq' I 4f3B'lt' F A ol$fAllcE oF {tJ2 FEEri
lHEtlC8,8r1$'3e65" e A olSTA{Ce OF 40.88 FEFr, TgttlCE, S!{Plf38' E A OlgTAllCE OF4SSo
F€91 tHrNca I ?ri0'2,(" E a DlslANcf oF 6?,60 FEsTr tllf{ce, 6 a3'0s'13' E A DlsrAr,rcE
or rs{d }Gsl'! nrErcE, S 6o"37t0f E A D,8IAI{CE OF !?31 FEgr'! tHE{Cer C 00?0"1" e
A OtltTAt{cF OF 16.$ FerEn tllEt*CE N t0'l02?' e A OlETAllCE OF 01,04 trEii lll€xcE, a',
3tr60t0{ E A Olst xcE oF t17.07 rlEI: Tl{sl{CE, t{ O0f6S'38' G A DlsT l'lCE OF 3zl0 rggl:
THEiaC:, il ?2'06!l' E A Dlol NeE OF ?,e0 FEEI! n.lEl&E, $ r4r0t@ S A olsrAXCE Or ?195
fsEl! tHENCE, I fi.6"4/ e A o|S|ANCE OF to.71 lggt l'lgilcl, I 3t'{4rtt! E a DlcfAt{cE
Of &3r fiEEli r}lF {CE, I 0s't(f30r g A O$rAilcE OF 8?.tn rGSt lHgl{C6' 8 67''lt'12" F
a DISTAI{C* OF 77.tl' FtA} THf,l{C€r 8 at'!t10" t A ol9TAtrc: ol Sadt F8gll fHE}lcq I
r?to,rs. € A olgajtcE oF !6,@ FEg!: Ttlgi,lcg I {v!t0s' E A ol9T NcE oF 74,0t r(El}
THEile€. I 01t4'6,1' E A olttAtl6E OF,A.,ll F*Et!
THEtl6C, 6 7l'40ryt' E A DlSl l{CE OF 66'45 fEET To 11€ pOtNT oF EEQIHt{ll'lo.
couNwoFornnEm, StaTg oF coloMDo.
PIRCEL E {I{OITH PARCEL}
A tt^cf or 1 fi9 Sllu tEo N rHE EitrST l{AtF Of',SFCTlOtl 1& TOWtagHlP ? 8outtl, RAIIOE
00 wEax, AilD ril rlc wEEl HALF ol SEclloN 7. lOWiltfllP t SOUn{, SAMIE 80 WEttt OF
Tilg 8tr pfiNgPAL t gRlDtA}l, COUi'ITYOf OARFIELD, SrATA OF COI.(IRADO, BEMI MOnE
9Anncut nLY DE*cRrs:r ls rollotr&
grolNlrr{c Ar,\ PoF$ wreilcr filc cAnna.o coullw sunvgYoR'$ 2 1/a' lRAaS cAPr
folrD t$ ptloc At{D conBEcrLY lr^Rxm Al t}lE SotftHc llr conilER of sAlo 8Ecnoil
? BEARS 949.12,10' C A Dl$TAl,lCg OF 54rS,64 fFE Tl{6HCl, I 0f4$'g0o g A OlgtAllCE OF
lm6.{ Fegf TOA pdr{loll THEWESTiRLYLfi gOFtl{: fioARlxG FoRl(lFAl{6lt AuftloFlfr
TRAil$poRTATOa,r coBFloon cAe€LErtll
Tflgilee. Aroilc ri{s WEETERLY ltilE oF gAl0 E^8li{e$f a t0'38'61" a A oltTAl{cE or
2OL.!0isES
TilENCE, *s.ra FEE? ALONG TIE AnC OF A C{,FI/E l(} T}lE Rlotlt, }iruilo A nAOl0$ oF
,016,00 FEEr, A CEiltnAL AilALS Oi loul',t2'alo SuaTclloll{o l cfiont BEARINo oF I
1437'0i" e A OlEl?ll,,CE OF4$,t0 fEEt
THENCd, I S'85',oe" I A DlStAilCE OF i2O.?8 fggf!
Tfitstlo!, oEPlfiTltlc Tr|E WEafERIY Ulle Os sAlo EAtlEatlEt{T a'l60'38'1{'W A olsl lilo€ OF
60.,$ feFtl &fillcg, X it0'!,1'10f lt, A Ol$tAJil0G gf n{7? lEEli
TH€llC€,il4f!4'l0tWADlgT NcEOFio.srFEEIlltctloF|il,n"1t'{0"wA0|3TANCEOFt{'00
fEElllHtt{CE N if'r??t"uVA DAtAilCE Of lrSe? FSEIt}a€tlog l{ 0f,a?,2r"yrADllrtAlloE
Of e0.S FEct ?HEilC&, tl ,09t'iti w A ol6tAl{CE Of 119.68 lgEri ?HEi{CE. il ?8r0O,13' w
A llcTetcE OF Sgt4 fEEn ilEilC€' I tC41',18'W A tlSTAt{C€ OF 3?'ff} F€gli THENCE I
s"f,?'62" W A olgrAt{Cg OF 50.00 FEE i TH$rCq 6 !ftl'fi" W A DIST ilCe OF a6,a8 FEEa
Tt{€flCS,tararses6"WADlSlll{CEOPa4a}fEAI;?il*l{CE NrS107'00"wAolETAllOGOF06"?1
FEEI fiF{Cq t.l 71?0',{4" llVA O]eT$aCE Of 00,?0 rEgt*rENcE, tl0o'40'!0" w A orraxcc
of sr,e2 f6Erl rxEiloE, il 26"3s'r2',lV A DiSrttt{CE Ol 101.0€ FEEri tXEtlcE il 06'io2/ti w
A oltfAslcE oF s6,& reFt ftEUca I06'02'*r $, A Dl8TAf{Cg OF l2-& FEEI} tlENCE, $
56'*l'53 $, A Olst l{CF Or $'&t FEEri fiEtloe, s ro',o'El" U A DlSfAl{CE oF .e06 rtE t
tHfrace,83?9?'cr"iA0|STANCEOF2l,A' rEfllrllgtlcq N tr02'6?" wlolElAtlccoFSt00
FEtsrI ttslcg, B 7tr&{'r8" w A nafAXcE ol 7or. F[Ell t]lENeF, il 80'lg3v w A ol8trAilcE
OF !s,{t rEsti rfiE}{ce. S 84'20'!0i W A n$ninE Or {0.t9 FEEI THEilCB N tf!g't$' E
A DISlAilCE OF 0&10 FeH: lllff{CE, l{ 041',1'44! ul A oltTAllcE oF ??.60 FE$l rflEa{cE t'l
rs.2otd$ E A DtSlAilCE OF lo,olt rEE[ lllEt{CE, t. r4'!ll'4{F E A Dl8lAt{cE oF 44.1/t r€Ert
tfiE{cE,}l1oi34'50"EADl8? XCEOf36.rlFEfllTrllNCE,l{08'5e'6t"EADl8fANC;OF{?^16
PrBli rfiE tC:, il lxl'!8'00' g 4 OlSTAtlCE. OP 3&ll8 rsgri l}ltt{os, N 04"|o6,1' s A O}EIANCE
of ?r,sr FgEli ltlEilcq il 07'lt7'5t' I A olglAilce oF s4,0i FlEt Tileilcg ll $'28Jr{' w
A DISIAI,|CE OF tlli FgF[ TllF {Cg l{ 31T0'{.4' Ut A olSIAttCs Os a1.0! FSEr} rHEr*E l'l
cr.i?ftg" w A olSr ilcF oF qt t? rE$t rllgllcE H 38"14'20' w A ol$lAiloE oF rl4,i! REErn
THSI{CE, il 8t'11'3ir w A DI8TAT{CE oF tL75 FEgn TflEtlCE tl ta!448'W A DlstAt{CE
oF 5a.10 fEEx rHEf{GC, t 6?'01'36" W A OISTANoE OF 00.97 FgEli ttEtlcE, N 6?',3it',.r W
a DleTAilCE OF 05.?O FEsr! ru3ilCg, t{ 0rriizs w a ol$?Al{ce oF 0a& rsgl tHgilcE, l{
o{'il}r' w A olslAllcr of 168,6[ Ffel: rHslce. il 3!'604t' w A olSlAllcE oF 4t.00 rEEll
TflEilC€, X g4'it!'€" w A Ol$tlltcE oF ,/l?0 FEn! rxatlcE, x artl'4!r w A tl$rAHgB oF
,00,fO tEFn fiEXCg. N 1t'68'3?' W A OISIA{CE OF t6,02 FEEI; TXEXOE, tt {lf00"F I A
o|aTA!|CG Or ?6.t0 rgH: lHEt{Cl, N 6'29'0r" W A OIST NOC 0F 117.8 FAEI' f}tEt{CE, X
20105*7" t{ A Dr8?Ar'rCE OF t4.ra FESI tllENCg l,a l1i&FB' lL i Dlar tlcE oF iiji rEcl]
fttetlog, r* 0rtr6r,{a" ly A oGrANcE of 141.,13 FEs1l fllEl'lcE il 6"60'14' E A Dl$f NCE OG
60.?0 Ffer:
'I{E{CE,
X te'1t'a4' W A olStAfiCE oF 0t'0,i rEst
tHEtlCf, lt +1.'ir'!0F W A Olsi${CE OF tta,t$ ftgt} fHlneE t lvr{l't0f W A D|aIAi'|C€
('F 74,ts Ftrt TllEllcG, N lt"St'oo' v!, A DlsTAl,lCE oF 4ll2' FEFII lllEilCE, N 2i3o0t" W A
DtsTAr{C€ OF ?aeef:Er:Tr{Ellc€,ll00ai0'!t0'E A il3r^ilcEoF 217,7t ffi,
THgllct, N 0016'30" E A DIETA'{c€ OF s1294 FSEITO IHF POI}lt OF ogOilHlt{O.
gANCEL F:
A TFACT OF I.ANO S'IUATED lll TrE SO{'fI|WEST qUAntlR OF S[CltOU 7, towlr8HlP 7
3ouril, 8AilOE It lrV€ST Of lHE $Xrlr PIWCIpAL iiEnlDlAtl, COUilTY OF s nFl€lt, STAIE
OF COI.OR'F6, BEIiIC I,IORE PARNCULARLYDESCRIAEO A* FOLIOU'&
g{clNllrte ll A tolxT Otl ll{t w!8tgalY nlcxr Or WAv Ut{8 Or G{'LORADO $r tE
fllotlf y ga wHtNce A 2 t/rP BnAse clPr ro{rt{o lx Plsc€ Al't! pfiopEnlY MARKco As T{E
SOUTX; gf C.o8ilSB OF $fi[ SAOnON 7, AlAnS 3 78tl'a3" E A Ol$r dCS Or ioda. 19 rus[
TH€ilCS,,llofio SA|O rvE8ftnlYnnXTOFWAYLIITC OF llofat'',t0f wA olsrAt{cE oF ft8,t4i
Tt{Efi C€, rnaoo rsET&oHa ntEAR6 oFAoUFVE IO fdE LEFT IAVIIiO ARAOIU9 OF trgtd.oo
fFEt A CEM|RIL AfiGL€ OF !r3rr!
^ifo
sUBTEtlDll{G A CHORD *rnliKt OF tt t8tl'40" w
AOA! fiCEOFr0l.4tFgFll
fHgilce, oBnanfltllo *alD Rtcltt oF wAY ulrl s t0p0f00f f, A ola Allcg oF 4t'74 Fttl'l
TfiEitcs, $ 06.(}r'00" E A DrE Ar*cE oF 2!ra?0 FEeri
TIJAilC€, I 01'ta't0" E A Dl8?Al{C€ OF 2i{L70 FEFI TO rXE FO'I{T OF $€OltlNlll{t.
couirrY oFo RFlElo ct lE oFcotoMoo
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD - Page 3 of 3
Ad #: 391789
customer: The Land S-tudio, Inc.
Legal Notice - Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
PROOF OF PUBLI
GL SPRINGS POST INDEPENDENT
EXHIBIT 1
See Proof on Next Page
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF GARFIELD }
ss
l, Peter Baumann, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of , says: The Glenwood
Springs Post lndependent, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part
and published in the County of Garfield, State of colorado, and has a general circulation
therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said
County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has
been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act
of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly
newspaper duly qualified ior publishing legal notices and advertisements within the
meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire
issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that
the first publication of said notice was in the issue oi said newspaper dated 20Jan2026
in the issue of said newspaper.
Total cost for publication: g!l{5:qq
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates'
/,/,
//,4" ilti:./
Publisher
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 2Tthday of lanuary,2026
b*5&*il@oo
My commission expires: February, 22,2026
Advertiser:
Swift communications
200 Lindbergh Drive
cypsum, CO 81637
970.777.3126
Colo,ado
1al{ot.fy 10,
SlitN
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD - Page 1 of 3
ruouo{orEE
TNfiOtdEtuiltd.q.rtu.r'ry.ork,Lchs.!p.dbG,rFbcild?$\botcdb.s.baar6rsdo,rb.!rrtrd nifcEcoulxufc46NoSawH4LYuN€fSrrr0tatfEl{\yillSrl}tyTi|RYn{f't-
un, hrd*d,(p6i.n pcoi"."r.*rn uooory d Gr'id.:,i.arcd,sdo b h, LiJ.n".tj,f.litj$lt$S*.ra.^Lfro uo mril*."0*,1?,rl[lill,lill*to,",l,o*,
keteldlrle' se^!dd€,nb,,r X.iii$i3:$.tjlf;!{:
q$i.rr&nr..drTblppl..d!piq6t!5dd!crdarltust/n,beksholitueirntg$aslV,t,t!4]uCE&Olodl''UAqOl8tUAT6UUtASftgntCfrWlEXWomlvlBgmfiUT2@Ot
:fS:#$g##S#.11?##,*iffi?ll'Jlff*,iif",'LtTi'ii;:'"il''; Hi,l$.'T;y""#,"*Wgbli?i"*;frf;'&'.:.';'l,ffllg',,'','SI${,ffS,lxn. qcllsil(r
E2. qsr$dsordl€.c*110(l,sd a.oi' p'drht"lnd bd iv4d ncddY M{d* i;i}a;tg-;n (-ii;i-timormMp girttrOt A;r.ASatCdOotXUrtrDcoufl.CedAm UtM
wleetu rbAr(dtttqls,tnq,w6vrbdhlls*nk6tFdtta.hdtv!:rrri.$nrdri6.hjt lsCslfl{ogBa
' ntltAarlddrlunF,;idldtqr,l${I!€D3,Srnnsnn.ro,nb,ns,ftr6d.bdq!d pAC&aNffiql$t0miAfA.rS&tTCUUE@nfCSro$lU&Y!4rolllS*12!6P ff
$t'*ro xdL,. idd.$ rdl dt.mnddi *an3, ldry.in s oili^7 dfrdri (r'ddf6 O0 N IEdAH S XO. 6t&&I
$,r.fids.rdd*gdtH lt{ tsmtdttiv:n.h b{ntalnldib s@.d fUD ! Alnd:
t\hn.$ds!tJ,i*.r{b.Fdri&dbTthfroli}Da{&tlsrdkidinD?iat&@r;ond amcl6teomilaffsclstl6w&l!PrwTil.mHc€SsMaTsn€rilPI.6m*TYs
Cobirog*rrrirrr&!*no*oAr.e*,ra::criwalnFJFdr6 ThF:r4bd!in. UrEB,STAIeOf @@Mm.SofSCISWOAA'GMlP 6aul^RYlwA3otsfarcS:
ntoiealtry rdirq ndd,q Cn,nso.lcddl$.rql, ndddit$&tbd{,1/51.rd it ftErEdg.
cob.*4ttrftdu;aq"$o;.dr(Al0)r6idbidrddQd&rtenkbte.r.in*dthruot lw[xcdcaTltagffixt{tr8cc18l,Tqvxsg?ml{,wcEswffryrllEaTtreu,isl{*!
rf,sd nd6'sh. F,idilo. ruo^.1?.2ii,Ei fft1rif"*XHtP*lgr.:iff"li,l*.tw ro Ais's or x {orolsr a Bms& nr * €srstro
$,sr.j,Sxgi::#'trf;S::1._S#*1,ffil:_iin:?';ffi;filfriJlJ1{1,g,;11 iiiili!i#T^f;"".fff[1il:j;Hil:f,::ffi'jil:il::[i}::il:::
F€idt/6nernddid*nkm4flddr:ryrhddrod6nn.d!trrrh.lorddeddfco.sr':,d:.9'.T*;LriE.i.r-o-i'pini$nleWflSUn${Tff.wAyoggTrtrqssvAyto&:{r/A{'q&*h.iapittlsmrkrti'rsdnt!.ot;Fdlitutlsiqo4sbdlloder.ll@&n$d.sub UUtetgnO*lOA*tXSyUtE&S!2"tf&AdG&PW€$I€nLVngrftrWYddl8t,mAmSTgl,Gdldd&nlyF,vrl{dnt-Onr^srSrinS.Cdbtohs*rnahu!nt!.6in..td1Jnt' vddri tnqtncENGSerhr4i L;&? lrra.rirdn tu Atfrdito on a{ ri€,ql n: bieib.crku&n4rrrs36il${#,ba lxaceSuffO$osESstY9&tI.*tVAvl.g'lrte'W.arilG$OUEllxGfac€!il€2Agf6l,10
sAl!:Ji:]!r&1!{.S3ea4r1ricldc$!.Ad/grd1.6fltr*d,{hdtGrlddtu,dYCt.ffi!n1!0,?'dorndl$ Irl€InUGgSTOtEelmqCXCgrnCtSillEIM(CCAilDCO)IWYSe€ll8fmtiOfSIXo
97A.9{ &12. PSCA55,gCffnCSnCrolflOrcSmCP m&t
6tsHso6trrd,crieh$tlo"edtrsr,ntE6drbirJtncalni/ftidqftld1oionfrtu*t qc{ffcPACEj-lso&flg&mUaTAfi@tfCUnoEDE€SXO&Y20'2o?aEffi|S0AT
ii*rryg.n*acoiitnnr&64t0!&r!rhcrcs9@swktc@!.tsdicdnir&!d1r{&n'sit PmsoAsn[cenqto.@3t.4
6p.kgl kofr, , 160l .
6d* !&. a521ffi
tgcfl , |risl Pscq!
n Tnrct or so 3ftAT6 rN tllt 3&wtsa!v sAtm ff *cTlQ !, Tdr&tp I sm, aaGG awst no rt sel& l.lovl&{p r, wn. nd@ 80w[8T # n[ smtl milgnlilmel. cfl{r sqrts. gaEof m&ilm, mloma sm(lunLY mnEsaa fe!w:
s€frttQ AraPmIo$[lE M3nLY n&tTswf lilEorcopews{{ sgl{aY 0.wilqgal 21,?'
!M8A glqr&ftoll scc.lrocqls€[Ylra(paSllr fflsErcs|sorsnE€oTn?. ana3tI3f{'e A SgTAlct* lal106l*TitrffiqaOcllf,s6TflrY g$f oF srY ltc tr 6@um StAn tlgtw;Y 02 Ns!1!t'w a 0frAlcaff tst!o:m!
IneCG.A 6€U' WA GTSC€ S &03Cf trI:*{f 140' W A MACTO[ &!lOf W:NeOrtrelVAW HCEff t@Sfffi: ilO @WlVAffS ilC Slllilf6;niEtce inf tffi &60 rn€ lnc * A clqE to rtt€ gt ffaslG aggua s lSrs !fEr, A c&194iles s r0'&g"apasr&qrc Acffso8ilftnc # f, 166ss" w a wstrof ga.@ fffi:
Tngcs.t iluar wAsr&ce sqsagmltHcE t&a Ffr M6 nF ArlC Of A CIM TO:ll8 UF, rtAWO A &m6tr l&io t&L A c&TaxAq! S7 a/I'AloSltBffilC{mOAilEO ffft419!0'SAqflAfC ssq10 Rsi
ilac€,x $aae" wao*Tdtr ff 1152gETl
H&CE.X 8vrrog. SA 6T&C[ r,S ffTrO AroilrSn:&E[t Ulg6ltMCEl s wownas
ft nsnumTn[cofi m J]!sY2{ ml lT n{cgDlt il.'6tbqngce la(,.ro8& *Tm$nE 3g'210' l^dga{c G lrt EsTo !r swilaffitYcgEas
8A0t Acai
lrt1{c€ a(itc ttc $oullisLv ufta of $aE p ma, x 6Er?!9" w a sslAilc€ o, 24. Elr to lli[wstsffigLvconfe oF uDsnc&
lxBC!.X ouu'wAoGtNCA Sl6sg8iTrlfrc& ile0!8'lA ffirSCl S$l CET'
nrEtcc,il00:os' eAg6T xc€of M9tgrcnlEslilaslglvcsl6stPao€Lcwoffingro
n ilflfsmT stcofim ilY fr,2s2 AI newnofi 8o. mtt&
a lgcl tr wo nuarto t scTm 7, lmglp t wlil, ilffg 8s lwaT s ll€ Gil px- c&lfi tr
&trqo. far!of o6ilm.8{ofscTswo asm mt paK*ula[Y o€*Aa@atarull&
cNSCilCAr lrE 8c cs[assqlH l.Totvtsglp trunl,sxGEst wTtr[€0u9M{\urtl&
atrro8 coxTAts flffiil H{G ffglw To aSfifils oFx.orio!s' l3Eroe }c scoAltnAlo
rrae 1/rcfrxss&oscns riH0c!t.0c1fs' eadc&saams!fit{ol,ll E8.tol BxTanGil*nlt&Y mtaoAgl ul€slfirrsmwffw f:sffoAf lfcffiff ao.65ll Tlgcsteo€frtrry*wuilfdutls*
i#$"?1H#ilhYfml$o&ftffu'1{9ii- or,n'' e . 1$ rF ro
^
pmr or r,s srxaso4xoayrrf, G rtanlco€o€or&m Fws{o ffH9l&l:
affce guilc sgcnor usil.0"r3'{'tAtqo&03oun:RY swsfr s{s Efrl
nr&cE ruwc &D S0uTlmLY oouffw llftst. d'*!6rf.126fg roAmul fr & smo rs{cesE rf,xc€x.8tl?r ls l*ots mct u*e6at!f m;TtileEcslilulc&fro gofftc€rriell- s'ala'u2@.@ltsrollla mlTs cotilGi
q4flacpacLcs3ffie6$ff qlara&illTcus!i&q€co806$ffuaYa.{0tlilaffi laarP& !3t8n€c*neilo. tgsq:
a mcT s wo suATto tr sclg t ls&xp ? sdil!. slc 80 ssr s tlli art Pff " G&llY ofqrxo. gtATcot @0mDo, &orMcrslsoB88 mSPAmf,UrAnY gffinDgDAStAoS:
6WACr3Aril€ SWds S A:CTIO{ r,l&ilSP t *til.n*S S lVHtr lte fril eM. tslff &sea6 corrAxsrm[ &Ho f,&flw r0 ao*ls of {-001s9'E Bmwf{ T[ *{srs ltro
ile€ !/a cs{g Ggo&crla i}:n$catr aol08's xilcSADsdsLn€tr.l0Es,loAsxTsnlEtsTil&Y suolffY xilgs
filAr rSmw 8lFvft R€CSmAr{gCFfiOr{ ftO. S H T{f SFtROCO0MY (Og aOe flf Oe Sn6}[do#nrY Mr8. il81&€ mlf 0f 0t fldrclillcahmiiiniliigcceDgrcnilrazfl. s row' E.s3!rffi, D AP*T nAtrumlofsccu*.
lfi gcgtgurcss*irts ust.tgltt* e [floaa qfr fro acf lrE2se l&!!
nRctcilnxudcaso aqsrnromce !ff€a.Bfan r t. lrsnfmlrilscf mrnxuso *sq ap rscc tnE & s3la3' a ff20 Er, ro a rufiT s &o il6ril8lY8illo8nrnflcf LaulcsoExSrxo gceREil.{o{o&' lv.{sosptfinlmu &uo^ry{4&
rffi. rc ilemflTs s{&xlNc
acmc pFce ? ls offinGs fr r[lsn A il *lt ao sm,o* Aclsl ro- e&.olsActc&sT
n dotgnc colt'ryoF@FfloAlog{s stesAoos€co{oomcf Fn r5.lsrlNsffiJol arpre r. a [cgoaro-2s251
a n&l 6 pece tr ulo s. t na, s nl{ pAKrctT s HflNAYS, sA[ s CoSAm. mOECr
xo,8 0tilxo! t !fl!2 so r r * Ecns t.T6vfflP? gTrl.ffAltrew6T.*rils8nlpx-lx mr&oc@ilw.cq@. BoTarcT gP tr&aqla ffi{plm&uEYdrnlfoAaa&@M:
o€sttcAtisf,tornf ilmlnf tr 0T1.*clls t,Towslptsurl. ux@B8w6T,fqgst€x
nrEcc@[sof Sfcrtrr.Toflsl3 r$ounl.na{G89ws8l!un$s. ln-19"w-Aus KE tr ls&,
fATi
TilfrCamoDr aflcnE Es glcsloll,sfte t awalccG ls!Mt:
lAilCS9 s'Sj0'e.,tsg ftcs ?3J-0Fsl
tl&CS I Slart-A WACSOf U2Fg D A Wnl SaOF Tla mffiffiintucei6Nct&!nlu{sil{ mwrY }l.8slf f"a osracE tr lls$ffiror1l€ srllr8slor
4 $SOmX tTirqcfaloironEusllEoF sr aasc:s ?,$uil aNl&sE sdSmrrotlSsc cslmtrtor
1r,8ECTff r:trasaurclrEsfll uaE0f torl1. *cr$r.il. 861r's.ANTAilcf slc.oEs;fl ncr40$til€rfic cr cunElofiletlfTsAu,lclnouts 2r$nrcli twaces l4nt*T{ril€cllmosrsfc!w3 tr.g'ra'w.,Amra6Gff l4alfer)l
nSG€X. ilUrw- AUET XG S Jll..tlnirrls$il.4ail. ul wacrc.g! *s.mru G 16 ronlE P0roFEdlsilc-
glmt$ gcprfrG Ttggns lw P@rQi s rl? 0{o wrlN sm llglwAY lc. @ 6afiY cdF*o.s r€ots4ilm-
PgC& ctffir SnCt1|.
A rMCr S lSO lrfuaru * * 3d{Jnlqgr q{ratrs oa *clsi I Af,o nl€ vK lalr tr ssrcH tl'
tovflstp I pl{. aae 4 w!$. ao il nt€ wrnveg d$lg G Eers , ilo rilrxsltr illr s
&cnsi&ToHsts tmrtr.fiacs80wultrrl€antmhcptrKgoR,cowvoFeFls.al lss qs^m.Sao mE PArEUtfflY CSO6$ A StrN$
ae0rflo aT IilE par fl :ss ssr[Y ngl: oF MY La€ oF nE ndelq rsK magT AWonflrna$ffitTil 6nm gg*M. uiscaa : l/1' fflsacp.reololxMt lrDcfi EctlYffllrxtrs nf 30un48TcGtsof as Fcrs t.3fltu tatio!'9, AflaTAllcc0+a?sraf6illsce EHmNO So nTXT trS Y Uls l 1fi0'&'Iv A STACEoF l2A.19I6i n:lCA f, 09{ds'w AwilcE S ds{tetrnlaoe,$02'oA'WAffigtrtr5e?t rgililAGE s€16S'WAffirAcEff Art.qaffiinl$c€.x
s"3fr 8' S AqgTAilC€S 8{t2rFt
nilc&3 {'toit'sA o6TAa SStraf g:
1t4cq a0dg'ir. tA ssracu d t*Motg ro i ulTof ila wf,&Y urltr lll€ smnc fsxc&@vscY*ml
9omtunt/ &:{e*s!O6.tlftd 6ddd Cadt
!ffessoPlmE!ug rcuNfrc lln€€ cdn$&
l3C31A3'W A WAflC€SOUC rtlt
td6at.lt* *a*TANGGof 66tfll IotlE nnl*slgucsnm tr$oPAm€q nlfie€. f sa?l l'
w l ogr^trcf or tat3 r* T:trsc{.* &'$11. wA}18!dct tr *ar itrl;
tftuog, { &.ato'w t MAc€ of i0c90tET toa tolir s n* a8rmlY naf lr waY lne or tl€
nosrxcrflKnatrsAUTrqnTnsaMT lgl &mlMsruT:
Tlt[ffCE,aLOriCStng SItntYcl$rswaYuxGs rtoY' f, iBrailcEs3&u7t&?rraca. r!r2 rs alqc rnr fic 6lculw-r6 Tlt- ffglr uwc Antffige asts.iolrs, r cgtala&f s r3{slitosgplxcAcllsoamnG ss la'5116'G lolalac€ sn&fgtnlfte,wmn6gD 4l&Ynl6ls WAyt'EX 0g!Sq' €lwsc€tr fig F€rToapSTOl rrlE$6SLYnnf Of SAYUEtrCO|OCMS 1€Slglw Ye.ASslc[lSFffTOf eqXNq
ps€&a{ssE sncal:
pmcn 1 a3trsnE&rtMonfffimilAY 10.1s81{8ffi 106ilpre gsrrltcfftu to. esgt
A UACItrUtOffiAr€OrX6T !#ASOW?,Twtsltrtmnl,sHtr80sff Gnlso''tP[ gdflw
s wfEo, aT{c s c*sm Llxc ffwilqsslY s fl€ w63l so sml sss ff $D bt2 sosrNg&tYorntl ffinrsEnlY Aprr s wAYLleoF grtts fiRIN Yro- & 18 Et*tmutrsDfflSS.SOlnag &&ff !6]a rdlN&
SEOSiSC Ar frr AO{,I$W$: COnHS C SO IOI 4 aso llAl(m \ml A nA pU] SllilCs A n*
s8IWroA Ad$A 6pt&roA MAl'{O moff*lY6ftS reenlSSUnllrtlcoil€cof *cn0r I'tdilsP t&un( nflG & wrs ltl€6nl F[ Esg$ $ 3t $0'19 trcr l&I;rrHcEf,. ca6g G-TAilo ntE twaTqlylfrf ssntor2tolpflroilue mugssmlY f,qlrff
saY !*g of $ro llulvrv:nnaa. fl'$5f & 6.itfgalsgRg6swlstslY {oliGwaY Rtor songlwAY:lrrrc€ g $nasr L lot aslA$s Tff€ sl|wslslY asTorMY lilg ff gp llcllwaY To arcNl&tG wrffBlYril€ ssotoialililCAWBT2A0F&l AQCIIESTr[nlYS8SSbLOl2lO lt WnSvffi CSISOTSOIOT
2. rl€
sste afsiltdG
pac& 2 s &saDs AIPBCI r t 8{ Ai&O€SSICSO&Sy &, &e ft Offi l$6tt pff gaAs
n'rcffi4rft xodrraAxo^a&snB@sf rtona.l&trc1!MffiotrcmmJ#ulwr.,2el uog
128 Atp& &olgnrcsnslo- *&q:
A mcr s ws s!Al6 { scru r, rNsilP t soofrl" ule 8a war s TffE 0Tl cx- c&ln trstrtu, saTf of sto&&, iloTucl* raoogm mE PlffilteY ofsfiinBAafo{slw
cwacilcATDr€ sconrrnss&t(}r !.lowaslp r sot:t,sseG swsls lng gneil. fisrn&lrlAiG ccirar[g ll*fr *flo gmw lo A strlm of tr" ao lNt L affig n€ * cstlEn Alol€e tLffiXgS$Psclallirilacet,st'to.st6rr rrsfo Affrronclfi lco$nNHffixnlor: ttfi lx8rnurtxrfiscso[opna$. rFatN mfi ataTPAc6m rxS lRu€pilT4 otqttrlG:riracf, ffirlt aqo rtE wss|' tn? * ra^r Pnmry lggafo fr 3& 3ffi *t Al Pff i$
12&il fm: ilSCf BUIG$& lV€AI€nlYUll6l-e'SlolW.rtSG lllf StltrlY ailfiO&V Ul€ll0&ItlSLY mNOAW UNe AISmS T{f A€C6&Olgm ryffl! gtmld pUT IQS tgfTi
iltE*C€ mmsrrc &flc ffi sunltLY mroltr uffe ao sunif &v dlo^w u!€ w&ts 3-
@a8rt'
E n& !ffi,ro^Po3r rl# mrloFgc€RqlilseE t&wc 8aD ff lF!Y a&ff osvff aos 114ft oAr &src iilc€uxc 1: r&Lo!ilso nltr€
plsouSe &
& 6'4t1t'68nm trn&s'gt'd":6s6ef|
a. sllGr aos tg. Ioll€rqlEros ff oEgwta
pac&& is x$nn&a Bnc[r? *ouTcdfi w€ongcmm&Y20, &2lilm6ls6ATPS€SaA8orcgrori s. emo Ap l$ csna&A& stET l-a s ol,l4uu tr& FcgsoJillualry 3.. sol iltw r2d ar Fla€ ao^3nec*wro. st&e!
A lilCr tr tAO S!A16 n gcr& t, TOWSOF ' runl, Mle 0O wr@ rl€ 6ril P{- c&lllY @glff u. $ Teof m0ilw. sDl&Gr*t&oagm MEPAffi*u(AEY*SASDA*f6@K
cffiscreaT n[ 8€ €d[N ssfiil r,ftrxslP ? mt{. mlc086 w tr neittl P*lss[l
ailNGCONI,116 tl&fr EfrG 8WW T6l8ffilK Or{.0010!O',e tEnuil ntr s csxmAlD
tt€a ,a ffiff6 6&oscnan lli
Dr[ic€ x.3$idlc'e figrrEttrd Amonms s&Trtvts sfitgtor2 Pa tm 6t f PAA€ cqitlt*c€tgTxtst6frt!tv€sFrYuu silArsslnw g*noslRsDaqx6srsrPsE sotagfE.lflru€gtr4S[&MC
ffi mr t*€ a e'De" N r N8c€ 6 lat.6 f el? Jilscq s 0o2f s' E A
w lat@
asfac€
AWAE t5 tfsTintace f
ot$axcG *f&t TnscEltncg tr
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD - Page 2 o{ 3
ar32!0" w I $8l t{cg oF 03.32 FEFn il{ENcE, H 2O'A"t!'w A DlstANcE oF 3$'r0 r€n
THEilCE, ll !e"5a'25" rv A IXgtAllCE OF 42,fr FEEI
'l{:tlcq
N 26:l80a" u A olSTAllc€ oa
1tta.t? fEEt Tlt€t{c€, ll 30'3.,08" u, A nSTAtlc€ oF r8d7a FE€l!
lHEilC€. t{ lr.39'0tr W A $nANcE OF lo?'so mgr; rHlilCE" H r4"6dt6' E A DlSt {CE OF
103.60 FE6t TflEiloE, N &l.ill'3ir" E A OTS'ANCE OF l?7.01 f6Sl: *IEHCA ll El'1{rsr e A
oafANcs ot 90954 fErr: fi€ltcs, !l 0l'16?f w A Dl8tAflo6 0r ,t,te FGgl: fi€icc, N
6o'5lttl' 6 A DlStlllCE Or 10,00 FEFti rHEilC€' ll 89t5'{10" E A D|FTA|{CE Of l'.!6 tESl!
THTNCE, il St.6dO4' EA O6'A*CE OF 50.12 refii rHrilCP, t Ea'6!rtt" C l DtAl$lcE oFttl!8
FEEn IHENCG, S 0r.3d60/' E A DrrAilc€ OF 09.3r FEn rXEilCt ll 661tr1'00' E A UStAl{cF
Of !0r0 FEgl'l tHEl,lCF, N o?'3s'3ti E A O|aTAIICE OF 2?'gl rgE* ftlgilCE n at"4t'frr W
A OlttTA{CE OF S,0r FsEt} ThEllCq il m"{vlr'- A DNn$rcg OF r2rS lEEll lta€[CE, X
g.e'3{t" e A DilrT&{CE Or aa,$ rtEI nlrt{CF. t !3'it't8" E A OIAIANCT OF t4'OC flgll
illFrqe,845"ttd!8'r A O|$IANCA oF ,0r{ IlFr; IHE{ce,8 14"{a'40! EADNrAflcg Of4.tg
FeEt; ntgilCg, A tl"rl"?" W t OIgTAilCS OF 26.1, FErt T}lEilCe, 8 t4"S8'Cr" g A DXITANCE
oF 30.14 FE6r ll€ilCq * 4$41'1e I A DBI$&E OF ne,77 FEE} lfiEilCq I Sr',3o',[9" € A
ol{lrAilcEoF6A?3FFEn7lrEllC€,44938"10rEADlgr$lC€OPlOtar€Gr!?lEl{CE,ga6'30'8s'
E A Dlgr ilCE OF ,l0,8a FCEn IHEI{C€, 3 6(rl!'38' E A DllJtAlloE Or !t3.3S fESl tlE{CEr 3
7g'10'24" 6 A otarailoE oF 6710 tEFli r{Et{cq s 59'0rt6" E A DlorAl{cl oF l!.00 FtEfl
THO{cr,8003?'1of *AolstA}lC€OF513llEgrlTilE|rcE s&'6'2lrl^nl$t {Ce Op'1E.96
fgEli llrEttcE, t{ 3i.d2?n E A tlcrANeE oF 6'l.oa FtEl Tl{ENcs, il 3t"5o0e! E A o*}tatlcE
Of {t,0? fEsti txEllcg. ll 00'58'30* € A OISIANC8 OF 9el0 FEEll T}lFilCsi ll ,t.oot?i € A
,tctttice of r.oarEE?fllENcE,S l,l'6!l03r EAD|STAHCEOF rtSlt rGrflrltlllc4 84f!2'47'
G A Dr8l rlca OF ;0.?i FEA} lNEilCE, I l4'?l'2ii E A DlSiAilCE OF 3&!1 rsEt n{$lCS, I
6f3e'39" 4 I Dt8Tiilcr oF *t'i6 FlEll rHEilcl,8 trll'tr E A olsr tlct oF ttlc lrEt.i
ThENC*,a{r'!!tr''s^orsT NcEoFr8.tr FEsltrlEllcC,Afl'ttrl$i FAnlsTAIICEOF66.t0
rcEt !8rilc& 3 {rgr'98r E A Drg?A{ce oF 7aJ0 lagl TfiEr,lc!, I ti"t 4'te" I A OlSlAl{CE
OF /E,at FEfl!
'HEilCE,
g ti'.46{0' E A O{SrAl&S Of !6Jd fEEl} tHEilCE il O"05{lt'W
A OlsrAilcE or 59'88 rEEl! lfiENCe N 4630'1.1" $l A DlSlAt{cE oF ac4t FEEI! lllttlcE N
aru4'le W A DlCt ficl OF r4.7r F€En fitNCE, tl,tt'54'l0t W A OlSlAl{SE OF t!'9? tgEt
THEilOE, lt aril'!0" w A Drgr l{cg oF !a.30 FeFt rHElrcE N tear2t' W A Dl$,TAllCl OF
129,0t FEFrl TllEilcg, x 8fa7'1.r" w I ol{ttAl{eE oF ct,oo FEg|l lllsttcE tl 2fsssl'w r
OI$TAUCE OP tl9,!O ?EEri ilstlC8. N ?0r0d€" rY A lxsl tcg Ot 93a{ lglrl THSNCE I
?Ptl'!Ai W l DttlAltCE OF 3?,S FEEfi TilEl{CE 8 2l'6?'&l'lN A OlSf ilCE Of 60.06 rEFn
TIEilC''g6tSl'67' WAOlSTAllCEOf /l6.a0fEgTlItlEllCE, t{8fp'35tWAOlt?AtlCEOf 28,Ut
FEET' THFNCE, { !er0?'fit'Wa DlSf$lCg OF 95,71 FEE} THENOE, il ?t'20'tt/t" W A DISTAM)E
oF 8A7! FEglr TltSNcA, il a0'/*t'l0f w A lxst ficg oF gt za Flati rflE]lcc, ll ,t'rvzr rry
A DM^tlCE OF 't8l,02 feiTi *lr{Cg N 06'l{!14' W A DlSl l{0d Of 0&{$ FBSI &lltl0g $
0614,&r, w A blglAllca or r2ro Pigli fHlilcE, M3$!a' w A DtsrlflcE oF 3e31 fgsli
ytEilc€,ar0.i0'3itiwa llsrAilc€ oF alodr€fnll{silo!, g3?'r7'€* EA flailllcl oF2130
rssl T}tEftcE, il ?'o?ff' w A DlSt xcr oF $,60 FEEI| TilgxcE,I to'2.'le' w A o$r^llcE
oF ?0,01 FEEII tHEllcr, il 88'tr'$" W A DlsTAt{cE OF !6'$ rEEt! lHEilOq I 0'1"2R!f W
A ll$lAilct Or 4r.gr FG'En filnoq X lt'zl'.8" E A olStltlCg OF !&20 ftrli rlGflCE, l,
06'li',lll" W I D$r$lce Or ?t 50 FCEn lHE tCE, lr l0'1il,06' i A DlSfAtaCf OF t0.94 FgEI;
Tll$lce, Nr2f6$40" gA DlSrArlCEOf ,l4,t4FEEI!lllENCE X 1034'tgn gAOlSfAfiCgOFSs,ll
rert l}lEficg t{00r50'6t, rA olaf Nc€ oFt7,16F sl'l
lHE{CE.}l0O'{8!4"EADl8tAXCEOFto't(tFE€lil}|Efic&t{0,4'/lry6?"eADlST tloEoF?l.os
tES|l rHEilC€, l{ 0f37'91" E t tlStAX0€ Ol n4.!t F€En lHEllCq il 29"L'l,l'W A Dlgt llOE
Or ffi.08 rgCT TIiENCE, N 3rf00'a4" W A txStANCE OF 01.0! rEEIr THETCE, t{ 26'!t2r W
A Dl8IffTCE OF 6tr!2 FEst!
'rlE{CE
ll i8'l'rrE" t'0 A D|$!A|&E OF a{,30 gEE4 TfiCNCE il
6trrrt1l ll, A Olgfltl{C8 Or gt73 FEFI fNEllCE' ll 50'!l',lai W A Dlt?Atl0g OF 6{.rd flEli
$rEflcE, l.t 8?"nr,36'rs A o*lTAllcE oF 30.e? tEErl THEllcE, ll 6r3il'4?'lt A DulrAxcE oF
c5,70 FEST THEXC6, il 6t'ro'221 W I DATAfiCF 04 65.02 fEg!'i rflEtlc:, til 04'll'r0r w A
orE AilCg or r!&tc fEFr} r]lENcE, [ 36't0"1'lt A ol9T tlci oF,ttso r6Erl TXEllcE, N
lx'46'00" W A ll8TAilcB oF ,{.?0 ?f$l Tl{ENcE, tl u'lt"l!' l{ A Dlg'nxce Of 20at| rlE1'}
THEiICeTI lfr8'3'" WlllgtAltlcgOf 3f.&r€sltrlgilCe't{at't]3'18EADl$I tltBOf ?8.lt
r6stlL8ilc€, N 00.2atrnwADFtAticEoFrl?JoF:E1}tl€Ncq ilr0'06?t" wAoltrAttcE
OF 9,1,2,1 tg€t IHENC€, H tlSt'6' lv A lllfiAtlcE OF 0O.S tsen ?HEilcF,
A Dl8lAl{Cg OF l4l.4t fEEl} lH€ttlol. N Or"50'r4" E A DlgtA}tC€ OF 50'79 r;Eli TilEt{OE l{
1fi?'{" W A OlsrAflcr oF 91,114 FEii rn8flcE, N 44'tl'!o' w A olsr ilcB oF t3'l'ss rlg1
tFeilcf, N t.'zr'{!i w A nstAilcE oP ?4r0 FEEI! l}le{cE t{ l!Fs3on'w A olgll{cE o?
{32t FSTI TWilCE l{ ll"fivor" wt olsTAl{cG or 72.23 FEsri
ilEa'tcE,oggAfiTlxoEA|DsArls$Et$ut{E }loFt8 3c EADIS',fANC€Or2ll.?? F6EI r}lsflCE
il o0r$,30tr g A ofElAt{cE oF0tls{ }eI
rH${C€, S 80'/13'30'S I agr ficE OF 1006r,l FGET lg A tolNr ON l}lt l{ElrEBlv Rlcht
oF wAY LmE OF TH8 RO RII{3 roRX Tn^iltr luTllonllY TnrtlSpoiTAnoil coRRlDoR
iltrMPlfl AL8{, EEtxo lltE Pohtl of BtclNilnd"
couilTY oF oARFIELO glAlg or colonAoo
"ANCEI
D (9OU'X PARCSI'I
A TS CTOP Lr\ilO SITUAIEO lX'ft€ FA8T IALF OF SECTPIT 12, TO$rNBlllP t AOWH' RAiIOE
0o we6x, ANo il{ Txe wagt H^LF oP 8gcnoil ? lfiD lN iil! NoFlfi fiaLf of stclloll
'10. lO$Nllllp ? COrtrH' $AtlC€ gS {rraT OF fllg STX pgltlGlp l $E$OlAll' COUt'lfY OF
oAnitR.S.alArEorcoLoRADo. BBllo l{onl PARnCULAnLYOE3CnBEDAS F(ILLOW&
BrcrillilNc rr A PorxT oH ltla *ESIERLY nl6HY OF W Y !l{g OF dLoRAOO rrArE
fito{wAy 12, wl*,{ct A 2 r/2" bRAEa C P, FOUNO lll pl,ACE
^l{O
CORfilCll"Y MiRKtD At
rHE SoUlrlEASf CORIIER OF sAtD aecr0t{ ?, 8€Ans t 7s'49rf E i Dla?Atrlct or 2150.14
f6E1l
tltENCE, IIOXC 8AlO RIGX! OF WAY UNE e00"8!e'E A DlSlAl{Ct Ofi0!,?e rEEt} rflEilcc,
8 0el6!e'E A DISIAilCE oF l!,ltt^3? rEEt
THBilCr,0lt.06 ruGT ILOilC TIIEARC OrA CURVE 10 rrg lrrt Xlvlfac ARAlllu$ oF l{ol.!o
f€gT,ACSrarMLAfiCls OF 2r'lr'4r'^ilU SUATEilOIHOiCHORD IEARIIA OFt2r'{1'02" E
A UgtAilCE OF €et..ri FEC1|
THEilCq A g:l',a0'6't' g A OISrAXCE OF 387.rd FEGI1
THEtreE,2pa.i2 fEEt Ar-ollc THE ARo of A ouFvE To $lE RloHT, lt^vlllc A RADluS oF
2dr5,00 rEEr, t ci$nAl A{Qlr of !'0e'?0'Atlo EunftNDNe A CHOnO SGAR|Nq Ot 3
lo'47'r t' E A 9lgilNCE OF Aa.lg r8Stl
T{stlce, tEPABfil,lC SAID htCXT Or WAY LlNl ll 90't310" w i DISIANCF OF 2l&07 regfi
lHrtlce, { 40.23'3v {f t otgt^Ncr oF io.ta runl
rll€rc€.agr.zg.!F wADlgr ilc€ oFto,38rEGl THENC€. gSil'&lrl"lvAoaTA{cEof 1000
FEFT ?llENCg il 58"?7'19' W A Olg?At{CE OF ll.a! fEEl} fiGNGq N lt!'fiBl' lry A Dlgr$lCE
of &6 FrEtl lxFlrcE tl 24'lo'?4" Tt r DBTAIICE or 2!.?2 FEI! ?H€t{C6 l{ ns"oolil' w
A DI9IAHOS OF rn? frsll T}iEHCE' I8t'!',|'l{'w A D{NYAI{0g or 22.00 lEEl lHsllc*' ll
ft"rt,ot. w A il$rAlcE oF l?,28 FEtt lHeNC8{ X 50!S{tf W A OISIAXCE Ot !0.0t mrt
IHENCE, $.$"1r"4',vtA ilAlAllCFOF9.$ rsGl TllEliC5.ll44st6* IYA DlslAtlcs oFlt.'15
rEE-l! tHsll6E, I'l66'50!0'w 4 OlSTAllC€ Ol dL06 fE€ti THEICE l{ 60 iaon w A D{tIAllCt
of {9.a4 f€Fq rrsNoE, il 0at2'3" w A DlgfAticE oF 0aa8 tEE* rHEilCs, X {8't4'04'W
A DlgtAtlcE ofl ct lo FEsr: rHEt{cE, N 0r40'2t" ly A OISIA$0E oF 2ltl'l FEEII THEN0E tl
{?'{t'ar" w A blStANcE oF ?r,?8 fEEt THrxcl, N 3c$'10, !v A Dt$tat'lcg oF 2{16 PEEI!
TNEiICE, ll t5'attli lll A OlSfAr,lGt OF t0.00 irgt rHEilCE, ft'10'tl'3t' $, A DlSlAllCg OF
*l.ot FEE;
THEilC€, N30"682r'$tADlsrAllCeOF:e.32tEE lltltxc8, N2l'!01f'wAoliTAtlcsor2T'60
IEEI TllEilcF' N 3o''t8t?i ltv A OlglAtlo€ OF 2egt tEEl: rHgNCE, ll rgrat'r8a V, A D$rAfiCE
of t@,,tt FlEl rtl8l*cg ll ti't?'ts" t A DlalAl{CE OF 8:.t! FEHI ltlsilcf, il asTl'0a e A
or8rA{cs oF lr"i' *!ct rHENcg, lt !4'30'{4" W A ilsrA}lcc ot 2d.1o Fga} il:Nce, il
tr'rstf w a olaTAttcr oF l0a4? f!€t'l }llilcsi N f,l',lt'tti w a lrlglAxcE oF '106,*t r8g1
TllEf{Ce, H i565d'll' W A OE Al,ltE OF 1et.13 FEEI TI{EXCE, ll 50'l,l'57" W A D{SIAI{(IE OF
116.42 FEg|l lllENCt, ll itl)'t8'l!l' lY l Dl$lAllCE OF tso3it FEsli ltENcA ll '14"s81" w A
olcrAilcE oF lion6 rFgli tHE tcE, fi 3a"tctt'lv l Dlsl ilcE or loil.la Feg! t}lstlgE, ],
17'{,}10'w A olel^}rcB oFt{zle FsEli lrltdcg i{ 1fl0'0f w A DBr$lC€ OF 4t1e tlFB
THEI{CE, N t"r8'1e'W A OFtAtlcE oF l('g 0 FE€rl THEIIS,J EFpl:q'l[A.EIlrNcf of
?'1.00 FEEI lfiEtlcE, N ,ll's2',tt" w A DlslAilCE oF r!a3J:EI4 lglt$lrt ltof2'eqw A
otsrAircE oF 33a.s2 FEEr: THEilCE N 04'10'63' w
^
Olttr4ta* {{D{g{n ]HEilG, N
46.O0rar w a Dlgrallc8 0l 6!u! ?Etll fllgttcs. N 44'6,1|'4',1" w A olgrANeE ol lL,6 FeEl'l
TltsNoE, tl &r3a'if, Y, A olllrAllcE oF s6.6t Fssli r}lrlre, il 0?"0i'g w A DlStAtlci
oF 1t,s0 rEg!: THailcE, x tc.rS'r2" w A olSI l{cE oF 86?t llE't nrExcE, il Sriglllf w
A OFTA{CE Of', ?e,00 tEF } ilEtCE il 3r32ts0" YV A DBTAIIC€ Of 0a.32 fEEl} THENCF, tl
,oln'16" w A Dl81 fiCE OF *t08 FEEn lfi€llcE, ll S532e* W A Dla AtiICE OF t2.04 rgrl
TNEilcE, N gs.tt$r* w A olgTAl{cF OF t0r.t1 fEE|! T}rEncE, N io"3/t€" W A oISTANCE oF
t04,t! F:E1i rHEilCE t{ tt'3eltti W A nAlAl{Cg OP rot 00 tlgt} ItlEl{CE, ltl L'66'110" € A
0IATANCE OF tqlno eCIi llleNCE il !$i0'3v E A ![atAllCE OF lr7al fgm n€ilCg il
arla'{t" r A 0|SIAIICC OF Se3''l ragt; TllEilos, tl lr?'1f36'w A olgl l{c: OF 2l,f! fEEl}
TXEilOE,XSo'5r'it"EADISIAfiCEOfto,o0FEgt!THEilCt,N9e'r0'0fEADlcr NcFOFtlt.lo
rEF[ tHEilCr, il !?otooa' E A DBTANCE OF !0.14 rEg|! TU;i{CF, 9 04'5trt6' E i DlStAtlcE
of gt00 FEErI rta:lrcg 8 4150's0" E A olStAXcE of !o.6t F:El tt€xcF, tl 50!07{0' a
A OTSTAiTCE Or *r.iS FEG1 r}lrilCEt N 0?"91',31', & A OlstAllCE OF
'.04
FEgl} n*rca x
3r'/tt'6r W A Dl8TAllCG OF 2&00 FgSn rH$&E N 60"00't5'i A DleTAflCS OF 2lr3 fEFli
?{E to8,l{ s'!a|r0' EA D$rtAilet oF sartflEx ?ltNc3, t 0ll'tl'tv * A ol$tAxca of !t ut
rrEI TltEt{C!. I ,llt'!o't8' a A Dl8T ilCE or 20Jt FeEl.! lHEilCs, a t4'{4'20" E A DNgTAficr
or ,r.10 FEF!| THEilGr, A fi"rt't7i W A DISTANCE OF 2att FsSl rHEilO€, t lf58',ltr E
A Dlsl llC€ OF Sat t4 rEnl rrlEilCE, 8 ,B',ae'!0" S A OlSTAt{Ct OF 00.? FEEI! rtl;XCE I
3r'a6'6t{ g A D|aTAiICE oF 66.t6 rEst lHEfiCE t a0'3444' E A DlSl ilc€ OF i10.t2 FEgtt
T}|ENCB,8!a0'3d66" d AOI$TAI{Cs Of{0.08 FEsl TfisflG€, SSO|{'3O' eA o6fAtlCa OF '{&30ggEl! tNENcE r ?3rl6i2l' E A olSlAllcE oF it'00 FgEtl T'lFt{cgr I 53'0s'lt' E A o$tAtlcg
oF r0,ea FIET| rHaros, s @'|7ro, e A orll Ncs oF !2.rt FsFI lHctlc8, I gl'20'!1" e
A ol'f NC€ oF /B,rg fEgl: IHENCE, N &t'avz|" E A olSTAtlcE OF 61.04 fEfli l}l€llc€, il
31"!0!{' r A D|8ru€E oF i17.0? FEEI fiEt{cE, l{ ootlo3lt" E A DlgT tlCE of 3al6 iEEll
tHEilC€, il ?ri00'0r E A d5lAflGF or ,.to F€En rrlEilcG,8 24',6t',Ct' s A blglAtlcE oF 71'35
IgsI rfigl.lcf" I rl.r"ar g A orSTAt{cs of !0.?i FEEII TllENcs, a 64"+l?ti E A DtStAlCg
or 0031 rEEri rdst{cq € syros e i usT trcE oF 97.tt FgE'tl Ttlttlcg} M'tt'i2" c
A Dt$tAXCr OF ?7.06 fGSS tHEXCr,8 al',rl'i0' I A DIST XC: OF S8'qt tF$l rHeNcS' s
nxr'!3" E A DtgTAllcE or 6t,t0 FEEn tHEt{cE I tytf38" E A Olsr NCF OF ?4.06 itBl'i
TrGilCE, I 0l'04'm' E A Ol3?Al'rCP OF {0.,1.{ fEEII
T8EilCE, a tt.61xt' E A DrSlAl'lCE OF 66.,15 rsEt rO tr& Poll{f OF tEclx}llxc.
cour'ryv op oAnptglo, 8lAlt oF colonioo.
PAAOEL E {NOAltl PTRCELI
A IRAOT Of ltNO $ruAtm n rHE EAltt HiLF Of SFCtlOil 1a rOWtlSHlP 7 eoirrl{, Rll{cE
0e wEgT. Al{o ill tt{€ w:3T HALF oF SEC'|OX ?, mwlStllP ? tOUlH, RAMIE 88 WEST OF
TfiE 8TH PAtllCtPAl tiERDlA]|, COUNTY Of CARHSID, StAtE OF COIOR DO, lAt{C MOnE
PAnncuuRLY oEtcarsf,o r8 roLlolr&
ocorlt$t{o Ar A por{l wxEro! T}rs q RREL' coutlTY 0uRvFYoR'li 2 rnr tn^at cAp'
rouilD ll{ prtca Ailo cofin8orlY l/tAal(Eo As l}l€ SottlHEANr coailE* oF 3Al! SECIIOI
? FsAnS 34gTr'16' : A pl$l XCe Ot !4?9,64 FEE]} TN€llCE, t av4ilge € A OlSTAllcE oF
100614 FEEIrOtPollltoilttl6wEsrtBlt L$lEoFrfit Bo^nltlo FoR(rRAil8rAUT}loRlrY
TR tBPoftrAtr}tl CORFIOOR :A88Xgm,
TH$tCe, Alol'to IHF qiBsTGnLY llils oF s lD EASGME lT I lt's8',[2" g A !lt[$lce ot
20{a.*t rrEll
THENCE,,tt.'ga FEET lLOilc TtlF ARC Or A cURlrE to lltg RlollT! tlA$ilO A RlDlug oF
28lt.00 FEEI A CEII|RAL AIIOLF Of l0.o3',42F AtlD SUATtilDINO A C$OnO SEARINO Of I
.t{.s?'ot' € A galAllcE or dlgto Frs[
lHE tcg, g 6.t{t,00r e A uSti}pg oP lr0.r8 fEgll
Ifigl{ce, oEpARtlNC lltE WrAfaRtY UllE Or dll' rASeirS[t tl 66'3.t't{' l', A ol8TAllc€ ol
00rr0 IEsIt 1l8il0q tr af04'10. W A olStAr{Ce OF !a.7? rEsli
tHErrcaillrfi'r0fwADl8TANatoF00,9tragl!'tl6Ncr.t{40'11'l0"wADl8T tlCEoFtl.No
f;stitil€xoE,{!6'47??iwAtE INCEOFlt0.97F:Er}rXEllO€,il8iil7',?a"wAolltTAlloE
oF cl,O tEErl TNEilcE, l{ ,s.35Bti W A llgrAHCE OF 119.68 rlEI tHEilCE, tl tS0o43' w
A OlBTAilCE OF S3.r4 rEEq TXEIICE, I ?!r4t'46' W A blSiAllcE oF 3tl0 FsEll rIEilcq I
rrl6?i0a' W A L{8lLi&l Op !&05 tlBt THEiICE O 6r$'t7" W A DiSIANCE OF '$"'18 FlEri
THEilCg, fi err230'WA ilgr$|cECFtsrtFNElltl{Ncq l|!f07'0c wAolsr$lcaoF96tl
FEEII tHEr&A il 7t90'14'lY A OllTAllC€ OF 8!.'3 rsEl'| rI{EIICE ll t0t4g'10" w A DaTAilcE
or $,22 frgt THciloEr l{ 2!'N01ul w A il8r$lcE oF l8l,9r FEs"l'i ixEalcE, ll t6'to2r" v,
A O|8TA{CE Or e6.43 Fl€l': TXEICE,I8!'02'tf Itl A OlSlAllC€ of 6ar0 rEEt fitlcg 8
501i3i6a" W A DlstAtlcE oF 303r FEEII tHEllcs. I ld.r,3il' w A DISiANCE OF.e€a FES'll
THg{cf,8a?.t?,{g,!ADl8?ailcgor fi,io FEnt! TllflrcF, il ?ro?ar wAlrlgl^]'lcgof 89i8
|.8El! ?rr$CE, s 7fa4"o' W 018? NCF Of 7o.Sd Flrri lXENcsr N 8ecvgr * A Dtsl,LcB
OF !t,ri FE8I IllEtlCE, g g4'1o'tllo w A DlSt ttCC Of 4g'ct FEEI T}lEilCF4 N 1'l'?f't8' E
A OtglAilCE OF iA,D fEgl lHgl{CE ll 6'11',ta'V{ A OtgI }lCE OF 7'.tf fEEtl ttlENCq $
t8 h6, E A Dtgrlilc: oF 10.0r FrEll ilENcE, N 21169'{r E I DlStAi.lcE oF 44.14 tEEt
THEflC€, t{101]1'rO'gADla'ArCEOf3E fi IEEIrfiEilcE,X08'6961'eAOlgTtlloEopt?.16
rggl! rHgl.los, t{ 00'alt|!6' g A olETAilCe Or 3E,48 lEEt! l}l!a'lcE, tl 0{"'lo6t, g A DlSlAl&e
oF 7r.00 rsfl;ilfilog, N 0t"g?'Et'E A ll8tlNCC oF 64.t6 r;gt ltlENcg N 2va'l{r w
l DlSTAxCg Ot t3.0{ Fral: tHBilCE, t{ 3?!0'{.1' ut A DlSTAtlOE OF 0t.00 FEEI rHgtrCE! N
$frt?g" W A OlllttnOE Of 0ndt FEsl! iH€NOE, tl 3o"l{'10' W A OlIttAl{CE Or 'B6a atFl'i
THEI{CE, fl 03"1',t'3:r W { Ol$rAilCe OF 3t ?9 fEE[ lHEllCE, N te6{'a8' W A DlgrAllCE
oF 64,18 aEEt TlrEltC€, ta 8t 6t.36' W A DI3TAXCE !F 38.et aEgli TflStlCE, il 6?ra:1',4r Y'
a DBIA!|CE OF 6i.?0 PSEX rfirilCr, il 6r'n0,22! w A O$rANCg Of 0A& Psfil lHlilcq ltl
or.rl'r!! w A ll8rAflcg of t68.6r ff,E4 THsltcE {il 3l'ld4t' w A DISTANC: OF 4t's' ffEll
THFN0q il !4'tl!0" w l Dlgt l{cE oF ta,?o arEt lHEficg, l{ 2F0i'4v w a !lllrAl{08 oF
200,00 ltst lHsNcA N lt"dst" W A oBrAI,lcE oF 338a rlE i lllEN€E N 4ltQ"lc" E A
ll€rAHc€ oF ?&ro F;Eli rxEllcq l{ 06.afot'lv A Dl$tAxcE oF lrt2o FEEI tfiENCE' ltl
,0ti2t' rv A 0r8?iitcE oF t{t{ rsg,t| rSExcE, x rl'!e6i s, A ot$r$&6 0F istS FE[r]
fNEftC€, ll 0t'61'air tl, A D{IIANCE Of l{t.,ii FGE:n tHEllCE, N m'6d'lai I A DlSTAllCg OF
!0.70 rsE'i rl*€ilCq rl rfflt'l{' w A olglat{cg oF 0t .lx FFEI
TltEilcE l{ I.4t,69P w A olgrAiloE OF t0a,t0 rgEt TilltlcE, al l0'29*tr w A DlSTAfleE
oF 74.10 FSEI tHE'lcg, N tg"gS',Ut' W A DISIA||CS OF 4t27 FEgn THGI\ICE, tl 2130'0J" w A
Dttil ilcc ot ta29 FE€rl rllGllc€, N 00''16'to' E A DlslAtlcE oF 2!7.tt FEEB
tHrflcE. il oonnto" E A DlgTAllcE oF 31114 rEET To rllE FOlllT OF aacr\llllllc.
tAnCEL Fl
I IRACI Ot lttD $nu^ttD ti TSs SouTHlYEgr auAar6F oF 8ECnOil t, fOlVilSfip t
3OUi?1. i lloE s8 wE$T of TllE $xrH PsFlolPrL ilE8lblrJ{, couilfY oF glnflEur. STAIE
of coloRAbo, sHNo nonE PAgnctrL llY DaScFlBEo Ag FOILOW&
alchlNtNc af a poll{T oN 1* wEsllnlY RIOHt oF W Y ilm Of COLOdADO gl tE
fiGr$rAY64 rrxrNc!A 2 r/? 6RAr6 CrR tOUllO lll Ft^Ce AilD pgoPSRlY ltlRKsDAS TilE
$owHEr$T COnIER Or Sl'0 SsCnO[ ?, gEAnE g ?8'tl'a3' E A lll3lAl{Cf OF N0!t l! fEs';
THENC€.ALOlloS lDwErBIERlYRlafitOrWAYUtlEoFll0ol3fi0twAol3lA{OEOFl0Aiai
THEflCE,Ti2.OO FEETALOHO I}IEARCOFACUNVSTOTTIE LEFTTIAVINOARADIUAOF
'EI6,00IEET A CEittRAL AllGLr OF 6.33'17 Al{O gl,r6l€lt0l}Io A CHonD gt^nNc oF x lr2i'4ap trt
A DTSTAI|CE OFrde.ei€x)
lrEilcg, DepAF rlld Slro FlQltt ot waY u$q 6 e00o00" I A olaTA|{Ce Ot {e,?{ Fecri
TlrEilCe, g 00e0t'@' c A DlorAfiCf oF rtato lEEri
TgtxoE, s 04'94'!0'E A DrstAt{cE oF260.tc rEsl to rxe polHl oF lcslNNlNc.
COUNTY OF GANREID STATEOF COIOiA|)O
Harvest Roariirg Fork PUD - Page 3 of 3
Ic6
THn Crurznru TnlncRml
EXHIBIT 1
See Proof on Next Page
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Florida, County of Orange, ss:
l, Ankit Sachdeva, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath
depose and say that I am an agent ol Column Software, PBC,
duly appointed and authorized agent ol the Publisher of Rifle
Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in
whole or in part and published in the County of Garlield, State of
Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;that said
newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly
in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two
consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the
annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has
been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under
the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments
thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly
qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within
the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in
the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly
newspaper lor the period of 1 insertion; and that the first
publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated Jan 20,2026 in the issue of said newspaper.
That said newspaper with the annexed legal notice or
advertisement was regularly issued and circulated on the below
dates.
Publication Dates: Jan 20, 2026
Ad #: kTYXTlNBSa330hMRVtJe
Customer: The Land Studio, lnc.
Notice Name:8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation
Total cost for publication: $341.00
Aukit {achde,a
Agent
VERIFICATION
State of Florida
County of Orange
Signed or attested before
\-c, na
Notary Public
Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof
JESSICA GORDON.THOMPSON
Notary Public - State of Florida
Commission # HH301656
Expires on August 17, 2026
8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation I Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 1
FUSLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE lhat Hatv6st Rosrlnq Fork. LLC has applled lo GArfl€ld CounN, Stal€ ot Colomdo, requ€sllnq rwocation ol llre exlstirK Ftlvsr Edge Colomdo
ol Garllold. State ol ColorRdo: lo'wlt:
LegRl.Dgscrlpllqns,r sos Atimh€d Exhlblt A.
lliiTfl!i1','JyJl?!J,lti iL,ll]Sl?:",Et"f."#33'13 iX'f 't"3E9!"d3il$:ryJ"lx';:""r3Yii:3'""F fJXS fP.Hfrg 3H[qi3flfi','r:8iiX;i1? lFrog 3'."*
81 601, tii have nol b€en l66ued a cotnlly Address.
prolscl Descrlollgn: TIE Appllcalton ls Bubmltted on behall ol Haryesi HoBrlnq Fork, LLC ('Omel") and resptrilully requ€sl3 the rovocallon ol tho exlsllng Rlv€r
wtrlctr ms the zone dlstilcl oppll€d lb lhls l.ind pilor to lts PUD zonlng (Flle No. PUDA'07'25 9079)
of
Sulto
lhe
al such
FEET, A CENTRAL ANCLE OF 5'$0'26" AND
N 58'27',1S'
A publlc Hearlnd on ths aDDllcallon has be€n sch€dul€d ln lrmt ot lha Garllald County Plannlng Commlsslon on Wedle8day, February 26, 2020 df 0:00 PM. ln
tho A8cent Bultllng dt th6 bMc sprtng valley campus at 3000 counly Road 11 4, Glenwootl spllngs, cololado, 8lo0l.
communlty Dsvelopment Deparlmenl Oadi€ld County
Exhiblt A
Escrow No. 03021533
PAFICEL D {SOUTH PARCEL):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SA$T HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND IN THE Wg$T HALF OF SECTION 7 AND
tN iHE NoRTH HAIF oF $EcloN jB, iit*usIrp i sou.rn,neNGE.Bs wEsr oF THE orH PITtNcIPAL MERlolAN, couNTY oF aARFIELq srArs oF
aoLoRAoo, BETNG MoRE PARTtcULARLY DEScRIBED As FoLLows:
dt 8:00 a.n,
42,O2
40.23'€0"gr28'29'
THENCE,
THENCE,
THgNCE,
PLACE
oF 41.4336.35
oF 8.28
DISTANCE OF
N 46"2r',12" W
50"00'15" E A Dt
s 45"5858"
s 60.16'38" E A
TOTH€
2'rl2" BRASS
DISTANCE OF 5479,54
EASEMEN1 N 65"36'14'W A DIgTANCE OF 60.45 F€ET;
oF 54.30
s3,00
DISTANCE OF 10,80
oF 25.22
A OISTANC€ OF
N 44"28'05',
OISTANCE
N 55"6S't r
63.3S'33'E
93,22
e85"O2,S3"WAD|9TANCE
47.47
A CEN1RAL ANGLE OF 10'03'42" AND
N 56"4727',W A
s 50,33'52'W A
N 27'58'19"
s 0s"35'09" E
DEPAFTINA
OISTANCE
53"439t',W
53"05'.15" F
dr.32'47" W A
N
107,17 164.72
DISTANCE
83"14'43" E
A DISTANCE
N 80'5t'1 1', E
56
OF
DISTANCE OF
E A PISTANOStr2s'21'E
PARCEL E (NORTH PAECEL)
A TRACT OF LAND STTUATED tN THE EAST HALF OF SeCTTON 12, TQIVNSHTP 7 SOUTH, EAI.iqE-8g UIE,ST,_ANO lN THF WEST HAIF OF.9EqTION
'2, icjdris-Hlp /ri-ouiH. riANcid ib wEsi bF iHe 6rn pnir.rCrpnl nentotnru, couNry bF GARFtELq srATE oF coLoFlAoo, sElNG MoRE
PARTICULARLY DESCFIBED AS FOLLOU/S;
ON THE WESTERLY
THE WESTERLY
FEEf ALONG THE
CHOBO BEARING
N 4S.54't0'W A
N 49"54'1 0" W A
1l1g'w A
85,73
W A DISTANCS 98.44
N 48"t 1'.1
8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation I Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT 1
DISTANCE OF
77"02i7" W A
30.34
DISTANCE
84%8',58'W A E A DISTANC€
32"00u4"w
A OIETANCE OF
N ,14"41'69"W A
1S.3308"W
TH€NCS, N
21'30'01
TOTHE
couNTY oF GARnELq STliIg OF COLOnAOO.
PUgLISHEO IN TIIE BIFLE CMZEN TELEGRAM ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, X'26,
s 37027?3" E A DISMNCE OF
N 88059'39'W A
00"16'so'E A otsTANcE 217.Tf
8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation I Page 3 ol3
€Column EXHIBIT 1
See Proof on Next Page
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Florida, County of Orange, ss:
Ankit Sachdeva, being first duly swonr, deposes and says; That
(s)he is a duly authorized signatory of Column Software, PBC, duly
authorized agent of Glenwood Spdngs Post lndependent, that the
same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published
in the County of GarJield, State of Colorado, and has a general
circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published
continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a
period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that
said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a
periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any
amendnrents thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly
newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and
advertisements within the meaning of the laws o{ the State of
Colorado.
That the annexed legal nolice or adverlisement was published in
the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly
newspaper for the period of I insertion; and that the first publication
of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 20 Jan
2026 in the issue of said newspaper.
That said newspaper was regularly issued and citculated on those
dates.
Total cost for publication: $341.00
NOTICE lD: AowTv64fpllEHTLpGSZU
NOTICE NAME:8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation
Ankit {achc{era
VERIFICATION
state of Florida
County of Orange
Subscribed in tny presence and sworn to before me otr tlris: 01121
t\aO. f\A'.
Notarv Public
Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof
JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON
Notary Public - state of Florida
Commission # HH301656
Expires on August 17,2026
26
8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation - Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
ol Gilrlleld. stat€ ol colorado; lo-wll:
L€g{l.Doggtlpllon$: sas Atlacb€d Erhlbll A.
p,acfical D€saripllon : The Appllcanl'e proportle6 Rro lmf,l€d approxlmaloly 7 mlles soulh ol lhe.Clty ol GloMood Sprlngs ott ol Colorado Slste Hlghway g2 and
8160i. dI have not besn l56ued n counly Addtss8.
prolect DQ6cripllon: Th€ Appllcallon le 6ubmltl6d on behall ol Haryesl Roarlng Folk tLC ( Own€r"l a_ndrespecllully requests lhe rovtrallon ol lh€ €xlsling Rlver
Eiiii bo1oiiO,5 FtiirneC Urirl Osetopmiiii iFUb) 2ontnq and the concursnl r"€establlshmbnt ot thd F€sld€rillausuburb;n (FVS) Zone Dlslrlct lor lhe ptoperllss,
whfch Ms lh€ zone dlstrlct applred ti) lhls ltrd pilor to lla PUD zonlng. (FlIe No PUOA'07-25'907S)
EXHIBIT 1
atg
ths olllcs ot
ot
BECINNINE AT A
5r01,s2'
vlews lBttel,
ol
8lh Sulte
lhe at
al
at
lhg
5,OO FEET. A CEN'ML ANCTIE OF 5"5828' ANO
N s8"27'r9'W A
E A DISTANCE OF 43.44
A pubilc Hearlno on the aoDilcalion has b6en 6clredul€d ln lrmt ot tlE Garlleld county Planning Commlslorr on Wednesday, February 25, 2028 ot 0:00 p.M. h
th6 Ascent Builirlng ot th6 cMc sprlng valley compus at 3000 cornty Foad ll4, Glenwood sprlng8, colorado, 8l60t,
Communlty OweloptrEnt Dsparlm€nt Gafield Coulty
Exhlblt A
Escrow No 03021633
MRCEL D (SOUTH PARCEL):
A tsACT OF LANo STIUATEO tN THE EAST HALF OF S€CT|ON 12,IOWNSH'P 7 SOUTH, FANGS 89 WESI ATOlNTHE WEST HALF OF SECTION TAND
ill tie nonrx xnLF oF sEcTtoN 18, TowNsHrp 7 sourH, RANGE Bs wEsr oFTHE 6TH PRtNctPAL M€RlDlAN, couNTY oF GAFFlslq srATE oF
COLOFADO, gEINO MORE PARNCULARLY DESCHIBEO AS FOLLOWS:
FIGHT PLACg
ET
FEET
oF 60.38
oF 36.35
STATE OF COLORAOO.
TOTHS
DISTANCE OF
25%1,38. W A
TOTHE
s 83"52',12" W A
N 57.50',04" E
W A DISTANCS
a 3r"3d'59" E A
PAnCgL E (NOHTH mRCELI
A,'RACT OF LAND S|TUATSD lN THE EAST HALF OF SECTTON 12, TOWNSHTP 7 SOUTH, BANGS 8S ryE9f,4l'lQ.!NTHE WESI HALF OF SECI|ON
z. i<JdIisIJIe /sbui'H,'RANGE 8sw-sioFTHE 6TH PRINcIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNIY OF GARFIELq STA]E OFCOLOFTADO, BFING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCFIIBgO AA FOILOVIS:
ACEN1HAL ANGL€ OF 10'0342" AND
CHORD
EASEMENl N 65"36'I4'WA DISTANCE OF 60,45 FFET;
A OISTANCE OF
A DISIANC€ OF oF 54.30 N 56"47'27" W A
lHgNcE, N 65"'r0'24"W4 s85"0233"WAD|STANCE 52.20 3 5e"33'52. W A
BCD09 River Edge PUD Revocation - Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT 1DISTANCE OF
7r!257" W A
A DISTANCE OF
a 70024i1 8" w A
19e9e08"W A 0ISTANCE
THcNCC,N00''lgtso"EA
THgNcc,
COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO,
PUBLISHEO IN I}IE CLENWEOD SPRIIIGS POST INOEPENDENT ON TUE$DAY, .'ANUARY 20, 2020,
8CD09 River Edge PUD Revocation - Page 3 of 3
HARVEST ROARING FORK LLC
909 LAKE CAROLYN PKWAY
SUITE 150
IRVING, TX 75039
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
ROARING FORKVALLEY INC
53 CALAWAY COURT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
RFTA
1340 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
OSTERMILLER, ROBERT D JR &
LAURIE M
275 MEADOWWOOD ROAD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
GOLUBA, NICHOLAS W JR
PO BOX 931
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOC INC.
PO BOX 1315
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
HOMEOWNERS ASSOC AT
ASPEN GLEN
OOSO BALD EAGLE WAY
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
GARDNER DYNASWTRUST,
DATED 712912021
PO BOX 1943
EAGLE, CO 81631
BUTLER, CHRISTOPHER &
CAMPOS, STACEY Y
652 LARIAT LANE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
K&LLLC
108 CROWN MNT DRIVE
BASALT, CO 81621
GARFIELD COUNTY
108 8th STREET, SUITE 213
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-
3363
JERONIMUS, MICHALEEN &
MICHAEL
PO BOX 1318
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
ROARING FORK WATER & SAN DIST
PO BOX 326
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
SHERICK, GEORGE W & JERI L
2550 COUNry ROAD 109
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
CLAASSEN, TERRENCE C & LARA
650 LARIAT LANE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
CASTILLO, HUGO A
POBOX1477
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
CAVERN SPRINGS MHC LLC
2151 PRIEST BRIDGE DR, SUITE 7
CROFTON, MD 21114
GLEASON, WALTER M ESTATE OF
2273 RIVER ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
EXHIBIT 1
JWK INVESTMENTS LTD
1750 COUNTY RD 109
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
rq
ru
--EEro
IUr4rrE
rf
rsrurn
EIr:lrrE
r{
lfl
IT
rLcf
trt
fLrurn
EIrlrrE
tr'coIrl
IT
U.S. PostalServlce"
CERTIFIED MAILO RECEIPT
Domestic
:l .;,;.1
l:l Retlm Rwlpl (olffi nlc)
ft csnilsd Mst' Rsldded n€ttvory
n Adult Slgnaturs RoqulEd
8otur. R@lpt Fed@py}
n Mull Stgnat!F Rashlclod
't" l'"1
U.$. PostalService'"
CERTIFIED MAII.@ RECEIPT
Domestic Mail
€nil{r0d ines' C0
t5.lrj
n R6lbm R@lpt (olelrcnlc)
il Csrtttled M!11 Rslrlct€d D€,lv€ry
flAdo'r S{grutue Requlred
E Rotun R@lpt (hardsp,
Rstrictod Nlvory
$1.r:r7
U.S. Postal RECEIPT
Service*
MAIL(oFIEDCERTI
Domestic Ma,t OnlY
f,1.n1,fl i:ilJ i
-ttlll Bstum
fl Roturn
Reolpt thatdoPY)
$(sl6c1sic)R@lp1
Do[voryR6tl1rrgdnCo.litlod Mdll
FoqulsdSlg[aturollAdult DolleorYC!!klr?d
U.S. PostalServi,ce"l. i
CERTIFI ED IVIAIL.X RIUEI PT
Damestic Mail
Irvinc r IX 7ii*39
65, 3i-r
R€tum R0c€lpt (hs.dcopy)
E 8oturn B6tpr (eltrMtc) E
noariliod MallFsfttclod Dottuety g
trAddlt Stqnatub Boqutod $
nAdult Stglatu€ R€slrjctod Ooilyery
n
$1 .,J t
i': ,.:lt:'
$
tl .1dr4l F.rj4!!itft ,l4ofi*li,1 f]drilry
;. _;,.
F6sridd
RECEIPT
re
EO
Irlr{€
N t& lrtl{'
CLAASSEN, TERRENCE C & LARA
"6so LARTAT LANE
tti4)i6""' 6LENWOOD SPRINGS, CO B1 601
Postmerk
H€rs
ruulr-E
EIr!ru
,t1
Erlr!If,
tr
ctr
rnr
ROAR
LAKE CAROLYN
surTE 150
IRVIN TX
i.ii"ili;.i,iJsttr'rlis
Poslmark
il6ro
Ahi ; :, 2il'r:
,:tI tI4/2t12&
.EA&K'IL
PKWAY
c
1
,
r\-
ru
r!
a:lcfl
rulfl
rO
TT
rn
r;l
rO
f
rurfl
r!Ef
Err
rU
Lr,
EI
rqrrE
o-
EO
LnIr
id ? $ ;:326
;:', t,,,..:;""1..
SHERICK,IL2550 couNry ROAD 109'siiiii 2ip';4*""GLENWOOD SPR|NGS, Co 8160.t
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
ROARING FORK VALLEY INC
"z,Pi 53 CALAWAY GOURT
SPRIN
,):,.lr' Par.l'rrii(,',Ildro '
*v
.:',dd,":{! 4,, :l U: $,'
Polllnark
iiii.i ; i|''lii!ii
{'or
U.'Ir!E
J
J'
trt
cA
J
ru
clr\ruul
EI
rj|r:l
ttlrlcr
trtF
rut4
E
lloro
it I /r lil?$
rlct
IT
E0lt,
TT
..,:,;
.:/,..t:.r!E
rrtl
lJ]
tr.
ROARING FORKWATER & SAN D
PO Box 326o;;/rrir;-1t;GLEASON
ATE OF,21p.,.x..227 3 Rl vER ROAD
co 81505
?ip:fii"" GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
U.S. PostalService*
CERTIFIED MAILCI R ECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
r!E
--0
E]
EO
.f
rur'lr!E
Efr!rulJl
E
r-lrrE
1r
EA
r.r|
TT
E
EO
.,.oFI€t
rutnr\rl
EIr!ru
u1
rf
rlrr
EI
tr
rOlrt
IT
Hor*'l i1 ''i 1, 1.''t . t.t:t-ji
Poslmark
11 ,1 , Homtu r ,f ,,jl'.r(,
IT
IJ'E
EO
.f
ru
lllrr
EI
EIr!rurrt
t3
rrE
IT
cO
rnr
n-
TT
JI
r:t
Egt
ruul
f!E
Er!
ru
lJt
trl
r!
EI
TT
EO,4r
.T
,J
-.[rrl
EO
!
rutllr!E
Etr!rurn
E
rrct
IT
EO
lJI
IT
iiit-ii6:,'
r- g+nr.
cARFt ELD 699piy",.t-i:-, -
1OB 8th STREET, SUITE 213
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-
3363
*j 1 4 :{,?i
ff1
&;rip.n
K&LLLC
108 CROWN MNT DRIVE
mrr
.!
r{
Etr
f
ru!t,rr
EI
E
n-
ru
ral
[3
rjlr!
E]
TT
EOlrl
IT
ll R6tu.r Rslpl {dlelEnlc}
ff Co.liUod Mdll RarHcrod 06,'viry
ll Adull SlgnstuB Requhsd
Rosdct6d Dellv6ry
{hadcopy)
!'{tttrir,.e{t .J{:*--:'--
,------:!_. '.'l/t
i:J *:tril-,
t------.''-.--
CASTILLO, HriCO N
POBAXMTT
CARBONDALE, CO 51623
-aift
2tpi4+"-""
U.S. Postal Service*
CERTIFIED MAIL@ RECEIPT
t530.02,000.!0{7
Domestic
;) | !:itt.
nF€iur. R€lpt {ha J6py)
! R€tum R@ipt {olootMlc)
n Cadtiled Mall Fstddad D€llv.ry
ff Adolt slgnatu€ Req!lred
B4trlctod
't'L 1:i.'
U.S. Postal Service'"
CERTIFIED MAIL@ RECEIPT
Domestic Mail
[aso1t r C0 $1,d?1
$5.3[
$
$
I
tll&{.ict6d
R60m R6elpt {tlsdcopy}
E FEtum i@tpt (etstonlc)
fiC{rltflod l\roit R4ttlc{ed D€ltvory
IAdllt shmtuts RoqulFd
$1 .[7
BASALT co 81621
Inetun B@lpt(etffinlc)
n oodnod Mall Setdctod Dallvqy
IAduR slgnat!ts BequlDd
s
s
$I Adull Slgnaturd Rslrioted
Felpt fn$depy)
'i.:"i.'
i _ -ri..
[noiun nwlpl {haddpy} $
n Fstum fi€lpt (61€rtonla) $
tf cdlflsd Msil nNfictod D€ltvary {
nAdultslg.aruo Roqul6d I
fltdrll S'0naluo R$hictql oolivary $
i: i ';-;
Fgrm 38oO, January 2023 Pst{ ?s30.02.000.s0{7
U.S. PostalService'"
CERTIFIED MAIL@ RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Anly
U.$. PostalService*
CERTIFIED M;Llxo, Il El(i EIP',1'
Domestlc
aPlr!:i:i:'l::l"r t'i:l, : .1",
i.!
Slgnaluts nctdctod Dsltoiy $
n R6tum R@olpt {herdmp, $
n Rotum Rwlpl (sloclffilo) 5
ll co*rma Matlnefictod [bttvgry $
nAdult slgnatum 8€qulrsd $
,r I l'11
vislt our
Psslrnnrk :
JAtll 1 {ur{{:1fi l
CAVERN SPRINGS MHC LLC
215'1 PRIEST BRIDGE DR, SUITE 7
CROFTON, MD 21114
/\:',i I ;, "rr'i,|,-"' 'iirrn{aikl{:
Here
;.
-Jlc,'g, -,,:"-'
JERONIMUS, MICHALEEN &
MICHAEL
PO BOX 1318
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
t!ti.'it{t', r??6'
'.qi;ic;ZIPi",t-" """
. Follnrorl(
fr{ } { isy';.
/
,;- _2' 't,..
^$1sfl3 . u"
BUTLER, CHRISTOPHER&
CAMPOS, STACEY Y
652 LARIAT LANE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8'1601
U.S. Postalservice""
CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT
Domestic Mail
{nrtrondnle r t0 st6:J
|5"1u
nRotum Rsolpt(hsddpY)
l] R6tum R64lPt (ol€dmnlc)
fi cert'lno M"tl Rotdctod oollwrY
bat,
$
Slgnat!rb FloqulcdnAdult
F€tdcted odl rcifAdullSIgrul@
$1 ,ll7 i,
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAIL'O RECEIPT
Domestic
rn
Irl
JI
r:l
rO:r
ru
tflr-EI
Errrurfl
t3r{r!E
r
!{]
l.r|
TT
ru:f
JI
r:l{:r
rUtfl
r\-E
Erlrurrl
EIr:lr!E
ITrn
Lrt
E-
uil Apl, No . o
"!r4:i4'--"
i 1 tr ?itlii
"*[l'l1"
IRONBRIDGE
ASSOC INC.
PO BOX',l315
CARBONDALE,co 81623
,\l: '
t;"J,*t#
pRff$"dkw .ifWN
Hers
;;i
.i/
. --./
{rttq4"{.2r:i1,1
ar
HOMEOWNERS ASSOC AT
ASPEN GLEN
OOSO BALD EAGLE WAY
co 81623
r{ri
,5
4:f,
ru
lJ]
r!E
EfrrruI.l
EIirvcl
TT
EO
ljl
IT
Foslmarkj.': :. l-l*ro
.i, i r ,;j-._1.., t il,!.i:
€
ru
-Ilrl€:r
ruItl
t!
c3
clr!
rLlrf|
!L 1',t1ttl,\
GOLUBA, NI
0 n 0 er, C0 S1623
$5,3t'l
lf Rslum RselPt (hdrd@PyJ S
l: R€tom Rdolpt {olstrcnic} $
nCs.lmsdMa{lRstrlctodDellYery $
lfAdults,snatqreBoqulrcd i
ioslrict*l Dollvory $
*1.r17
U.S. Postal $ervice'
cEsrlnrD MAIL@ REcEIPT
'Domestic Mail OnlY
n5s: f0 gXdrl: - ". -. ,..I
t5. 3rJ
8orun F#lPlOddcoPY)$
{ale1€nla}RslPlll astum
M6ll RNtfuldd 0dllvdYllco*neo
Rsqul€.1glgnatacIAdult
oelleery $R6lridsdSlgnst!6Ad!lt
61.[7
nj;PO Box 931
biiJwciop sPRrNcs' co 81602 81 601
i{.},4{ frt0n9€*nu00d $pr
st.3lJ
RslPl ftardcopy)
R@lPt (€leqtrcnlc)
I
$
Fst{mu
n6lds,16d Dol[.rytulqllllcotrlfled
F6qul6dSlgnatutsIAdult
R@tdcttrtM!ltn
tl.t-r7
websitevisit our
sJ.*r s1c
st .31
n Rotur. ReaiPt (hardcoPt
nBstum RslPt(ol6lonh)
f1 caltned Matl Rrettlctoa oettvary
Boqul€d I
RgHcted Do'lvery !nAdrlt slgnatuB
Adult
$1.f7
L@
ServicePostalU.s.REGEIPTMAITIFIEDCER
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED Milllj{r,Fil: {l,E lP1'
Domestic Mail
$tlosHclod
fl Fotum B@lpt (lwdepv)
fl netum nmoipt lelcctmlcl
l] Corthoa Motl Rsta*ea Poltv"rY
nAduit Slgmhrre BsqulGd
ili.:,il
EIrl
r!r{
EO
J
rutf,
r!E
EIr!
ruttl
EIrtt!
EI
tr6
u1Ir
Postmalki4 }il,{l
.i'
ol
f
EI
JIr{€
f
rurr|rlf,
E
reru
LN
clrtr!EI
tr
EO
r.rttr
JWK INVESTMENTS LTD
itpi. &6""ni-i
1750 COUNTY RD 109
'sili.;1tt :t:4'- " " "
G LENWOOD SpRl N GS , co 81601
ti+il{il.1rk
1'! ltt ? rl H"f?,
,
" 'f.lu:nl:rl?
RFTA
1340 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623 """"
A. n Pailntslk
Fi rl '' ,lioiS'
" sH14/:rl.?*
n i u1..r
OSTERMILLEN, ROSENT D JR &'
LAU
275
i
d,,''
EI
rqr\
trt
IT4tnr
U.S. Postal Service
CERTIFIED MAILO R ECEIPT
Domestic Mail
gt
Slgnoturc R4tdctod D.livory
E gehrm isslpl (lE dsPY)
f]Roturn sslpt {€lffinlc}
n eldnal M8'l Rddcr€d Doltvery
tlAdul! $lgnat(6 RoqulFd
$1.!:r
F{}strqnrh
Hard
TTLn
-!
4
J
rurjlrra
EIr-ru
Ifl
EI
rjl
t!EI
tr*c{l
r.ll
tr.
;f *f{}:l*
rl&
TRUST,
of tl
r11
DATED 712912021
PO BOX 1943
631
EXHIBIT 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC has applied to Garfield County, State of Colorado, to
request approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on properties situated in the County of
Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Descriptions: See Attached Exhibit A.
Practical Description: The Applicant's properties are located approximately 7 miles south of the
City of Glenwood Springs off of Colorado State Highway 82 and known by
Assessor Parcel Number's 239307200031, 239501400161, 239307300032'
239307200001, and 239307300033. One ofthe properties is located at72l5 State
Highway 82, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, and the other parcels have not been
issued a County Address.
Project Descrigtion: The Applicant is requesting approval for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD. The PUD
Application indicates a mix of 1500 residential units that include single family
homes, apartments, townhomes, affordable housing and workforce units, a hotel
as well as commercial spaces, along with an existing conservation easement/open
space and an area designated for a community farm. The total acreage for the
proposed PUD is 283 acres. Water and wastewater will be provided by the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Access is off of Colorado State
Highway 82 with new and revised access configurations/permits. The properties
contain a mix of existing zoning including Commercial/General (C/G),
Residential/Suburban (R/S), and the River Edge Colorado Planned Unit
Development (PUD) subject to a concurrent application for revocation of the PUD
for two of the parcels. (File No. PUDA-12-24-9048)
All persons affected by the proposed Application are invited to appear and state their views, protests or
support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter
or-
^email 1o ghartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov and or jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov, as the
Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and
others affected, in deciding whether to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant or
deny the request. The Application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Depaftment located_at
108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Alternatively, the Application can be viewed
at: https://records.garfieldcountyco.govAVeblink/browse.aspx?id:4064396&dbid=0&repo:GarfieldCounty.
Any questions may be directed to Garfield County Community Development at 970-945'8212.
A Pubtic Hearing on the application has been scheduled in front of the Garfield County Planning
Commission on Wednesday, February 25,2026 tt 6:00 P.M. in the Ascent Building at the CMC
Spring Valley Campus at 3000 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601.
Community Development Department Garfield County
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit A
Escrow No. 63021533
PARCEL A (EAST PARCEL)
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND
IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7, SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF
COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, WHENCE A2112"
BRASS CAP, FOUND IN PLACE, AND CORRECTLY MARKED AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, BEARS S
63"31'48" E A DISTANCE OF 2312.55 FEET;
THENCE, ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 N 06'01'OO" W A DISTANCE OF
1467.90 FEET;
THENCE, N O8'53'OO" W A DISTANCE OF 2OO.3O FEET;
N OO'18'30" W A DISTANCE OF 201,OO FEET;
N O6'Ot'OO" W A DISTANCE OF 7OO.9O FEET;
N 08'52'00" W A DISTANCE OF 313.00 FEET;
THENCE,346,s2FEETALONGTHEARCOFACURVETOTHELEFTHAVINGA RADIUSOFIS2O.OOFEET,ACENTRALANGLE
OF 10"54'32" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF N I5'58'0()" W A DISTANCE OF 346.00 FEET;
THENCE, N 11"08'OO' W A DISTANCE OF 97.90 FEET;
THENCE, 250.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 184O.OO FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 7'47'38" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF N 28''I9'OO" W A DISTANCE OF 250.10 FEET;
THENCE, N 35"14'OO" W A DISTANCE OF 122.52FEET;
THENCE, N 89"I7'09'W A DISTANCE 7.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED !N
INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 24,2OO1 AT RECEPTION NO. 575283;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE S 35'22"19'E A DISTANGE OF 1.46 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY GORNER OF SAID
PARCEL;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, N 89"17'09" W A DISTANCE OF 224.24 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARGEL;
THENCE, N OO'OO'O()'W A DISTANCE OF 0.68 FEET;
THENCE, N 89'30'08'E A DISTANCE OF 0.71 FEET;
THENCE, N OO'20'09'E A DISTANCE OF 0.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 20, 2OO2 AT RECEPTION NO. 603760;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES:
1) N 89'44'57" W A DISTANCE OF 0.99 FEET;
2) N 30'31'43" W A DISTANCE OF 65.06 FEET;
3) N 86.47'1 1" W A DTSTANCE OF 65.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE, N 86'47'11" W A DISTANCE OF 52,73 FEET;
THENCE, N 89'36'12" W A DISTANCE OF 292.6{ FEET;
THENCE, N 89'43'30" W A DISTANCE OF {OO.9O FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ROARING
FORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EASEMENT;
THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 19'38'52" E A DISTANCE OF 3829.47 FEET;
THENCE,79.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 1"34'08'AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 18'51'48" E A DISTANCE OF 79.82 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE N 89'59'59" E A DISTANCE OF 73.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL B (SOPRIS PARCEL):
PARCEL I (AS DESCRTBED tN DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 lN BOOK 1068 AT PAGE 543 AT RECEPTION NO. 525444):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOT 2 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. COUNTY OF
GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE WEST AND SOUTH LINES OF SAID LOT 2 AND
SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AS RECONSTRUCTED !N 1 967,
SAID TRACT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 BEING MARKED WITH AN IRON PIN; WHENCE AN IRON POST WITH
A BRASS CAP FOUND IN PLACE AND PROPERLY MARKED FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7
SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. BEARS S. 35"31'OO" W,770,44FEET;
THENCE N.324.69 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY;
THENCE S. 34'45'30" E.229.17 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY;
THENCE S. 35"14'OO" E. I67 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2;
THENCE WEST 227.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, THE
EXHIBIT 1
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2 (AS DESCRTBED AS PARCEL { tN QUIT CLATM DEED RECORDED MAY 20, 2002 lN BOOK 1356 AT PAGE 384 AS
RECEPTION NO. 603760 AND AS DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT A.1 QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED JANUARY 24, 2OO1 IN BOOK 1228
AT PAGE 600 AS RECEPTION NO.575283):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF GOLORADO. SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., (WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N. OO'10'09" E. BETWEEN THE SE CORNERAND THE E
1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION l);
THENCE N.35"30'10" E.765.47 FEET TO A FOUND REBAR (SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 2 PER INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL
30, 1986 tN BOOK 687 AT PAGE 650) THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SAID BOOK 687 AT PAGE 650 128.34 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE N. 88"59'16'W, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINE EXTENDED OF THE RECORDED AMENDED FYRWALD EXEMPTION PLAT 103.03 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE EXTENDED S, 02'48'16"
E.70.52 FEET, TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING FENCE LINE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY EXTENDED ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3)
COURSES:
l) s.86'47'11" E.65.63 FEET;
2) S.30'31'43" E.65.06 FEET;
3) S. 89"17'09" E.0.99 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3: (AS DESGRIBED AS PARCEL 2 lN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECoRDED MAY 20, 2002 lN BOOK 1356 AT PAGE 384 AS
RECEPTION NO.603760 AND AS DESCRISED AS EXHIBIT A-3 IN OUIT GLAIM DEED RECORDED JANUARY 24, 2OOI IN BOOK
1228 AT PAGE 600 AS RECEPTION NO. 575283):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF COLORADO. SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. (WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N, OO'10'09" E, BETWEEN THE SE CORNER AND THE E
1/4 CORNER OF SAID SEGTION l);
THENCEN.35"30'10.E.769.47 FEETTOAFOUNDREBAR (SOUTHWESTCORNERLOT2PERBOOK6STATPAGE650);
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SAID BOOK 687 AT PAGE 650 128,34FEET,
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 187,87 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF.WAY OF
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT.OF.WAY THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) GOURSES:
t) N.34"53'49" W,9.76 FEET;
2) N. 37"33'19" W.6.55 FEET;
THENCE S. OI"O5'14'W. ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RECORDED AMENDED FYRWALD EXEMPTION PLAT 200.87
FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE S.88'5S'16" E. I3.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCLUDING, HOWEVER,
ANY PORTION OF PARCEL 2 AND/OR PARCEL 3 LOCATED IN OR ENCROACHING UPON:
LOTS 3 AND/OR 4, AMENDED FYRWALD EXEMPTION PLAT, AS RECORDED IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO UNDER
RECEPTION NO. 547543.
PARCEL 4 (AS DESCRTBED AS EXHtBtT A.2 tN QUtT CLATM DEED RECORDED JANUARY 24, 2001 lN BOOK 1228 AT PAGE 600
AS RECEPTION NO. 575283):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., (WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N. OO'10'09'E. BETWEEN THE SE CORNERAND THE E
1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1);
THENCE N. 35"30,10' E.76s.47 FEET TO A FOUND REBAR (SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 2 PER BOOK 687 AT PAGE 650) THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SAID BOOK 687 AT PAGE 650 0.68 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY 221.76 FEET,
TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE S.35'22'19'' E, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY 4.26 FEET, TO A POINT IN
AN EXISTING FENGE LINE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF.WAY N,89'I7'09'' W. ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE LINE 224.24FEET, TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPTING FROM INSURANCE AND CONVEYANCE THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTING PARCELS 5,
EXCEPTING PARCEL 6 AND EXCEPTING PARCEL 7
EXCEPT|NG PARCEL 5 (AS DESCRTBED EXHtBtT A tN QUtT CLATM DEED RECORDED MAY 20,2002 lN BOOK 1356 AT PAGE 390
AS RECEPTION NO. 603762)
A TRACT OF LANO SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.. COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
EXHIBIT 1
COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P,M. (WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N. OO"1O'09" E, BETWEEN THE SE CORNER AND THE E
1/4 CORNER OF SAID SEGTION 1);
THENCE N. OO'IO'09" E. ALONG SAID SECTION LINE 691.13 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THAT
PROPERTY SURVEY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO,2O5 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY INDEX FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND
SURVEY PLATS, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SECTION LINE N, OO"1O'09" E.2.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY
LINE OF THE RECORDED AMENDED FYRWALD EXEMPTION PLAT;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE N.89'13'44" E. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY 344,69 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LtNE S. 02"48'{6" E. 12.00 FEET TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING FENCE LINE;
THENCE N.86"47'1I'W. ALONG SAID FENCE LINE 52.73 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID FENCE LINE N.89'36"1 4"W.292,62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEpTtNG PARCEL 6 (AS DESCRTBED AS EXHtBtT A tN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED JANUARY 29, 2001 lN BooK 1229 AT
PAGE 263 AS RECEPTION NO.575490):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, SAID TRACT OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., (WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO A BEARING OF N. OO"IO'09" E. BETWEEN THE SE CORNER AND THE E
1/4 GORNER OF SAID SECTION ,I);
THENCE N, OO"lO'09'E. ALONG SAID SECTION LINE 627.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THAT
PROPERTY SURVEY RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 305 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY INDEX FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND
SURVEY PLATS, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SECTION LINE N. OO'IO'09" E.64.03 FEET, TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING FENCE LINE;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SEGTION LINE S.89'36'14" E. ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LINE 292,62FEETi
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG AN EXIST]NG FENCE LINE S.86"47't1'E. 118.36 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID FENCE LINE S,30'31'43" E.64,28 FEET, TO A POINT ON SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EXISTING FENCE LINE N. 9O'OO'OO" W. ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 443,63 FEET, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT|NG PARCEL 7 (AS DESCRTBED tN EXHtBtT A tN RULE AND ORDER, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5952, DISTRICT COURT lN AND
FOR THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD AND STATE OF COLORADO RECORDED DECEMBER 15, I967 IN BOOK 391 AT PAGE 14 AS
RECEPTTON NO.239725):
A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND NO, 1 REV. 2 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF COLORADO, PROJECT NO. S
0130(ro), tN LoTs 2 AND 11 OF SECTTON ?, TOWNSHTP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., lN GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO, SAID TRACT OR PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2, SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, FROM WHICH THE
SE CORNER OF SECTION ,I, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST BEARS S. 19"29'30'W., A DISTANCE OF {330.0. FEET;
1. THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2, SECTION 7, A DISTANCE OF 304.5 FEET;
2. THENCE S. 34"45'30' E., A DISTANCE OF 231.0 FEET;
3. THENCE S. 35'14' E., A DISTANCE OF 92,2 FEET TO A SOUTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY;
4. THENCE ALONG A SOUTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY, N. 89"12' E,, A DISTANCE OF 118.5 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2,
SECTION 7;
5, THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2, SECTION 7, SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 63.8 FEET TO THE SW. CORNER OF LOT I 1,
sEcTloN 7;
6. THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT I1, SECTION 7, N. 89'47' E., A DISTANCE OF 208.0 FEET;
7. THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,O5O,O FEET A DISTANCE OF 14.4 FEET (THE
CHORD OF THIS ARC BEARS N. 32"43'W., A DISTANCE OF'I4.4 FEET);
8. THENCE N, 34'03'W., A DISTANCE OF 31I.4 FEET;
9. THENCE N.42'28'30" W. A DISTANCE OF 487.6 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION OF THE LAND WITHIN STATE HIGHWAY NO.82 COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF COLORADO.
PARCEL C (WEST PARGEL):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION I AND THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP
7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7 AND THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 18,
TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EASEMENT, WHENCE A 2 1/2" BRASS CAP, FOUND IN PLACE AND CORRECTLY MARKED AS
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, BEARS S 4{"30'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 4758.08 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE N 19'38'52'W A DISTANCE OF {221.I9 FEET;
THENCE, N 89"43'30" W A DISTANCE OF 683.95 FEET;
THENCE, S O2"OO'23" W A DISTANCE OF 590,77 FEET;
THENCE, S 02"15'08'' W A DISTANCE OF 557.94 FEET;
THENCE, N 86"35'38" W A DISTANCE OF 84,72 FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, S 43"I0'35" E A DISTANCE OF 25{.44 FEET;
THENCE, S OO'24'I7'E A DISTANCE OF 1250.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ROARING FORK
CONSERVANCY EASEMENT;
THENCE, ALONG THE SAID EASEMENT LINE S 03"09'52'W A DISTANCE OF 74I.05 FEET;
THENCE, S 00o21'30" E A DISTANCE OF 553.42 FEET;
THENCE, S OO"O4'33'E A DISTANCE OF 323.33 FEET;
THENCE, S 24"10'18" E A DISTANCE OF 142.52 FEET;
THENCE, S 29'13'16'E A DISTANCE OF 615.00 FEET;
THENCE, S 19"31'50'E A DISTANCE OF 246.38 FEET;
THENCE, S 23'25'35'E A DISTANCE OF 153.19 FEET;
THENCE, S {7'46'37" E A DISTANCE OF 173.22FEET;
THENCE, S 30'48'54'' E A DISTANCE OF 163.28 FEET;
THENCE, S 51'46'41'' E A DISTANCE OF 662,76 FEET;
THENCE, S 44'39'33'' E A DISTANCE OF 175,65 FEET;
THENCE, S 13'37'07'' E A DISTANCE OF 255.65 FEET;
THENCE, S 34'06'17" E A DISTANCE OF 318.15 FEET;
THENCE, S 35'45'21'E A DISTANCE OF 225.15 FEET;
THENCE, S 55'41'54'E A DISTANCE OF 196.47 FEET;
THENCE, S 63'52'39'E A DISTANCE OF 388.20 FEET;
THENCE, S 57"54'58'E A DISTANCE OF 449.02 FEET;
THENCE, S 47"I5'I4'E A DISTANCE OF 122,26FEET;
THENCE, S 89"53'{6'E A DISTANCE OF 189.76 FEET;
THENCE, N 40'23'30" W A DISTANCE OF 69.38 FEET;
THENCE, S 87"28'29'W A DISTANCE OF 36.35 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'52'12'W A DISTANCE OF 10.80 FEET;
THENCE, N 58"27'19" W A DISTANCE OF 41,45 FEET;
THENCE, N 29"51'31" W A DISTANCE OF 8.28 FEET;
THENCE, N 24'16'24" W A DISTANCE OF 25,22 FEETI
THENCE, N 69"00'53'W A DISTANCE OF 9.87 FEET;
THENCE, S 87"31'44'W A DISTANCE OF 22.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"25'01'W A DISTANCE OF 17,28 FEET;
THENCE, N 50'09'49'W A DISTANCE OF 26.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 46'21'12" W A DISTANCE OF 9.99 FEET;
THENCE, N 44"28'05" W A DISTANCE OF 21.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 55"50'08" W A DISTANCE OF 49.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 56"25'40" W A DISTANCE OF 49.94 FEET;
THENCE, N 68"12'23" W A DISTANCE OF 36.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 46'54'04" W A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET;
THENCE, N 68"49'2{'W A DISTANCE OF 25.14 FEET;
THENCE, N 47'41'50" W A DISTANCE OF 78.78 FEET;
THENCE, N 30'26'40" W A DISTANCE OF 24.58 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'47'01" W A DISTANCE OF 30.08 FEET;
THENCE, N I8'I1'39" W A DISTANCE OF 34.6'I FEET;
THENCE, N 30"58'21" W A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET;
THENCE, N 2{"59'14" W A DISTANCE OF 27.50 FEET;
THENCE, N 30"16'07" W A DISTANCE OF 22,97 FEETi
THENCE, N 25'41'38' W A DISTANCE OF ,I69.44 FEET;
THENCE, N 41"17'39" E A DISTANCE OF 82,61 FEET;
THENCE, N 38'34'52" E A DISTANCE OF I5.89 FEET;
THENCE, N 34"26'44" W A DISTANCE OF 262.40 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"58'09" W A DISTANCE OF 102.47 FEET;
THENCE, N 53'43'31'W A DISTANCE OF I05.38 FEET;
THENCE, N 55'58'1{" W A DISTANCE OF 126.13 FEET;
THENCE, N 56"14'57" W A DISTANCE OF 118.42 FEET;
THENCE, N 49"{6'04" W A DISTANCE OF 136.33 FEET;
THENCE, N 44'30'51' W A DISTANCE OF 150,05 FEET;
THENCE, N 32"49'55'W A DISTANCE OF 102,14FEET:
THENCE, N 37"44'19" W A DISTANCE OF 552.12 FEET;
THENCE, N 18'IO'02'W A DISTANCE OF 47,26FEETi
THENGE, N 27'58'19" W A DISTANCE OF 109.20 FEET;
THENCE, N 35"01'36" W A DISTANCE OF 71.09 FEET;
THENCE, N 41'32'47" W A DISTANCE OF 152.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 40'22'24'W A DISTANCE OF 339.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 64"20'53" W A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET;
THENCE, N 45'00'36" W A DISTANCE OF 52.42 FEET;
THENCE, N 44'53'41'W A DISTANCE OF 154.66 FEET;
THENCE, N 32"35'48" W A DISTANCE OF 86.59 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"01'32" W A DISTANCE OF 44.89 FEET;
THENCE, N 30'33'12" W A DISTANCE OF 85,72 FEET;
THENCE, N 37"39'02" W A DISTANCE OF 79.09 FEET;
THENCE, N 37"32'30" W A DISTANCE OF 63.32 FEET;
THENCE, N 20"02'15" W A DISTANCE OF 33.98 FEET;
THENCE, N 39'52'25' W A DISTANCE OF 42.02 FEETI
THENCE, N 25"36'04'W A DISTANCE OF 107.17 FEET;
THENGE, N 30'34'08" W A DISTANCE AF 164.72FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, N 11"39'O'I"WA DISTANCE OF {07.90 FEET;
THENCE, N 24"56'06'E A DISTANCE OF I63.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 63'39'33" E A DISTANCE OF I77.81 FEET;
THENCE, N 83"I4'43" E A DISTANCE OF 393.54 FEET;
THENCE, N 07"I5'26" W A DISTANCE OF 2I,79 FEET;
THENCE, N 80"51'1I" E A DISTANCE OF 5O.OO FEET;
THENCE, N 89"15'06'' E A DISTANCE OF 65,56 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'50'04" E A DISTANCE OF 50,I2 FEET;
THENCE, S 84'51'15" E A DISTANCE OF 33,08 FEET;
THENCE, S 81"39'50" E A DISTANCE OF 89,61 FEET;
THENCE, N 56"07'00" E A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET;
THENCE, N 07'38'31" E A DISTANCE OF 27,93 FEET;
THENCE, N 37'41'57" W A DISTANCE OF 28.06 FEET;
THENCE, N 5O'OO'15" E A DISTANCE OF 22.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 82"02'30" E A DISTANCE OF 36.49 FEET;
THENCE, S 63'34'38'E A DISTANCE OF 54.05 FEET;
THENCE, S 45'59'58'E A DISTANCE OF 20.95 FEET;
THENCE, S 14'44'20" E A DISTANCE OF 29.18 FEET;
THENCE, S I1'11'17" W A DISTANCE OF 26.42FEET;
THENCE, S I4'58'4{" E A DISTANGE OF 30.I4 FEET;
THENCE, S 43"42'IO'E A DISTANCE OF 69.77 FEET;
THENCE, S 31"36'59" E A DISTANCE OF 56.76 FEET;
THENCE, S 49"38'46" E A DISTANCE OF 40,12 FEET;
THENCE, S 45"30'55" E A DISTANCE OF 40.88 FEET;
THENCE, S 60"16'38'E A DISTANCE OF 43,39 FEET;
THENCE, S 73"16'24'E A DISTANCE OF 67,60 FEET;
THENCE, S 53"05'15'E A DISTANCE OF I5.86 FEET;
THENCE, S 63'37'30" E A DISTANCE OF 52.31 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'28'21* E A DISTANCE OF 46.95 FEET;
THENCE, N 86"20'27" E A DISTANCE OF 61.04 FEET;
THENCE, N 31"59'09" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 06"58'38" E A DISTANCE OF 32,16 FEET;
THENCE, N 72"08'07" E A DISTANCE OF 7.98 FEET;
THENCE, S 24"51'03'E A DISTANCE OF 72.35 FEET;
THENCE, S 41"52'47" E A DISTANGE OF 50.7I FEET;
THENCE, S 54"44'2I" E A DISTANCE OF 38.31 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'39'39" E A DISTANCE OF 87,15 FEET;
THENCE, S 57"II'{2" E A DISTANCE OF 77.06 FEET;
THENCE, S 41"51'16" E A DISTANCE OF 88.65 FEET;
THENCE, S 57"39'13' E A DISTANCE OF 65.60 FEET;
THENCE, S 49"55'38'E A DISTANCE OF 74.96 FEET;
THENCE, S 6.I'04'52'E A DISTANCE OF 43.44 FEET;
THENCE, S 71'46'03'E A DISTANCE OF 55.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 09'35'09" W A DISTANCE OF 59.88 FEET;
THENCE, N 65"36'14" W A DISTANCE OF 60,45 FEET;
THENCE, N 49'54'10'' W A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET;
THENCE, N 49'54'10'W A DISTANCE OF 86.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 48'1 1'10" W A DISTANCE OF 54.30 FEET;
THENCE, N 56"47'27'W A DISTANCE OF I23,97 FEET;
THENCE, N 83"47'24" W A DISTANCE OF 93.00 FEET;
THENCE, N 29"35'31'W A DISTANCE OF'I19.58 FEET;
THENCE, N 78'OO'43" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET;
THENCE, S 79'41'48'W A DISTANCE OF 37.80 FEET;
THENCE, 522'57'52' WA DISTANCE OF 56.05 FEET;
THENCE, S 59"31'57'W A DISTANCE OF 45.48 FEET;
THENCE, N 82'32'35" W A DISTANCE OF 28.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 59"07'03" W A DISTANCE OF 95.71 FEET;
THENCE, N 71'20'44" W A DISTANCE OF 85.73 FEET;
THENCE, N 36'43'10" W A DISTANCE OF 93,22 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'39'22'W A DISTANCE OF 181 .92 FEET;
THENCE, N 65"10'24" W A DISTANCE OF 98.43 FEET;
THENCE, S 85"02'33" W A DISTANCE OF 52.20 FEET;
THENCE, S 56'33'52" W A DISTANCE OF 39.34 FEET;
THENCE, S 20"49'33" W A DISTANCE OF 42.96 FEET;
THENCE, S 37'27'43" E A DISTANCE OF 21.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 77"02'57'' W A DISTANCE OF 89,66 FEET;
THENCE, S 7O'24'I8" W A DISTANCE OF 70.95 FEET;
THENCE, N 88'59'39" W A DISTANCE OF 55.55 FEET;
THENCE, S 84'28'58'W A DISTANCE OF 49.93 FEET;
THENCE, N'14'22'48" E A DISTANCE OF 68.20 FEET;
THENCE, N 05"11'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.59 FEET;
THENCE, N 18"20'05" E A DISTANCE OF 10.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 22"53'40" E A DISTANCE OF 44,14 FEET;
THENCE, N 10'34'58" E A DISTANCE OF 35,1'I FEET;
THENCE, N O8'59'5,I" E A DISTANCE OF 47.{6 FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, N 03'48'08" E A DISTANCE OF 36.48 FEET;
THENCE, N 04"40'52" E A DISTANCE OF 71.03 FEET;
THENCE, N 07"37'5.I" E A DISTANCE OF 54.66 FEET;
THENCE, N 29"28'14'W A DISTANCE OF 63.68 FEET;
THENCE, N 32'OO'44" W A DISTANCE OF 61.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 26"17'29" W A DISTANCE OF 55.52 FEET;
THENCE, N 38'14'36'W A DISTANCE OF 44.36 FEET;
THENCE, N 53'11'32" W A DISTANCE OF 37.73 FEET;
THENCE, N 59'54'48'W A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET;
THENCE, N 87"51'35'W A DISTANCE OF 36.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'33'47"W A DISTANCE OF 65.70 FEET;
THENCE, N 8I'56'22" W A DISTANCE OF 85.02 FEET;
THENCE, N 04"1 1'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.65 FEET;
THENCE, N 35'50'41" W A DISTANCE OF 4'I .30 FEET;
THENCE, N 54"46'03" W A DISTANCE OF 24.70 FEET;
THENCE, N 28'5I'45'' W A DISTANCE OF 209.99 FEET;
THENCE, N 11"58'37" W A DISTANCE OF 33.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 4,I'03'46" E A DISTANCE OF 78.19 FEET;
THENCE, N 06'29'0I" W A DISTANGE OF'I17,20 FEET;
THENCE, N 20'05'27" W A DISTANCE OF 94.24 FEET;
THENCE, N I1'32'03" W A DISTANCE OF 63.83 FEET;
THENCE, N 07"57'46" W A DISTANCE OF 141.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 09"56''14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.76 FEET;
THENCE, N 19"17'44" W A DISTANCE OF 91.04 FEET;
THENCE, N 44"4I'59" W A DISTANCE OF I34.55 FEET;
THENCE, N 19"23'49'W A DISTANCE OF 74.18 FEET;
THENCE, N 19"33'06" W A DISTANCE OF 43.27 FEET;
THENCE, N 21o30'01" W A DISTANCE OF 72.23 FEETi
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID EASEMENT LINE N OO'16'30" E A DISTANCE OF 2'17'77 FEET;
THENCE, N 00"16'30'E A DISTANCE OF 312,94 FEET;
THENCE, S 89'43'30'E A DISTANCE OF 1005.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RlGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ROARING
FORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EASEMENT, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
PARCEL D (SOUTH PARCEL):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION I2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND IN THE WEST
HALF OF SECTION 7 AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, WHENCE A2112"
BRASS CAP, FOUND IN PLACE AND CORRECTLY MARKED AS THE SOUTHEAST GORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, BEARS S
78"49'20" E A DISTANCE OF 2150.14 FEET;
THENCE, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 09'35'09" E A DISTANCE OF 401.79 FEET;
THENCE, S 09'35'09'' E A DISTANCE OF 1545.87 FEET;
THENCE, 626.05 FEET ALONG THE ARG OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1482.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 24"11'44'AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 21"41'02" E A DISTANCE OF 62I.41 FEET;
THENCE, S 33'46'54" E A DISTANCE OF 387.28 FEET;
THENCE, 2g4.g2FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A GURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 28I5.OO FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 5"59'26'AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 30"47'11'' E A DISTANCE OF 294,19 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE N 89"53'16'W A DISTANCE OF 218.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 40"23'30'W A DISTANCE OF 69,38 FEET;
THENCE, S 87"28'29" W A DISTANCE OF 36,35 FEET;
THENCE, S 83"52'12'W A DISTANCE OF tO,8O FEET;
THENCE, N 58'27'19'W A DISTANCE OF 4{.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 29"51'31" W A DISTANCE OF 8.28 FEET;
THENCE, N 24'16'24" W A DISTANCE OF 25.22FEET;
THENGE, N 69"00'53" W A DISTANCE OF 9.87 FEET;
THENCE, S 87'31'44' W A DISTANCE OF 22.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"25'01*WA DISTANCE OF 17.28 FEET;
THENCE, N 50"09'49" W A DISTANCE OF 26.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 46'21'12" W A DISTANCE OF 9,99 FEET;
THENCE, N 44"28'05" W A DISTANCE OF 21.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 55'50'08'W A DISTANCE OF 49.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 56'25'40'W A DISTANCE OF 49.94 FEET;
THENCE, N 68'12'23" W A DISTANCE OF 36.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 46'54'04' W A DISTANCE OF 55.18 FEET;
THENCE, N 68"49'21'W A DISTANCE OF 25.14 FEET;
THENCE, N 47"41'50" W A DISTANCE OF 78.78 FEET;
THENCE, N 30'26'40'W A DISTANCE OF 24.58 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'47'O,I " W A DISTANCE OF 30,08 FEET;
THENCE, N 18'11'39'WA DISTANCE OF 34.61 FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, N 30'58'21" W A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET;
THENCE, N 21'59'I4" W A DISTANCE OF 27.50 FEET;
THENCE, N 3O'16'07" W A DISTANCE OF 22,97 FEET;
THENCE, N 25"4,I'38'W A DISTANCE OF I69.44 FEET;
THENCE, N 41'17'39" E A DISTANCE OF 82.61 FEET;
THENCE, N 38"34'52" E A DISTANCE OF 15.89 FEET;
THENCE, N 34"26'44'W A DISTANCE OF 262,40 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"58'09" W A DISTANCE OF 102,47 FEET;
THENCE, N 53'43'31' VI' A DISTANCE OF 105.38 FEET;
THENCE, N 55"58'11"WA DISTANCE OF 126.13 FEET;
THENCE, N 56'14'57"WA DISTANCE OF 118.42 FEET;
THENCE, N 49'1 6'04" W A DISTANCE OF 1 36.33 FEET;
THENCE, N 44'30'5I" W A DISTANCE OF 150.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 32'49'55'W A DISTANCE OF 102.14 FEET;
THENCE, N 37'44"19'W A DISTANCE OF 552,12FEET;
THENCE, N I8O1O'02" W A DISTANCE OF 47,26 FEET;
THENCE, N 27'58'1 9" W A DISTANCE OF IO9,2O FEET;
THENCE, N 35"0,I'36" W A DISTANCE OF 71.09 FEET;
THENCE, N 4I'32'47'W A DISTANCE OF 152.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 40'22'24" W A DISTANCE OF 339.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 64'20'53" W A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET;
THENCE, N 45'00'36" W A DISTANCE OF 52,42 FEET;
THENCE, N 44"53'41'W A DISTANCE OF 154.66 FEET;
THENCE, N 32"35'48" W A DISTANCE OF 86.59 FEET;
THENGE, N 57"01'32" W A DISTANGE OF 44.89 FEET;
THENGE, N 30"33'12" W A DISTANCE OF 85.72 FEET;
THENCE, N 37'39'02'' W A DISTANGE OF 79.09 FEET;
THENCE, N 37"32'30'' W A DISTANCE OF 63.32 FEET;
THENCE, N 20'02'15'' W A DISTANCE OF 33.98 FEET;
THENCE, N 39'52'25" W A DISTANCE OF 42,02 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'36'04'W A DISTANCE OF 'I07.'I7 FEET;
THENCE, N 30"34'08" W A DISTANCE OF 164.72 FEET;
THENCE, N 1 1"39'01" W A DISTANCE OF IO7.9O FEET;
THENCE, N 24'56'06" E A DISTANCE OF I63.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 63"39'33'' E A DISTANCE OF.I77.81 FEET;
THENCE, N 83",I4'43'' E A DISTANCE OF 393.54 FEET;
THENCE, N O7'15'26'' W A DISTANCE OF 2'I.79 FEET;
THENCE, N 80'51'I1" E A DISTANCE OF 5O.OO FEET;
THENCE, N 89'15'06" E A DISTANCE OF 65.56 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'50'04'E A DISTANCE OF 50.12 FEET;
THENCE, S 84"51'I5'E A DISTANCE OF 33.08 FEET;
THENCE, S 81'39'50" E A DISTANCE OF 89,6'I FEET;
THENCE, N 56'07'00" E A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET;
THENCE, N 07'38'31" E A DISTANCE OF 27.93 FEET;
THENCE, N 37"4'I'57'W A DISTANCE OF 28.06 FEET;
THENCE, N 5O"OO'15" E A DISTANCE OF 22.2X FEET;
THENCE, N 82'02'30'E A DISTANCE OF 36.49 FEET;
THENCE, S 63"34'38' E A DISTANCE OF 54.05 FEET;
THENCE, S 45'59'58'E A DISTANGE OF 20.95 FEET;
THENCE, S 14'44'20" E A DISTANCE OF 29.18 FEET;
THENCE, S 1I'11'I7' W A DISTANCE OF 26.42 FEET;
THENCE, S 14"58'41'E A DISTANCE OF 30.14 FEET;
THENCE, S 43"42'IO'E A DISTANCE OF 69,77 FEET;
THENCE, S 3I'36'59'E A DISTANCE OF 56,76 FEET;
THENCE, S 49"38'46' E A DISTANCE OF 40.12 FEET;
THENCE, S 45'30'55" E A DISTANCE OF 40.88 FEET;
THENCE, S 60'16'38'E A DISTANCE OF 43,39 FEET;
THENCE, S 73'16'24'E A DISTANCE OF 67.60 FEET;
THENCE, S 53"05'15" E A DISTANCE OF 15.86 FEET;
THENCE, S 63"37'30" E A DISTANCE OF 52.31 FEET;
THENCE, S 83"28'2I" E A DISTANCE OF 46.95 FEET;
THENCE, N 86"20'27" E A DISTANCE OF 61.04 FEET;
THENCE, N 31"59'09" E A DISTANCE OF 47,07 FEET;
THENCE, N 06'58'38'' E A DISTANCE OF 32.I6 FEET;
THENCE, N 72'08'07'' E A DISTANCE OF 7.98 FEET;
THENCE, S 24"5{'03' E A DISTANCE OF 72.35 FEET;
THENCE, S 41"52'47" E A DISTANCE OF 50.71 FEET;
THENCE, S 54"44'21" E A DISTANCE OF 38.31 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'39'39'E A DISTANCE OF 87.15 FEET;
THENCE, S 57"11'12'E A DISTANCE OF 77.06 FEET;
THENCE, S 4I"51'16" E A DISTANCE OF 88.65 FEET;
THENCE, S 57'39'13" E A DISTANCE OF 65.60 FEET;
THENCE, S 49'55'38' E A DISTANCE OF 74.96 FEET;
THENCE, S 61'04'52'E A DISTANCE OF 43.44 FEET;
THENCE, S 71'46'03' E A DISTANCE OF 55.45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING'
COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
EXHIBIT 1
STATE OF COLORADO
PARCEL E (NORTH PARCEL)
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND IN THE WEST
HALF OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD,
STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR'S 2 1/2'BRASS CAP, FOUND IN PLACE AND
CORRECTLY MARKED AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SEGTION 7 BEARS 549"22'15'E A DISTANCE OF 5479.54 FEET;
THENCE, S 89"43'30' E A DISTANCE OF 1005.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ROARING FORK TRANSIT
AUTHORITY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EASEMENT;
THENCE, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT S 19"38'52'E A DISTANCE OF 2644.53 FEET;
THENCE,494.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2815.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 10'03'42" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 14'37'OI'' E A DISTANCE OF 493.70 FEET;
THENCE, S 09'35'09'E A DISTANCE OF 120.78 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT N 65'36'14" W A DISTANCE OF 60.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 49"54'IO" W A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET;
THENCE, N 49"54'10" W A DISTANCE OF 86.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 48"I1'10" W A DISTANCE OF 54.30 FEET;
THENCE, N 56'47'27" W A DISTANCE OF 'I23.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 83'47'24" W A DISTANCE OF 93.00 FEET;
THENCE, N 29'35'3I"WA DISTANCE OF 119.58 FEET;
THENCE, N 78"00'43'W A DISTANCE OF 33,84 FEET;
THENCE, S 79"4{'48'W A DISTANCE OF 37.80 FEET;
THENCE, S 22'57'52" W A DISTANGE OF 56,05 FEET;
THENCE, S 59"3I'57" W A DISTANCE OF 45.48 FEET;
THENCE, N 82'32'35" W A DISTANCE OF 28.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 59"07'03'' W A DISTANCE OF 95.7{ FEET;
THENCE, N 7t'20'44" W A DISTANCE OF 85.73 FEET;
THENCE, N 36"43'10" W A DISTANCE OF 93.22 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'39'22' W A DISTANCE OF 181.92 FEET;
THENCE, N 65"10'24'W A DISTANCE OF 98.43 FEET;
THENCE, S 85"02'33'W A DISTANGE OF 52,20 FEET;
THENCE, S 56'33'52" W A DISTANCE OF 39.34 FEET;
THENCE, S 20"49'33'W A DISTANCE OF 42.96 FEET;
THENCE, S 37'27'43" E A DISTANCE OF 21.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 77'02'57'W A DISTANCE OF 89.66 FEET;
THENCE, S ?0'24'18'W A DISTANCE OF 70.95 FEET;
THENCE, N 88'59'39" W A DISTANCE OF 55.55 FEET;
THENCE, S 84'28'58" W A DISTANCE OF 49.93 FEET;
THENCE, N 14'22'48" E A DISTANCE OF 68.20 FEET;
THENCE, N O5'1,I'46'' W A DISTANCE OF 77.59 FEET;
THENCE, N 18'20'05'E A DISTANCE OF 10.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 22'53'40" E A DISTANCE OF 44,{4 FEET;
THENCE, N IOO34'58" E A DISTANCE OF 35.{I FEET;
THENCE, N 08'59'51'E A DISTANCE OF 47.I6 FEET;
THENCE, N 03"48'08" E A DISTANCE OF 36.48 FEET;
THENCE, N 04'40'52'E A DISTANCE OF 71.03 FEET;
THENCE, N 07"37'51" E A DISTANCE OF 54.66 FEET;
THENCE, N 29"28'14'W A DISTANCE OF 63.68 FEET;
THENCE, N 32"00'44'W A DISTANCE OF 61.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 26',17'29" W A DISTANCE OF 55.52 FEET;
THENCE, N 38"14'26" W A DISTANCE OF 44.36 FEET;
THENGE, N 53'11'32'' W A DISTANCE OF 37.73 FEET;
THENCE, N 59"54'48" W A DISTANCE OF 54.I6 FEET;
THENCE, N 87"51'35" W A DISTANCE OF 36.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"33'47" W A DISTANCE OF 65.70 FEET;
THENCE, N 8'I"56'22" W A DISTANCE OF 85.02 FEET;
THENCE, N 04"11'29" W A DISTANCE OF 158.65 FEET;
THENCE, N 35"50'41 " W A DISTANCE OF 41.30 FEET;
THENCE, N 54'46'03" W A DISTANCE OF 24,70 FEET;
THENCE, N 28"51'45'W A DISTANCE OF 209.99 FEET;
THENCE, N 1I"58'37" W A DISTANCE OF 33.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 4I"03'46" E A DISTANCE OF 78.19 FEET;
THENCE, N 06"29'01' W A DISTANCE OF '117,2O FEET;
THENCE, N 20'05'27" W A DISTANCE OF 94.24 FEET;
THENCE, N 11"32'03'W A DISTANCE OF 63.83 FEET;
THENCE, N 07"57'46'W A DISTANCE OF 141.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 09"56'14' E A DISTANCE OF 50.76 FEET;
THENCE, N 19'17'44'W A DISTANCE OF 91.04 FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, N 44"41'59'W A DISTANCE OF I34.55 FEET;
THENCE, N 19"23'49" W A DISTANCE OF 74.18 FEET;
THENCE, N 19"33'06" W A DISTANCE OF 43.27 FEET;
THENCE, N 2{"30'01" W A DISTANCE OF 72.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 00"16'30" E A DISTANCE OF 2'17,77 FEET;
THENCE, N OO'16'30" E A DISTANCE OF 312.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING'
PARGEL F:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE
SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, WHENCE A2112"
BRASS CAP, FOUND IN PLACE AND PROPERLY MARKED AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, BEARS S
78'01'43'E A DISTANCE OF 2054.18 FEET;
THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF N 09'35'10" W A DISTANCE OF 188.I4;
THENCE, 282.60 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A GURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2915.00 FEET A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
5'33'17" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF N 12'21'49" W A DISTANCE OF 282.49 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 9O'OO'OO'E A DISTANCE OF 49'74 FEET;
THENCE, S 06'0I'OO" E A DISTANCE OF 202.70 FEET;
THENCE, S 04'34'58'E A DISTANCE OF 260.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
EXHIBIT 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC has applied to Garfield County, State of
Colorado, requesting revocation of the existing River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Zoning and the concurrent reestablishment of the Residential/Suburban (R/S) Zone
District on properties situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado;to-wit:
Legal Descriptions: See Attached Exhibit A.
Practical Description: The Applicant's properties are located approximately 7 miles south of
the City of Glenwood Springs off of Colorado State Highway 82 and
known by Assessor Parcel Number's 239307300032 and239307300033.
These properties are located near 7215 State Highway 82, Glenwood
Springs, CO 8 I 601 , but have not been issued a County Address.
Project Description:The Application is submitted on behalf of Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC
("Owner") and respectfully requests the revocation of the existing River
Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning and the
concurrent reestablishment of the Residential/Suburban (R/S) Zone
District for the properties, which was the zone district applied to this land
prior to its PUD zoning. (File No. PUDA-07-25-9079)
All persons affected by the proposed application are invited to appear and state their views,
protests or support. Ifyou cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state
your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of
surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at
the office ofthe Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza
Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Alternatively, the application can be viewed at
eldCounty. Any questions may be directed to Garfield County Community Developmentat9T0-
94s-82t2.
A Public Hearing on the application has been scheduled in front of the Garfield County
Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 25,2026 at 6:00 P.M. in the Ascent Building
at the CMC Spring Valley Campus at 3000 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs'
Colorado,81601.
Community Development Department Garfi eld County
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit A
Escrow No. 6302'1533
PARCEL D (SOUTH PARCEL):
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION I2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND IN
THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 7 AND IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION'I8, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF
THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, WHENCE A2112"
BRASS GAP, FOUND IN PLACE AND CORRECTLY MARKED AS THE SOUTHEAST GORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, BEARS S
78'49',20" E A DISTANCE OF 2',150.14 FEET;
THENcE, ALoNG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 09"35'09" E A DISTANCE OF 40I.79 FEET; THENCE, S 09"35'09" E A
DISTANCE OF 1545.87 FEET;
THENCE, 626.05 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1482.50 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 24'11'44- AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 21"41'02'E A DISTANCE OF 621.4I FEET;
THENCE, S 33"46'54'E A DISTANCE OF 387.28 FEET;
THENCE, 294.32 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2815.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 5"59'26'AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 30'47'11" E A DISTANCE OF 294.19 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE N 89'53"16'' W A DISTANCE OF 218.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 40"23'30'W A DISTANCE OF 69.38 FEET;
THENCE, S 87"28'29" W A DISTANCE OF 36.35 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'52'12" W A DISTANCE OF 10,80 FEET;
THENCE, N 58'27'19'W A DISTANCE OF 4I.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 29"51'31" W A DISTANCE OF 8.28 FEET;
THENCE, N 24"16'24" W A DISTANCE OF 25.22FEET;
THENCE, N 69"00'53" W A DISTANCE OF 9.87 FEET;
THENCE, S 87'31'44" W A DISTANCE OF 22.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 57"25'0{" W A DISTANCE OF I7.28 FEET;
THENCE, N 50"09'49" W A DISTANCE OF 26.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 46"21'12'W A DISTANCE OF 9.99 FEET;
THENCE, N 44"28'05" W A DISTANCE OF 21.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 55"50'08" W A DISTANCE OF 49.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 56'25'40" W A DISTANCE OF 49.94 FEET;
THENCE, N 68'12'23'W A DISTANCE OF 36.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 46'54'04" W A DISTANCE OF 55,I8 FEET;
THENCE, N 68"49'2I" W A DISTANCE OF 25,14FEET;
THENCE, N 47'41'50" W A DISTANCE OF 78,78 FEET;
THENCE, N 30'26'40" W A DISTANCE OF 24.58 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'47'OI " W A DISTANCE OF 30,08 FEET;
THENCE, N I8"1{'39* W A DISTANCE OF 34.61 FEET;
THENCE, N 30'58'21" W A DISTANCE OF 29.32 FEET;
THENCE, N 21"59'I4" W A DISTANCE OF 27.50 FEET;
THENCE, N 30"16'07" W A DISTANCE OF 22.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 25'41'38" W A DISTANCE OF 169.44 FEET;
THENCE, N 41"17'39" E A DISTANCE OF 82.61 FEET;
THENCE, N 38"34'52" E A DISTANCE OF I5.89 FEET;
THENCE, N 34'26'44" W A DISTANCE OF 262.40 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'58'09" W A DISTANCE OF 102,47 FEET;
THENCE, N 53'43'3I" W A DISTANCE OF I05.38 FEET;
THENCE, N 55'58'I'I " W A DISTANCE OF 126,13 FEET;
THENCE, N 56'14'57" W A DISTANCE OF 118.42 FEET;
THENCE, N 49",I6'04" W A DISTANCE OF I36.33 FEET;
THENCE, N 44'30'51" W A DISTANCE OF 150.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 32'49'55" WA DISTANCE OF 102,'I4 FEET;
THENCE, N 37'44'19"WADISTANCE OF 552,12FEET;
THENCE, N 18'{O'02" W A DISTANCE OF 47.26 FEET;
THENCE, N 27"58'19" W A DISTANCE OF 109.20 FEET;
THENCE, N 35'01'36" W A DISTANCE OF 71.09 FEET;
THENCE, N 41'32'47'W A DISTANCE OF 152.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 40'22'24" W A DISTANCE OF 339.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 64'20'53" W A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET;
THENCE, N 45'00'36" W A DISTANCE OF 52.42 FEET;
THENCE, N 44'53'41" W A DISTANCE OF I54.66 FEET;
THENCE, N 32035'48" W A DISTANCE OF 86.59 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'OI'32" W A DISTANCE OF 44.89 FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, N 30"33'{2" W A DISTANCE OF 85.72 FEET;
THENCE, N 37'39'02" W A DISTANCE OF 79.09 FEET;
THENCE, N 37'32'30" W A DISTANGE OF 63.32 FEET;
THENCE, N 20"02'15" W A DISTANCE OF 33.98 FEET;
THENCE, N 39"52'25" W A DISTANCE OF 42,O2FEET;
THENCE, N 25"36'04" W A DISTANCE OF ,I07.17 FEET;
THENCE, N 30'34'08" W A DISTANCE OF 164.72FEETi
THENCE, N 11'39'Ol"WADISTANCE OF 107,90 FEET;
THENCE, N 24"56'06" E A DISTANCE OF I63.60 FEET;
THENCE, N 63"39'33" E A DISTANCE OF I77.81 FEET;
THENCE, N 83"'I4'43' E A DISTANCE OF 393.54 FEET;
THENCE, N 07",I5'26' W A DISTANCE OF 21 .79 FEET;
THENCE, N 80"51'tI' E A DISTANGE OF 5O.OO FEET;
THENCE, N 89"15'06' E A DISTANCE OF 65.56 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'50'04' E A DISTANCE OF 50.{2 FEET;
THENCE, S 84"5{'I5" E A DISTANCE OF 33.08 FEET;
THENCE, S 8I"39'50" E A DISTANCE OF 89.61 FEET;
THENCE, N 56"07'00" E A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET;
THENCE, N 07'38'31' E A DISTANCE OF 27.93 FEET;
THENCE, N 37"41'57" W A DISTANCE OF 28.06 FEET;
THENCE, N 5O'OO'15' E A DISTANCE OF 22.23FEET;
THENCE, N 82"02'30" E A DISTANCE OF 36.49 FEET;
THENGE, S 63"34'38" E A DISTANCE OF 54,05 FEET;
THENCE, S 45"59'58'E A DISTANCE OF 20.95 FEET;
THENCE, S 14"44'20'E A DISTANCE OF 29,18 FEET;
THENCE, S I1"tt'17'W A DISTANCE OF 26,42FEET;
THENCE, S {4'58'41'E A DISTANCE OF 30.14 FEET;
THENCE, S 43"42'10'E A DISTANCE OF 69.77 FEET;
THENCE, S 31"36'59'E A DISTANCE OF 56.76 FEET;
THENCE, S 49'38'46" E A DISTANCE OF 40.12 FEET;
THENCE, S 45'30'55' E A DISTANCE OF 40.88 FEET;
THENCE, S 60"16'38" E A DISTANCE OF 43.39 FEET;
THENCE, S 73'16'24" E A DISTANCE OF 67.60 FEET;
THENCE, S 53'05'15" E A DISTANCE OF 15,86 FEET;
THENCE, S 63"37'30" E A DISTANCE OF 52.31 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'28'21" E A DISTANCE OF 46,95 FEET;
THENCE, N 86"20'27" E A DISTANCE OF 61,04 FEET;
THENGE, N 31"59'09" E A DISTANCE OF 47.07 FEET;
THENCE, N 06'58'38" E A DISTANCE OF 32.16 FEET;
THENCE, N 72'08'07" E A DISTANCE OF 7.98 FEET;
THENCE, S 24"5I'03" E A DISTANCE OF 72.35 FEET;
THENCE, S 41"52'47" E A DISTANCE OF 50.7{ FEET;
THENCE, S 54o44'21" E A DISTANCE OF 38.31 FEET;
THENCE, S 83'39'39'E A DISTANCE OF 87.I5 FEET;
THENCE, S 57",I1'12" E A DISTANCE OF 77.06 FEET;
THENCE, S 41"51'16'E A DISTANCE OF 88.65 FEET;
THENCE, S 57"39'13" E A DISTANCE OF 65,60 FEET;
THENCE, S 49'55'38" E A DISTANCE OF 74.96 FEET;
THENCE, S 6{"04'52" E A DISTANCE OF 43.44 FEET;
THENCE, S 7'I'46'03'E A DISTANCE OF 55,45 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO,
PARCEL E (NORTH PARCEL)
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION I2, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST, AND IN THE
WEST HALF OF SECT]ON 7, TOVI'NSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF
GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE GARFIELD COUNTY SURVEYOR'S 2 I/2" BRASS CAP, FOUND IN PLACE AND
CORRECTLY MARKED AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS 549'22'15'E A DISTANCE OF 5479.54
FEET; THENGE, S 89"43,30,'E A DTSTANCE OF 1005.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ROARING
FORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EASEMENT;
THENCE, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT S 19'38'52" E A DISTANCE OF 2644.53 FEET;
THENCE,494,34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 28{5.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 10'03'42'AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING OF S 14"37'01" E A DISTANCE OF 493.70 FEET;
THENCE, S 09'35'09'E A DISTANCE OF I20.78 FEET;
THENCE, DEPARTING THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT N 65'36'14" W A DISTANCE OF 60.45 FEET;
EXHIBIT 1
THENCE, N 49"54'IO" W A DISTANCE OF 64.72 FEET;
THENCE, N 49"54'10" W A DISTANCE OF 86.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 48"1I'10" W A DISTANCE OF 54.30 FEET;
THENGE, N 56'47'27" W A DISTANCE OF 123.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 83"47'24" W A DISTANCE OF 93.00 FEET;
THENCE, N 29'35'31" W A DISTANCE OF 119.58 FEET;
THENCE, N 78'OO'43" W A DISTANCE OF 33.84 FEET;
THENCE, S 79"41'48" W A DISTANCE OF 37.80 FEET;
THENCE, S 22'57'52" W A DISTANCE OF 56.05 FEET;
THENCE, S 59'31'57'W A DISTANCE OF 45.48 FEET;
THENCE, N 82'32'35" W A DISTANCE OF 28.23 FEET;
THENCE, N 59'07'03" W A DISTANGE OF 95.7'I FEET;
THENCE, N 71'20'44" W A DISTANCE OF 85.73 FEET;
THENCE, N 36"43'10" W A DISTANCE OF 93.22 FEET;
THENCE, N 25"39'22" W A DISTANCE OF I8'I.92 FEET;
THENCE, N 65'10'24'W A DISTANCE OF 98.43 FEET;
THENCE, S 85"02'33'W A DISTANCE OF 52.20 FEET;
THENCE, S 56"33'52'W A DISTANCE OF 39.34 FEET;
THENCE, S 20"49'33" W A DISTANCE OF 42.96 FEET;
THENCE, 8 37'27'43" E A DISTANCE OF 21.60 FEET;
THENGE, N77'02'57" W A DISTANCE OF 89.66 FEET;
THENCE, S 7O'24"I8" W A DISTANCE OF 70.95 FEET;
THENCE, N 88'59'39" W A DISTANCE OF 55.55 FEET;
THENCE, S 84"28'58'W A DISTANCE OF 49.93 FEET;
THENCE, N 14"22'48" E A DISTANCE OF 68.20 FEET;
THENCE, N 05"1{'46" W A DISTANCE OF 77.59 FEET;
THENCE, N I8"20'05'E A DISTANCE OF 10.82 FEET;
THENGE, N 22"53'40" E A DISTANCE OF 44,14 FEET;
THENCE, N 10'34'58" E A DISTANCE OF 35.11 FEET;
THENCE, N O8'59'5I" E A DISTANCE OF 47.{6 FEET;
THENCE, N 03'48'08" E A DISTANCE OF 36.48 FEET;
THENCE, N 04"40'52" E A DISTANCE OF 71.03 FEET;
THENCE, N 07"37'5I'E A DISTANCE OF 54.66 FEET;
THENCE, N 29'28'14" W A DISTANCE OF 63.68 FEET;
THENCE, N 32"00'44" W A DISTANCE OF 61.05 FEET;
THENCE, N 26"17'29" W A DISTANCE OF 55.52 FEET;
THENCE, N 38"14'26" W A DISTANCE OF 44.36 FEET;
THENCE, N 53'1I'32" W A DISTANCE OF 37.73 FEET;
THENCE, N 59"54'48'W A DISTANCE OF 54.16 FEET;
THENCE, N 87"5I'35" W A DISTANCE OF 36.97 FEET;
THENCE, N 57'33'47" W A DISTANCE OF 65.70 FEET;
THENCE, N 81'56'22" W A DISTANCE OF 85.02 FEET;
THENCE, N O4'1I'29'WA DISTANCE OF I58.65 FEET;
THENCE, N 35'50'41" W A DISTANCE OF 41,30 FEET;
THENCE, N 54"46'03" W A DISTANCE OF 24.70 FEET;
THENCE, N 28'51'45" W A DISTANCE OF 209,99 FEET;
THENCE, N 11'58'37" W A DISTANCE OF 33.82 FEET;
THENCE, N 41'03'46'E A DISTANCE OF 78.19 FEET;
THENCE, N 06"29'01" W A DISTANCE OF'I {7.20 FEET;
THENCE, N 20"05'27" W A DISTANCE OF 94.24 FEET;
THENCE, N I1"32'03" W A DISTANCE OF 63.83 FEET;
THENCE, N 07'57'46"WA DISTANCE OF {41.45 FEET;
THENCE, N 09'56'14" E A DISTANCE OF 50.76 FEET;
THENCE, N I9'17'44'W A DISTANCE OF 91.04 FEET;
THENCE, N 44'41'59" W A DISTANCE OF 134.55 FEET;
THENCE, N I9"23'49" W A DISTANCE OF 74.18 FEET;
THENCE, N I9"33'06" W A DISTANCE OF 43,27 FEET ;
THENCE, N 21'30'OI" W A DISTANCE OF 72,23 FEET;
THENCE, N OO'16'30" E A DISTANCE OF 217,77 FEETi
THENCE, N OO'I6'30" E A DISTANCE OF 312.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO.
TICEPUBNOnc
I\
i
{
rAff /v0ncr
ah
6:00
I
tm
EX
l.Il
**i6iJ{rrirql i'* 4 Fr# sl
-_-:. tf-*,.1.3.r*:" -.. --,-. , r'{
t3Ll.Q$$vr
._i.i i .-.
.rr4)'ptltll
I
EXHIBITfl!ltj
,i
1
t-
^?
tt t
i-
r'!
'!
a.tt
F
m
IXtu
.t.
m
-Xu
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
EFFECTIVE JULY 15, 2013
Last Amended September 9, 2024
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2030 2020 UPDATE
GARFIELD COUNTY
Adopted: November 10, 2010
Last Amended: February 26, 2020
Full Version of the Comprehensive Plan is available here: https://www.garfield-county.com/community-
development/comprehensive-plan-2030/
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
1
Exhibit 5
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
River Edge PUD Revocation and Rezoning
Type of Review Revocation of the River Edge PUD and Rezoning to Residential Suburban and Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning.
Owners - Applicant Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC
Applicant – Representatives Timothy Coltart, Harvest Roaring Fork LLC. Yancy Nichol, Sopris Engineering
Parcel Numbers 239501400161, 239307200031, 239307200001, 239307300033, 239307300032
Practical description The project site includes a mile of frontage along the Roaring Fork River to the west and a mile along the Rio Grande Trail, and Highway 82 to the east. The Roaring Fork conservancy holds a 55-acre Conservation easement on the property along The Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek.
Project size Total – 283 Acres (based on Assessor Data)
Zoning PUD
Comprehensive Plan Residential High Density 7500 sq ft to 2 acres per Dwelling Unit
I. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The current owners, Harvest Roaring Fork LLC. Propose to develop the property as 9 neighborhoods with a mix of 1500 dwelling units spread throughout the neighborhoods. The mix of dwelling units include Single family homes of different types, cottages, multifamily and bungalows and a hotel. Commercial uses are also allowed. The proposal includes a 55-acre Conservation Easement held by The Roaring Fork Conservancy along the Roaring Fork River and along Cattle Creek. Access is from two points along Highway 82.
II. SITE OVERVIEW The proposed PUD consists of 5 parcels, Parcels 239307200031, 239501400161, 239307300032, 239307200001 and 239307300033. The current zoning on the parcels range
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
2
Exhibit 5 from the River Edge PUD, Commercial Limited (site of the Former Sopris Restaurant) and Residential Suburban. The site is accessed from Highway 82, and the Roaring Fork Transit Authority’s Rio Grande Trail runs through the property. The Roaring Fork Conservancy holds a 54-acre conservation easement along Cattle Creek in the center of the property and along the Roaring Fork River. The site has been heavily disturbed by previous projects.
III. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW Broadly speaking, the proposed PUD is area specific zoning associated with development agreements and phasing plans. The proposal, PUD Guide outline and Form Based Zoning concept offer a broad range of housing options and commercial uses with all uses listed in the Commercial Limited Zone District in the LUDC listed by right (P) and by Limited Impact Review (L) being allowed in the PUD. All residential uses listed in the LUDC under Household Living shall also be permitted by right in the PUD. Open space and trails are also being proposed. The PUD application includes reports on topics critical to such a development, including Water Supply and sewer service, Geologic Evaluation, traffic and Safety, Drainage and Floodplain, and other documentation. The details of the proposal are discussed in the review sections of this staff report. The Applicant has submitted a application to revoke the River Edge PUD and to rezone the PUD parcels, parcel # 239307300033 and parcel # 239307300032 to Residential Suburban as is consistent with past approvals, the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding properties. This application is being reviewed concurrently with the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD zoning application.
IV. RIVEREDGE PUD REVOCATON AND REZONINGIVEREDGE PUD REVOCAING Section 6-202 (B)(2)(c) outlines the steps by which the BOCC can revoke approval of a PUD including provisions for conducting a public hearing. As reflected in this section the BOCC must provide notice for the public hearing.
• The County has received from the current property owner concurrent applications for revocation of the past approvals for the Riveredge PUD and rezoning the property to Residential Suburban (zoning). With a formal application submitted, the Applicant has taken on the responsibility for providing public notice for the rezoning request (public hearing in front of the Planning Commission) and for future consideration by the BOCC (also at a noticed public hearing).
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
3
Exhibit 5
• The Application submittals provide extensive documentation of past approvals, agreements, time limits, expiration of time limits, requests for extensions, and denial of extension requests.
• Staff analysis including input from the County Attorney’s Office has supported the revocation as an appropriate step in dealing with the current PUD zoning on the property. As stated in the Applicant’s narrative and justification for the revocation, “…the 2011 PUD is now considered not only outdated but also inappropriate for implementation”.
• Rezoning is addressed in Section 4-113 including the Review Criteria in Section 4-113(C). The Criteria is outlined below with Staff Comments in Bold: 1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would not constitute spot Zoning.
Staff Comment: The area proposed for rezoning to Residential Suburban (RS) is adjacent to
other areas already zoned RS and further is designated on the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Mapping with densities consistent with the RS
Zoning. This supports a finding that the zoning will result in an orderly development
pattern and not constitute spot zoning. 2. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
Staff Analysis: The area proposed for rezoning is subject to a concurrent application for
revocation of existing PUD. The Application makes as case for that the PUD is outdated and
the PUD approvals have lapsed a reflection of changing conditions and market
considerations.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
4
Exhibit 5
3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing.
Staff Analysis: The RS zoning would allow for residential development at a reasonable
density. The rezoning would also address the need to retire older approvals that may no
longer be appropriate based on current community conditions including housing and
transportation needs. 4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
5
Exhibit 5
Staff Analysis: The proposed RS Zoning is less dense than the Residential High Density
designation as well as the Residential Medium-Density in the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map. The RS Designation will allow for an appropriate level of density more in
line with current other Comprehensive Plan elements such as transportation, traffic, and
compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff is supportive of the revocation and the rezoning. The Commission will need to make a motion to recommend to the BOCC revoking the River Edge PUD and to rezone the two parcels to Residential Suburban.
V. HISTORY OF APPROVALS The Sanders Ranch PUD was approved in 2001 by Resolution 2001-27 and was revoked in 2007 by Resolution 2007-115. The site as part of the revocation was rezoned to Residential Suburban and the conservation easement was preserved by Resolution 2008-112 in 2008. The River Edge PUD and Preliminary Plan was approved in 2011 by Resolution 2011-84 for 366 dwelling units. A vesting period of 10 years was established with a 5-year termination clause if no permits were issued by the county within the 5-year period. The developer requested an amendment to the approved preliminary plan and an extension for the vesting in 2016. The request was denied by the BOCC per Resolution 2016-32. Resolution 2016-65 granted and extension of the phasing plan by 5 years for each phase of the project with the first phase to be platted in 2021 and the last phase to be platted in 2028.
VI. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The following is a list of the general provisions applicable to this application.
• Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as amended
• Section 6-202 PUD Zoning
• Section 6-203(B)(1)(a) Process & Section 6-203(C) Review Criteria
• Table 6-201 Common Review Procedures and Required Notice
• Table 6-301 and Section 6-302 Application Submittal Requirements
• Applicable provisions of Article 7 Standards
• Section 4-113 Rezoning The review criteria from Section 6-202.C will be discussed below in the Staff Analysis Section.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
6
Exhibit 5
VII. PUD SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following are the general submittal requirements for PUD Applications. Section 4-203.B General Application Materials – Section 4-203.C Vicinity Map – Section 4-203.D Site Plan - Section 4-203.G Impact Analysis – Including Wildlife Report - Section 4-203.H Rezoning Justification Report - Section 4-203.J Development Agreement – Section 4-203.L Traffic Study – Section 4-203.O Floodplain Analysis – Section 6-302.A PUD Plan - Section 4-203.K Improvements Agreement – Section 4-203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan - Section 4-203.N Wastewater Management –
VIII. COMMENTS
REFERRAL AGENCIES Due to the complexity of this application, extensive referral comments were requested and received. Several referral agencies, such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife, provided multiple letters that are included in the packet. Due to the complexity, importance, and length of the received comments, staff will not summarize them here but recommend they be reviewed individually. Referral Agencies included: City of Glenwood Springs, Town of Carbondale, CDOT, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado River Engineering, Corps of Engineers, CPW, Garfield County Public Health, RFTA, Roaring Fork School District, Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District, SGM, Carbondale Fire, Roaring Fork Conservancy and Garfield County Vegetation Management. The applicant submitted responses to the referral comments that are included in the application.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
7
Exhibit 5
PUBLIC COMMENTS A significant number of public comments have been received and are included in the packet for the Planning Commission’s consideration.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS
CODE ANALYSIS The following is staff’s analysis of the application’s submittals and its compliance with the Land Use and Development Code’s standards. It includes a discussion of compliance with the comprehensive plan. Section 4-203.C Vicinity Map – A vicinity map was provided Section 4-203.D Site Plan, PUD Plan Map –
• The detailed to scale PUD Plan Map, required as part of Article 6, needs to be updated to include information provided on the survey mapping including floodplain/floodway and heron rookery zone and nesting areas. Section 4-203.G Impact Analysis
• The Impact Analysis section of the submittals addresses provisions of Section 4-203 Including a summary of adjacent uses.
• Setbacks/transitions between the PUD Development and existing residential uses north of the PUD, in particular the existing mobile home park are not adequately addressed. The form based zoning as prepared does not appear to address this issue.
• The Heron Rookery protection zone is shown on the Applicant’s mapping as extending outside the Conservation Easement. The PUD Plan needs to be revised to reflect this restriction and perhaps additional inclusion in open space areas.
• Wetlands and Riparian areas along Cattle Creek are contained within the Conservation Easement. Army Corp of Engineers permitting shall be required for the Cattle Creek crossings proposed as part of the PUD.
• Natural topography for much of the development area of the site is moderate, however the existence of major areas of disturbance and stockpiles of soils complicate the topography. Topography at the south end of the site becomes complex with several areas in and adjacent to the “Sopris Neighborhood/Zone” reflecting steeper slopes, terraces, and grading disturbances that will complicate and comprise the development potential.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
8
Exhibit 5
• The soils assessment of the site reflected typical soils for this section of the Roaring Fork Valley and acknowledged the impacts of past site grading and disturbance. The need for site specific geotechnical evaluations at the time of building permit or construction of infrastructure is reflective of the potential for significant soils constraints and concerns.
• Geological considerations including sink hole potential is addressed in the Geotech Section of the Staff Report.
• The Impact Report represents that nuisance issues, including during construction, are thought to be insignificant. Staff’s assessment of the potential impacts significantly differs, and past history of site disturbance and grading supports the need for additional mitigation of impacts associated with dust control, soil stabilization, and revegetation. The long duration of build-out of the project further supports the need for specific plans and developer commitments for mitigation. Staff Conclusion: The proposed PUD does not adequately address the impacts of the development, in particular:
o Air quality concerns related to dust suppression, soil stabilization and revegetation.
o The PUD and Form Based Zoning does not appear to address mitigation for adjacent land uses north of the site.
o Further limitation on development in areas subject to the Heron Rookery Overlay such as increased setbacks, open space restrictions and buffering.
o Mitigation of traffic impacts on Hwy 82 and neighboring intersection at County Road 114 and State Hwy 133 (Town of Carbondale). Section 4-203.H Rezoning Justification Report –
• The LUDC requirements for this report are shown in the attached excerpt:
-
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
9
Exhibit 5
• For a project the size of Harvest Roaring Fork with up to 1,500 dwelling units, a more detailed phasing plan is needed to confirm that development will be logical and orderly. More detail is needed on the Form Based Zoning concept.
• Commitments to include critical infrastructure improvements in the initial development phase is one essential step to addressing this criteria. Current submittals for the SIA/Development agreement need to clearly commit to security for this initial phase.
• For the residential uses, spot zoning is not considered a concern, however, the inclusion of a significant commercial component along with the proposed hotel use raises concern. Those elements of the proposal appear to create a small island of property with restriction on its use different from those imposed on the surrounding property.
• The long-standing delays in development of the property and past attempts at development would support that conditions have not changed to the extent that the current PUD development is in the public interest in at least in the form of the recent and current proposed density.
• The Application’s documentation of the need for affordable housing in the Roaring Fork Valley is a clear demonstration of community need.
• The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map provides designations of High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential for the Harvest Roaring Fork site. The High Density designation includes a density range of 7500 sq. ft. to 2 acres per dwelling unit and the Medium Density have a density range of 6-10 acres per dwelling unit. Even when allowing credit for the 55-acre conservation easement, the range of density/units for the 283 acre site would be approximately 1341 units to 146 units. The current PUD proposal significantly exceeds this density range. Staff Conclusion: While addressing a recognized community need for housing, the PUD Application does not adequately meet the Rezoning Criteria in Section 4-113, in particular items 1, 2, and 4.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
10
Exhibit 5
Section 4-203.J Development Agreement –
• A Development Agreement is a required submittal pursuant to Table 6-301 and further described in Section 4-203(J). The code requires the agreement to include a phasing schedule and vested rights language.
• As submitted, the Development Agreement and Subdivision Agreement does not adequately address phasing or include language for extended vested rights.
• Other than the Initial Infrastructure Phase and the Farm Phase – Phase One, the plan provides only minimal information and ranges for timing between 5 years and 11 years for developing a particular phase.
• The draft agreement further represents that all internal roads will be dedicated to and owned by the County. This is in clear conflict with County Policies that the County is not accepting any new County Roads. The County’s experience with large PUD’s and the impacts associated with roadway maintenance are in conflict with this proposal. (Staff notes this agreement differs from other sections on funding improvements)
Future Land Use Map
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
11
Exhibit 5
• Staff have concerns with the consistency and/or lack of specificity regarding provision of security including releases, timing for infrastructure construction, security for revegetation (which is only limited to one year after the last phases completion date) along with provisions for alternative security (collateral).
• Based on the scale of the proposed development and the history on the site with past developers leaving the site disturbed, un-reclaimed, and not revegetated, alternative collateral for security should not be an option.
• Security for reclamation needs to be provided along with plans for mitigating existing earth stockpiles as part of the phasing plan. Staff Conclusion: As submitted the Development Agreement and Subdivision Improvements Agreement is not in conformance with County Requirements and not adequate pursuant to the LUDC. Section 4-203.L Traffic Study –
See Section 7-107 Access and Roadways Section 4-203.O Floodplain Analysis –
• County consulting Engineer on Floodplain issues, Colorado River Engineering (CRE) provided an assessment of issues and impacts on the floodplain including two crossings of Cattle Creek and utility crossings/extensions across both Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. All of the above improvements will be subject to Floodplain Development Permitting by the County. Said permitting requires detailed engineering and demonstration of no alteration to the watercourses and zero rise determinations for the Base Flood Elevation. The assessment included that CRE anticipates permitting will be straight forward with no potential floodplain issues that would prevent the proposed activities.
• The potential location for the Roaring Fork River crossing warrants additional study to ensure the location has the least impact on the river habitat, hydrology, habitat and conservation easement. Construction activities adjacent to the crossing including access, staging and material storage are all important considerations.
• County Floodplain permitting typically includes referral to a variety of key agencies including CPW and the Army Corp. of Engineers. Referral comments and County Review are anticipated to address timing issues for disturbance in and along both Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River to avoid impacts on fish populations along with guidelines and Best Management Practices to avoid other environmental impacts to water quality and to assure proper restoration and revegetation.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
12
Exhibit 5
• As much of the above work will be located within the Roaring Fork Conservancy Conservation Easement additional confirmation of compliance with the terms of said conservation easement will be required.
• Impacts on rafting/fishing and public safety considerations on the Roaring Fork River due to construction of the utility crossing are important issues that warrant potential inclusion of provisions in the Development – Subdivision Improvements Agreement and any future Floodplain Development review.
• The PUD Plan and Floodplain mapping reflect several small areas where the floodplain encroaches on the development area neighborhoods of the PUD. Removal of these floodplain areas from those areas is needed. Staff Conclusion: Floodplain details can be more fully addressed as part of the floodplain permitting, however critical PUD elements including the river crossings and construction closures warrant additional analysis and documentation at the time of PUD review. Staff understands that much of this work has already been undertaken by the Applicant’s engineers. Section 6-302.A PUD Plan – See PUD Guide Below Section 4-203.K Improvements Agreement – See Section 4-203.J Development Agreement above Section 4-203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan – See Article 7 Section 7-104 and 7-105 below Section 4-203.N Wastewater Management – Provided by RFWSD.
Visual Impact Modelling
• Initial submittals by the applicant were limited to a photographic assessment how much of the project would be visible from Hwy. 82 and CR 109. While this information was valuable it did not fully address the possible visual impacts.
• The Applicant provided additional photographic documentation from a much greater number of vantage points, however no modelling of the visual impacts of the proposed residential, commercial and hotel development was provided even though the PUD Plan submittals do include concept designs.
• The photos provided below demonstrate that the project will be highly visible from a variety of viewpoints including adjacent roadways, developments and properties.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
13
Exhibit 5
• Visual modelling of the proposed Hotel site was a significant omission in the submittals.
VIEW FROM IRONBRIDGE LOOKING EAST
VIEW FROM WEST END OF VAN RAND COMMERCIAL CTR. LOOKING WEST
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
14
Exhibit 5
VIEW LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE SOPRIS NEIGHBORHOOD
VIEW OVERLOOKING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ROARING FORK RIVER
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
15
Exhibit 5
ARTICLE 6 PUD GUIDE The applicant has proposed the PUD development standards to be Form Based Zoning. Form based zoning is defined by the Form Based Codes Institute as below: “A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a
high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the
organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted
into city, town, or county law. A form-based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional
zoning regulation.” Key portions of the above definition are “fosters predictable build results” and “A form-based
code is a regulation, not a mere guideline”
Article I Defining The Neighborhoods
Article I, A 7. Minor Changes The applicant is proposing that “minor “changes to the PUD standards shall not constitute a Zoning change (PUD Amendment) nor a Variance. The minor changes are proposed to be reviewed by the Planning Director and must be approved, approved with conditions or denied within 30 days of submittal. Denial of a minor change may be appealed to the BOCC. 10. Minor changes May include: a. Altering the illustrated alignment of the primary streets; b. Increases of up to 5,000 square feet or 10% of the limits of commercial space within any neighborhood, whichever is smaller; c. Allowing up to 20% more single family driveways on Primary Streets; d. Permitting alternative street drainage to curb-and-gutter storm water collection such as bar ditches; e. Allowing streets to be divided along the centerline to employ two different street types; f. Allowing tree spacing within required streetscapes to be increased; g. Allowing an increase of one story to one building, excluding the North Riverfront and South Riverfront neighborhoods; h. Permitting a decrease in front or rear building setbacks provided the buildings comply with
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
16
Exhibit 5 local building codes; i. Altering the alignment of the Community Trail network; j. Granting limited or temporary exceptions to the Dark Sky standards; k. Permitting uses not listed and/or defined in the Permitted Use Table in the LUDC; l. Allow increase of 20% or less of the maximum area for irrigation; m. Other issues of comparably minor impact. The LUDC allows for minor modifications (non-substantial) and for Major Modifications(substantial) with the determination being made by the Dorector as to what category the proposed change is. Many of the items in the above list would not be considered minor changes and proposed changes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Staff is not supportive of the proposed list of minor changes as each proposed change needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The amendment section in the PUD Guide needs to conform to LUDC section 6-203. The PUD guide indicates that if there is a discrepancy between the LUDC and the PUD guide then the PUD shall govern. Staff are not in support of this standard.
Section I Harvest Neighborhoods Overview The application’s PUD Guide breaks the area down into 9 neighborhoods with broad descriptions of the anticipated uses. The 9 neighborhood areas are described in the PUD Guide as well as the uses allowed in each. They are mapped on the PUD Map, a copy of which is provided below.
•
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
17
Exhibit 5
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
18
Exhibit 5
The application states that due to the size of the project and the development of the project taking place over a period of years, that not all of the required application materials are available or known at the time of submittal. The application proposes to at the time of subdivision the following materials: a) Phasing Plan for each neighborhood b) The location and final areas of open space for each of the neighborhoods. c) Right of way final alignment and design for each stage, the application also states that these alignments may be proposed to be changed through the proposed minor modification process. d) Location of Easements e) Lot Acreage and Buildings. Proposed lot net and gross sizes as well as lot layout will be provided with each neighborhood/phase application. PHASING PLANS The applicant provided a phasing plan at the request of planning staff as is required by code. The provided phasing plan indicates specific timelines for the development of each neighborhood with overall construction possibly ending in 2042. The phasing plan states that the timing for each phase is a “good faith estimate” that will be based upon market conditions and the applicant may extend the timeframe by notifying the County of the new estimated timeframe. The phasing plan is not in conformance with the submittal requirements of LUDC Section 6-302, A, 1, e.
The Neighborhoods The application refers to the development as a mixed-use development with enough commercial opportunities to support the residents of the development and to reduce traffic leaving the development. Below is Table II. A1 indicating the allowed uses in each of the neighborhoods. It should be noted that the Transition Area indicated in the Table is difficult to determine where this area exists within the PUD. The application indicates that all uses in the “Local Commercial” LUDC zone district allowed by right or by administrative review shall be permitted by right. Staff believes that the applicant intended that the “Local Commercial” district is to be the Commercial Limited district as there is not a “Local Commercial” district in the LUDC. This would allow a wide range of uses
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
19
Exhibit 5 including but not limited to short-term rentals, kennels, car repair shops, contractor yards and recycling centers. The application also indicates that all of the residential uses listed under Household Living in the LUDC shall be allowed by right. By right uses would also include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) as well as Secondary Dwelling Units (SDU) and Manufactured Home Parks. The lot Standards, Section D #12 page 34 states that any Single Family (SF) lot type may include one ADU by right. While the application provides for 1500 dwelling units, the types and nature of the allowed types from the LUDC adds to the amount of uncertainty as to the development of the PUD.
Temporary Employee Housing is also proposed to house contractors during construction of the project pursuant to Sections 7-704, 7-705 and 7-706 of the LUDC. Garfield County Public Health indicated that the applicant should explore other options for contractor housing. The use of Temporary Employee Housing for a project such as Harvest does not meet the intent of the LUDC definition or Sections 7-704, 7-705 and 7-706. Below is an analysis of the North Riverfront and South Riverfront neighborhoods and how they interact with the Roaring Fork Conservancy Conservation easement.
North and South Riverfront Neighborhoods The North Riverfront neighborhood is located to the north of the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River confluence and borders the northern portion of the Conservation Easement along the
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
20
Exhibit 5 Roaring Fork River. Specific restrictions have been placed on development in this area and the Roaring Fork Conservancy has provided detailed Referral responses to the application, some of which the applicant has addressed and some that have not been addressed. Specific easement restrictions
• No development of any kind is allowed within the easement.
• No public access is allowed to the easement.
• Construction activities adjacent to the rookery zone shall occur between February 15th and July 15th of any year.
• No dogs shall be allowed on any lots adjacent to the rookery zone and cats located on these lots must be kept indoors at all times.
• Dogs throughout the development are limited to one Dog per unit with a kennel and or electric fence restriction and must be leashed at all times.
• Lots adjacent to the rookery zone shall be limited to 25 feet in height and second story decks and ADU’s are not allowed in this area.
• Lots within 200 meters of the rookery must be bermed and screened by vegetation.
• Screening vegetation shall be planted to screen the easement and roaring fork river from the development.
As noted by the RFC, many of the required restrictions are not found in the PUD Guide(above). As the PUD Guide is the regulation for development of property more detail needs to be provided.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
21
Exhibit 5
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
22
Exhibit 5
SECTION 4-203.G WILDLIFE IMPACT REPORT Colorado Wildlife Science Inc. provided a Wildlife Impact Report dated November 20, 2024. Section 8.0 Measures to Reduce Wildlife and Ecological Impacts. Colorado Wildlife Science Inc. in this section that the following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts on the conservation easement and wildlife within those areas. A. Designated Open Space
• A 50-foot buffer area extending from the top of slope above the RFR and the Conservation Easement with landscaping streets and trails. (see section D. Trails)
• A 50-foot landscape buffer with native vegetation on the west side of the Rio Grande Trail and a 20-foot buffer on the east side of the trail. B. Lighting
• Lighting standards shall be strictly enforced within 100 feet of the Conservation Easement, wildlife corridors and designated wildlife areas. C. Fencing
• Fencing shall comply with CPW fencing standards. D. Trails
• No trails will be constructed within 50 feet of slopes of the Roaring Fork River Portion of the conservation easement or within the Cattle Creek riparian section.
• Trails within or adjacent to the slopes on the west side of the property will be closed December 1 through March 30. E. RFC Conservation Easement and Great Blue Herons
• A 30-foot minimum width vegetational buffer will be created paralleling the top of the slope along the eastern conservation easement boundary above the Roaring Fork River as well as along the boundaries of the “Heron Rookery Zone” where it extends beyond the top of the slope to reduce edge effects, visually screen areas of human activity from the conserved area, and create additional wildlife habitat.
• The eastern side of the conservation easement where it narrowly follows Cattle Creek will be buffered with a habitat area/park with a mix of upland and riparian vegetation to improve the habitat effectiveness along the creek.
• This buffer will encompass the entire riparian area of Cattle Creek plus an additional area of the uplands and will total approximately 12± acres.
• Plant materials used for these purposes should be a minimum of 10 feet in height and include a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs to ensure that the screening
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
23
Exhibit 5 effect is immediate and effective year-round.
• In addition to the top of slope vegetation buffer, a berm and visual vegetation screen will be created at the boundary of the “Heron Protection Area” in accordance with the conservation easement. Plans and materials for the screen and berm must be reviewed and reasonably approved by RFC prior to installation.
• Roads, bridges, and/or trails are prohibited within this portion of the “Rookery Zone.” No access by the public will be allowed within this area unless specifically allowed by the conservation easement.
• Additional vegetational screening will be installed between any trails adjacent to the conservation easement area. Such trail screening must be reviewed and approved by Garfield County prior to installation in accordance with the conservation easement.
• Construction and/or installation of utilities allowed within the Roaring Fork riparian area and/or the “Rookery Zone” by the conservation easement (e.g., water intake structure) will be prohibited during the great blue heron nesting period. The report provides detailed planting instructions for restoration of the Cattle Creek easement and buffer area.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Comments Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) provided detailed comments on the project. Below is a brief summary of the comments provided.
• Game guards should be installed at any entrance to the project.
• Game fencing should be extended from the northern terminus of the Hwy 82 fencing west to the Rio Grande Trail in the North Frontage Neighborhood.
• Methods to reduce human bear conflicts should be implemented.
• No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1⁄4mile (1320 feet, 400 meters) radius of active Osprey nests. No permitted, authorized, or human encroachment activities within 1⁄4 mile (1320 feet, 400 meters) radius of active Osprey nests from March 15 through August 15.
• The Conservation Easement held by RFC is specific that buffers with adequate vegetational screening be established before neighborhood construction can begin. The Wildlife Impact Report provided by Colorado Wildlife Science LLC addresses this issue and those recommendations should be followed.
• 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 restore ecological function and maintain habitat integrity.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
24
Exhibit 5
• 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.
ARTICLE 8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN Applications proposing 15 or more lots, units or any combination of the two shall comply with Article 8. Article 8 requires that the applicant provide mitigation units in an amount equal to 10% of the proposed lots or units proposed. The Mitigation Plan shall be provided to comply with Section 8-201 A. The applicant provided a mitigation plan that complies with the 10% requirement or 150 units. The applicant has also proposed to provide another 20% or 300 of the remining units as Resident Occupied (RO) Units. More detail is needed on the deed restriction on these types of units. The mitigation units are proposed to be spread throughout the development and may include a mix of for sale and rental units, but unit types and categories are not indicated. The exact unit mix was not indicated in the plan although the applicant has indicated that they will conform to the unit type (bedroom size) and unit size.
The applicant is also proposing an alternative to 8-301 D, Timing or Certificates of Occupancy. This section requires that for projects developed in phases, no certificate of occupancy for any units in any phase of Development shall be issued until the certificates of occupancy for the Mitigation Units in that phase have been issued. In addition, the Mitigation Plan must include Provisions in the adopted Housing Availability Mitigation Plan (8-201 A) that require that the Building Permit for the 10th free-market house may only be issued after a Building Permit for 1 Mitigation Unit has been issued. The applicant has proposed that “No building permits shall be issued for any residential units in any future phase of Harvest until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the required number of Mitigation Units in the previous phase.”
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
25
Exhibit 5 While the applicant has indicated that they will meet the 10% provision of Article 8 with 150 units, the unit mix, location categories of the units are not clear. Staff is not supportive of the alternative proposed to 8-301 D, Timing of Certificates of Occupancy as it is unclear if and when the mitigation units in a single phase will be built. The Executive Housing Summary included in the responses to referral comments introduced a new term “Market Rate Workforce Units” that had previously not been included in the Affordable Housing Plan. The description of these fully free market units implies a smaller size for these units to make them more affordable for the valley’s workforce. Further clarification on this unit type is needed. RO (Market Rate Workforce Units), while they may appear to add to the affordable housing stock in a development, they can become burdensome on the entity enforcing the ownership restriction. In addition, it is not clear as to the price points these units will fall under. City of Glenwood Springs referral comments on housing recommended that Workforce Housing units have a reduced employment range to roughly 30 miles to help ensure the residents commutes are shorter. This could help to achieve the anticipated benefits of reduced traffic and commuting distances. Town of Carbondale referral comments on housing indicated concerns with delays in each phase in constructing required units and recommended front loading the timing for the units. This would be refinement to the provisions of Article 8 which require one unit after the construction of 10 free market units. Staff Summary – As submitted the Affordable Housing plan does not fully comply with Article 8.
ARTICLE 7 STANDARDS
Section 7-101 Zone District Use Regulations – The proposed PUD guide and map will serve as the zone districts on the subject parcels.
Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and IGA’s – Conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is one of the most significant Review Criteria for PUD Applications. The Applicant’s submittals in the Narrative Section provide detailed responses to a number of Comprehensive Plan provisions, policies and strategies. For a development project of the size and scale of Harvest Roaring Fork there are a wide range of Comprehensive Plan provisions that may conflict with and/or support the development proposal. The staff analysis below does not attempt to restate the Applicant’s positions but rather provide some of the most significant and relevant key provisions of the plan for the Commission’s consideration regarding conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
26
Exhibit 5 Staff has attempted to focus the following analysis and excerpts on the key issues associated with the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD proposal including density of growth in unincorporated areas. (excerpts from the Plan are shown in Bold Italics)
Chapter 2 - Future Land Use Sub-Section 1, Growth in 3 Mile Areas of Influence, Policies 1
and 2: Encouraging coordination of planning with adjacent municipalities and mitigation for impacts on those communities is a key component of this section. Strategies in these sections outline a number of different concerns including economic impacts, environmental impacts and traffic impacts further indicating “Projects should not have unreasonable traffic impacts on local roads….”
Excerpts from Pg.10, Section 1 (Urban Growth Areas):
The Plan recognizes existing municipal plans and strongly supports and encourages infill
and redevelopment of existing communities. These growth areas are preferred locations
in Garfield County for growth that requires urban level services.
Chapter 2, Sub-Section 2, Growth in Unincorporated Communities:
This Section notes the existence of several such communities and provides policies and strategies
for expansion of said communities or new communities. The plan indicates that “New
unincorporated communities in Garfield County are “discouraged” and provides strategies for new
communities (outlined below). While the proposal reflects consistency with some strategies,
several key strategies are not met by the current proposal.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
27
Exhibit 5
Chapter 2, Sub-Sections 3 and 4 Growth in Designated Centers and Growth of New Major
Residential Subdivisions: This section notes the potential for new or expanded centers that may be considered as Comprehensive Plan Amendments. New Major Subdivisions are noted to provide their own internal services and maintenance and to be more self-sufficient. The section provides Strategies for said subdivisions. While the development addresses a number of strategies, Section 4, Policy 1, Strategies include provision of Safe, Reliable Access and transit opportunities and “If outside of an UGA (Urban Growth Area), should be served by transit and maintain the community character of surrounding areas”.
Chapter 2, Sub-Section 5 Change in Residential Development Densities – Table 2 Future
Land Use Table: A number of clarifications to the density recommendations for future land use designations are provided in this section including the following statement: “For densities that encompass a range, the Maximum density can be achieved through a combined process of land conservation and clustering …. in coordination with the conservation framework lands and/or other significant public benefits.” The Harvest Roaring Fork property has a Residential High (RH) Designation and the Residential Medium Designation on the Future Land Use Mapping. These designations are further described in the plan as having a density range of 7,500 sq.ft. per dwelling unit to 2 acres per dwelling unit and 6-10 acres per dwelling unit with density to be based on the degree of public benefit (see attached excerpt below)
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
28
Exhibit 5
The Application proposes a potential density that is at the very high end of the Residential High (RH) Range and appears to rely on affordable housing and mix of housing types as the key public benefits. Residential High Density 1341 units for 282 acres Residential Medium 146 Units for 55 acres Total units 1487 units. The applicants proposal of 1500 units exceed the maximum in the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the other potential public benefits to support the higher density, the proposed PUD provides limited information on issues such as fiscal impacts, preservation of views, schools or other public needs. It generally refers to future review processes and the Form Based Zoning. While the Applicant’s Comprehensive Plan Analysis indicates (pg. 4) that the “Applicant is open to discussing incentives to ensure the project is successful” the PUD plan does not provide specific details other than consideration of a possible real estate transfer assessment. Staff’s position is that a much stronger commitment to public benefits is anticipated by this Comprehensive Plan Density designation in order to justify the high end of the Residential High (RH) density. Staff supports a finding by the Planning Commission that the proposal does not comply with the Future Land Use density designation.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
29
Exhibit 5
Chapter 3, Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination
Policy 6: The County will continue to look for creative ways to address regional issues and
support projects within or adjacent to municipalities that transcend political boundaries
and those projects that provide services for all county residents including those in
unincorporated areas.
Excerpt from Pg. 24, Background and Key Issues (Urban Growth Areas and
Intergovernmental Coordination)
Section 1. “There is widespread support in the public for encouraging a signi�icant portion
of future growth to occur in and adjacent to municipalities.”
Section 12 Summary and overview of key issues:
ii. Retain rural character outside of UGA Limits.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
30
Exhibit 5
iii. Assure that the Comprehensive Plan and Land use and Development Code are accurate
re�lections of current county policy and public values.
vi. The opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process
continues to be an integral part of the county land use planning process.
vii. Address regional issues including encouraging the private sector to develop more
workforce housing in Urban Growth Areas and areas served by central water and sewer,
thereby helping to create more certainty in the development review process. Staff supports a �inding by the Planning Commission that the Application as submitted does not adequately adhere to the Comprehensive Plans strategies and policies on growth, including growth in unincorporated communities. In particular, the plan does not adequately address the impacts of a project the scale of Harvest Roaring Fork including transit, recreation, �iscal impacts, schools, and related public needs such as �ire protection and law enforcement.
Chapter 3, Section 2, Housing Planning for more affordable housing is a strong component in the Comprehensive Plan including numerous Policies and Strategies. These include incentives, adjustments to standards, including density subject to additional deed restrictions (Policy 1, Strategy iv), fee waivers, support for efforts to reduce land cost, housing cost, and work toward regional solutions. While aligning with the Comprehensive Plan’s direction to address Affordable Housing needs the PUD and proposed Affordable Housing Plan raises questions regarding overall conformance and implementation.
Policy 1: Ensure that current land use planning objectives promote affordable housing.
Policy 2: Encourage affordable workforce housing to be located near regional centers.
Policy 2 Strategy i. Incentivize the development of workforce housing in areas that are
adjacent to or in close proximity to:
• Incorporated Gar�ield County
• Employment centers
• Bus stops
• Key amenities such as grocery stores, schools, recreation facilities
• Central water/wastewater
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
31
Exhibit 5
Policy 4: Encourage local governments to accommodate the majority of their workforce
housing needs and to contribute to improving regional jobs-to-workforce attainable
housing imbalances.
Chapter 2, Section 3, Transportation This section of the Comprehensive Plan contains clear support for public transit services, outlines the County’s participation in promoting transit, and encourages ongoing coordination with CDOT to address traf�ic congestion on Hwy 82. The distances to existing bus stops is documented in the submittals and noted as a concern in several referral comments. The Application also does not make speci�ic accommodation for future transit stops and service other than allowing transit stops in the uses. This re�lects missed opportunities to demonstrate conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. There appears to be real potential for future unanticipated traf�ic impacts based on the size and scale of the project, �lexibility included in the proposed Form Based Zoning regarding uses and the failure to adequately address transit needs.
Policy 3 Strategy ii: Develop area plans or an overlay for development in the Highway 82
corridor. Any options should address Access Permit requirements and improvements.
Policy 3 Strategy iii: Explore mechanism for the county to address increased traf�ic from
new developments.
Policy 3 Strategy iv: Work with CDOT to help address traf�ic congestion on SH-82
Policy 3 Strategy v: Work with CDOT to help prioritize intersection updates within the
county.
Chapter 3, Section 4 Economics, Employment, Tourism The proposed development will likely create additional demand for employment, which can be perceived as an economic bene�it. Proposals for onsite construction worker temporary housing along with the potential for a temporary asphalt batch plant are included in the PUD concepts and likely to have some effect on local economies. Inclusion of commercial lodging/Hotel use and a variety of commercial uses including potential restaurant uses seems to acknowledge the development’s connection to the tourism economy. The PUD lacks consistency with Policy 2 (5) below regarding green belts and open space between communities.
Policy 2: The county recognizes that the tourism industry is an important part of the
regional economy and the county recognizes that the tourism industry is enhanced by: (1)
open space and scenic vistas; (2) public trails and other recreational opportunities; (3)
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
32
Exhibit 5
public access to public lands; (4) a healthy environment and habitats for hunting and
�ishing; (5) green belts and open area between communities; (6) clean air and water; and
(7) local food and local produce.
Policy 2 Strategy i: Evaluate the potential impact of proposed new or expanded economic
development opportunities upon the overall quality of the existing community.
Policy 5, Strategy ii: Encourage commercial development to locate in urban growth areas
and incorporated municipalities
Policy 5, Strategy iii: Coordinate with local transit entities to ensure that transportation
modes and nodes are directly linked with existing economic centers through the
development review process and inspection.
Chapter 3, Section 5 Recreation, Open Space and Trails Commitments for internal open space, parks and recreation are outlined in the Form Based Zoning provisions of the PUD Plan. The adequacy of the plans based on the size and scale of the project are not well documented. Based on the potential population generated by the project, additional more robust proposals for public lands dedication for parks are needed to demonstrate conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is the bene�iciary of 55 acres of conservation easement protecting and preserving critical habitat, riparian and wetland areas. The conservation easement allows for visual enjoyment but not physical improvements and access such as trails. The location immediately adjacent to the RFTA Rio Grande Trail is a signi�ication bene�it/opportunity noted in the PUD. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to Cattle Creek and County Road 115 need to be better addressed.
Policy 1: Where appropriate, new residential development should provide recreation
opportunities for residents that are appropriate to the density and type of development or
that contributes land and/or funding to county-wide trail and recreation system. Large
developments should provide recreational/transportation facilities internal to the
development and connections to external recreational/transportation facilities as
appropriate.
Policy 1 Strategy ii: Open space and recreation areas approved in subdivisions and PUD’s
must include provisions for maintenance in perpetuity.
Chapter 3, Section 6 Agriculture
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
33
Exhibit 5 Implications for Agriculture include the previous site disturbance and inclusion of the Farm Neighborhood/Zone. Site reclamation, restoration of stockpiled topsoil, and need for ongoing weed management are important considerations.
Policy 1: Ensure that current land use planning objectives protect, support, and strengthen
both new and existing agricultural uses.
Section 7 Water and Sewer Water conservation need to be part of any future major PUD proposals. Capacity considerations for Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation are relevant considerations including new facilities necessary to serve the development.
Vision: “…Environmentally sound services include consideration of sustainability, impacts
on habitats and riparian ecosystems, and long-term resilience to weather variability and
drought”
Policy 2: Development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or
sewer systems are required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water and waste water disposal facilities can be provided.
Policy 3: Require new development to mitigate impacts on existing water/sewer systems.
Policy 5: Encourage planning for water conservation and drought conditions.
Policy 6: Encourage a holistic approach to address protection of the county’s water
resources and impacts from new development.
Policy 6 Strategy iv: Through the development review process require irrigation water
Management Plan for major developments as appropriate, to continue to ensure the
sustainability of agricultural resources.
Policy 6 Strategy v: Support Integrated Water Management Plans including strategies to
reduce water use, increase water recycling and ef�iciency, and promote alternative water
sources. Work to expand the area of the county covered by watershed master plans and
Integrated Water Management Plans and work to implement strategies recommended by
said plans.
Chapter 3, Section 8 Natural Resources, Habitat and Wildlife Creation of the 55-acre conservation easement and management by the Roaring Fork Conservancy is a major bene�it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additional mitigation for impacts on wildlife are needed including more clearly documented provisions in the PUD Plan consistent with the Applicant’s Wildlife Study and CPW referral
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
34
Exhibit 5 comments including additional setbacks, buffering and separation from high density development. Staff Conclusion: Based on the Application as submitted Staff supports a finding by the Planning Commission that the PUD does not adequately adhere to and conform with the Comprehensive Plan including vision statements, policies and strategies.
ARTICLE 6 PUD CRITERIA
PUD REVIEW CRITERIA AND SECTION 6 PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Specific review criteria for PUD Applications are included in Section 6-202(C) and provide specific direction and key considerations (see below). The Application submittals contain specific responses to the criteria. This report will provide Staff analysis and assessment. Criteria 1: Purpose & Applicability The Purpose and Applicability section refers to “The general purpose of PUD zoning is to permit greater design flexibility than is allowed by the base zone district or Subdivision regulations….” The purpose section also references applicable State Statutes which include design flexibility. The purpose further requires the “PUD’s must be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan” Applicability provisions require a minimum size of 2 acres, sufficient to implement a unified plan and that PUD zoning may be requested for land in any zone district. Criteria 2: Development Standards Section 6-401 Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses can include those in the underlying zoning or in conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The underlying zone, prior to past PUD Rezoning was the Residential Suburban district. This zones generally allows the mix of residential uses proposed for the PUD, in some cases subject to Land Use Change Permitting. This includes the proposed residential uses, affordable housing/multi-family housing, supporting commercial uses, lodging, and minimal recreation opportunities.
Off-street parking: This standard is addressed in the PUD Guide although the number of required parking spaces for residential uses appear to be too low.
Density: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map provides a designation of High Density Residential for the majority of the Harvest Roaring Fork site. The High Density designation includes a density range of 7500 sq. ft. to 2 acres per dwelling unit. Even when allowing credit for the 55-acre conservation easement, the range of density/units for the 283 acre site would
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
35
Exhibit 5 be 146 units up to 1341 units. The current PUD proposal significantly exceeds this density range. Housing Types: The PUD Plan reflects a wide range of housing types throughout the neighborhoods and puts forth an Affordable Housing Plan.
Transportation and Circulation: The Applicant’s Traffic Studies along with referral comments focus attention on access and traffic conditions that required significant mitigation. Even with improvements questions remain regarding the capacity of the system to meet the safe, convenient and adequate circulation system provision of this standard.
Recreational Amenities: The PUD incorporates limited recreational amenities.
Building Heights: The PUD Guide states that all buildings are limited to 2 stories or 30 feet to the eave of the structure except in the CM, MX and MF-1 lots which are limited to 3 stories or 55 feet. The proposed Form Based Zoning all for additional height and number of stories. Lots: A range of minimum lots sizes are proposed. Preliminary Plan/Plat review will be needed to confirm building envelopes based on site specific geo-tech analysis.
Phasing: The phasing plan includes general timing requirements for dwelling unit development and off-site improvements. Further refinement of the PUD Guide provisions on phasing is needed to confirm compliance with this standard as noted below. As submitted, this standard is not met and failure to proceed with certain phases may adversely impact both prior and future phases.
Criteria 4 Rezoning This criterion calls for logical and orderly development pattern (not spot zoning), changing conditions such that the rezoning is in the best interest of the public, that the rezoning addresses a community need and that the rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
36
Exhibit 5 Criteria 5 Established Zoning Standards The PUD Plan and Guide provide Zoning Standards governing density and intensity of use including dimensional and other standards typical of zoning requirements. Further review of key standards is warranted based on some of the development constraints associated with the site and identified in the Staff Analysis of particular issues. Summary While the PUD submittals including the PUD Guide and proposed zoning are generally formatted as anticipated by the above criteria, key areas of concern remain regarding certain Article 7 Standards, Article 6 Design Standards and Comprehensive Plan Provisions. A finding of conformity with the PUD Criteria is not supported by Staff.
Section 7-103 Compatibility – The proposed density of the PUD as well as the proposed variations of building heights within the are not compatible with the surrounding uses in terms of nature, scale and intensity.
Section 7-104 Source of Water – The following review addresses both this section and Section 7-105 as it pertains to water. The County’s Consulting Engineer on Water Issues, Colorado River Engineering reviewed the Applicant’s representation on adequate physical water supply. While Colorado River Engineering indicated they are familiar with the water rights for the RFW&SD and the property, they indicated that it is the “Applicant’s burden to provide the analysis and evidence required in support the proposed project”. Their referral comment acknowledged the Applicant’s Water Attorney letter from Patrick Miller Noto, but indicated that the Applicant should complete the analysis and demonstrate the comparison of available rights/supply for proposed demand. Staff Conclusion: RFW&SD topics and above CRE Recommendation (i.e. Applicant’s analysis is not complete on physical water supply)
Section 7 -105 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Water Supply is addressed under Section 7-104.
Section 7-106 Public Utilities Will Serve letters have been provided.
Section 7-107 Access and Roadways CDOT Access Control and Engineering Staff have provided the County with detailed information on the approved Access Permit/Plans for the Harvest Roaring PUD including changes to access from Cattle Creek, CR 113. CDOT will be available at the Harvest Roaring Fork Public Hearing to provide additional information and answer questions on the access. They will be available to
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
37
Exhibit 5 address safety concerns and improvements associated with the R-Cut Design along with benefits for Hwy. 82 capacity and congestion concerns.
• CDOT Access approvals have very specific and detailed conditions of approval and construction requirements. Careful attention to compliance with said documentation is an important component of ensuring the public safety during and after construction. CDOT oversight of the project and associated contractors is anticipated and essential. Development Agreement provisions should further address compliance with the CDOT Access Permits and contain provisions to address failure to comply including security to ensure completion.
• Conditions of Said Access Approvals include specific limitation on number units (maximum of 1500), type of units, and square footage of commercial development (50,000 sq.ft. plus a 90 room hotel). These limitations need to be reflected in the PUD Plan and are essential for demonstrating that the project has legal and adequate access.
• PUD Plan provisions that allow for significant increase in development potential including commercial square footage need to be eliminated as they promote the potential for inconsistency with the CDOT Access Permit and could result in the project being out of compliance and creating unplanned or unmodelled impacts on Hwy. 82
• Development – Subdivision Improvements Agreements and Phasing Plans need to include detailed provisions regarding timing for construction of Hwy. 82 Access Improvement prior to the subdivision construction including security for completion.
• Dan Cokely, SGM County Consulting Engineer for Traffic/Transit reviewed the Applicant’s Traffic Impact Study issues included the following assessments:
o Regarding the internal capture assumption for Commercial at 90% the development plans lack detail to support this assumption.
o Peak hour generation methodology is conservative
o Directional Trip Generation conflicts with past modelling
o Noted impacts at CR 114 Spring Valley intersection on Hwy. 82 and needed improvements warrant additional analysis.
o Need to include potential ADU’s in the Traffic Impact Study
o Noted multimodal issues including accurate comparisons for ridership, distance to existing RFTA stops and the need to work with RFTA given the magnitude of the project.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
38
Exhibit 5
-
• The Traffic Study asserts that access to the commercial/retail portion of the development is “indirect and out of the way” however, the new right-in right-out access off of Hwy 82 should provide clear access into the Village Center neighborhood. This discrepancy should be clarified in future iterations of the Traffic Impact Study including impacts anticipated child care development potential that could further attract areawide traffic movements.
• Additional traffic modelled by the Traffic Impact Study to be added to Hwy 82 from the PUD is significant. At Intersection #2 in the Traffic Impact Study the a.m. peak hour traffic generated by the PUD travelling southbound toward Carbondale appears to constitute 21% of the traffic on Highway 82 (637 trips out of the total 3062 trips) and at that same location in the p.m. peak hour travelling northbound toward the PUD, the traffic associated with the PUD appears to constitute 20% of the Hwy 82 traffic (611 trips out of the total 2945 trips on the Hwy).
• Even with these increases the Traffic Engineer’s assessment of level of service for the R-Cut and Project Access intersections were modelled at A – C for 2035 and A – C with the exception of an E rating in 2055 for the South RDUT.
-
-
-
• Analysis of the CR 154/114 Intersection and the Hwy 133 Intersection at Carbondale need to be included in the Traffic Impact Study.
• Private Roads within the PUD and provisions for maintenance by the Cattle Creek Metro District as proposed need additional information regarding the capability and capacity of
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
39
Exhibit 5 the District. The PUD Plan needs to include provisions for maintenance facilities and storage of equipment. A public/Metro District land reservation is needed in the PUD Plan. RFTA Comments
• The location of RFTA transit stops north of the site at the CR. 154/114 and Hwy 82 intersection and south of the site at the Aspen Glen access are not adequate to serve a development the size of Harvest Roaring Fork. The PUD Plan needs to include provisions for transit stops within/adjacent to the PUD. The Development Agreement and Phasing Plan need to set forth the baseline transit needs, station improvements, land reservations, security for improvements and/or provisions for future improvements. Planning for this critical infrastructure needs to occur at this early stage of development review.
• The Applicant’s assumptions regarding reduction of traffic on Hwy. 82 based on the premise that residents of the PUD would otherwise live west of Glenwood Springs resulting in traffic reduction as those resident relocate to the PUD were addressed by the Glenwood Springs Traffic Engineer as follows:
- “The realized volume reduction, redistribution of traffic, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled are based on too many other variables (affordability, job and housing market conditions, population growth, etc.) to be able to claim this will reduce traffic volumes in Glenwood Springs.”
• The Applicant’s Preliminary Multimodal Analysis provides an estimate of peak hour transit ridership at 255 for the a.m. peak hour and 285 for the p.m. peak hour, both really significant numbers. The study did not address the impact and reduction in ridership that occurs when a 0.25 mile or greater walk or bike ride is required to access the bus stop. The study also did not address the lack of planning for a new RFTA bus stop within the PUD.
• Safe Routes to School mapping provides information on that area in the vicinity of Riverview School, but provides no information for the additional approximately 1+ miles between end of the map (on CR 154) and the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD. This area includes crossing a major intersection, transversing a park and ride area, and travel behind/between a variety commercial areas. Proximity to schools and safe access is an important consideration that warrants additional documentation and analysis. Staff Conclusion: The Application as submitted provides documentation of legal and adequate access to the site based on the CDOT approvals of access permits and RFTA licenses/agreement for trail crossings. However, related issues as noted above require further refinement of the PUD and Associated support documents prior to any PUD Zoning Approvals.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
40
Exhibit 5
Section 7-108 Land Subject to Natural Hazards –
• Topographic mapping for the site is complicated by a variety of disturbed slopes (stock piles), extensive site grading and in some cases natural undisturbed terraces.
• The Applicant provided a overall topographic assessment of the site which identifies some areas of the site with more than 15% slopes. The mapping appears to omit stock piles and other terraces with steep slopes.
• Staff review of the detailed topographic mapping for the site provided more information on slopes associated with stock piles, other grading anomalies and terraces which exceed 20% slopes. More significantly were areas with slopes greater than 30% within the Sopris Neighborhood Zone. Pursuant to Section 7-207 (F) of the LUDC areas with slopes greater than 30% shall be permitted to be developed only if the Applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas and further complies with addition standards for cut/fill and following natural grade and contours.
• Given that some of these areas with greater than 30% slopes and terracing overlap with areas identified as High Geologic Hazards and sink hole potential in the Sopris Neighborhood Zone, the PUD Plan should limit these areas to Open Space or similar low impact uses and remove them from the intense development anticipated in the Sopris Neighborhood Zone.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
41
Exhibit 5
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
42
Exhibit 5
Section 7-109 Fire Protection – Carbondale fire district has provided comments to the applicant and to the County. The district has also held conversations with the applicant concerning the District's requirements for a new fire station to serve the development. No detail as to the location of the station or timing of its construction have been indicated in the PUD Guide or in the application.
Section 7-201 Agricultural Lands – Any ditches will have to be maintained in accordance with state statutes.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
43
Exhibit 5
Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas – This section was addressed above as part of the PUD Guide discussion.
Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies – The PUD guide does not directly address this item, meaning these standards will remain in place. In addition to the 35-foot setback required by this section, additional wildlife corridors are required by the Conservation Agreement. The natural areas along the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement provide significant habitat and vegetative diversity and should be further protected with increased open space corridor width and consideration of maintaining minimum stream flows.
Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion – As discussed in Section 7-108 and Section 7-207, drainage and erosion control limits long term hazards such as debris flow, subsidence, runoff channels, or decreases in water quality. A full spectrum of stormwater and drainage measures should be taken to minimize the accumulation of impacts from normal precipitation as well as larger events. These items should be addressed at the time of preliminary plan at the neighborhood level and included in the design and development of individual properties.
Section 7-205 Environmental Quality – Water and air quality must be maintained in compliance with all applicable laws. CDPHE did not provide specific comments. These items would be further addressed at the time of preliminary plan and/or construction, as appropriate.
Section 7-206 Wildfire Hazards – Garfield County has a history of severe wildfires, including the infamous Storm King Mountain and recent Grizzle Creek Fire. Recent periods of drought have exasperated conditions for wildfires. The project site currently has very minimal vegetation present. The County is adopting the State Wildfire Resiliency Code that has specific requirements for landscaping and the hardening of structures within the development.
Section 7-201 Natural and Geologic Hazards –
• Geotechnical Reports/Submittals from both CTL Thompson, the assessment by Sopris Engineering and referral comments from Colorado Geological Survey were reviewed by Staff and our consulting engineer.
• While the CTL Thompson report’s summary of conclusions included specific recommendations for construction, key excerpts as noted below raise significant concerns regarding the impacts of geotechnical hazards such as sink holes on the PUD:
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
44
Exhibit 5
- “Design level geotechnical engineering investigations will be required for the buildings after site grading plans and architectural plans are developed.” (pg. 4)
- “During our previous subsurface investigation, we did not observe surficial evidence of significant sinkholes and/or subsidence. Previous grading and earthwork operations on the property may have masked evidence of these features” (pg. 5)
- “Formation of sinkholes is random and can occur anywhere and at any time in the geologic environment at this site. Generally, it is good practice to avoid development in areas with potential for sinkholes and subsidence.”
- “A geophysical consultant may be able to help further quantify the potential for sinkholes and subsidence using methods such as ground penetrating radar, seismic reflection, or electrical resistivity” (pg..6)
- “We expect dry wells can be used successively at this site to disperse water collected by the drain systems” (pg. 12)
• The CTL Thompson report includes mapping designating Hazard Zone 1, where sink holes were observed or identified on aerial photographs and Hazard Zone 2, areas that align with trends of known sinkholes.
• While the report notes that “Development is not currently planned in the area where we observed evidence of sinkholes”, (pg. 5) the PUD Plan maps include development neighborhoods in and adjacent to Hazard Areas 1 and 2 including: North Riverfront, South Riverfront, Creekside and Sopris Zones.
• The CGS referral comments highlight the constraints to development associated with “ground deformation-related damage to buildings and infrastructure causes by water-soluble evaporites/hydrocompactive/collapsible soils and bedrock.” The comments support the CTL and Sopris Engineering assessments including avoidance or mitigation and the need for additional analysis. They noted the mapping of hazard areas in all but 3 of the proposed PUD Neighborhoods as shown on the attached mapping excerpt from the submittals/Geotech Report.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
45
Exhibit 5
Staff Conclusion: As submitted the PUD does not adequately address the geologic hazards noted on the site. Staff notes the need for avoidance of the Geologic Hazard Areas, in particular at the south end of the site and adjacent to the conservation easement.
Section 7-208 Reclamation – Previous site disturbance and damage warrants that this PUD address remediation and restoration. Given the long term phasing of this PUD, the property should not be allowed to remain in its current condition without proper site management. This needs to be addressed in their phasing plan as much of the areas currently slated for neighborhood development cannot be developed with roads and infrastructure without first addressing and removal of the stock piles of top soil, gravels, and related material. As part of the remediation, the Applicant needs to provide some details on their plans to restore the damaged top soil to allow for its future use within the PUD. For future use within the PUD
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
46
Exhibit 5
Section 7-301 Compatible Design – Form Based Zoning is focused on building design and streetscapes within the PUD. The site is largely stand alone except for the commercial uses and Mobile Home park to the north.
Section 7-302 Off Street Parking – The proposal includes off-street parking standards in the PUD guide.
Section 7-303 Landscape Plan – Landscaping is addressed to a limited extent in the PUD guide with no landscaping plan provided as required.
Section 7-304 Lighting – All lighting shall meet the county’s standards as well as restrictions as outlined in the wildlife report.
Section 7-305 Snow Storage – This will need to be further shown at the time of Preliminary Plan or building permit as limited information.
Section 7-306 Trails and Walkways – A trail system is proposed and will need to address the wildlife report and the RFC concerns as to locations more detail needs to be provided.
X. STAFF ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL TOPICS AND SUMMARY
• The Application includes the proposal for a Real Estate Transfer Assessment of 2% of sales price of all real estate sales.
• Overall financial impacts/benefits from the development have also been modelled and are outlined in the submittals. The impacts including job generation appear as benefits except when considering the current challenges to provide workforce housing close to jobs and the additional impacts on traffic associated with a commuting workforce.
• The subject parcels have a long history of PUD approvals.
• When reviewing the application as it is presented, staff finds significant issues with the proposals likely impacts on wildlife populations, traffic and surrounding uses. These issues are largely a result of scale.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
47
Exhibit 5
XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
OF THE REVOCATION OF THE RIVEREDGE PUD AND REZONING TO
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
Based on the Applicant’s submittal for revocation and rezoning and the staff analysis noted in the Staff Report, the Staff recommendation is for approval of the revocation and rezoning to Residential Suburban subject to the following findings.
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for revocation of the current PUD zoning for the Riveredge PUD and rezoning is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the Application as submitted and reviewed is in general conformance with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended. 5. That the Application as submitted and reviewed has demonstrated compliance with the provisions in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013 as amended, Article 6, related to the revocation of a PUD. 6. That the Application as submitted and reviewed has demonstrated compliance with the provisions and standards contained in Article 4, Section 4-113 of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013 as amended, regarding the criteria for Rezoning and that the Residential Suburban Zoning requested for the properties meets the criteria. A Planning Commission motion to recommend to the BOCC approval should include the above findings and a sample is provided below: “I move to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the revocation of the River Edge Planned Unit Development and recommend approval of the rezoning of the River Edge Planned Unit Development Parcels to the Residential Suburban Zone District as submitted and reviewed subject to the six findings contained in the Staff Report.”
XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF
THE PUD Based on the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Application as submitted and reviewed by Staff, County Consulting Engineers and Extensive Referral Agencies, the Staff Recommendation is for denial
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
48
Exhibit 5 with the following findings. The Findings are drawn from the Staff Analysis section of the Staff Report. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. For the above stated and other reasons, the request for PUD Rezoning for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the Application as submitted and reviewed is not in general conformance with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended. 5. That the Application as submitted and reviewed has not demonstrated compliance with the provisions and review criteria contained in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013 as amended, Article 6, PUD’s including but not limited to Section 6-401 Standards and Section 6-202(C) Review Criteria. 6. That the Application as submitted and reviewed has not demonstrated compliance with the provisions and standards contained in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013 as amended, Article 7 including but not limited to: a. Section 7-102 Comprehensive Plan b. Section 7-103, Compatibility. c. Section 7-107, Access. d. Section 7-202, Wildlife e. Section 7-108 and 207, Natural Hazards
A Planning Commission motion to recommend to the BOCC Denial should include the above findings and a sample is provided below: “I move to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Application as submitted and reviewed subject to the six findings contained in the Staff Report including failure of the Application to demonstrate conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable provisions of the Land Use and Development Code 2013 as amended.”
XIII. CONTINUATION MOTION IF NEEDED A motion for continuation of the public hearing to allow for additional public comment will need to include a specific time, date and location. The March 11, 2026 meeting date has been reserved for a possible continuation.
File No. PUDA-12-24-9048 File No. PUDA-07-25-9079 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC February 25, 2026 John Leybourne – Planner III
49
Exhibit 5
XIV. TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATION AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Provided for the Commission’s consideration is the following list of topics that could be considered for drafting as conditions of approval.
• Major updates to the PUD Plan mapping include more specific information on neighborhood/zones, circulation, open space, parks, internal trails, wildlife buffers and setbacks, allowance for transit facilities, provision of space for public work/maintenance infrastructure/equipment and revisions based on geo-tech concerns with removal of development in areas with sink holes and high hazard designations.
• Major revisions to the PUD Guide to address specific refinements to zone districts, reduction in overall density, editing/elimination of wide range of modifications and minor amendments to the PUD Guide standards.
• Revisions to the PUD Plan to eliminate commercial lodging uses along with reducing the provisions for such a wide range of commercial uses.
• Edits and revisions to the Development – Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Phasing Plans to reflect consistency with PUD Criteria and current County Policies.
• Revisions to Traffic Impact Study to more clearly address the wide range of proposed uses contained in the PUD Guide and update assessment of impacts including construction traffic impacts. This may also include the need to update the CDOT access permits.
• Revisions to internal road circulation plans and standards consistent with Consulting Engineer comments.
• Provision of additional details and fiscal assessment of the Cattle Creek Metro District and the ability to provide the required services for the PUD, including timing for operational parameters such as road maintenance and storm water management.
• Additional details on coordination with the Fire Protection District and the School District on mitigation of increased demands for service and/or attendance center needs (i.e. improved safe routes to school).
• Further refinements to the Affordable Housing Plan including better details on implementation, enforcement, and phasing consistent with Article 8.
John,
CDOT has no comment on the River's Edge revocation.
CDOT has been coordinating with the project team for the Harvest Fork Development and
they have signed access permits. The development still needs to finish the CDOT access
permitting process and complete the required highway improvements.
Thanks,
Brian Killian
Region 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1101 | F 970-683-6290
222 S. 6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
brian.killian@state.co.us | www.codot.gov | www.cotrip.org
EXHIBIT 7
City of Glenwood Springs
101 West 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
TO: John Leybourne, Planner III
FROM: Hannah Klausman, Director of Community and Economic Development
DATE: April 16, 2025
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Referral
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD. The City of
Glenwood Springs Community Development Department reviewed the application materials provided
and coordinated with various departments within the City to provide the comments that follow. Staff is
aware that Garfield County Staff has requested additional information from the applicant that may
clarify areas mentioned below. Glenwood Springs City staff would welcome the opportunity to update
comments based on any new submittals from the applicant.
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD representatives did contact the City of Glenwood Springs and gave a brief
concept overview of the intended application in November 2024. The City appreciates the applicant’s
efforts in reaching out with initial discussions.
1.Conformance to the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan
The proposed PUD is outside of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area identified in the future land
use map and therefore the property does not include a zoning designation or density guide.
2.Traffic, Access and Connectivity
Additional Transit Stop
The applicant points to two existing bus stops to service the development which are half a mile and
one mile or more away. Standard Planning practice points to ¼ mile being the optimum distance
that people will walk as part of a commute. Glenwood Springs strongly encourages the addition of
a transit stop that will provide better access to this community. A development this size would
benefit greatly from connection to RFTA’s trunk line, which would help to reduce traffic volumes at
the access points and on the highway.
Rio Grand Trail
The Rio Grande Trail bisects this property, yet little discussion of bike and pedestrian traffic was
provided. RFTA’s regional trail presents another opportunity for the development to claim a
reduction in traffic volumes to and from the site if they provide several internal trail access points.
EXHIBIT 8
Glenwood Springs would be very interested to know RFTA’s thoughts on service/access
opportunities and constraints related to the project proposal.
Turn Lane Buildout
The Traffic report on Page 123 states that the full turn intersection would be built in phases.
Glenwood Springs suggests that Garfield County consider requiring the intersection be built
completely at one time and not phased.
Signalized Intersection Thresholds
The Traffic study indicates that a signalized intersection may be warranted in the future but does
not specify metrics for determining when that should occur. Glenwood Springs encourages Garfield
County to specify parameters for when a signalized intersection is required.
Additional comments from the City Traffic Engineer are included as an attachment to this letter.
3.Housing
The City of Glenwood Springs is pleased to see the applicant has included plans to possibly exceed
Garfield County’s affordable housing requirements. The City would encourage the County to
consider requiring the affordable housing units to be developed onsite, rather than utilizing the
non-profit partner option detailed in Article 8 for the following reasons.
a.Local affordable housing non-profits in the area such as Habitat for Humanity, or Arch
Diocese have not historically developed units at this scale.
b.Acquiring the land and entitlements to build 450 affordable housing units could take
much longer, if at all, then if the housing units were built along with the development
phases.
c.Units built by a non-profit in a different part of the County may not have the same traffic
reduction benefits as the proposed development location.
If units are proposed off site, providing flexibility to the developer, one suggestion would be to
require additional requirements beyond what Article 8 requires, ie affordability level, percentage,
etc.
Resident Occupancy
The City of Glenwood Springs encourages Garfield County to explore the possibility of increasing
the percentage of the development that is deed restricted for resident occupancy. This would
help prevent a large portion of the development from becoming second homes, vacation rentals,
or other types of fractional ownership or short-term lodging uses. Resident occupancy would
include the requirement of being employed within a certain geographic area beyond what is
identified in Garfield County’s Inclusionary Zoning requirement of “County-based employment”.
If the project is aimed at reducing traffic on Hwy 82, the City would suggest that geographic area
be reduced to a 30-mile radius to truly ensure the resident commutes are shorter, with a
minimum of 20% of the total units being deed restricted for resident occupancy.
EXHIBIT 8
4. Fire District Comments
The following comments were submitted on behalf of the Glenwood Springs Fire District.
Automatic Aid Agreement Area
The application states that the property is within the Carbondale Fire District. Glenwood Springs
Fire District (GSFD) has not yet had any discussions with Carbondale Fire on the impact that this
development would pose on services. GSFD is currently in an automatic aid agreement to share
resource response to this area of Hwy 82 for both Fire and EMS.
• GSFD Station 73 responds to these incidents. There will be an additional
response time for apparatus to navigate off Hwy 82 and into this new
development.
• GSFD administration are looking at current call volume and projected growth
within the district. This project will need to be reviewed for potential impacts to
emergency service.
Fire Truck Access
There is a mention of Appendix D of the International Fire Code for the turning dimensions for
turnarounds. Garfield County has adopted 2015 IFC along with Appendix D and some other
amendments. Those requirements include:
• All roads need a minimum of 20ft with overhead clearance of 13’6.
• Both Carbondale and Glenwood are using ‘quints’ for front line apparatus. This
is combination of a ladder truck with an engine to accomplish both tasks. The
foot print to set up outriggers on these trucks are 20ft- hence the need for
adequate road widths
• Turning movements of ladder trucks from both depts need to be applied to
street design.
Wildfire risk
The State Wildfire Resiliency Code Board map shows this area to be moderate risk. This project
will be subject to the new wildfire resiliency codes and will need to have home hardening and
vegetation setbacks as required.
EXHIBIT 8
(970) 384 - 6435 101 West 8th Street
www.cogs.us Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Memorandum
TO: HANNAH KLAUSMAN
FROM: LEE BARGER
SUBJECT: HARVEST ROARING FORK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS
DATE: 4/16/2025
CC: GLENN HARTMANN
This memo addresses the City of Glenwood’s Engineering Department’s concerns for the Harvest
Roaring Fork (HRF) property along SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in Garfield County. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment on this proposed development located about 5 miles south of the City Limits.
1. In the Trip Generation Section 4.1, the premise of the discussion on Page 18 assumes that
residents of this proposed development would otherwise live west of Glenwood Springs, so this
will achieve a redistribution or volume reduction of traffic in Glenwood Springs. Although this
may be partially true and some redistribution of trips may occur, it cannot be relied on, forecast,
or verified. This project is considered “Valley Infill” and will still be attractive to existing and new
residents to the valley. The realized volume reduction, redistribution of traffic, and reduction of
vehicle miles traveled are based on too many other variables (affordability, job and housing
market conditions, population growth, etc.) to be able to claim this will reduce traffic volumes in
Glenwood Springs.
2. How were RCUT intersections determined to be the preferred alternatives for the SH 82
intersections? Was a fully signalized intersection considered at Cattle Creek that provides access
to HRF? Given the improvements to the Cattle Creek intersection including a 65mph eastbound
merge lane for Cattle Creek traffic in 2016, it seems like a waste to close this to Right-in/Right-
out (RIRO). Were roundabouts considered? It’s counter-intuitive to add two more intersections
to SH 82 where existing access could be improved without adding multiple conflict points.
3. The distance between the RCUT intersections is about 0.8 mile. Vehicles using the RCUT will add
about a mile to their trip. This out-of-direction traffic should be quantified in the analysis.
4. No transit service is considered in this traffic impact analysis. A development this size would
benefit greatly from connection to RFTA’s trunk line, which would help to reduce traffic volumes
at the access points and on the highway.
5. The Rio Grande Trail bisects this property, yet no discussion of bike and pedestrian traffic was
provided. RFTA’s regional trail presents another opportunity for the development to claim a
EXHIBIT 8
reduction in traffic volumes to and from the site if they provide several internal trail access
points.
EXHIBIT 8
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 Colorado Avenue
Carbondale, CO 81623
www.carbondalegov.org
(970 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
April 9, 2025
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: John Leybourne
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Garfield County Referral
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
Parcels 239307200031, 239501400161, 239307300032, 239307200001, and 239307300033
Dear John:
Thank you for referring the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application to the Town of Carbondale for review
and comments. The application proposes a significant change to the previously approved River Edge
PUD (Resolution Nos. 2011-84 and 2011-85). As outlined in the pre-conference summary, the existing
approval is for 366 dwelling units and associated facilities. It is important to note that Carbondale staff
and elected officials have yet to discuss the application with the development team. The project meets the
threshold for major development review referral to Carbondale as one of the two closest municipalities
pursuant to the 2001 IGA with Garfield County. Carbondale supports the IGA and appreciates the
opportunity to provide comments on a significant project within both Garfield County and the Roaring
Fork Valley’s economic shed.
The application was reviewed by Carbondale Staff with input from the Board of Trustees. Carbondale
recognizes the pressing need for affordable and workforce housing throughout the Roaring Fork and
Colorado River Valleys and generally supports efforts that contribute meaningfully to the region’s
housing stock. However, Carbondale maintains a strong preference for densifying within municipal
boundaries to reduce sprawl, enhance walkability, and support climate-conscious development patterns.
The proposed development’s scope, scale, and density are inconsistent with the types of development that
have been historically approved in unincorporated Garfield County, and Carbondale would encourage
Garfield County to consider if this is an appropriate development for unincorporated areas. Carbondale
provides the following comments for your consideration.
2022 Carbondale Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located outside of the Town’s two-mile review area as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the subject property is located outside of the more traditional three-mile
plan area for annexation purposes, as set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Town has no
interest in or legal ability to consider annexation.
EXHIBIT 9
Transportation & Access
1. Fully Signalized Access Across near Cattle Creek Rd
o The traffic study states that a signalized intersection will not occur until some future time
as warranted by traffic levels. Carbondale encourages Garfield County to set a clear
trigger point with the development (e.g. specific number of issuance of certificates of
occupancy, or prior to a certain phase of development) when the signalized intersection
must be completed prior to issuance of additional certificates of occupancy or building
permits. This will ensure the safety and functionality of Highway 82.
2. Traffic Impacts on Highway 82
o The application suggests that the development will reduce traffic impacts on Glenwood
Springs and I-70. However, given the employment distribution in the region and the
distance to the nearest transit stop, it is likely that a significant portion of residents will
commute along Highway 82, increasing congestion. Garfield County should assess these
impacts carefully, especially those trips that travel “upvalley” on Highway 82 to
Carbondale and beyond.
3. Connections across Highway 82
o Cattle Creek is a heavily used cycling route, and the development proposes numerous
connections to the Rio Grande Trail. Carbondale would recommend Garfield County
ensures safe access for pedestrians and cyclists across Highway 82, which could either be
at-grade or an underpass.
Housing & Density
4. Focus on “Missing Middle” Housing
o Carbondale supports the focus on workforce housing and urges Garfield County to ensure
a mix of unit types that cater to young professionals, families, service workers, seniors,
and outdoor enthusiasts.
o Carbondale and Glenwood Springs require more affordable housing (deed-restricted
units) than is proposed or is required by Garfield County. The application focuses on unit
types that are attractive to the local workforce, but those same housing types are
attractive to second-home owners as well. Carbondale would encourage Garfield County
to be more aggressive with affordable housing requirements to help ensure the project
goals meet the project outcomes. The project could propose a voluntary real estate
transfer assessment on the sale of all free-market properties and a greater percentage of
price-capped, income-restricted, and/or resident occupancy-restricted units, which would
ensure that the housing provided is available for the local workforce.
5. Modified Parking Standards & Transit Access
o The project requests reduced parking requirements due to its walkable and bike-friendly
design. However, many residents will still need to drive to Glenwood Springs,
Carbondale, or farther up the valley for employment. Carbondale would recommend that
Garfield County discuss the appropriateness of parking given the project’s location in
relation to employment centers as well as the distance to the nearest transit stop.
o The parking standards seem reasonable but will require ample on-street parking to
accommodate multi-car households and residents with recreational equipment such as
campers, trailers, rafts, and ATVs. Garfield County should consider if the use of on-street
parking to meet off-street parking requirements is appropriate for all areas of the PUD.
o The plan does not appear to propose a transit stop and utilizes the nearest ones, ½ mile
from the northernmost and 1.2 miles from the southernmost points of the development.
Given the number of dwelling units and density proposed, this location would be ideal for
a new transit stop, improving regional connectivity and reducing reliance on personal
vehicles.
EXHIBIT 9
6. Senior Housing Considerations
o While the inclusion of senior housing is welcome, its location may be isolating without
adequate transportation options. As Carbondale experienced with the Downtowner micro-
mobility service, ensuring that senior residents have access to transit, pedestrian-friendly
infrastructure, and essential services is critical.
7. Water Supply & Adequacy of Water Rights
o While the application states that the development holds “significant water rights” and is
within the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District service area, Carbondale
encourages Garfield County to review those water rights and initially ensure the
adequacy of these rights to support the full buildout of 1,500 dwelling units, 55,000
square feet of commercial space, and a 90-room hotel initially and reaffirm the adequacy
as phased development is reviewed. Given the increasing strain on regional water
resources, it is critical that Garfield County ensure the long-term availability and legal
security of these water rights — not only for domestic use but also for fire suppression,
irrigation of public spaces, and future resilience in drought scenarios.
Economic & Commercial Considerations
7. Impact on Existing Commercial Spaces
o Carbondale has approved commercial space that is proving difficult to fill. The proposed
55,000 square feet of new commercial space may compete directly with existing
municipal commercial areas in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Carbondale would
recommend that a market analysis be conducted to assess potential impacts.
o The location of the Village Center (commercial areas) within the development could be
unsustainable given the lack of convenience and difficulty of access from Highway 82
and the proposed hotel use. Garfield County should consider if an alternative location
within the development would be better suited for viable commercial space.
Sustainability & Environmental Considerations
8. River Corridor Conservation Area
o Areas along both the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers, especially those within the 100-
year floodplain, are identified as river corridor conservation areas. The Harvest Roaring
Fork PUD discusses conservation areas and open space areas along both Cattle Creek and
the Roaring Fork rivers. Carbondale would urge Garfield County to consider protection
for critical habitats and other riparian areas along both waterways.
9. Building Performance Beyond Code
o Rather than simply meeting the minimum energy efficiency standards, the development
could incorporate Passive House or Net-Zero Energy-ready design elements for a portion
of the housing stock to reduce long-term energy demand and enhance sustainability.
10. Solar-Ready Homes
o Even if full-scale solar installation is not initially feasible, homes should be designed to
be solar-ready (pre-wired for future solar panel installation) to allow residents to adopt
renewable energy as costs decrease or desire is present.
11. Enhanced Water Conservation Measures
o Given the region’s semi-arid climate, additional water conservation measures should be
incorporated, such as xeriscaping with native plants, graywater reuse systems, and high-
efficiency irrigation technologies.
12. Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure
o The development should include ample EV charging stations in both residential and
commercial areas to accommodate the growing adoption of electric vehicles and future-
proof the project’s transportation options.
EXHIBIT 9
PUD Guide Considerations
13. Future Density Adjustments
o The PUD Guide states that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage shall not exceed
50% for the entire development. However, it is undefined how these will be used on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach. Carbondale would recommend including more
specificity in each neighborhood to help Garfield County Staff and future property
owners understand how additions and remodels may be pursued. In addition, this
approach could lead to underdeveloped lots later in the process, potentially necessitating
future PUD amendments to increase density or total development lot coverage.
14. Hotel Location
o The proposed hotel is located in the Sopris Neighborhood, which is far from the Village
Center, the primary commercial hub. The County should assess whether this location is
appropriate for hotel use.
Incorporation Considerations
15. Urban-Scale Development in Unincorporated Garfield County
o The scale of the proposed development, both in terms of residential and commercial uses,
suggests that incorporation into a municipal area may be more appropriate than remaining
within unincorporated Garfield County. The County should evaluate whether the scope
and scale of the proposed development are appropriate within unincorporated Garfield
County.
Conclusion. Carbondale supports increasing the supply of workforce and affordable housing in the
Roaring Fork Valley. However, we encourage Garfield County to consider the issues outlined above,
particularly regarding transportation infrastructure, sustainability measures, and the project’s long-term
economic impact. Addressing these concerns will help ensure that Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
successfully integrates into the broader regional community while supporting sustainable growth.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any
questions regarding these referral comments.
Sincerely,
Jared Barnes, AICP
Planning Director
EXHIBIT 9
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 Colorado Avenue
Carbondale, CO 81623
www.carbondalegov.org
(970 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
September 18, 2025
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: John Leybourne
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Garfield County Referral
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD (PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079)
Parcels 239307200031, 239501400161, 239307300032, 239307200001, and 239307300033
Dear John:
Thank you for referring the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application to the Town of Carbondale for review
and comments. The application proposes a significant change to the previously approved River Edge
PUD (Resolution Nos. 2011-84 and 2011-85). As outlined in the pre-conference summary, the existing
approval is for 366 dwelling units and associated facilities. It is important to note that Carbondale staff
and elected officials have had only a single conversation with the development team to clarify the revised
submittal. Carbondale Staff is willing to engage in additional dialogue with the Development Team
and/or Garfield County, if desired by either party. The project meets the threshold for major development
review referral to Carbondale as one of the two closest municipalities pursuant to the 2001 IGA with
Garfield County. Carbondale supports the IGA and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on a
significant project within both Garfield County and the Roaring Fork Valley’s economic shed.
The revised application was reviewed by Carbondale Staff, while the prior application included input
from the Carbondale Board of Trustees. Carbondale recognizes the pressing need for affordable and
workforce housing throughout the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys and generally supports
efforts that contribute meaningfully to the region’s housing stock. However, Carbondale maintains a
strong preference for densifying within municipal boundaries to reduce sprawl, enhance walkability, and
support climate-conscious development patterns. The proposed development’s scope, scale, and density
are inconsistent with the types of development that have been historically approved in unincorporated
Garfield County, and Carbondale would encourage Garfield County to consider whether this is an
appropriate development for unincorporated areas. Carbondale provides the following comments for your
consideration.
2022 Carbondale Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located outside of the Town’s two-mile review area as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the subject property is located outside of the more traditional three-mile
plan area for annexation purposes, as set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Town has no
interest in or legal ability to consider annexation.
EXHIBIT 9
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 2 of 5
Transportation & Access
1. Fully Signalized Access Across near Cattle Creek Rd
o The traffic study states that a signalized intersection will not occur until some future time
as warranted by traffic levels. Carbondale encourages Garfield County to set a clear
trigger point with the development (e.g. specific number of issuances of certificates of
occupancy, or prior to a certain phase of development) when the signalized intersection
must be completed prior to the issuance of any additional certificates of occupancy or
building permits. This will ensure the safety and functionality of Highway 82.
2. Traffic Impacts on Highway 82
o The application suggests that the development will reduce traffic impacts on Glenwood
Springs and I-70. However, given the employment distribution in the region, reliance on
neighboring community commercial centers, and the distance to the nearest transit stop, it
is likely that a significant portion of residents will commute and travel along Highway
82, increasing congestion. Garfield County should assess these impacts carefully,
especially those trips that travel “upvalley” on Highway 82 to Carbondale and beyond.
3. Connections across Highway 82
o Cattle Creek is a heavily used cycling route, and the development proposes numerous
connections to the Rio Grande Trail. Carbondale would recommend Garfield County
ensures safe access for pedestrians and cyclists across Highway 82, which could either be
at-grade or an underpass.
Housing & Density
4. Focus on “Missing Middle” Housing
o Carbondale supports the focus on workforce housing and urges Garfield County to ensure
a mix of unit types that cater to young professionals, families, service workers, seniors,
and outdoor enthusiasts.
o The Housing Mitigation Plan outlines that 30% of the units would be provided as either
mitigation residences (10% intended to meet Garfield County’s requirements) or deed
restricted residences (20% of the total development). Carbondale Staff supports the
increase in restricted housing units; however, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs both
require more affordable housing (deed-restricted units) than is proposed or is required by
Garfield County. The application focuses on unit types that are attractive to the local
workforce, but those same housing types are attractive to second-home owners as well.
Carbondale encourages Garfield County to be more aggressive with affordable housing
requirements to ensure the project goals meet the project outcomes. The project could
propose a voluntary real estate transfer assessment on the sale of all free-market
properties and a greater percentage of price-capped, income-restricted, and/or resident
occupancy-restricted units, which would ensure that the housing provided is available for
the local workforce.
o The Housing Mitigation Plan outlines that both mitigation and deed restricted residences
would be provided prior to the start of the next (future) phase of development. As
proposed, it would be reasonable to expect these units to occur at the end of each phase of
development. Carbondale requires that all deed restricted housing units be issued a
certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any free
market units, thus ensuring that the restricted units are “front-loaded” during each phase
of development. Carbondale encourages Garfield County to determine if providing the
restricted units at the end of each phase of development achieves the goals of the County
and the project, or if requiring them earlier during each phase of development would
improve housing outcomes for the local workforce.
EXHIBIT 9
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 3 of 5
5. Modified Parking Standards & Transit Access
o The plan does not appear to propose a transit stop and utilizes the nearest ones, ½ mile
from the northernmost and 1.2 miles from the southernmost points of the development.
Given the number of dwelling units and density proposed, this location would be ideal for
a new transit stop, improving regional connectivity and reducing reliance on personal
vehicles.
o The project requests reduced parking requirements due to its walkable and bike-friendly
design. However, many residents will still need to drive to Glenwood Springs,
Carbondale, or farther up the valley for employment, commerce, and recreation.
Carbondale would recommend that Garfield County discuss the appropriateness of
parking given the project’s location in relation to employment centers, as well as the
distance to the nearest transit stop and the lack of a proposed new transit stop.
o The parking standards seem reasonable but will require ample on-street parking to
accommodate multi-car households and residents with recreational equipment such as
campers, trailers, rafts, and ATVs. Garfield County should consider if the use of on-street
parking to meet off-street parking requirements is appropriate for all areas of the PUD.
6. Senior Housing Considerations
o While the inclusion of senior housing is welcome, its location may be isolating without
adequate transportation options. As Carbondale experienced with the Downtowner micro-
mobility service, ensuring that senior residents have access to transit, pedestrian-friendly
infrastructure, and essential services is critical.
7. Water Supply & Adequacy of Water Rights
o While the application states that the development holds “significant water rights” and is
within the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District service area, Carbondale
encourages Garfield County to review those water rights and initially ensure the
adequacy of these rights to support the full buildout of 1,500 dwelling units, 55,000
square feet of commercial space, and a 120-room hotel initially and reaffirm the
adequacy as phased development is reviewed. Given the increasing strain on regional
water resources, it is critical that Garfield County ensure the long-term availability and
legal security of these water rights — not only for domestic use but also for fire
suppression, irrigation of public spaces, and future resilience in drought scenarios.
Economic & Commercial Considerations
8. Impact on Existing Commercial Spaces
o Carbondale has approved commercial space that is proving difficult to fill. The proposed
55,000 square feet of new commercial space may compete directly with existing
municipal commercial areas in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Carbondale would
recommend that a market analysis be conducted to assess potential impacts.
o The location of the Village Center (commercial areas) within the development could be
unsustainable given the lack of convenience and difficulty of access from Highway 82
and the proposed hotel use. Garfield County should consider whether an alternative
location within the development would be better suited for viable commercial space.
Sustainability & Environmental Considerations
9. River Corridor Conservation Area
o Areas along both the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers, especially those within the 100-
year floodplain, are identified as river corridor conservation areas. The Harvest Roaring
Fork PUD discusses conservation areas and open space areas along both Cattle Creek and
the Roaring Fork rivers. Carbondale would urge Garfield County to consider protection
for critical habitats and other riparian areas along both waterways.
EXHIBIT 9
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 4 of 5
10. Building Performance Beyond Code
o Rather than simply meeting the minimum energy efficiency standards, the development
could incorporate Passive House or Net-Zero Energy-ready design elements for a portion
of the housing stock to reduce long-term energy demand and enhance sustainability.
11. Solar-Ready Homes
o Even if full-scale solar installation is not initially feasible, homes should be designed to
be solar-ready (pre-wired for future solar panel installation) to allow residents to adopt
renewable energy as costs decrease or desire is present.
12. Enhanced Water Conservation Measures
o Given the region’s semi-arid climate, additional water conservation measures should be
incorporated, such as xeriscaping with native plants, graywater reuse systems, and high-
efficiency irrigation technologies.
13. Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure
o The development should include ample EV charging stations in both residential and
commercial areas to accommodate the growing adoption of electric vehicles and future-
proof the project’s transportation options.
PUD Guide Considerations
14. Future Density Adjustments
o The PUD Guide states that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage shall not exceed
50% for the entire development. However, it is undefined how these will be used on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach. Carbondale would recommend including more
specificity in each neighborhood to help Garfield County Staff and future property
owners understand how additions and remodels may be pursued. In addition, this
approach could lead to underdeveloped lots later in the process, potentially necessitating
future PUD amendments to increase density or total development lot coverage.
15. Hotel Location
o The proposed hotel is located in the Sopris Neighborhood, which is far from the Village
Center, the primary commercial hub. The County should assess whether this location is
appropriate for hotel use.
Incorporation Considerations
16. Urban-Scale Development in Unincorporated Garfield County
o The scale of the proposed development, both in terms of residential and commercial uses,
suggests that incorporation into a municipal area may be more appropriate than remaining
within unincorporated Garfield County. The County should evaluate whether the scope
and scale of the proposed development are appropriate within unincorporated Garfield
County.
Conclusion. Carbondale supports increasing the supply of workforce and affordable housing in the
Roaring Fork Valley. However, we encourage Garfield County to consider the issues outlined above,
particularly regarding transportation infrastructure, local workforce housing, sustainability measures, and
the project’s long-term economic impact. Addressing these concerns will help ensure that Harvest
Roaring Fork PUD successfully integrates into the broader regional community while supporting
sustainable growth.
EXHIBIT 9
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 5 of 5
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any
questions regarding these referral comments.
Sincerely,
Jared Barnes, AICP
Planning Director
EXHIBIT 9
GA-26-0002_1 Harvest Roaring Fork PUD .docx
3:17 PM, 09/17/2025
Page 1 of 2
Dear John and Glen:
At your request (August 19, 2025), the Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the Harvest Roaring Fork
PUD referral. I understand the applicant proposes a new PUD (and revocation of the River Edge PUD) to
accommodate single-family, multi-family, affordable housing, open space, and commercial uses on
approximately 283 acres.
The available referral documents include a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Harvest Roaring Fork
Subdivision, State Highway 82 and Cattle Creek Road, Garfield County, Colorado (CTL Thompson Project
No. GS06896.001-115-R1 (Revised), June 5, 2025).
The primary concern on this property is ground deformation-related damage to buildings and
infrastructure caused by water-soluble evaporites/hydrocompactive/collapsible soils and bedrock.
Sinkholes are visible in high-resolution LiDAR-derived hillshade imagery, and significant damage due to
ground movement has occurred in nearby developments.
The entire site, but especially the following areas delineated on the Harvest PD Illustrative Plan, are impacted
by geologic hazards and will require additional investigation, analysis, and avoidance or mitigation:
•North Frontage Neighborhood, northeastern corner: subsidence hazard and known sinkhole(s)
•North Frontage Neighborhood, eastern edge, The Farm, northeastern corner, and Cattle Creek
intersection area: Cattle Creek debris fan / possible debris inundation hazard (fan is bisected by
Highway 82) and subsidence hazard
•North Riverfront, western edge: subsidence hazard and known sinkhole(s)
•South Riverfront, western edge: subsidence hazard and known sinkhole(s)
•Creekside Neighborhood, interior area and southern portion: subsidence hazard and known sinkhole(s)
•Sopris Neighborhood: subsidence hazard and known sinkhole(s)
CTL/Thompson’s 6/5/2025 preliminary characterization of subsurface conditions and development constraints
is valid. CGS agrees (page 6) that “it is good practice to avoid development in areas with potential for
sinkholes and subsidence.” Additional investigation and analysis, possibly including geophysical methods, will
be needed once development plans are better defined to identify subsurface voids and more accurately
characterize subsidence hazard. The applicant should be made aware that some areas of the site may not
be developable without ground modification or stabilization.
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1801 Moly Road
Golden, Colorado 80401
September 17, 2025
John Leybourne, jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov
and Glen Hartmann, ghartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov
Garfield County Community Development
Matthew L. Morgan
State Geologist
Location:
39.4587, -107.2667
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA-26-0002
EXHIBIT 10
John Leybourne and Glen Hartmann
September 17, 2025
Page 2 of 2
GA-26-0002_1 Harvest Roaring Fork PUD .docx
3:17 PM, 09/17/2025
Sopris Engineering’s summary of past geotechnical investigations and plan for additional investigation and
analysis to mitigate risk of damage due to ground movement going forward (page 9, Harvest Roaring Fork
Zoning Application, Engineering Narrative, Sopris Engineering Job # 34010, Revised April 14, 2025) is valid:
7. GEOTECHNICAL
Sopris Engineering has reviewed 3 different preliminary geotechnical investigation reports for the subject
property. Below is a list of those reports:
YEH and Associates Inc Dated 12, 2014, 18 test holes
HP Geotech dated November 15, 2010, 21 test holes
CTL Thompson dated September 16, 2021, 12 test holes
Each of these reports were prepared as part of different development plans in the past. Based upon the
three previous investigations and SE’s experience in the area, the proposed form-based-zoning application
can mitigate or/ or avoid Geotechnical Hazards outlined. Between the three studies, 51 borings and test pits
have been completed throughout the subject site (see appendix 3 exhibit 2 for boring and test pit locations).
SE’s opinion is that updated geotechnical investigation reports will be provided as part of the preliminary
plan application for each phase of development… As the subject sites preliminary plan develops, we will
continue to coordinate on the Geotechnical hazards and work to develop a site plan that avoids and
mitigates hazards to the extent possible.
If the county approves the Harvest Roaring Fork PD, CGS would like to review subsequent applications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or require further
review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or e-mail carlson@mines.edu.
Sincerely,
Jill Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
EXHIBIT 10
Page 1 of 2
September 17, 2025
John Leybourne
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: PUDA 12-24-9048 AND PUDA 07-25-9079 – HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD AND
RIVERS EDGE COLORADO PUD REVOCATION – WATER RIGHTS AND FLOODPLAIN
TECHNICAL REVIEW LETTER
Dear John:
At the request of Garfield County (“GARCO”), Colorado River Engineering, Inc. (“CRE”)
reviewed the land use application of Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC (“Applicant”) for the
proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD, GARCO file number PUDA-12-24-9048. The CRE
review is focused only on the water rights, physical water supply, and floodplain items.
CRE’s comments are presented below.
Legal Water Supply
Based on the submittal package, the proposed PUD application has provided
documentation and data that the proposed project has adequate legal water rights to
provide for domestic/commercial and irrigation uses and development of ponds. A portion
of the water rights are proposed to be conveyed to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District (“RFW&SD”). The RFW&SD will serve the domestic water requirements for the
PUD through development of the wells and diversions decreed for use on the Harvest
Roaring Fork PUD in Water Court Case Nos. 01CW187, 07CW164, and 08CW198. The
irrigation water supply will come from senior irrigation water rights in the Glenwood Ditch
(Thompson Glen Ditch Company shares) which diverts from the Roaring Fork River and
also a headgate on Cattle Creek, and the Staton Ditch which diverts from Cattle Creek.
The water right portfolio also includes storage rights that would provide for development
of ponds on the property.
Physical Water Supply
The submittal does not include evidence supporting the water rights will yield an adequate
physical supply of water for the proposed project. CRE is familiar with the water rights,
the RFW&SD, and the property - the project likely has and can develop an adequate
physical supply. However, it is the Applicant’s burden to provide the analysis and
evidence required in support of the proposed project. For the central water system, the
EXHIBIT 11
Page 2 of 2
requirements for the RFW&SD in Section 4-203.M.1.a. need to be provided. For
irrigation, such evidence may include a quantitative description (reliability, diversions,
season of use, number of acres irrigated, etc) of the historic use of senior irrigation water
rights, comparison to proposed demands, identifying what is committed to augmentation
of project depletions (domestic/commercial, evaporation) and what is remaining, etc. The
Patrick Miller Noto letter contains most of this information, but Applicant should complete
the analysis and demonstrate the comparison of available rights/supply for proposed
demand.
Floodplain
Both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek have detailed FEMA Floodplain
delineations with base flood elevations located on the property. The proposed project
does not appear to be planning on development within the floodplain, but a bridge is
proposed across Cattle Creek and utilities are proposed across both the Roaring Fork
River and Cattle Creek. The Applicant proposes to span the entire Cattle Creek floodplain
and avoid any issues with floodplain impacts. At the time the bridge is designed and
included for approval, a Floodplain Development Permit Application should be submitted
to confirm the design is consistent with the Floodplain Regulation including the limits and
elevations of the floodplain and the freeboard from the 100-year base flood elevation to
the low chord of the bridge. The utility crossings will involve work within the
Floodway/Watercourse and a Floodplain Development Permit should be processed to
confirm no alteration to the watercourse and zero rise in the Base Flood Elevation. CRE
anticipates permitting will be straight forward with no potential floodplain issues that would
prevent the proposed activities.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Colorado River Engineering, Inc.
Michael Erion, P.E.
Principal Water Resources Engineer
Job No. 1317.7
MJE/mje
EXHIBIT 11
Mr. Leybourne / Mr. Hartmann,
Thank you for requesting comments from our office regarding the proposed subject project
or activities that may have the potential to impact aquatic resources. We appreciate that
you are considering our potential regulatory role in the project.
Unfortunately, we do not have the ability at this time to respond to requests for comments
such as this due to recent losses of staff from federal government efficiency efforts.
If the subject activity should have the potential to result in the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, then the project proponent should work directly
with our office to acquire necessary Corps permits, if applicable, as described in the
following general comment:
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit from us for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States may include,
but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, wet meadows, seeps, and
some irrigation ditches. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the applicant
should prepare a delineation of aquatic resources, in accordance with the applicable
standards, including the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate regional
supplements. These standards can be found on our website at:
https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program -and-Permits/Jurisdiction/
An aquatic resource delineation should be evaluated prior to designing a project to ensure
the project proponent avoids and minimizes impacts to waters of the United States to the
greatest practicable extent. The range of alternatives considered for this project should
include alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, or other waters
of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can
be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to discharging dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, compensatory mitigation may be required.
EXHIBIT 12
For more information about our program or to locate a list of consultants that prepare
aquatic resource delineations and permit application documents, please visit our website
at: https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits
Respectfully,
S. Brad Crosson
Chief, NW Colorado Branch
Acting Chief, Southern Colorado Branch
SPA Section 408 Coordinator
Albuquerque District, Regulatory Division
Grand Junction Field Office
400 Rood Avenue, Rm 224
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Phone: (970) 837-6530
Email: steven.b.crosson@usace.army.mil
EXHIBIT 12
Glenwood Springs Office, Area 8 Service Center
0088 Wildlife Way • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH: (970) 947.2920
September 19, 2025
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601
Submitted via email to jleybourne @garfieldcountyco.gov
and ghartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov
RE: Harvest Fork PUD, PUDA-07-25-9079 and PUDA-12-24-9048
Mr. Leybourne and Mr. Hartmann,
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Harvest
Roaring Fork PUD project in Garfield County. CPW has a statutory responsibility to manage
all wildlife species in Colorado, and CPW encourages Realty Capital Management to afford
the highest protections for Colorado’s wildlife species and habitats.
The Harvest Fork PUD project is proposed to encompass approximately 283 acres located
between Colorado Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River in Garfield County Colorado. This
project will encompass the Cattle Creek drainage and the associated riparian corridor to
the confluence with the Roaring Fork River. This riparian area is held under a conservation
easement by Roaring Fork Conservancy. This project involves the development of both
commercial, recreational areas, and up to 1500 residential units that can have substantial
impact to both aquatic and terrestrial species in the area. This type of development will
not only have a direct impact on-site, but will have indirect impacts to the surrounding
public lands with the potential of several thousand new residents now recreating on them.
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Richard Reading, Chair ∙ James 'Jay' Tutchton, Vice-Chair ∙ Eden Vardy, Secretary ∙ Jessica Beaulieu ∙
Frances Silva Blaney ∙ John Emerick ∙ Tai Jacober ∙ Dallas May ∙ Jack Murphy ∙ Gabriel Otero ∙ Murphy Robinson
1
EXHIBIT 13
The area proposed for development is currently used by a variety of species such as mule
deer, elk, river otters, black bear, raptor species, herons, and other small mammal, bird
and aquatic species. This area is directly adjacent to mapped elk and mule deer critical
winter range across HWY 82 to the east, and other high priority habitat for deer and elk.
The project area is one of the last undeveloped parcels on the valley floor and while not
mapped as severe winter range, winter concentration,or even winter range, it annually
supports a large number of elk and deer seasonally. While the upper portions of the
property have been largely scraped and re-graded, some vegetation has persisted and is
providing some level of habitat. The lower riparian areas, within the conservation
easement, are relatively high functioning habitats supporting many different species. The
elk that currently use the parcel will likely be displaced to adjoining parcels that are less
densely developed, potentially creating conflicts with other land owners. The level of
development proposed in this application will have both direct and indirect impacts to
wildlife and wildlife habitat. In order to minimize the potential impacts please consider
the following recommendations:
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. 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.
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
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:
● Install round handled doorknobs on all exterior doors.
● Avoid planting any fruit, berry or nut bearing or producing trees or shrubs for
landscaping.
● Install bear-resistant trash receptacles throughout the facility, particularly in parking
areas, fueling zones, and near food service locations.
2
EXHIBIT 13
● Ensure regular trash removal schedules to prevent accumulation and potential
attraction.
● Fully enclosed or locking bear resistant storage for communal waste bins and
dumpsters.
● Deploy signage and visitor education programs to inform customers and employees
about proper waste disposal practices and bear awareness.
● 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.
● 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.
● Use only bear proof dumpsters and store trash securely until the morning of pickup.
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.
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 provided by Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC addresses this issue and those
recommendations should be followed.
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 15 and September 30 th 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 3 to avoid impacting the locally imperiled whitefish
population.
3
EXHIBIT 13
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 disinfection with Hot Water: Spray/soak equipment with water heated to more than 140
degrees Fahrenheit for at least 10 minutes.
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 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.
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.
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
4
EXHIBIT 13
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Matt Yamashita
Area Wildlife Manager
CC: J Groves-AAWM
File
5
EXHIBIT 13
September 18, 2025
To: John Leybourne,
Planner III
Garfield County Community Development
From: Hannah Klausman,
Regional Planning Director
RFTA
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
RFTA has reviewed the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD proposal and has incorporated department
comments from Operations, Planning, Trails & Corridor, and Maintenance. Below is a high-level
summary of RFTA’s analysis, followed by further examination of 1. Existing transit service, 2.
Impacts to the Rio Grande Corridor and RFTA ROW process, 3. Review of project compliance
with Garfield County Comprehensive Plan goals as they relate to transit, and finally, 4.
Preliminary Findings and requests for additional information.
Harvest Roaring Fork proposes 1500 dwelling units, and approximately 50,000 square feet of
commercial uses at full build out. This is estimated to be a community of roughly 4,000 people.
Existing transit infrastructure is insufficient to support the transportation needs of a community
of this scale, and significant upgrades will be required to avoid auto-dependence and regional
traffic impacts.
To meet the mobility needs for a project of this size and scale, numerous transit service
frequency, facility, and transportation infrastructure upgrades would be necessary along with
long term maintenance and operations to support such improvements. The project is in
unincorporated Garfield County which is currently not a member of RFTA. RFTA is primarily
funded by dedicated sales and property taxes levied in each of its member jurisdictions.
Improvements to bus stops in non-member jurisdictions require financial participation from
those jurisdictions or project developers.
Given the project’s size and location outside of RFTA member jurisdictions, dedicated funding
commitments from Garfield County and/or the developer are essential to ensure acceptable
transit service and achieve the applicant’s stated goal of traffic reduction.
EXHIBIT 14
1. Existing Bus Service to Project Area
The applicant states that “The PUD will attempt to alleviate traffic through Glenwood Springs by
providing substantial housing options mid-valley for Garfield County Residents…. near high
frequency regional transit [that] will help reduce vehicle travel and congestion on Grand
Avenue.” (Page 62, Exhibit C, Rezoning Justification Report).
High frequency bus service is service that occurs every 15 minutes or less. Low frequency bus
service is 30 minutes or more (Bus Rapid Transit Service Design, American Public Transportation
Association, 2010). Current service to the project area is every 30 minutes as described in further
detail below. Ensuring this project has access to high-frequency BRT service every 15 minutes is
key to reducing vehicle travel and congestion.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service
Current BRT service does not connect to this proposed development. The closest BRT stations
are the 27th Street Station in Glenwood Springs and the Carbondale Park and Ride (PnR) located
5 miles from the proposed development and predominantly requiring vehicular access.
Local Valley Service
While Local Valley service technically reaches the project area at the Spring Valley stop, its 30
minutes frequency, stop amenities, and connectivity are far below what would be required for a
development projected to house nearly 4,000 residents. The Spring Valley stop is half a mile
away. The Aspen Glen stop is over 1 mile away.
Travel times on Local Valley Service, from Spring Valley Stop:
Up valley
Spring Valley to the Carbondale PnR 9 minutes
Spring Valley to El Jebel PnR 29 minutes
Spring Valley to Brush Creek PnR 59 minutes
Spring Valley to Rubey Park 1 hour 17 minutes
Down valley
Spring Valley to Glenwood 27th Street Station 9 minutes
Spring Valley to Downtown Glenwood 15 minutes
Additional time to access stop:
½ mile walk to stop 10 minutes
Drive time to park at stop 5 minutes (estimated)
Bus Stop Guideline Compliance:
The following is a list of compliance of the Spring Valley and Aspen Glen bus stops and
compliance with RFTA’s Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines as well as amenity analysis.
Spring Valley:
EXHIBIT 14
• Up-valley and down-valley stops are located on the near side of the intersection. RFTA’s
Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines outlines RFTA’s preferred stop location on the
far-side of the intersection as it has been shown to be the safest for passengers exiting
the bus and minimizing conflicts with other vehicles. Relocating to far side increases
pedestrian safety and allows bus to utilize the red light for efficient and safe merge
movements back onto SH82.
• Lack of shelter, or seating amenities.
• Lack of bike rack facilities.
Aspen Glen:
• Aspen Glen stops have inadequate lengths and tapers for the design speed of State
Highway 82, Lack bike and pedestrian connections, ADA improvements, lighting,
landscaping, and a safe crossing of SH82.
• Lack of shelter, or seating amenities.
• Lack of bike rack facilities.
Analysis:
This application does not address expected demand for multimodal transportation, nor the
infrastructure and operations required to support that demand.
Current bus service levels fall far short of what is necessary to serve a community of nearly 4,000
residents and would result in disproportionate reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. The
proposed 1500 dwelling units with an average persons per household of 2.6, would equate to
3,900 people. By comparison, the Town of Basalt—with a similar population—has BRT access,
park-and-ride facilities, and local circulator options. Without similar investments, Harvest
Roaring Fork risks functioning as an auto-oriented subdivision rather than a multimodal
community.
The Town of Basalt includes the following transit and mobility components to serve the
population which represent the appropriate level of transit and multimodal options to serve a
town of 4,000 people:
• BRT standard stops on either side of SH82 at the main entrance (15-minute service)
• A grade separated pedestrian crossing (underpass) of SH82 connecting the stations
• Bus/BRT-only pullouts on SH82 in both directions at the stations
• Walkways/bikeways connecting the BRT stations to the rest of the community
• Bikeshare and micro-transit (Basalt Downtowner on demand)
• Large Park and Ride (214 spaces, El Jebel PnR)
• Sales tax and property tax dedication to RFTA as member jurisdiction.
The proposed development utilizes the following existing transit infrastructure:
• Local Valley stops on either side of SH82. (30-minute service)
EXHIBIT 14
• At grade crosswalk on SH82 connecting the stops (Less safe than grade separated, slows
signal timing)
• Rio Grande Corridor Trail, Community trails to access Local Valley Stops
• Small Park and Ride (53 spaces, Spring Valley PnR)
• Non-member service area (Jurisdictional funding necessary for improvements)
Inadequate transit service results in less residents choosing transit as their preferred mode of
travel and more single occupancy vehicle use, increasing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas
emissions region wide. It may also force demands from residents for transit service equivalent to
what other towns receive, long after the improvements needed to be established.
While the applicant cites proximity to jobs as a congestion benefit, the phenomenon of latent
demand suggests this effect will not materialize without parallel transit investments. Congestion
relief depends on diverting trips from autos to high-quality transit, not simply shifting residential
locations. The Upper Valley Mobility Report from the Aspen Institute explains the concept in the
following paragraph.
(A) Latent Demand. When perceived auto congestion is reduced during peak hours, many people
will use a highway more often, shift their travel back to peak hours, or switch from transit to
driving, thus increasing congestion again. This is a specific application of the economic concept of
“induced demand.” That is, when the supply of a good increases, more of the good is consumed.
(Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility. (2017, September). Upper Valley
Mobility Report. Aspen Institute)
Recognizing that any new residential development adds to traffic congestion, a more effective
tool to lessen the growth of congestion is to implement efficient and convenient transit options
to encourage less automobile use.
2. Rio Grande Corridor ROW Crossing and Access
The RFTA right-of-way crossings proposed are covered by an Easement. The easement for
access to the Project Site at this location was granted by Roaring Fork Railroad Holding
Authority.
The applicant will be required to submit a Land Use Application and receive approval from RFTA
for work within the Railroad Right of Way. This process includes a 30-60 day minimum
turnaround for approval with an additional 60-90 days if the Public Utilities Commission requires
sign off, which RFTA expects. The applicant will be required to meet design requirements
outlined in RFTA’s Access Control Plan.
The applicant has proposed a below grade crossing of the Rio Grande Corridor at the main
vehicular entrance with a realignment of the trail from the centerline of the ROW. RFTA is
requesting additional design information and the reasoning behind this alignment choice.
EXHIBIT 14
Additionally, RFTA would like to know the proposed distances between trail access points
identified on Figure F2. Public Transit Access Map, within the neighborhoods. Specifically, how
are RFTA Trail Access points 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 intended to function and interface with the adjacent
neighborhoods.
3. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Analysis
Chapter 2, Future Land Use
Growth in Unincorporated Communities
Policy 1: Where growth or the development of an expanded community is proposed in unincorporated areas it should meet the following concepts and be developed in accordance with the following strategies.
vii. Transit opportunities are provided.
RFTA Response: The proposal in its current form does not adequately meet Garfield County’s
comprehensive plan goals related to transit and transportation. Substantial upgrades—including
but not limited to bus stop relocation, a grade-separated crossing, and funding commitments to
support expanded service—are needed for consistency.
Chapter 3, Plan Sections
SECTION 3: TRANSPORTATION:
Policy 2: Support public transit services as well as alternative modes of
transportation, when and where feasible.
Policy 3: Explore options to address transportation and access issues.
iii. Explore mechanisms for the county to address increased traffic from
new development.
RFTA Response: The increased traffic from this development can be partially mitigated by
improved transit access and increased transit service. While this project is providing needed
regional housing options, without the matching appropriate transit service, it will become an
auto-centered suburb that does not meet Garfield County’s or the region’s traffic mitigation
goals.
4. Preliminary Findings & Additional Information Request
RFTA recognizes the immense need for housing units, specifically affordable units, to address
the region’s housing gaps. To ensure that Harvest Roaring Fork functions as a multimodal
EXHIBIT 14
community rather than an auto-dependent suburb, RFTA recommends the following preliminary
findings for improvements. These improvements should be developer-funded and implemented
in partnership with Garfield County and RFTA.
• Consideration of BRT access to the project site with stations, pullouts and dedicated bus
lanes to maintain travel times. This service level would require funding from jurisdiction
and/or developer.
• Construct a grade separated pedestrian crossing (underpass) of SH82 connecting bus
stops
• Relocate Spring Valley stops to far-side intersection locations.
• Evaluate expansion and relocation of the Spring Valley PnR.
• Upgrade bus stops to comply with Bus Stop Guidelines including bike and pedestrian
connections, ADA, lighting, and landscaping improvements.
• Implement Bikeshare and micro-transit.
To fully understand whether the above improvements are necessary and at what phases, RFTA
requests a Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis (MTIA) to examine the project’s impact on
both the Rio Grande and local transit service. This would preferably be submitted with time for
review and comment period from RFTA prior to the first public hearing. This would also allow
RFTA to look at location feasibility for the listed improvements and discuss with the developer.
Requested information summary:
• Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis
• Additional design detail and reasoning for RFTA Trail Access 3, relocated underpass.
• Additional detail on how the development interfaces with the Rio Grande Corridor
including distances between access points specific to neighborhoods.
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Regional Planning Director
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
EXHIBIT 14
October 24, 2025
To: John Leybourne,
Planner III,
Garfield County Community Development
From: Hannah Klausman,
Regional Planning Director,
RFTA
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD, Revised Comments
RFTA has reviewed the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD response to RFTA comments and provides the
following revised comments. The previous analysis and preliminary findings submitted in RFTA’s
original referral letter remains.
RFTA staff met with the developers on October 2, 2025 and discussed the RFTA
recommendations related to BRT Service, underpass infrastructure improvements, and other
outlined recommended improvements in the referral letter. In response to that meeting, RFTA
provided the following prioritized list for improvements to the applicant via email:
At this time RFTA is supportive of improvements to existing transit infrastructure to better serve the
project, but is not supportive of service directly to the property (ie new bus stops or parking on the
site). The initial concept layout of bus access direct to the property (utilizing Right in Right out and
protected U-turn lefts for down valley buses to access the site and return to down valley route) is
not in alignment with efficient service models. Without an underpass (which RFTA understands the
geological constraints) service directly to the site is not seen as a viable option. RFTA’s priority for
providing better service to this project is the following:
1. Expansion of Spring Valley to a BRT Station including an underpass.
2. Expansion of Spring Valley to a BRT station, utilizing existing at grade crosswalks of
intersection.
Both service expansions would require a long-term sustainable funding mechanism in order to
support the increased transit service since the property is not located in a member jurisdiction.
Possible project metro-district funding is an opportunity for review.
Additionally, RFTA submits a revised information request as included below.
1. Additional Information Request
To fully understand project impacts to transit ridership and trail use, RFTA requests a Multimodal
Transportation Impact Analysis (MTIA) to examine the project’s impact on both the Rio Grande
and local transit service. At this stage of zoning approval, a preliminary analysis based on the
EXHIBIT 14
requested density is appropriate, with a full analysis completed prior to any subsequent
applications for development approvals. The preliminary analysis would preferably be submitted
with time for review and comment period from RFTA prior to the first public hearing for the
projects zoning application.
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Regional Planning Director
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
EXHIBIT 14
January 12, 2026
To: John Leybourne,
Planner III,
Garfield County Community Development
From: Hannah Klausman,
Regional Planning Director,
RFTA
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD, Revised Preliminary Multimodal Analysis Response
RFTA has reviewed the applicant’s Preliminary Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis (MTIA)
and SGM’s Transportation Study Review memorandum for the Harvest Roaring Fork Planned
Unit Development, which proposes up to 1,500 dwelling units with associated neighborhood-
serving retail. The MTIA estimates that approximately 17–19 percent of residential trips would be
made by pedestrian, bicycle, or transit modes, reflecting the project’s proximity to the Rio
Grande Trail and existing RFTA service. The analysis projects approximately 255 morning peak-
hour and 285 afternoon peak-hour non-auto trips, with ridership at nearby Local Valley bus
stops anticipated to increase by at least 200 transit riders during each peak period. RFTA
provides the following comments related to the projected increase in transit demand.
Service Increase and Cost Implications
RFTA concurs that accommodating an increase of approximately 200 peak-period transit riders
would require a substantial expansion of service. Based on current operating assumptions,
meeting this project-generated demand would require approximately eight additional BRT-
equivalent peak-period trips. The estimated 2025 cost to provide this level of additional service
is approximately $2.2 million, inclusive of vehicle mileage, running time, marginal costs, and
operating expenses. This estimate assumes BRT service. If the increased trips were applied to
Local service instead of BRT, the cost would be higher due to longer running times.
The MTIA further notes that Willits Town Center—approximately one-third the size of the
proposed development—generates substantial peak-period transit boardings. This comparison
provides relevant context indicating that ITE-based transit ridership estimates may understate
actual future demand at the Harvest Roaring Fork site. Importantly, transit infrastructure and
service enhancements associated with Willits were supported, in part, through developer
contributions and negotiated mitigation obligations tied to development impacts, establishing a
relevant local precedent for addressing development-generated transit demand.
EXHIBIT 14
Infrastructure Considerations
In addition to service expansion costs, infrastructure improvements including Spring Valley
Station upgrades and potential pedestrian underpass improvements represent significant capital
investments. While RFTA recognizes that Harvest Roaring Fork would not be the sole user of
these facilities, the development would be a primary generator of new transit demand at this
location.
Consistent with established practice for major mixed-use developments in the Roaring Fork
Valley, including Willits Town Center, RFTA believes it is appropriate for the applicant to provide
a proportional financial contribution toward transit capital improvements necessitated by the
project, including station enhancements, pedestrian grade-separated access, and other
infrastructure required to safely and efficiently accommodate development-generated ridership.
Transit Access and Stop Spacing
RFTA concurs with SGM’s Transportation Study Review that multimodal options are most
effective when located within approximately ¼ to ½ mile of development. Existing RFTA stops
are located outside of this range for much of the proposed site. RFTA is undertaking a Transit
Master Plan in 2026 that will evaluate service efficiency, stop spacing, and route alignment
relative to emerging residential and employment centers. This planning effort may present a
future opportunity to collaboratively evaluate service optimization in this corridor; however, any
service or stop modifications driven by Harvest Roaring Fork would need to be supported by
developer-funded mitigation.
Funding and Mitigation Responsibility
RFTA notes that the Harvest Roaring Fork site is not located within a RFTA member jurisdiction
and that existing transit resources are programmed to serve current and regionally forecasted
baseline demand. Service expansions required to accommodate development-specific impacts
are not assumed within RFTA’s adopted funding framework.
Accordingly, RFTA’s position remains that the cost of providing adequate transit service levels
attributable to the Harvest Roaring Fork development, including increased service frequency and
peak-period capacity, is the responsibility of the applicant. This includes, but is not limited to,
costs associated with increased service frequency, peak-period capacity, supporting capital
infrastructure, and long-term operations and maintenance attributable to project-generated
demand. Potential approaches may include a project-specific metro district or other developer-
funded mitigation strategy, subject to coordination with Garfield County and RFTA.
EXHIBIT 14
RFTA remains available to coordinate with the applicant and Garfield County to refine ridership
projections, confirm service requirements, and identify feasible mitigation measures as the
project advances through subsequent development approvals.
At this time, RFTA is supportive of improvements to existing transit infrastructure to better serve
the project area but is not supportive of service directly to the development site that would
create route deviations and add time to transit trips. The initial concept of direct bus access onto
the property utilizing right-in/right-out movements and protected U-turns—is not consistent
with efficient transit operations. Absent grade-separated crossings allowing pedestrians to
access the up valley and down valley routes and buses to remain on existing route paths, service
directly to the site is not considered viable.
Given the substantial increase in transit ridership and pedestrian trips generated by the
development, RFTA’s priority for improving transit service to this project area remains to expand
the Spring Valley Station to a BRT station, with all necessary upgrades for BRT station
compliance, with a grade-separated underpass connecting both sides of State Highway 82. The
underpass is a key part of connecting transit and pedestrian networks in the project area and
would be a direct link between development, active transportation, and transit use.
This would require a long-term, sustainable funding mechanism to support increased transit
service and contributions to on-going station/underpass maintenance, as the property is not
located within a RFTA member jurisdiction. A project-specific metro district remains a potential
option for further consideration.
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Regional Planning Director
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
EXHIBIT 14
September 10, 2025
Dear Mr. Leybourne,
Thank you for referring the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application to Roaring Fork School District RE-1 for
comment. We do not typically comment on proposed developments, but due to the scale and location of this
proposal, we respectfully submit the following comments for consideration. Our comments are limited to the
potential impacts of this development on our schools and staff; we defer to others who have expertise in other
areas.
1.Impact on student enrollment in Roaring Fork Schools: Roaring Fork School District is currently
experiencing declining enrollment, based on declining birth rates and the increasing cost of living in our
boundaries. Declining enrollment leads to declining funding since our funding is based on a per-pupil
formula. For example, Riverview K-8 School, which is the closest school to the proposed development,
has a capacity of 422 students, but is forecasted to decline from 316 students in 2025-26 to 278 in
2029-30. This loss of 38 students equates to approximately $500,000 lower revenue annually. If
approved, Harvest Roaring Fork has the potential to help stabilize or increase student enrollment at
Riverview and other area schools, which could help RFSD avoid declining funding due to declining
enrollment. With the capital improvements possible through school land dedication fees, our schools
have the capacity to accommodate the students that are likely to live in Harvest Roaring Fork.
2.Workforce Housing: Housing is the single biggest barrier to recruiting and retaining the high quality
staff that our students deserve. Harvest Roaring Fork’s addition of 150 price-capped units, plus 300
resident-owner occupied (RO) units and additional free-market rental and for-sale units, has the
potential to help RFSD stabilize our workforce by addressing the critical shortage of staff housing near
our schools. The location of this development between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale is central to
our district and would likely be an attractive location for staff to live. If additional price-capped,
deed-restricted units can be incorporated into the project, that would provide additional opportunities for
our teachers and staff to afford to live closer to our schools. Each affordable unit in this area has the
potential to reduce the traffic impacts of our staff who currently commute to our schools in Glenwood
Springs, Carbondale and Basalt from western Garfield County.
Thank you for considering our comments as you review this development application.
Sincerely,
Ben Bohmfalk
Chief Operating Officer
Roaring Fork School District RE-1
EXHIBIT 15
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 30, 2025
TO: John Leybourne, Glenn Hartman, Garfield County Planning
FROM: Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE
SUBJECT: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD – Transportation Studies Review
This memo provides an initial review of the Harvest project regarding the following submittals
associated with the Updated Planned Unit Development Application dated July 29, 2025.
•Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates dated April 18, 2025.
•Preliminary Multimodal Analysis (MMA) prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates dated
November 18, 2025.
•CDOT State Highway Access Permits 325027, 325028 dated April 18, 2025.
To summarize the overall review, the proposed SH 82 improvements represented in the TIS are
consistent with the approved State Highway Access Permits and provide reasonable mitigation
to the traffic impacts to the regional roadway network. The TIS and Access Permits have been
coordinated with CDOT to date.
It is recommended that the Applicant address the following requests for additional information.
•Trip Generation
o 90% Internal Capture Rate is atypical with the application and development plans
lacking detail to verify that assumption. Provide additional details to support that
internal capture rate for retail land use or use industry standard rate.
•Trip Directional Distribution
o Provide a justified basis for an assumed directional split of 70% / 30% upvalley as
existing traffic counts and recent TIS’s in the area have used similar splits in the
downvalley direction.
•Spring Valley Road intersection
o Provide additional analysis of CR 114 / SH 82 intersection for the 2035
Background + project using the existing intersection configuration and signal
timing, including an updated directional distribution.
•Accessory Dwelling Units
o A reasonable estimate of the number of potential ADU’s should be included in the
project trip generation calculation.
•Project Accesses to include assessment of the following.
o Ingress / egress lane configuration to address volumes and queuing
o Entering sight distance requirements
•Multimodal Analysis
o Given the magnitude of the development, the Applicant should work with RFTA to
identify a location within the development or along SH 82 for a transit stop near
the village center to maintain a ½ mile radius for potential users that will
adequately serve the development.
•Garfield County LUC 4-203 L requires addressing the County Road Impact Fees and
assessment of construction traffic impacts to the County and State Road system.
EXHIBIT 16
Any changes in proposed land uses identified on the Access Permits should require an update
to the April 2025 traffic impact study.
Detailed Review Summary
The proposed land uses are assumed to be those represented in the TIS and Access Permits
(shown below).
Outside of those documents, the development land use is represented as 1500 residential units
and 55,000 sf of commercial space as designated in the PUD application and shown below.
Regarding the SH 82 proposed Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCI, RCUT, Median U-Turn…)
for this corridor segment, these intersections will provide safer access to the state highway for
the project intersections and Cattle Creek Road users. Reduced left-turn conflict intersections
are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur. These intersections simplify
decision-making for drivers and minimize the potential for higher severity crash types, such as
head-on and angle. These intersections will be signalized.
The Level of Service (LOS) of the proposed RCUT intersections is generally acceptable except
for intersection #5 in 2055 operating at LOS E. LOS D-F is common for many side street
approaches to SH 82 during peak hours throughout the valley. The LOS information is
summarized in the table below copied from the TIS. Cattle Creek operates at LOS A.
EXHIBIT 16
Specific detailed comments are provided below, most of which have been discussed with CDOT
Region 3 traffic staff who have been involved in the coordination and review of the TIS and
Access Permit process.
• Trip Generation
o Internal Capture – An internal capture rate of 90% is applied using an assumption
that the “Access to the retail portion is indirect and out of the way for a typical
street-front retail location attracting area wide traffic”. The application and
development plans lack detail to verify that assumption.
o Multi-modal trip reduction – Not applied in the trip generation calculations but
discussed in the multimodal analysis letter.
o Trip Generation uses “peak hour of generator” rather than “peak hour of adjacent
street” period which results in higher peak hour volumes than typical traffic impact
analysis methodology.
o Considering all the above factors, the trip generation assumptions used in the TIS
provide for a reasonable analysis of the impact of the proposed development.
• Trip Directional Distribution
o Assumed to be split 70% / 30% in the upvalley direction. This is in comparison to
recent TIS’s completed in the vicinity for Flying M, Spring Valley, and Lake
Springs Ranch which assumed similar splits in the downvalley direction.
o Existing traffic counts at Spring Valley Road and Cattle Creek do not appear to
support the proposed directional distribution.
o A justifiable basis should be provided for this assumption.
• Spring Valley Road intersection
o Existing intersection level of service and safety has been a long-standing issue
requiring a two-part solution.
Improvements of SH 82 auxiliary lanes to meet design speed and storage
capacity requirements. CDOT has initiated an improvement plan to extend
the southbound (upvalley) left turn lane.
Improvements to side street approach lanes to facilitate removal of the
current split phase signal cycle that will improve level of service. It is my
understanding the County is responsible for these side-street
improvements.
The proposed development may further degrade the Delay / LOS
modeled at the intersection but does not directly access the intersection
and may not be responsible for mitigation. The TIS does not provide a
direct comparison of the effect of the project traffic to the intersection.
• Accessory Dwelling Units
o It is my understanding that there is a potential for 450 ADU’s associated with the
proposed single-family homes that are not included in the TIS.
o These units have the potential to increase the peak hour traffic at the access
locations by 15% to 25%.
o SGM has reviewed and performed studies where ADU’s have been included in
the Trip Generation assumptions.
o A reasonable estimate of the number of potential ADU’s should be included in the
project trip generation calculation.
• Multimodal Analysis
o To provide a more accurate comparison of the current ridership at RFTA Bus
Stop 312 currently serving Willitts Town Center and the Tree Farm to the
EXHIBIT 16
potential ridership of the Harvest Roaring Fork development, each development’s
land use mix should be used rather than overall “area” of the developments.
o Generally, multi-modal options are attractive when situated within ¼ to ½ mile of
origin / destination of the user. Although it’s known that the Roaring Fork Valley
exhibits better than average regional multimodal usage, the existing transit stop
at the Spring Valley intersection is over ½ mile to the nearest point of the
development and greater than one mile to the “village center”.
o Given the magnitude of the development, the Applicant should work with RFTA to
identify a location within the development or along SH 82 for a transit stop that
will adequately serve the development near the village center to maintain a ½
mile radius for potential users.
Please let me know if the County has any questions or additional information to review regarding
this matter.
EXHIBIT 16
EXHIBIT 17
EXHIBIT 17
Plan Review Report
Project Title: Harvest Roaring Fork LLC Date: 09/14/2025
Location: Garfield County
Address: West of Highway 82 and Cattle Creek
Resolution No: 2011-84
Contact: Tim Coltart, Realty Capital Management
Reviewer: Karl Oliver
•Section D105 Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads:
o Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof
surface exceeds 30 feet an approved aerial fire apparatus road will be provided
and included a width of 26 feet.
Exception: Where approved by the fire-code official and automatic
sprinkler system is though out the building.
o Note: The fire department had a discussion with the developers several months
ago about the need to shorten the width requirements of a road in certain areas
of the development. I was okay with lessening the requirement for an arial
access as long at the units were sprinkled and that the curb was able to carry the
weight of the jacks for our arial apparatus and able to short jack the apparatus
with a curb that did not rise more than 0.5 in as proposed. More dissection if
needed.
•Starting in July of 2026, we will need to compile with State WUI Code.
o Will include plans review of land scape design that will restrict most types of
vegetation within the first 5 feet of a structure for example.
•Impact fee requirement for Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District:
o $1120.00 per residential lot or residential unit in a multi-family zone district or
other multi-unit residential building.
o $2133.00 per 1000 square feet of non-residential floor area.
o The development impact fees set forth above shall be paid to the district at or
before the time of subdivision or other development approval by any
governmental entity approving the creation of lots by subdivision, subdivision
exemption, or other process for lots/units created and at the time of issuance of
building permits for commercial, industrial, hotel, motel or other buildings,
unless a different payment schedule is agreed to by the Developer and the
district. The district shall enter into a contract with the Developer setting forth
the amount of payment, time of payment, other matters agreed to by the
parties. including a provision whereby the parties will jointly request that the
governing authority approving the subdivision or considering the
EXHIBIT 18
Plan Review Report
subdivision request conditional approval thereof upon the payment of impact fees, set
forth in said agreement. The Board of Directors may approve conveyance of land in lieu
of payment of all or a portion of impact fees, and if so, such approval shall be set forth
in the written agreement. In the event that any Developer who has not agreed to pay
such impact fees or who has not entered into a contract with the district by the time
that the governmental entity considers the subdivision request, the district shall request
denial of approval by the governmental entity.
o All impact fees collected shall be accounted for pursuant to the provisions of
C.R.S. 29-1-801 et seq.
• Additional comments as the process continues.
Sincerely:
Karl Oliver
Prevention Division Chief
Fire Marshal
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
Office - (970) 963-2491
Cell - NUMBER CHANGE – (970) 505-0577
www.carbondalefire.org
EXHIBIT 18
Siting and Land Rights
Right of Way & Permits
1123 West 3rd Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80223
Telephone: 303.571.3306
Facsimile: 303. 571. 3284
donna.l.george@xcelenergy.com
September 10, 2025
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: John Leyborne
Re: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge PUD Revocation
Public Service Company of Colorado’s (PSCo) Right of Way & Permits Referral Desk has
reviewed the request for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge PUD
Revocation and has no objection to this proposed rezone, contingent upon PSCo’s ability to
maintain all existing rights and this amendment should not hinder our ability for future
expansion, including all present and any future accommodations for natural gas transmission
and electric transmission related facilities, and that our current use/ enjoyment of the area
would continue to be an accepted use on the property and that it be “grandfathered” into these
changes.
The property owner/developer/contractor must complete the application process for any new
electric service via xcelenergy.com/InstallAndConnect (Builder’s Call Line/Engineering
Department). It is then the responsibility of the developer to contact the Designer assigned to
the project for approval of design details. The developer will be responsible relocation or
removal of PSCo/Xcel owned utilities. The developer needs to be aware that at the time of
applying with Xcel the following will be required and could happen:
1. Accurate gas BTU loads and electrical loads for the building(s) will be required.
2. If determined by area engineer that reinforcement is needed to Xcel's gas main and or
electrical grid to support added loads from development, said reinforcement will be at
Developers expense.
3. Reinforcement costs are required to be paid prior to installation.
Completion of this City/County review approval process does not constitute an
application with Xcel Energy for utility installation. Applicant will need to contact Xcel
Energy’s to request a formal design for the project. A full set of plans, contractor, and legal
owner information is required prior to starting any part of the construction. Failure to
provide required information prior to construction start will result in delays providing utility
services to your project. Acceptable meter and/or equipment locations will be determined by
Xcel Energy as a part of the design process. Engineering and Construction lead times will vary
depending on workloads and material availability. Relocation and/or removal of existing facilities
will be made at the applicant’s expense and are also subject to lead times referred to above.
EXHIBIT 19
Additional easements by separate PSCo document may be required depending on final utility
design and layout, in which case a Right-of-Way Agent will need to be contacted by the Xcel
Designer.
As a safety precaution, PSCo would like to remind the developer to dial 811 for utility locates
prior to construction.
Donna George
Right of Way and Permits
Public Service Company of Colorado dba Xcel Energy
Office: 303-571-3306 – Email: donna.l.george@xcelenergy.com
Although “branded” as Xcel Energy, the legal owner and operator of the utility facilities in Colorado is
Public Service Company of Colorado. All utility facilities and related land rights, including fee property,
easements, permits, etc., are owned by, operated by and held in the name of Public Service Company of
Colorado, a Colorado Corporation.
EXHIBIT 19
September 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
EXHIBIT 20
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
EXHIBIT 20
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
EXHIBIT 20
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
EXHIBIT 20
"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
EXHIBIT 20
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
EXHIBIT 20
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
EXHIBIT 20
I:\1996\96059\A-143 Harvest Roaring Fork\A-Corresp\Prelim Docs from County\20250918-ltr to Leybourne-Hartmann.docx
September 15, 2025
John Leybourne, Planner III
Glen Hartmann, Director
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge PUD Revocation
Review Comments
Dear John and Glen:
The above-referenced project has been referred to this office for review on behalf of the Roaring
Fork Water & Sanitation District (District).
1. No comments on the Revocation of the River Edge Colorado PUD.
2. The Pre-Inclusion Agreement entered between the previous owner and the District, recorded
at reception number 825458, contemplated development of up to 750 EQRs on the subject
property. The zoning proposed in the current application could allow up to 1,500 residential
units and commercial development on the subject property. The District and developer will
need to determine the appropriate number of units that can be served and execute a new
Pre-Inclusion Agreement before the subject property can be served by the District.
3. As stated in the Can and Will Serve letter provided by the District, the developer must
comply with all the parameters contained within the letter.
4. The developer will be required to deliver sufficient water rights to the District necessary to
serve any proposed development before the District provides any services.
5. The developer will be required to install necessary water and sanitary sewer infrastructure
necessary to serve any proposed development before the District provides any services.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information or clarification to the
above.
Respectfully submitted,
SGM
Brandyn Bair, PE
District Engineer
cc. Tonya Uren, RFWSD District Administrator
Scott Grosscup, Esq
www.s gm-inc .com
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
EXHIBIT 21
EXHIBIT 22
EXHIBIT 22
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development August 26, 2025
Attention: John Leyborne and Glenn Hartman
jleyborne@garfieldcountyco.gov and ghartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge PUD Revocation
Parcel No. 239307200031, 239501400161, 239307300032,
239307200001, and 239307300033,
West of Hwy 82 and Cattle Creek
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
File # PUDA-12-24-9048 and PUDA-07-25-907
John and Glenn,
Garfield County Public Health (GCPH) has reviewed both Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge
PUD Revocation application packets (PUDA-12-24-9048 and PUDA-07-25-907). GCPH’s understanding the
revocation requests is for the rezoning to Residential Suburban base zoning and is necessary for the review of
a new Planned Unit Development for the same parcels.
The Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application includes a PUD Guide. The applicant proposes for it to be the
governance document for the future development of this mixed-use community. It establishes zoning for each
neighborhood within Harvest Roaring Fork and proposes specific regulations, development standards, use
restrictions, and density limits for each neighborhood.
GCPH has the following comments.
1.Temporary Housing: The application mentioned their interest in temporary housing for the development
of this project. GCPH could not find a Colorado temporary housing regulation that would provide
guidance for this proposal.
GCPH staff comment: GCPH recommends the applicant consider alternative measures for contractors
other than temporary housing given this project is located within a populated area.
2.Noise: The applicant states that there will be a PUD Guide for various requirements that may address
the wellbeing for residents in the community. It was unclear what noise restrictions would be put in
place for both residential and mixed-use areas. Noise both amplified and non-amplified in mixed use
communities can cause impacts to the public both physiologically and mentally. Colorado Revised
Statute 25-12-103 regulating noise and provides different noise limits by zone and are included in this
referral as Table 1.
Table 1.
ZONE 7 AM to next 7 PM 7 PM to next 7 AM
Residential 55 db (A) 50 db (A)
Commercial 60 db (A) 55 db (A)
Light Industrial 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A)
Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A)
EXHIBIT 23
GCPH staff comment: This application is for residential and mixed-use development. GCPH
recommends that noise limits outlined in Table 1 be included in the applicants PUD Guide and for them
to consider residential noise limits for proposed commercial activity, especially when adjacent to
residential units. The applicant should establish the noise restrictions in the PUD Guide and covenants
and be the HOA be the first arbiter with enforcement and complaint response.
3. Asbestos: Applicant referred to the old Sopris restaurant located on the site containing asbestos as well
as their plans to demolish the building. Per Colorado Regulation 8, Part B, all demolition projects must
comply with asbestos inspection and permitting requirements:
• A state-certified asbestos inspection is required before demolition.
• If asbestos is found above trigger levels, abatement by a certified contractor is mandatory.
• A CDPHE demolition permit must be submitted with a 10-working-day notice prior to demo.
GCPH Comment: GCPH recommends the applicant submit to Garfield County a CDPHE approved
demo permit prior to demolition of existing structures.
4. Fugitive Particulate Emissions: The size of this project will require both a Storm Water Management
Permit and fugitive dust plan with the State which will be held throughout the course of the project. Per
this plan, the applicant will phase this project, and the clearing of vegetation and grading will need to
follow best Management Practices (BMPs) as areas that have been disturbed can create fugitive dust
conditions via winds and vehicular traffic.
GCPH Comment: Given the silty soil in the area and arid conditions, GCPH recommends that dust
control measures be considered via structural means in addition to soil binders and watering as these
methods may not be reliable for extended periods of time.
5. Radon: Radon is a public health concern because it is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer in the
United States. Approximately 50% of homes in Colorado have radon levels above the EPA
recommended action level. Garfield County adopted the 2015 International Building Code, effective
April 1, 2017, by Resolution 2017-23. The Resolution states that Appendix F, Passive Radon Gas
Controls is adopted for tested structures with radon issues (Resolution 2017-23 Section II, bullet # 49).
Radon Resistant New Construction (RRNC) provides passive radon mitigation that is easier to install
during building construction that can be converted to active radon mitigation (by adding a fan to the
system) if radon levels above the EPA radon action level are measured in a building after construction.
GCPH comment: GCPH recommends as a condition of approval that new buildings including multi-
family buildings constructed on the site utilize RRNC practices to prevent radon gas exposure to
residents. After construction, a radon test should be conducted, and a fan installed on the system if
radon levels are above the EPA recommended action level of 4 pCi/l. Free radon test kits are available
at Garfield County Public Health offices in Rifle and Glenwood Springs and at the Clean Energy
Economy for the Region (CLEER) located at the Third Street Center in Carbondale.
6. Mixed-Use District: The applicant indicates that there will be a mixed-use district in the PUD that will
provide amenities and services to the community including a clubhouse/lodge, dining facilities, retail
stores, and convenience services.
GCPH comment: Specific commercial activities were not outlined in the application such that traffic
impacts, required local and state permitting, and other impacts could not be properly assessed by
GCPH. GCPH recommends a condition of approval that all regulated activities including the sale of
food and community special events be properly reviewed, licensed, and inspected by GCPH Consumer
Protection staff and any appropriate federal, state, and local agencies that have jurisdiction over these
activities.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT 23
Jannette Whitcomb, REHS
Environmental Health Manager
Garfield County Public Health
(970) 665-6383 or jwhitcomb@garfieldcountyco.gov
EXHIBIT 23
1
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning
and River Edge PUD Revocation
(File PUDA-12-24-9048 and PUDA-07-25-9079)
Public Comment Exhibits
Exhibit # Public Comment, Name and Date Received 6-1 Fred Standefer – August 25, 2025; Undated; September 6, 2025; February 8, 2026 6-2 Abby Matthias –October 2, 2025 6-3 Nicole Cavarra – October 5, 2025 6-4 Erin McVoy – October 5, 2025 6-5 Laura and David Hardin – October 5, 2025 6-6 Thompson Glen Ditch – Undated 6-7 Barbara Sport – Undated 6-8 Steve Kurschner – Undated 6-9 Mike Jeronimus – Undated 6-10 Wewer Keohane, Ph. D. – Undated 6-11 Dave Clair – Undated 6-12 Steve and Carol Udvarhelyi – October 13, 2025 6-13 Rosemary Burkholder, Cattle Creek Coalition – Undated; February 4, 2026 6-14 Eileen & Glenn Wysocki – Undated 6-15 Cailen Hollenback – Undated 6-16 The Vitali Family – Undated 6-17 Michael and Michaleen Jeronimus – Undated 6-18 Kae McDonald – Undated 6-19 Taylor Thackston – November 9, 2025 6-20 Pat Vandervelden – November 10, 2025 6-21 Michael Vandervelden – November 10, 2025 6-22 Joan Mantraga – November 11, 2025 6-23 Rolland and Andrea Luplow – Undated 6-24 Miriam Muniz Fennel – November 24, 2025; undated; February 13, 2026
2
6-25 Don Marlin – November 24, 2025 6-26 Gib and Lee Plimpton– November 28, 2025 6-27 Jay Merriam, DVM, MS – Undated 6-28 Renee DeRoeck – December 20, 2025 6-29 Denise Lefort – December 22, 2025 6-30 Rick Carlson – December 31, 2025 6-31 Wes Gardner – December 31, 2025 6-32 Sarah Greenholz – Undated 6-33 Doug Greenholz – January 8, 2026 6-34 Katie Dyal – January 8, 2026 6-35 Pricilla Prohl-Cooper – January 9, 2026 6-36 Collin Arnold – January 15, 2026 6-37 David Sundseth – January 20, 2026 6-38 Petitions Opposing Harvest Roaring Fork – January 23, 2026; February 17, 2026 6-39 Anna Arlein – Undated 6-40 Callie Brignolo – February 4, 2026 6-41 Lisa Sansom – February 4, 2026 6-42 Stephanie Eiseman – February 5, 2026 6-43 Abby Hammer – February 6, 2026 6-44 Jonathan Stokely – February 6, 2026 6-45 Judith Blanchard – February 7, 2026 6-46 Susan Nicholson – February 7, 2026 6-47 David and Melanie Badesch – February 8, 2026 6-48 Hilary Back – February 8, 2026 6-49 Nick and Katie Abrams – February 9, 2026 6-50 Roaring Fork Fishing Guide Alliance – February 9, 2026 6-51 Bob Anderson – February 10, 2026 6-52 Alison Richman – February 11, 2026 6-53 Andrew McGregor – February 12, 2026 6-54 Shannon Campbell – February 12, 2026
3
6-55 Megan Chester – February 12, 2026 6-56 Cattle Creek Coalition Memo – February 13, 2026 6-57 Mercedes Brown – February 13, 2026 6-58 Judith Fitzpatrick – February 13, 2026 6-59 Jada MacDonald – February 13, 2026 6-60 Katherine Bennas – February 13, 2026 6-61 Sally Grange – February 15, 2026 6-62 Eileen Caryl – February 16, 2026 6-63 Michael and Suzanne Dalton – February 16, 2026 6-64 Robert Brandon – February 16, 2026 6-65 Emily Burnham – February 17, 2026 6-66 Margaret Ash – February 17, 2026 6-67 Postcards Opposing Harvest Roaring Fork – February 17, 2026 6-68 6-69 6-70 6-71 6-72 6-73 6-74 6-75 6-76 6-77 6-78 6-79 6-80 6-81 6-82 6-83 6-84 6-85
Mr. Leybourne,
Can you tell me the current public meetings scheduled where information is going to be
made available to the public on the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD?
It certainly seems these people are getting a lot of things approved without public
comment. This proposed project is going to negatively impact every person who uses
Highway 82. But, apparently CDOT already has given approval and designed a plan.
Doesn’t seem quite fair.
Specifically, when do you think this matter will come before the Commissioners?
Thank you, your input is appreciated.
Fred Standefer
405-820-5608
fstandefer@msn.com or nytex6@gmail.com
94 Indian Paintbrush
Aspen Glen
Mr. Leybourne,
This is basically a plea for common sense and responsible governance.
I think there are currently three projects on your website that are “Under Review”. Harvest
Roaring Fork, the Reserve at Aspen Glen and Sage at Aspen Glen.
You are the professional planner. But, all of these use the same:
1. Roads/highways (what do we do if we have a big fire and everyone has to evacuate? )
2. Electric Power systems (lots of outages now on Excel)
3. Water sources, including water to fight fires
4. Sewer and wastewater facilities (drove by Emma at night - the smell was awful)
5. Other important infrastructure like schools, fire stations etc.
PLEASE, PLEASE consider all of these as one COMBINED application. The potential
COMBINED impact from all of this proposed development is absolutely huge. Taken
together, they are going to severely stress everything. We will lose something very special.
Then, please consider that we have been told on multiple occasions that the owners of the
land where Sievers Pit is located want to develop that land after gravel operations cease
and the land is reclaimed.
This is absolute madness. It is insane. The developers are going to destroy this valley. I
don’t think that is an exaggeration. It also flys in the face of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Please discuss this with your colleagues in planning. And please discuss it with the
Commissioners. This is an existential moment in history for the Roaring Fork Valley and you
and your colleagues are the only hope.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Fred Standefer
94 Indian Paintbrush
Carbondale, CO 81623
fstandefer@msn.com or nytex6@gmail.com
Cell 405-820-5608
HOW DO YOU POWER
A
NEW CITY?
February 8, 2026
Board of County Commissioners/Community Development
Garfield County, CO
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Commissioners - Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson, Perry Will
Community Development - Glenn Hartmann, John Leybourne
Gentlemen,
As you know, in late December the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued a
ruling (Proceeding No. 25R-0309G) establishing enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) targets
for the state’s major natural gas utilities, including Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy. This
decision builds on Colorado’s Clean Heat Standard law which already mandated 4% GHG
reductions by 2025 and 22% by 2030 from a 2015 baseline, by adding a NEW 41%
REDUCTION target by 2035.
The PUC also signaled an expectation for further decarbonization - EFFECTIVELY A
100% REDUCTION IN NATURAL GAS-RELATED EMISSIONS- BY 2050. The decision
effectively accelerates the phaseout of natural gas in Colorado’s energy system.
YOU understand how devastating this is for Garfield County. Most do not. The negative
economic impact will be immense. Oil and gas related taxes are very important to the
county. The future development potential of the Mancos shale and other prospective
formations is being destroyed. Published government studies show new gas development
should add many years of supply to existing reserves. People will eventually be forced to
replace gas fired heating systems with electric. There will be no gas stoves or fireplaces in
the worst case scenario. The electric utilities become true monopolies.
And, Xcel has already requested an increase in electric rates starting in August of 9.93%.
The application of HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD (PUDA -12-24-9048) as currently
proposed would be an incredibly dense development that effectively contemplates a new
city along Highway 82 on 289 acres in Garfield County. If approval is granted to such an
enormous development, the new city will have a population greater than than Basalt today.
The proposed new city will require long term planning and preparation which is not fully
defined or disclosed in the application. This new infrastructure must perform while also
ensuring older infrastructure is capable of providing adequate electricity, water, sewer and
traffic services to existing development. So, please ask yourself the following questions:
If Harvest Roaring Fork must go totally electric, is that feasible? Where does the power
come from?
What infrastructure alterations are required by the various utilities to meet the new
PUC mandate? Can they be accomplished in the required timeframe? Can they still
provide reliable, affordable electricity to existing communities and population?
How does the new PUC mandate impact the economics of affordable/workforce
housing? Will potential owners of this housing be able to afford their electric bills?
Can the developer actually obtain the necessary electric equipment/supplies required
to make homes all electric when competing with current AI/utility projects nationwide?
If there is an economic downturn similar to 2008 can Garfield County actually end up
with a SURPLUS of housing, depressing all home values? This happened to Iron Bridge,
Aspen Glen, Teller Springs and Coryell Ranch. It can happen again.
If affordability is the issue, then one can easily argue that the PUC just guaranteed high
cost, low reliability electricity. That threatens many businesses. It makes life harder for
people. Do they keep coming? Do they move? Did the PUC raise the risk of recession?
What happens in a prolonged electric power blackout? Xcel put large parts of Denver
and its suburbs in the dark a few weeks ago, due to high winds. The power was out in
some areas for two or three days. Xcel seems to have numerous problems already in
our valley with repeated blackouts. How does adding a new city to the electric load
help anyone?
How is all of this new infrastructure financed? Do the citizens of the new town bear the
financial burden of the new infrastructure? Where is the detailed infrastructure plan
showing everything required and how it will be paid for?
From your vantage point as County Commissioners and elected representatives of the
existing communities in the valley you must have many additional questions concerning
the lack of definitive and complete information provided by the applicant. You must
therefore question whether the foundation exists upon which a large new city, which
would undermine the quality of life for everyone currently living in the valley, should even
be contemplated.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Standefer
Carbondale, CO
Abby Matthias
56 Thu nderstorm Circl,e
Carbondate, CO 80162
October 2,2025
Garfiel.d County Board of County Commissioners
108 8'h Street, Suite 100
Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners,
As a Longtime resident of the Mid-Vattey, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the
proposed Harvest Roaring Fork devetopment at the conftuence of Cattte Creek and the
Roaring Fork River. I have l,ived in this vattey for over 13 years, and l've watched it grow-
sometimes in ways that serve the community, and sometimes in ways that sacrifice what
makes this ptace so speciat.
This devetopment, as proposed, woutd be a mistake. lt's far too large, far too urban, and far
too damaging for this uniquety sensitive [ocation.
A Bad Fit for the Mid-Val,l,ey
The proposed ptan-over 1,500 housing units, 450 accessory dwettings, a hotet, and
commerciat buitdings on 283 acres-is comptetety out of scate with the rurat, natural
character of the Cattte Creek area. lt doesn't reftect the Mid-Vattey vatues I know:
thoughtfut ptanning, open space preservation, and keeping our communities livabte for
everyone.
l'm not against growth, but this isn't smart growth. lt's urban sprawt ptaced in one of the
last naturaI entry points into the Roaring Fork Vat[ey.
Traffic Witt Get Much Worse-And Less Safe
We al,t know that Highway 82 is atready overburdened. Adding 12,000+ dail.yvehicte trips
wittexacerbate a daity nightmare for Mid-Vattey commuters, schooI buses, emergency
vehictes, and anyone trying to get through Gtenwood or downvattey. The traffic anatysis
submitted by the devetoper underestimates the true impacts-teaving out major parts of
the proposat.
As someone who drives this stretch atmost daity, I know firsthand that we cannot absorb
this kind of increase safety or efficientty.
Emergency Services Can't Keep UP
This proposal, aLso doesn't account for the massive demand it woutd ptace on locatfire,
EMS, and law enforcement-atl, of which are atready stretched thin across the Mid-Vattey.
ln fire-prone terrain l,ike this, stower response times are not just inconvenient-they're
deadl,y. lt's irresponsibte to al.tow a devetopment of this size without guaranteeing the
resources to protect the peopl.e who woutd live there.
Viotates Existing Zoning and Long-Term Planning
This tand is zoned for tow-density, suburban-styte residentiaI use, in keepingwith the
character of the surroundin garea. ALtowing a high-density project of this scate woutd set a
dangerous precedent and undermine the work done by ptanners, citizens, and
commissioners over decades to guide batanced devetopment in our county.
l've seen how quickl,y the fabric of a community can unravet when zoning decisions start to
ignore context and community input.
Witdlife Witt Paythe Price
This area isn't just undevel,oped-it's vitaL wiLdtife habitat. l've seen etk, deer, foxes, eagtes,
and herons in this corridor with my own eyes. l've taken watks atong the Roaring Fork and
watched migrating birds stop to rest in the riparian zone.
Paving over this l,and and introducing constant noise, [ight, and human activity woutd
destroy an irrep[aceabte ecosystem that has existed here far [onger than any of us.
A River Corridor Atready Under Stress
The Roaring Fork and CattLe Creek are essentiatwaterways for our va[tey. With ctimate
pressures atready shrinking water avai[abitity and stressing aquatic systems, we can't
afford unchecked stormwater runoff and devetopment so ctose to the riverbank.
Any contamination or sediment runoff f rom this devetopment threatens not onty the river
itsetf, but downstream users, agricutture, and recreation.
This ls Not What Our Valley Needs
Cattte Creek is one of the last untouched gateways into the Roaring Fork Vatl,ey-a ptace
where open space, witdtife, and rural [andscapes greet residents and visitors atike. Once
we tose that, we don't get it back.
We're not just tatking about buitding homes-we're tatking about changing the entire
character of the Mid-Vattey. And that's a choice we shoutd not take tightty.
What I Ask of You
As a resident who loves this vatl,ey, I respectfutl'y urge you to:
1. Reject this proposal, outright, as incompatibl,e with the community, the zoning, and
the environment,
2. Or require a substantial.l,y scal,ed-down version that atigns with Mid-Vattey needs and
vatues,
3. Or initiate a comprehensive ptanning process for the entire cattte creek area,
invol,ving community voices and environmentaI expertise from the outset'
In Glosing
I've tived here tong enough to know that once we approve projects like this, we set a tone
for what's acceptabte. PLease don't Let this be the moment we say yes to short-term
devetopment and no to long-term sustainabitity.
The Mid-Val.l,ey deserves better. Our rivers, wil,dtife, and communities deserve better. I ask
you to make the responsibte decision and protect what's l,eft of this rare and beautifuI
ptace.
Thank you for your service and for considering the voices of those of us who cat[ this vattey
home.
Sincerety,
Abby Matthias
Mid-Vattey Resident
Subject: Protect cattle creek and RF valley
Name: Nicole Cavarra
Email: ncscarra@aol.com
Phone Number: (970) 274-9280
Message:
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
82 is a NIGHTMARE NOW! Too many people, too many accidents, and an ass-backward
HOV system where the HOV is the slow lane (right lane), so passing cars can’t pass on the
left.
More cars, more deaths, and less service workers who will be willing to travel up 82 to work
at any town in the Valley.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream. Drought, fires, and NO WAY OUT!!! NO EMERGENCY
PLANS FOR EVACUATION! That many more households and residents have no chance if
emergency.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth. THE ROADS
SUCK!!!! Potholes EVERYWHERE! Traffic, and no room for moving vehicles or those who live
here as is! Fix what we have and expand infrastructure and roads before u add more fuel to
this fire! The Valley is being ruined because the quality of life is diminishing! We all moved
here to get out of the city and traffic, but in case no one is noticed, we are now just another
small city full
Of city problems.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being. We NEED MORE INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! Not more homes and not
more people.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Nicole Cavarra (25+ year Valley resident, Colorado Native)
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Nicole Cavarra
Email: ncavarra@aol.com
Phone number: (970) 274-9280
Message: Dear Mr Jankovsky,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
82 is a NIGHTMARE NOW! Too many people, too many accidents, and an ass-backward
HOV system where the HOV is the slow lane (right lane), so passing cars can’t pass on the
left.
More cars, more deaths, and less service workers who will be willing to travel up 82 to work
at any town in the Valley.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream. Drought, fires, and NO WAY OUT!!! NO EMERGENCY
PLANS FOR EVACUATION! That many more households and residents have no chance if
emergency.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth. THE ROADS
SUCK!!!! Potholes EVERYWHERE! Traffic, and no room for moving vehicles or those who live
here as is! Fix what we have and expand infrastructure and roads before u add more fuel to
this fire! The Valley is being ruined because the quality of life is diminishing! We all moved
here to get out of the city and traffic, but in case no one is noticed, we are now just another
small city full
Of city problems.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being. We NEED MORE INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! Not more homes and not
more people.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Nicole Cavarra (25+ year Valley resident, Colorado Native)
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Erin McVoy
Email: beer.loving.lady@gmail.com
Phone Number:
Message: Dear Planner
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Erin McVoy
Laura and David Hardiri
5O Fox Prowl Lane
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
October 5,2025
Gafield Corinty Bsrd of Counry Cs$ndssisners
108 8{'$reet, Suite 100
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Sirs/Madams:
'lV'e have a home inAspen Glen, and we write becauselrye are concerned atiout the
development proposed by Roaring Fork Capital adjacent to Rt. 82. The development goes by the
naine,Flar'vestRoaring Forh LLC. According to newspaper aceormts, theproposed development
will consist of 283 acres. The development is slated to include 1,500 residential units, 450
accessory dwelling units, 55,000 slprare feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel.
We opposethe development formany of thereasons previously expressed:
the adverse environrientzil iriipact on tlie aA; watert lrrnd, and local wildlife.
the increased traffic and congestion on Rt. 82, and its impact on public safety;
the sffain on in&istnrctuie rintllocal services; and
the loss of open space and firther of the rural character of Garfield
County.
While we opixe the develcipmenl being proposed we do not oppose develop'rnect
altogether. We suggest that any develolment ultimately permitted be less concentrated so that the
intei'ests of the dev€loper, the publie, the env,iroiiment, local wildlifg and the coiiriqF ere ftilly
considered and balanced. The concentrated development being proposed certainly takes into
aceount the finarcial interests of Harvest Roring Fork ard its investots, brut it gives little to no
weight or considerationto the other constituencies.
For all the foregoing reasons we oppos the current development application.
Very truly yours,
I
)
J
4
/4a,,ari P**4, *"^.[
Laura Hardin David Hardin
Good morning John,
Sorry this has taken so long but Glenn Jammerman asked me to send in our comments
from the Thompson Glenn Ditch Company.
For this project, water needs to be diverted at historically used diversion points and use on
historically irrigated ground. Also user needs to only use water under decreed uses.
Thank you
Mike Jeronimus
Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roark Fork LLC
Name: Barbara Sport
Email: thebarbarasport@gmail.com
Phone Number: (908) 397-1010
Message: This communication serves to formally oppose the development of “Harvest
Roaring Fork”. The area’s infrastructure is not capable of supporting the increase in
population - especially in regard to traffic, fire, water availability and public safety.
The existing infrastructure is not equipped to safely absorb the projected level of vehicular
traffic, leading to increased accidents and fatalities, longer emergency response times on
the likely inability to safely evacuate in the event of wildfire or other emergency.
We are homeowners in Carbondale and have been coming here for the past 20 years. We
fear that this development would destroy the area’s natural beauty and wildlife.
Subject: Cattle Creek Confluence
Name: Steven Kuschner
Email: steviek6@yahoo.com
Phone Number: 15618704352
Message: Hello Perry,
I am usually standing up for our environment here on the western slope but today I write to
you to consider what could be a bridge too big to build here in the RFV.
The reason for my message to you is to ask that you take very seriously the concern of many
thousands of residents here in the RFV is that the construction of new developments could
"muddy" the valley with thousands of new cars and construction vehicles long after you
leave the office of Commissioner.
Just because someone has ownership of land and wants to develop that land it doesn't give
then the god given right without concern for the health and safety of the residents and
inhabitants around that land to do whatever they want going forward.
Our region is experiencing a daily inundation of transit that is detrimental to our quality of
life now, can you imagine what 11,900 additional weekday trips on 82 will look like from
above?
That is what is estimated by this report chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cattlecreekcc.com/wp-
content/uploads/2025/06/Harvest-Ex-I-Kimley-Horn-Traffic -Assessment.pdf if the CATTLE
CREEK development is approved
I hope you will review the document and give deep consideration to the damage this will
create if we approve the plan in it's present form. The developer isn't denying this
information but isn't addressing the problem either.
Dear Perry
Please don’t let your legacy be another small town outside Carbondale the size of Willits in
Basalt. What a tragedy that would be.
How about a legacy for the whole community, like the Eagle County Crown Mountain
park. Couldn’t Garfield County and Aspen Valley Land trust purchase the land from the
Harvest RF developers and create walking paths and fruit trees and maybe a soccer field
and a pond for dogs and open space forever for the elk and eagles.
If the Harvest RF developers do what they have planned, so much will be ruined further
than it already is. Way too many cars on 82. Deadly accidents at the 115 intersection and
below Cattle Creek Road.
Please visit the www.cattlecreekcc.com site and possibly attend the educational open
house at the Third Street Center Tuesday, October 14 from 5:30-7:30 for information from
the small group of people who care so much about keeping our Elk and our open space and
our water.
We have seen too much loss already with the overdevelopment of the entry to Cattle Creek
that used to be a farm and open space for elk. If this Harvest development happens, where
do the elk go? Where do the cars go? How will our river and creek maintain?
This is a huge issue. Please consider your legacy and how you want to be remembered by
all.
Sincerely,
Wewer Keohane Ph.D.
Cattle Creek
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Cattle Creek Development
Name: David Clair
Email: fitnessforliving@gmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 550-3491
Message: I just want to say how strongly I disagree with the development that is now
proposed for the Cattle Creek confluence area.
Having a large, semi dense development, actually more of a community, is so inappropriate
for our valley and especially for that specific location.
Logical sense and research would show that's such growth is definitely not going to help
our traffic issues, water limitations, wildlife habitat, as well as our overall quality of life.
Thank you so much for reading and I do hope that common sense overrides in this
development is not approved
IAN STEVEN AND CAROL ANN UDVARHELYI
I 09 DIAMOND A RANSH ROAD
CARBoNDALE, CO a1629
October 13,2025
Commissioner Perry Will
Garfield County, Board of County Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: The proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Dear Commissioner Will,
We are writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST ROARING
FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring Fork River. This area is one
of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only to Garfield County, but to the health
and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley - including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
We strongly oppose this development moving forward and are asking for your assistance in stopping it.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
L. Traffic, Safety & lnfrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads. We are sure you
have travelled on Highway 82 in either the morning or afternoon "rush hours," and are aware of
the significant traffic issues we have already in the valley. Accommodating additional vehicles
would require new traffic lights and stretch our existing emergency response capacity. This puts
residents at greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. As you know, we had a significant drought
this past year and the watershed can struggle to meet current demands, let alone support a
development of this scale. ln addition, a large development without robust stormwater
safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water quality for
communities downstrea m.
Commissioner Will Page 2
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density - 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU's, a hotel, and commercial space
on 283 acres - is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley's rural
identity. We realize that ongoing development in the valley is inevitable, but that should not
include this type of high-density development. We need you to help protect the character of
this area.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities. This
leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes, trout,
and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and disrupt
migration and breeding grounds.
These issues extend beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and development
precedent will affect the broader valley - including Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Our region must prioritize
sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well-being.
We respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle Creek
Confluence for current and future generations. Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the
concerns of residents across the Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
\a^rtX
L steven Udvarhelyiand CarolA. Udvarhelyi
Dear Glenn and John
A recent web search for information on the PUD for Harvest Roaring Fork LLC brought up a
letter of review and comments, April 9th, 2025 to the Garfield County Planning
Department, from the Town of Carbondale.
I sent a note to Jared Barnes letting him know that I was very impressed by the excellent
reply from his staff and the Board of Trustees to your attention. Their sediments and careful
considerations echo the concerns of many of us local citizens. A development of this size
cannot be permitted on this parcel of land.
To date I have not located Glenwood Springs reponse to this PUD and would be interested
in seeing that as well. I would hope that municipality would share the same views.
Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition is a small group of citizens that have formed to oppose
the Urbanization of this parcel of land. At this time we are educating ourselves on how to
strategically make the best impact with our mission. It is understood that the review
process involves public comment. How can we ensure that we have all the necessary and
up to date information to be informed?
As we form our team, we want you to know that we are receptive to any way that we might
work with the Garfield County Planning Department to be beneficial to the Health and
Preservation of our Valley. It would be an honor to meet with or hear from you, or staff with
direction and ideas. We respect your time and your diligent work for the future growth of
our Cherished Valley.
Best Regards,
Rosemary Burkholder - Team Member
970 445-8441 -cell
Breakfast on the berm!
Had the pleasure of watching these creatures feed on this sacred ground this morning. I
pray we don't pave over their land. Thank you for your sincere consideration.
Rosemary Burkholder
Dear County Leaders,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Eileen & Glenn Wysocki
176 N. 6th Street
New Castle, CO 81647
Dear Commissioners and County Planning Department,
My home is 304 Riverbend Way in Ironbridge. I live directly across the river on a lot almost
an acre in size that is in direct view of the proposed development. As a proud 25 year plus
Garfield County resident - I strongly oppose any development of the magnitude being
proposed. The development has historically been agriculture and zoned for one acre lots.
Our freeway is already at overload and I did not build my home along the river to be looking
at hundreds of lights.
I am extremely concerned about the impact on the freeway, wildlife heard, mixing low
density in an area that Garfield County has designated as low density. As I sit and write this
email I look out to of the herd that lives everyday in the winter on that proposed
development land.
I hope you all will respect the zoning for this area and hope you will vote no on the proposal
submitted by Harvest.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cailen Hollenback
Glenn Hartmann,
Please stop the Urbanization of Cattle Creek from irreversible, large-scale development.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE :
Harvest Roaring Fork LLC, a Texas-based developer’s, proposal of 1,500 residential units,
plus 450 ADUs, 55,000 square feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel on 283+/-
acres at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River.
This project, a small urban city along the banks of an invaluable stretch of the Roaring Fork
River, would jeopardize our already compromised traffic flow, threaten water quality,
disrupt wildlife habitat and destroy the rural character of unincorporated Garfield County.
Why This Land Matters -
This is more than just land - it’s a living system…it is an ecologically rich corridor that
sustains bald eagles, heron rookeries, elk and deer herds, foxes, migratory birds, and trout.
This land sustains riparian habitat, vital for biodiversity, wildlife migration.
The proposed development would drastically disrupt the vital ecosystems of the Roaring
Fork Valley. Wildlife - including migratory birds, elk, deer, bear, mountain lions, coyotes, and
wild turkey - depend on the seasonal habitats and corridors that crisscross this property.
This land is essential winter and summer range for both mule deer and one of the area’s few
remaining elk herds. Dense housing and commercial development here would fragment
their habitat, obstruct migration routes, and jeopardize breeding and calving grounds. The
entire ecosystem risks collapse when its most vulnerable species are displaced.
Once it’s gone - it’s gone for good.
Please preserve our valley.
Thank you,
The Vitali Family
Carbondale
HI Glen and John,
We are adjacent landowners to the Harvest Roading Fork Project and oppose this PUD at
this level.
We expected that this property would be developed but within the county’s 2030 master
plan that calls for a far less density. What this developer is seeking is almost 4 times the
destiny in the valley.
We feel that the zoning rules should be followed and not allow the developer to propose a
long term plan using form based zoning. Form Based Zoning should never be allowed due
to its huge
impacts to traffic, wildlife, and water quality. This proposed develop will cause continuous
urbanization of the valley and erase the rural feel of the lower Roaring Fork valley.
Most concerning to us, is the traffic effects! At this proposed level, it will add at least
11,000 additional car trips per day, adding 50% more traffic to Hwy 82 that is already at
capacity per CDOTs own admission.
CDOTs proposed Reduced Conflict Intersection seems so unsafe and an a experiment that
is not wanted by us. RFTA doesn’t think it can work for their needs either. The developer in
their PUD doesn’t even discuss construction traffic that will exacerbate the amount of
traffic!
Wildlife impacts will be irreparable by this development. The pressure that 5,000 people,
that will live there, to the Roaring Fork Conservancy easement is incompatible with the
intent of the easement. Roaring
Fork Conservancy has already stated in their referral all the requirements and set backs
that the developer needs to follow. We except this to be the case.
We support the planning staff in what we are sure, has been a very difficult PUD to review.
We feel Form Based Zoning is so broad and open ended that is not appropriate for this site,
we need to know drainage,
building height and types, street lay out, that is required by the county zoning rules. We
strongly believe what this Applicant is proposing, that staff should recommend denial.
Thank you for your time,
Michael and Michaleen Jeronimus
9173 HWY 82
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Public Comment
Name: Kae McDonald
Email: kaemcdonald@comcast.net
Phone Number: 9703792846
Message: Dear Garfield County Planning Department,
I am writing today to comment on the magnitude of the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork
development. I am aghast at the size of the proposal: 1500 residential units, plus
accessory dwelling units; a 120-unit hotel; and more than 50,000 square feet of
commercial space. This will be a small town shoe-horned between Glenwood Springs and
Carbondale. This magnitude of development WILL have an impact on everyone that lives in
the Roaring Fork Valley, and in a variety of ways:
The short commute between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale will be hamstrung by the
additional of one or more stoplights. The transparent story that since the development will
be close to mass transit, EVERYONE will take the bus is just that, a story. To state that
commuters down valley will “jump at the chance” to move and therefore reduce traffic
congestion doesn’t take into consideration other variables that may be at play in people’s
lives. And the housing in New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Parachute will still be filled with people
who will drive to Aspen because they will be paid more there than anywhere. Let’s also not
forget the massive number of construction vehicles that will be traversing Highway 82 for
the duration of build out.
The already overcrowded boat ramps at Carbondale, Hardwick Bridge, and Two Rivers Park
will be clogged with even more people and the “Disneyland” effect on the Roaring Fork will
be even more intolerable for those of us that appreciate quiet.
The trails on Red Hill – already busy throughout the year, will become even busier.
I also have a hard time believing that “just one more development” will solve the affordable
housing problem – and the advertised starting price of $320,000.00 will still be out of reach
for many people. And let’s be realistic – the developer purchased this property for
$33,000,000 anticipating a profit. The tired, and transparent, story that more housing will
solve this problem has been told in this valley for more than 50 years and the needle still
hasn’t moved. The only thing that more development will achieve is MORE Noise, MORE
Pollution, and MORE Consumption of Resources – and this at a time when western
Colorado is experiencing a prolonged drought cycle. I think many other people have
pointed to the minimal conservation easement of 54 acres and the impact this
development will have on wildlife.
To be honest, I can’t find anything positive reading through the Harvest Roaring Fork’s
proposal, and I hope the impact to the entire Roaring Fork Valley population will be
considered when discussing approvals.
Thanks,
Kae McDonald
954 County Road 106
Carbondale
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Taylor Thackston
Email: taylorthackston@gmail.com
Phone number: (804) 519-9951
Message: Dear Community County Commissioner Tom Jankovsky,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Taylor Thackston
Frying Pan Anglers
Dear Garfield County BOCC and Community Development Department,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Pat Vandervelden
Carbondale Resident
Dear Garfield County BOCC and Community Development Department,
My wife and I moved to Carbondale two years ago when we retired. We chose this spot
specifically for its natural beauty, tranquility, welcoming community, and ease of access to
so many wonderful recreational opportunities. We've come to really love and care about
this place.
As a result, I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development,
HARVEST ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the
Roaring Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital
not only to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork
Valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Michael Vandervelden
Carbondale Resident
Subject: Access to Harvest Roaring Fork Plan
Name: joan Matranga
Email: joanmatranga@comcast.net
Phone Number: (970) 274-1371
Message: I tried to see the plans for this project and needed a special user access. I don’t
know what this is about. Also has P&Z reviewed this plan ? Where is it in the approval
process?
Thank you , Joani
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring Fork
River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only to
Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring new
traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water quality
for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley’s
rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities. This
leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes, trout,
and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and disrupt
migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and development
precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Our region must
prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle Creek
Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Rolland and Andrea Luplow
Dear Glenn,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a concerned member of the Garfield
County community regarding the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD, particularly about
certain inconsistencies between what the developer is promising on their website and what
is actually in their submitted PUD application.
Specifically, I want to highlight three areas where the public-facing marketing appears to
conflict with the application materials (or overstate certain commitments), which I believe
is misleading to the community and warrants close scrutiny by County leadership during
the current review process:
Key Concerns
1. Affordability / Deed-Restriction Commitments
On their website, the developer claims: "10% of homes will be deed-restricted ... and
another 20% will be deed-restricted for full-time workers in Garfield, Pitkin, or Eagle
counties."
In the PUD application (and PUD Guide), I confirmed a 10% deed-restriction commitment
(which aligns with County requirements). However, I found no clear, binding mechanism in
the application packet for the additional 20% worker-specific deed restriction (as a legally
enforceable, recorded restriction). The PUD states that there will be 300 attainable housing
units. These attainable units are on top of the 1500 market price to luxury homes. That is
just over 17%, not 30% as the website is marketing.
This raises a serious concern: is the 20% "worker-targeted" deed-restriction merely a
marketing claim, or is it part of the developer's formal, enforceable commitment? If the
latter, where in the PUD documents is this legally secured (SIA, deed, covenant, or
condition)? If not, I worry the community is being misled about the level of "affordable
workforce housing" that will actually be delivered.
2. Sales Prices / Home Pricing
The Harvest website advertises homes "in the $390's to $1.5 million" and unit sizes "800-
3,000 sq ft."
In contrast, the PUD application is primarily a zoning-and-plan document; it does not
formally commit to those exact sales prices, since market pricing is not typically locked in
by a zoning application. The application describes housing types and unit sizes, but not
binding price points.
This disconnect means that the "$390's" starting price is likely a marketing projection, not a
guarantee. To the community, this can be misleading - people may believe that below-
$400K homes are certain, when in fact those prices could change (market permitting). As
County leadership, you should consider whether additional assurances or conditions are
needed to protect prospective local buyers who are relying on these public promises.
3. Water / Sewer Service
The website states the project is planned to be served by the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District (RFWSD) - giving the impression of a fully permanent, reliable
infrastructure.
The PUD application, however, clarifies that while coordination with RFWSD is underway,
the service agreements, detailed water-wastewater design, capacity, and infrastructure will
be submitted during later phases (subdivision, engineering, development permit). There is
no guarantee in the PUD packet that the full build-out will be immediately served, or that all
phases will be fully covered by RFWSD without conditions.
That raises a material risk: if later water/sewer designs or capacity issues emerge, the
developer may alter plans, delay units, or impose additional costs. For residents and future
homeowners, this uncertainty could have very real financial and lifestyle impacts.
Why This Matters
Trust & Transparency: The community depends on accurate, honest communication,
especially for a project of this scale. Marketing that over-promises can undermine trust in
the approval process and lead to disappointment or financial risk for future residents.
Accountability: If the developer is making public
promises (especially around affordability) that are not legally locked in via the PUD or
related agreements, then there is a gap in enforceability. This leaves the door open for them
to renege, scale back, or modify their commitments later.
Public Interest: As County leadership, you have a duty to ensure that any PUD approval
strongly protects the public interest. That means insisting that "public promises" made on
marketing materials correspond to legally enforceable components in the PUD, SIA (Sub-
area Improvement Agreement), deed covenants, or other binding agreements.
What I Request / Recommend
1. Clarification and Conditions: Require the developer to clearly articulate and record their
"20% worker-focused" deed restriction in enforceable legal documents (SIA, covenants,
deed restrictions, etc.), not just in marketing.
2. Marketing-Application Alignment: Ask that the developer explicitly align their public-
facing website claims (especially around price and amenity commitments) with language
in the PUD or a legally binding agreement. This could be made a part of the approval
conditions.
3. Water / Sewer Assurance: Seek more concrete commitments (phasing-based or
capacity-based) from the developer about how RFWSD will serve all phases. If necessary,
require them to provide a water/wastewater infrastructure phasing plan and legally binding
infrastructure agreement to ensure that later phases are not "promised" but left uncertain.
I strongly encourage the Board and Community Development staff to push for these
alignments NOW, as we approach the hearing and approval process. Without stronger,
enforceable ties between what the developer says publicly and what's recorded in the PUD,
there is a risk the community will be misled and future residents could be left holding
promises that are not legally secured.
Thank you for your time and for your commitment to thoughtful, fair development. I
appreciate your willingness to consider these concerns.
Sincerely,
Miriam Muñiz Fennell
630 Foster Ridge Rd
Glenwood Springs
512-293-1167
Dear John,
I am writing to formally express concerns shared by many community members and
transportation professionals regarding the traffic mitigation plan proposed for the Harvest
Roaring Fork development along Highway 82.
After reviewing the application materials, it appears the traffic analysis relies on
assumptions that do not reflect current conditions on Highway 82 or the long-term realities
of this already constrained transportation corridor.
First, the traffic projections do not appear to fully account for the scale of the proposed
development. The project includes approximately 1,500 residential units, the potential for
hundreds of accessory dwelling units, expanded commercial uses, and a larger hotel
component. When more realistic trip generation rates are applied, the resulting traffic
volumes may be significantly higher than those presented in the applicant’s study.
Second, Highway 82 is already operating at or near capacity, with existing daily traffic
volumes estimated between 24,000 and 29,000 vehicles. Introducing what could amount
to more than 15,000 additional daily trips is functionally equivalent to adding a small city’s
worth of traffic to a roadway that is already experiencing congestion and operational stress.
Of particular concern is the lack of meaningful analysis of construction-related traffic. The
application does not appear to adequately model the years—potentially decades—of
heavy truck traffic, equipment hauling, material deliveries, and construction worker
commutes associated with a multi-phase buildout. These impacts would be experienced
well before project occupancy and would persist throughout the development timeline.
Public safety is another critical issue, especially in the Cattle Creek area, which already
presents elevated crash risks. Increased traffic volumes, additional turning movements,
and construction vehicles are likely to exacerbate safety concerns for residents,
commuters, emergency responders, and wildlife.
Environmental impacts must also be carefully considered. This stretch of Highway 82
functions as important wildlife habitat and a movement corridor. Increased traffic, noise,
and human activity further fragment an already stressed system and increase the
likelihood of wildlife-vehicle collisions.
The proposed density also raises questions regarding consistency with Garfield County’s
rural character. When residential units, accessory dwellings, commercial space, and hotel
uses are considered together, the resulting traffic impacts resemble those of a small city.
However, the proposal does not appear to include the level of transportation infrastructure,
transit capacity, or emergency services typically required to support that scale of
development.
Finally, the traffic mitigation strategy relies heavily on optimistic assumptions, including
high levels of internal capture and widespread reverse commuting. Should these
assumptions not materialize, the burden of additional trips will fall directly on Highway 82,
resulting in chronic congestion and raising serious concerns regarding emergency
response and wildfire evacuation capacity.
In summary, if the traffic mitigation plan does not withstand rigorous technical scrutiny, the
project itself may not be ready for approval. I respectfully request that the Board require a
more comprehensive, transparent, and realistic traffic analysis before advancing this
proposal.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to Garfield County.
Respectfully,
Miriam Muñiz Fennell
630 Foster Ridge Rd
Glenwood Springs
Dear Glenn,
I am writing to share a concern and request clarification regarding marketing materials
currently being mailed throughout the Roaring Fork Valley for the proposed Harvest Roaring
Fork development.
Residents are receiving postcards that present the project with imagery, pricing ranges, and
language that strongly suggests an active, forthcoming community, despite the fact that
the development has not been approved, permitted, or entitled. Several community
members have contacted me expressing confusion about whether the project has already
received county approval.
I understand that developers are permitted to market proposed projects; however, the tone
and presentation of these materials appear to imply inevitability and near-term availability,
which may unintentionally mislead the public about the current land-use status and
decision-making process. Given the scale and sensitivity of this proposal, clarity is
especially important for maintaining public trust in the county’s planning process.
I would appreciate guidance on the following:
Whether the county has reviewed these marketing materials for accuracy regarding
approval status.
Whether there are requirements or best practices for disclosures when marketing
unapproved developments in Garfield County.
How the county recommends residents verify the official status of major development
proposals to avoid confusion.
My intent is not to impede lawful marketing, but to ensure the public understands that this
project remains under review and that no final decisions have been made. Transparent
communication is critical as the community engages with this process.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I would welcome any
clarification you can provide and am happy to discuss further if helpful.
Sincerely,
Miriam Fennell
630 Foster Ridge Rd
Glenwood Springs
512-293-1167
miriamexpress@gmail.com
Subject: Collapsible Soils and Planned Urban Development in the Roaring Fork Valley
Name: Don Marlin
Email: donmarlin@aol.com
Phone Number: (713) 503-1401
Message: Re: Harvest Sun Development vs Subsurface Karst Hazards
Mr. Fred Jarman County Manager,
I have some information with regard to Garfield County Colorado planning and
development that I wanted to share with you.
I am a local homeowner and have past certifications in geophysics and geology with a
current certification to construct closed-loop geoexchange systems in Colorado. I have
interests in the subsurface geology through collapsible soils of the Roaring Fork Valley and
sharing my knowledge of the same.
The underlying basis for these collapsible soils is due to being at the center of the
Carbondale Collapse as referenced by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) in their 2002
MS-34 report (citation #1 below) as well as numerous other research publications. The
Harvest Roaring Fork proposed urban development (PUD) area is located near the focus of
this report and has approximately 15 known sinkhole and subsidence features within the
boundary. Publications and my research reveal the collapse is influenced by salt at 2125'
below the ground near this PUD which underlies evaporative rock and glacial terraces that
have all been pushed toward the surface over geologic time creating collapsible soils. This
PUD (citation #2 below) is surrounded some of the highest density of soil collapse and
damages to structures as noted in this CGS report. The 2009 legal settlement at Ironbridge
subdivision to 20 homeowners from building on such collapsible soils is directly West
across the river from the PUD (citation #3 below).
I have seen no mention of surface and subsurface hazards in any of the proposed
development discussions or news articles to date. These subsurface influences and
surface hazards in the form of karst topography could have a direct impact on Garfield
County and Harvest Sun Development construction. Understanding or highlighting these
risks could lead to reducing liabilities for all involved.
Thank you for your service and let me know if you are aware of these scenarios. If not, I am
able to discuss these with you as I have freely done in parts to civil engineering groups,
state administrations, local businesses, utility providers, well operators, my homeowner
association, and individuals to make them aware of these conditions.
Don Marlin
Citations: 1) White, Jonathan L. “MS-34 Collapsible Soils and Evaporite Karst Hazards Map
of the Roaring Fork River Corridor, Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties, Colorado.” Soil and
Karst Hazards. Map Series. Denver, CO: Colorado Geological Survey, Division of Minerals
and Geology, Department of Natural Resources, 2002.
https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/collapsible-soils-evaporite-karst-
hazards-roaring-fork-river-garfield-eagle-pitkin-colorado. 2) Harvest Roaring Fork or
https://harvestrfv.com, and 3) http://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/homeowners-left-
with-sinking-houses-finally-allowed-to-tell-story/
Dear Commissioners Samson, Jankovsky and Will
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development,
HARVEST ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the
Roaring Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital
not only to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork
Valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties. I am president of the Teller Springs HOA,
directly across the river from this potential festering abscess on our already crowded
landscape. As I write I am watching a herd of elk graze happily there. We (21 homeowners)
at Teller Springs HOA have already placed 32+ acres into conservation with AVLT and it is a
winter dwell for the herd as well, allowing access to cross the river and a place to rest,
calve and survive.
This proposed project should not move forward:
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads,
requiring new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents
at greater risk. The proposed “Michigan U=Turn concept would slow rush hours to a crawl.
Taxpayers are being asked to fund all traffic modifications.
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without
robust stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading
water quality for communities downstream. The demands placed on groundwater and
commercially available water would devastate our riparian habitat. The presence of 2-3000
homes there is untenable. The air above and around the site is already so toxic from the
unabated discharge of fumes from the asphalt plant (unknown exact type of VOCs because
we have been unable to get the county to monitor and identify) that pays so little tax and
always wants more working hours. Digging and placing a sewer pipe across our Gold Medal
river is an act of environmental suicide.
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and
commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and
with the valley’s rural identity. The developers have conveniently omitted real numbers,
asking only for a new PUD with actuals to be discussed at some future date.It’s a bait and
switch technique.
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and
utilities. This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
They advertise “redefining luxury” while touting a vague number and price for “affordable”
housing units. The announcement of 2 child care facilities, again of undefined size and
scope, is certainly a ruse and should not even be part of the discussion.
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer,
foxes, trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat
and disrupt migration and breeding grounds. The developers boast about river access while
they have NONE per existing Conservation Documents. They also include already
conserved open space as counting toward their own… not possible.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development and to protect the Cattle Creek
Confluence for current and future generations.
Jay
Jay Merriam DVM,MS
Teller Springs HOA, President
1800 County Rd. 109
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
508-498-0347
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Renee Deroeck
Email: reneederoeck@yahoo.com
Phone Number:
Message:
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Renee DeRoeck
From: Communications <Communications@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 10:24 AM
To: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Harvest Community
Name: Denise Lefort
Email: denisejlefort@gmail.com
Phone Number: (864) 361-0495
Message: Please stop this. This is one of the last beautiful open spaces in this area. There
are elk and deer and our water was short last summer. Traffic would be unbearable and the
scar on this landscape not to mention light and noise pollution. We have too many houses
in area now. Please stop this.
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Denise Lefort
Dear Commissioners Samson, Will and Jankovsky,
As a board member of the Teller Springs HOA, located directly across the Roaring Fork River
from the proposed HARVEST ROARING FORK development at the Cattle Creek Confluence,
I am writing to express deep concern about the wildfire and evacuation risks associated
with this project. Recent large-scale fires in Colorado and California have shown how
quickly wind-driven wildfires can overrun communities and overwhelm road networks,
turning evacuation routes into life-threatening choke points.
Highway 82 is already a congested corridor, particularly during peak commuting hours, and
adding thousands of new residents, hotel guests, and vehicles at this single confluence will
dramatically increase the number of people who must evacuate through a narrow,
overburdened artery. In real fire events along the Front Range and in California, we have
seen gridlocked highways, abandoned vehicles, and tragic loss of life when entire
neighborhoods try to leave at once on constrained roads. Concentrating this much new
development at Cattle Creek effectively creates a large, high-density pocket at the end of a
funnel, where even a minor blockage, wreck, or stalled vehicle during an evacuation could
have catastrophic consequences. With a direct view of Highway 82 from my house I have
seen too many situations where a simple late afternoon single lane fender bender traffic
accident can cause a complete stop of traffic flow for over an hour, even longer.
Wildfire behavior in the West is becoming more extreme, with longer fire seasons, hotter
and drier conditions, and more frequent wind events that can push flames and embers
miles ahead of the main fire front. In that context, the combination of dense housing,
limited ingress and egress, heavy reliance on Highway 82, and the river corridor’s natural
funneling effect is a dangerous design. Fire, law enforcement, and EMS resources in our
valley are already stretched; they would be forced to manage evacuation, structure
protection, and traffic control for a development whose very location and scale amplify risk
for everyone—residents, first responders, and neighboring communities like Teller Springs,
IronBridge, Aspen Glen, Westbank, Coryell Ranch, etc.
There is also the compounding risk of smoke and radiant heat in a fast-moving fire, which
can make parts of an evacuation route temporarily unusable even before flames reach
structures. If evacuees from HARVEST ROARING FORK, existing river communities, and
up-valley travelers are all forced onto the same clogged segment of Highway 82,
emergency managers may have little ability to stage, reroute, or prioritize vulnerable
populations. Designing for best-case traffic flow in normal times is not responsible when
the real test will be a worst-case, high-stress evacuation under fire, smoke, and shifting
winds. The February 19, 2016 fire at a location 4 miles W/NW of Glenwood Springs was
measured at 94 mph. What we have witnessed previously here in our own county can
happen again.
For these reasons, and in light of the clear lessons from recent large fires in Colorado and
California, the proposed density and location of HARVEST ROARING FORK are
fundamentally incompatible with safe wildfire evacuation and emergency response. I
respectfully urge you to reject this proposal and to require that any future land-use
decisions at the Cattle Creek Confluence place life safety and realistic evacuation capacity
ahead of speculative large-scale development.
Thank you all for the great work you do for the citizens of Garfield County.
Rick
Rick Carlson
1752 County Road 109
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
riccarlson@gmail.com
970-948-9650
Hi John,
My name is Wes Gardner and I live at 9171 Highway 82 in unincorporated Garfield County. I
own 1/2 of an 82 acre parcel along with Mike and Micki Jeronimus, adjacent to the HRF
proposed development.
I am a Colorado native, who has spent much of my life, enjoying the pristine Roaring Fork
Valley. I have a son and three granddaughters that also live in the valley. We love our
community and consider ourselves to be very fortunate to live here and pride ourselves on
being involved.
I am also part of a group of people who are trying to help bring affordable workforce
housing to Colorado. We are combining philanthropic partners with proposition 123 funds
and Churches with excess ground to bring truly affordable for sale houses to our
communities. As a result, I have learned a lot about nonprofits, such as Habitat For
Humanity, Rural Homes Colorado, The Telluride project, and of course LIHTC funding and
land banking.
I want to share my concerns with you about the lack of specifics and some problematic
fundamentals to HRF’s model. I would like to make sure there are absolute specifications
that will lead to both for sale and rentals that meet the prevailing wages of those who need
these homes.
I won’t go into any specifics on this email but want to make sure our voices are heard and
that the end products are truly affordable in perpetuity!
In general, I think this development is way too big and riddled with so many problems such
as the impact to traffic and safety to our community and its Wildlife. Evacuation in the
event of an emergency such as wildfires.
The proposed 120 room hotel should not even be considered on the south end of the
property if at all.
I’m not anti development and I’m not one for yes to affordable housing but not in my
backyard either. What I am is a thoughtful member of the community who loves the rule
aspect and wants to see it remain intact with sensible development, and planning
consistent with the 2030 plan and Article 8.
Lastly, This development will create so many more jobs and thus the need for even more
affordable housing then they are proposing. Unfortunately, it is not possible to build your
way out of an affordable housing crisis. More on that in our next conversation.
Please let me know that you received this email and what would be the best way for me and
my team to give our input on the affordable housing piece of this project.
Wishing you and your family a very happy new year!
Wes
Wes Gardner
The Bridge Network
Cell: 303-888-2971
Dear John,
The Harvest Roaring Fork Development is a terrible idea.This is one of the last open spaces
along the river and I feel the project should be canceled for these reasons:
The thousands of cars added to Highway 82 and local roads will make our already terrible
traffic even worse. I commute from Carbondale to Basalt and Carbondale to Glenwood
daily. Many days, it takes an hour to get to either location due to traffic volume. I see traffic
accidents often, including cars hitting wildlife on a regular basis.
Now think what would happen if we had a fire in the valley? The traffic is already untenable
during rush hour, but imagine if every single person in the valley had to get into their cars to
flee a fire at the same time. The highway would come to a complete standstill and people
would literally die in their vehicles. I've heard people say that would never happen, but I
lived through the Marshall Fire and many others when we lived in Boulder County. No one
thought a fire could move so fast and cross over Hwy 36. Fortunately, Boulder County is not
in a valley where there is only one good way out and people have multiple options. That is
not an option here. When a wildfire is moving as swiftly as it did during the Marshall Fire,
people only have minutes to get out. We would be sitting ducks in the valley. Adding more
huge developments and more people in this corridor is only going to make it worse.
How about water issues? The development would increase runoff and pollution. The Glen
Canyon Dam is also at a low point and close to hitting the point where it can no longer
produce power. We need to think long and hard about how to manage our water for the
future. Las Vegas is a good example, as they have decreased water use since the 1980's
while increasing their population.
People live here for the beauty and outdoors. Adding a dense development such as this one
will take away from the beauty of the valley. The population in this valley can only increase
so much before we lose the beauty, clean air, and water that we need.
The development will also increase the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
Development of this scale would endanger wildlife and rid them of breeding and migration
grounds.
We must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well-
being.
Please reject this development and protect the Cattle Creek Confluence.
Thank you,
Sarah Greenholz
Subject: Cattle Creek Proposed Development
Name: Doug Greenholz
Email: doug.greenholz@gmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 868-8211
Message: Dear Commissioner Will
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Doug Greenholz
Subject: HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Katie Dyal
Email: kdyal9@yahoo.com
Phone number:
Message: Dear Mr. Samson
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confiuence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfleld County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and stretch emergency
response capacity. That’s area saw flres last year and if the snow fall this year is signs of
what’s to come, flres are a deflnite risk. This puts residents at greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream. We already are hitting maximum capacity on water
table reservoirs in summers. This is a serious concern for me and should be for you as well.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity. This is just silliness. Approving a much smaller project such as half
that many residential units could possibly be maintained. I also work in the travel scene
here and there’s no lack of hotels… we deflnitely don’t need any more of those. And why are
we not turning to the old city market area for more retail space if that’s what residents are
wanting?
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, flre protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The most important variable in my opinion is the rich ecological corridor at confiuence,
home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes, trout, and migratory birds. Development of
this scale would fragment critical habitat and disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfleld County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confiuence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Katie
Dear Mr. Leybourne,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
I grew up living above Cattle Creek, and have seen the massive degradation to wildlife
habitat, quality of life for local residents, and massive traffic impacts that large scale
developments create in my 44 years here.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Collin Arnold
Carbondale
970-948-4402
Subject: HARVEST ROARING FORK
Name: David Sundseth
Email: dsundseth@gmail.com
Phone number: 18089368726
Message: Please do not let the harvest development happen. The elk winter there every
year and it is such a valuable open space.
Dear John Leybourne,
I was born at Aspen Valley Hospital and currently live just outside of Carbondale. I have
been watching the continuous change to the valley over the years.
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Anna
Dear Mr. Leybourne,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Callie Brignolo
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork
Name: LISA Sansom
Email: lisesansom@aol.com
Phone number: 19700480466
Message: Dear Commissioners and Planners,
We have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 47 years, 38 of those as homeowners in Cattle
Creek (113 Road.) I am writing to express our concern about the proposed development,
Harvest Roaring Fork.
I have been commuting to teach in Aspen for 33 years. Traffic in the last few years has
become horrendous and I cannot imagine what it will be like with a development of this
magnitude. The already failing intersections will not be able to safely handle more volume.
I am all in favor of constructing AFFORDABLE housing in the valley. Many of my co-workers
and my own family members cannot afford to stay in the valley, even with decent paying
employment. Harvest Roaring Fork is not affordable. $300,000 for a tiny studio and other
houses over a million? This is not worker’s wages. There are other more practical
alternatives.
As I look at their newspaper advertisements that ask people to sign on to a wait list, I
cannot fathom how they are promoting a rural eco friendly development. Sure, the picture
shows a beautiful pasture open space now, but not after you cram 1500+ housing units,
hotel , etc. into that space. Please don’t make this valley into a city devoid of wildlife and all
the things that make it such a special place. The winter elk range and riparian zones are
critical here.
Water is always a concern, especially this year. Please consider the true amount of water
1500+ homes ,hotel and retail will use. Development along the river will further stress the
fish and wildlife.
Many years of drought and several nearby wildfires (Panorama, Grizzy Creek, Fisher Creek,
and Basalt Mountain, all within a 10 mile radius) have caused us to be extra fire conscious.
It seems the lack of egress and the pressure of so much development will have a
disastrous outcome to new and current residents. The county roads in this area and
highway 82 could not handle evacuation traffic especially with the added amount of
Harvest Roaring Fork vehicles.
Please keep these concerns in mind when determining if the Harvest RF Development
project is right for our rural area and quality of environment.
Sincerely yours,
Lisa Sansom
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Stephanie Eiseman
Email: manone.stephanie@gmail.com
Phone Number: (239) 898-2020
Message: I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development,
HARVEST ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the
Roaring Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital
not only to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork
Valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375ADU’s, a 120 room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Eiseman
Subject: Please DO NOT APPROVE the Harvest
Name: Abby Hammer
Email: ahammer52@gmail.com
Phone Number: (720) 323-2848
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
I’m writing not only as a resident of Garfield County but as a nurse who sees the
consequences of our community’s choices every single day. In the emergency department,
we already witness far too many car accidents and heartbreak on Highway 82. I can’t help
but think about the lives that would be at even greater risk if more traffic is added to a road
that’s already dangerous.
This county has always been a place where people come to breathe—to find peace, space,
and connection with the land and the animals that share it with us. It’s rural, it’s quiet, and
it’s cherished for exactly those reasons. The Harvest Development would take away the
very things that make Garfield County what it is.
We don’t need more sprawl, more cars, and more strain on our community. We need to
protect the spirit of this place—the land, the safety, and the people who love it. I urge you
from the heart to oppose this ordinance and stand with those of us who call this county
home for what it truly represents.
Thank you for listening and for caring about the community you serve.
Sincerely,
Abby Hammer
Carbondale, Co
Subject: STOP HARVEST ROARING FORK
Name: Jonathan Stokely
Email: stokelyj@gmail.com
Phone number: 14176894329
Message: Hello,
I am a long time resident of Carbondale and now Glenwood springs. I am a boater,
fisherman, hiker, and hunter. I am STRONGLY against the Cattle Creek Development. Its
literally called Harvest Roaring Fork which means they are going to Harvest the last
remaining beauty our valley still has. We don’t have the water, infrastructure, or literally
anything to support the development. We need to keep the rich elite out of our valley, and
this is only creating a better attraction for them to continue our gorgeous backyards
destruction. Not to mention giving billionaire developers more money to rape and pillage
our natural resources. You all are nuts to even be considering this. Not to mention, do you
want to give that many more blue votes to GARCO?
- Jonathan Stokely
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Development
Name: Judith Blanchard
Email: judiebee@icloud.com
Phone Number: (970) 963-5779
Message: I urge you to deny the proposed development of Harvest Roaring Fork LLC, This
development would add 1,500 residential units, plus 375 Accessory Dwelling Units, 55,000
square feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel on 283+/- acres at the confluence
of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. This project, a small urban city along the banks
of an invaluable stretch of the Roaring Fork River, would jeopardize our already
compromised traffic flow, threaten water quality, disrupt wildlife habitat and destroy the
rural character of unincorporated Garfield County. Once it’s gone—it’s gone for good.
Subject: Cattle creek subdivision
Name: Susan Nicholson
Email: fivestarevents@sopris.net
Phone Number:
Message: Dear Commissioner,
Please vote NO on this proposed subdivision. Have any of you driven Highway 82 lately?
Besides the traffic starting to look like horrible LA what is going to happen to the animals
and migration? Water? Blithe on the land? Cars? Emissions? Save this valley PLEASE. Also
think of your re-election. The people of this valley do not want this. Please don't make us all
want to move away, I have been here over 40 years. Thanks for your consideration. Susan
Nicholson
Subject: Proposed Cattle Creek Development
Name: David Badesch
Email: David.Badesch@comcast.net
Phone Number: (303) 880-8808
Message: We, the undersigned strongly oppose the Harvest Roaring Fork development
proposal currently under review by Garfield County. This development is far too dense for
the property upon which it is proposed and will negatively impact the safety and quality of
life for residents and wildlife in the area. Among our top concerns for opposing the
development are the following:
1. Density. The development proposal includes:
1500 units of residential plus up to 375 ADUs;
55,000 square feet of commercial space; and
A 120 room hotel
All on less than 283 acres. This level of density is far in excess of land use in the
surrounding area and does not comport with the underlying Residential Suburban zone
district.
2. Traffic. The development would greatly increase traffic on Highway 82 adding to
congestion and safety concerns on an already overburdened Highway. The developer’s own
traffic projections state the site would generate 12,000 additional vehicle trips per day. The
current transportation infrastructure cannot handle this level of additional vehicular traffic
particularly in the event of an evacuation due to an emergency such as a wildfire
3. Water Quality/Quantity. This development potentially threatens water quality in the
Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek due to increased activity, effluent and pollutant run off,
and encroachment into riparian zones. It will further strain already limited water supply
which is a major concern in the arid West.
4. Wildlife Disruption. The property provides major wildlife habitat and a migration corridor
which will be threatened by this level of development.
5. Public Safety. Local infrastructure for fire protection, law enforcement, and medical
services are already strained in the area. This additional dense development could strain
these resources to the breaking point.
For these and other quality of life reasons, we urge the Garfield County Commissioners to
deny the Harvest Roaring Fork Development application.
David and Melanie Badesch
108 Gossamer Road
Elk Springs
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Hilary Back
Email: hilary@backtobalancedoc.com
Phone number: (970) 963-1278
Message: Dear Mike,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a 120 room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Hilary Back
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Development
Name: Nick Abrams
Email: naabrams@gmail.com
Phone Number: 5105936465
Message: Commissioner Will,
As local residents, producers, hunters, and conservationists, we are writing to express our
opposition to the Harvest Roaring Fork Development. While we support more limited
development specifically to support workforce, teachers, and public safety community
members, this proposal is an urban city shoehorned into a rural corridor.
My opposition is supported by the following specific findings:
Traffic & Safety Gridlock: The developer’s own traffic study estimates over 11,900 new daily
vehicle trips—a 50% increase on Highway 82. The proposed "Michigan U-Turns" and two
new traffic lights will create a permanent bottleneck. For those of us reliant on Highway 82
as a primary wildfire evacuation route, this level of density is a life-safety risk.
Wildlife Crisis: This site is one of the last remaining winter habitats for a herd of
approximately 120–150 elk in the lower valley. As a conservationist, we know that this range
is already impact by 82 and that it will be further fragmented by 1,500 units and a 120-room
hotel, these herds will be displaced with nowhere else to go.
School & Infrastructure Strain: Adding an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 new residents without a
dedicated school site or expansion plan will overwhelm the Roaring Fork School District.
Furthermore, only 10% of units are price-capped "mitigation units"; the rest are "market-
rate workforce" units (projected up to $1.5M), which fails to truly serve our most essential
service workers.
Incompatible Density: The proposed density of nearly 8 units per acre (on developable
land) is unprecedented for this area.
I urge you to uphold the integrity of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and reject this
proposal. GarCo's rural character, agricultural heritage, and environmental resources are
what makes this a special place for us to live, produce, and raise our family and we do not
want to see these values jeopardized.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nick and Katie Abrams
Missouri Heights
P.O. BOX 4112 Basalt, CO 81621
February 9, 2026
John Leybourne, Planner III
Garfleld County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
jleybourne@garfleldcountyco.gov
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
Dear John,
The Roaring Fork Fishing Guide Alliance (Alliance) is providing comments on the proposed Harvest
Roaring Fork PUD application. The Alliance is a group of professional guides dedicated to the
protection and conservation of flsheries in the Roaring Fork region. The proposed development and
its associated utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are of particular concern
to the Alliance. The utility crossing the Roaring Fork will involve in-river construction, wetland
disturbance, and permanent infrastructure within the river corridor. The construction is currently
planned for late summer during a time when the river is busy with both commercial and private
users. How will the construction efforts effectively handle river traffic and safe boat passage? How
will sediment levels and turbidity be monitored and minimized to ensure the river downstream is
‘blown out’? The current proposed location of the utility crossing will intersect the great blue heron
rookery, one of the most sensitive areas on the Roaring Fork Conservancy’s conservation easement
within the Harvest Roaring Fork property. While impacts are described as temporary and mitigation
measures are proposed, the Alliance has concerns about the long-term effects of the utility
crossing in its current location. In addition, we have concerns about river health related to
stormwater runoff entering the river. The proposal lacks a sufficient stormwater drainage plan,
representing a signiflcant threat to the ecological health of the Roaring Fork and degradation of
water quality.
The Cattle Creek confiuence and associated 54-acre conservation easement held by Roaring Fork
Conservancy is a thriving ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, great blue herons, waterfowl,
elk, deer, Ute ladies’ tresses (orchids) and numerous other plant and wildlife species. While the
conservation easement does not allow for any public access, a development of this size greatly
increases the potential for the great blue herons and all other important wildlife species to be lost
forever. Many of us realize that wildlife will not simply ‘go somewhere else’.
As representatives of professional guides and the flshing public, we encourage Garfleld County
planners and commissioners to reject this application. Approval of such a large development
would change the character of the lower valley forever and greatly compromise one of the most
special and ecologically important areas in the watershed. Saying ‘no’ to Harvest Roaring Fork will
ensure the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries remain healthy, resilient, and flshable for future
generations.
Sincerely,
Roaring Fork Fishing Guide Alliance Board
Subject: Harvest Development
Name: Bob Anderson
Email: bnderson@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 319-8271
Message: This message is in regard to the harvest development now proposed off of
Highway 82 in Glenwood Springs and the previous Skokos Development known as river
edge.
To whom it may concern; planning/zoning, elected council members
The proposed development of 1500 units and a hotel is way out of character for this
prestigious valley, and the previous land use zoning expired which was only contemplated
for 300 + units. Richard Myers has done harm to Gws, and the tree farm area with its
expansion of development. This plan will cause harm to the views, the land, and the more
importantly the traffic. Have you sat in the traffic lines in the basalt area? Eagle county
allowed Richard to build and now its a total mess. If you allow his group to build on this site
with this kind of density, it will absolutely destroy the character and essence of this valley.
Please do not allow this to happen here....not to this road area, not to this view, not to this
increase in traffic.
Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
Name: Alison Richman
Email: squab7@aim.com
Phone number: 19703790440
Message: February 11th 2026
Re: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork Development in PUD
To all County Commissioners’ & Community Developer,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
There are many key reasons as to why this small city should not be allowed to be
constructed.
One very interesting item that needs to not be forgotten is that the original land use zoning
was for @370 homes and now the developer has let the expiration to that zoning expire as
to push for a huge development.
Key reasons as to why this should not be allowed:
1. Traffic & Safety – per highway 82
2. Infrastructure to support this massive city
3. Clean Water availability in addition to residents pollution
4. Open space for wildlife
5. Proposed proximity to the river
6. Flooding the valley with residents of which could significantly alter the pay scales in the
valley of which are already in flux
7. Public services, grocery, garbage, pollution, Crime
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a 120 room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Additionally, I did vote for you and this is NOT something I would vote for rather against so if
you really are doing the right thing for your constituents then the answer is an easy NO GO.
Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the
proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Sincerely,
Alison Richman
970-379-0440
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commissioners
Attn: John Leyborne, Planner III
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Via e-mail to jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov
RE: PUDA -12-24-9084 and PUDA -07-25-9079
Dear Commissioners,
After reviewing the above noted applications, I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission
to recommend denial and BOCC to deny the above-noted applications. The applications
are technically flawed, have significant omissions and are inconsistent with the LUC and
Comprehensive Plan.
The following issues should be addressed prior to any application on this property
preceding forward.
Scale – A project of this scale, without municipal services, is inappropriate in a semi-rural
location. With upwards of 1875 dwelling units, the resident population could be upwards of
4875 people (2.5 persons/D.U.) For comparison, the population of Silt is 3575 (2023
census estimate) and the New Castle population is 4878. On 230 acres, the population
density would be approximately eight units/acre. Glenwood Springs by virtue of parks, open
space, rivers, and streets has a density of 1.2 units per acre. A project of this scale is not
appropriate for this site and should only be placed in an urban context with urban level
infrastructure. Imagine placing the population of Silt or New Castle on a 230-acre parcel.
Transportation/TraƯic- Without any services (albeit a hotel and limited commercial
square footage) Harvest will be an automobile dependent community. Generating 10 to
12,000 daily trips onto Hwy. 82, it will increase existing traƯic volumes by upwards of 50%.
It will increase congestion, denigrate air quality, diminish functionality and levels of service
negatively up and down the valley. The traƯic study should address the impacts of the
project the length of the valley. How will this project impact the evening queue into
Glenwood that currently can extend to the CR 109 intersection with HWY 82? The potential
increase in traƯic from Harvest, when coupled with other background tra Ưic growth is
simply unfathomable.
RFTA has estimated that it will cost an additional $2.5 million annually to service the
additional transit demand that Harvest would generate. With the nearest bus stops at CR
154/ HWY 82 intersection, RFTA has targeted infrastructure improvements including station
upgrades and pedestrian underpass improvements. It would be incumbent on the
applicants to contribute a portion of the associated capital costs for these infrastructure
improvements in addition to annual operating costs. As long as Garfield County is not a
RFTA member, capital costs will be born by development interests.
Wildlife Impacts – As we have consumed the valley floor with housing and other land
uses, Harvest is one of, if not the last, large remaining parcels left in the RFV in Garfield
County. Coupled with its high-quality riparian habitat, it has become a significant winter
habitat for deer, elk, other mammals, and bird life. With the upland portion of the property
proposed for development, it will become functionally unusable by elk, deer and other
mammal and bird species that reside there. We are running out of places for our game and
non-game species to relocate on the Roaring Fork Valley floor. I dispute the applicants
claim that the development will not harm deer and elk populations. Highway 82 deer and
elk mortality will only worsen as they are forced elsewhere unless we make wildlife specific
improvements first.Before we consider any more development here or elsewhere in the
Roaring Fork Valley, we need to implement a comprehensive program of habitat
connectivity, wildlife fencing and crossings and eliminate HWY 82 as a lethal threat.
Otherwise, the wildlife that we all value will be reduced significantly.
Environmental Impact – The application proposes no treatment of stormwater from the
project. but channeling water directly into the Roaring Fork River. The runoƯ from the
developed properties and streets will denigrate the water quality of the Roaring Fork River.
Sediments, petroleum products, fertilizers, dog poop will all discharge into the river. In
concert with reduced flows from increased withdrawals for domestic consumption and
climate change, both the flow volumes and the water quality will suƯer. Stormwater must
be treated if we are to retain a healthy river. As flows decrease, temperatures in the river
increase threatening aquatic species and potentially compromising blue ribbon quality
waters.
What is the wisdom of adding 10 to 12 thousand more vehicle trips on Highway 82 adding
both to congestion and air quality degradation? More particulates and greenhouse gases?
Warming up our already warming valley and further reducing our frost-free days?
This is not responsible growth. Where is the solar energy component, grey water systems,
raw water irrigation and transit stations? In 2026 we can no longer aƯord to simply follow
the standard development paradigm.
Workforce Housing – We all acknowledge that we have a shortage of workforce housing in
our valley. However, creating up to 1875 housing units in an area without any urban
infrastructure is foolhardy. Who will provide police services, where will they recreate, go to
the library, schools, and shopping? They will drive to Glenwood and Carbondale for all their
needs, creating congestion, burdens, and expense for neighboring towns. Does Garfield
County have the staƯing and resources to support this type of urban growth?
Meeting the County’s minimum requirement of 10% workforce housing is insuƯicient.
Providing additional market rate housing for resident workers is not a realistic and reliable
solution to our housing needs. How many potential residents could truly a Ưord purchasing
homes in this community? And then the added burden of metro district, HOA, and transfer
fees?
Urban scale growth belongs in urban communities. This scale of Harvest cannot be
supported in it’s proposed location. Workforce housing belongs where jobs and
infrastructure are to support them. Disconnecting jobs, services/infrastructure and
housing is a flawed recipe. Our communities up and down the Roaring Fork and Colorado
River valleys are doing an admirable job in creating attainable housing. Simply adding to the
supply without controls will not provide solutions to workforce housing shortages.
Fiscal Impacts – The application does not address the fiscal impacts that the development
as proposed would create. What are the impacts on the County, schools, CDOT, adjacent
communities, fire districts, RFTA, landfills, etc.? Will these costs be born by the
development interests, the prospective homeowners, or existing taxpayers? This type of
analysis should be a pre-requisite to any development of this scale in order to have an
informed discussion and analysis of this project.
We can and must do better utilizing our limited lands in the Roaring Fork Valley. Please
deny these applications.
Sincerely,
Andrew McGregor
Subject: Harvest RFV proposal
Name: Shannon Campbell
Email: scampbell14302@gmil.com
Phone number: (970) 309-7177
Message: I am concerned about the scope of the development that is being considered
between Glenwood and Carbondale. It is too large and I have concerns about how it will
affect the infrastructure and quality of life in both Glenwood and Carbondale. We do not
want another Willits here, and there is already so much growth, our valley is not
recognizable. This will affect the water quality, recreation, driving and educational
situation. It needs to be scaled back significantly. We have lived in Glenwood for over 30
years and love this valley, but have significant concerns regarding the scope of the growth
and issues this development will bring. Think about the citizens already living here. NO on
Harverst RFV.
Subject: Harvest Development
Name: Megan Chester
Email: maddy@rof.net
Phone Number: 9703795777
Message: Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable
Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK
PUD
Dear Commissioner,
As a 35 year resident of the valley, I am writing with deep concern about the proposed
large-scale development, HARVEST ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence,
where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open
spaces along the river and is vital not only to Garfield County, but to the health and
sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the
valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Megan Chester
275 Sierra Vista,Carbondale, Colorado
1
CATTLE CREEK CONFLUENCE COALITION MEMORANDUM
HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD – LAND USE CODE COMPLIANCE FAILURES
I. Summary of Findings
The Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) establishes mandatory
requirements that an applicant must satisfy before The Planning Commission can recommend
approval of a PUD Application. These requirements are not discretionary. They are as follows:
a. LUDC Section 6-101.A.: “PUDs must be in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.”
b. LUDC Section 6-202. B.1.c.: “The approved PUD zoning and the approved PUD
Plan are inseparable. PUD zoning shall not be approved without the approval of
the related PUD Plan documents.”
c. LUDC Section 6-2-202.C.: “An application for PUD Zoning shall meet the
following criteria:
1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD meets the purpose and applicability of
this Code, as provided in section 6-101.A. and B.
2. Development Standards. The PUD meets the Development Standards as
provided in section 6-401.
3. Standards, Article 7. The PUD meets the standards within Article 7, Division
1, excluding 7-101.
4. Rezoning Criteria. The PUD meets the Rezoning Review Criteria in section 4-
113.C.
5. Established Zoning Standards. The PUD Plan adequately establishes uses
and standards governing the development, density, and intensity of land use by
means of dimensional or other standards.”
Under Section 4-101.F.2. of the LUDC, “If the application fails to satisfy any one (1) of
the applicable requirements and compliance cannot be achieved through conditions of approval,
the recommending body shall recommend that the application be denied.” (emphasis added). In
this case, the recommending body is the Planning Commission. Pursuant to LUDC Section 1-
108.B.3.: “The word ‘shall’ is always mandatory.”
Accordingly, the Planning Commission would abuse its discretion and exceed its
jurisdiction if it failed to recommend denial of the Harvest Roaring Fork (HRF) Application
based on any one of the thirteen following failures under the LUDC:
2
1. The PUD Application is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan as required by LUDC Section 6-101.A. The HRF PUD Application exceeds the
maximum density of 5.8 units per acre. It includes commercial uses that are not
contemplated under the RH land use designation. It is not consistent with the underlying
RS zoning of one unit per 20,000 square feet. It is not consistent with the rural character
of the area and the existing density of surrounding properties. The PUD does not use
clustering or other mechanisms to achieve the higher density.
2. The PUD Application does not satisfy Section 6-202. B.1.c. PUD zoning and
the PUD Plan are inseparable; zoning approval requires simultaneous approval of the
Plan documents. Because HRF has failed to submit detailed PUD documents that meet
the specific development criteria under the LUDC standards, including a Phasing Plan,
PUD Map, Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, and Landscaping Plan, an essential
requirement under Section 6-2-2.B.1.c is missing.
3. The PUD Application does not meet the criteria under LUDC Section 6-2-
202.C. The PUD Application does not meet the purpose and applicability of this Code, as
provided in Section 6-101.A. and B, because it is not in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan, does not meet the Development Standards as required in Section 6-
401, does not meet the standards within Article 7, Division 1, and does not adequately
establish uses and standards governing the development, density, and intensity of land use
by means of dimensional or other standards.
4. The PUD Application does not meet the Design Standards of Article 7
Division 1. There is no detailed road plan required by Section 7-107. The PUD’s
proposed land uses do not conform to, nor are they compatible with the nature, scale, and
intensity of adjacent land uses as required by Section 7-103.
5. The PUD Application does not meet the Rezoning Review Criteria in Section
4-113.C. The PUD rezoning does not result in a “logical and orderly development
pattern.” To the contrary, the proposed density of the development far exceeds the
permissible density under the RS zone district, is inconsistent with existing adjacent
residential developments, and is far in excess of that contemplated under the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning also fails to address “a demonstrated
community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing.” The development will
exacerbate traffic congestion on Highway 82, will not provide effective mass transit
services, and will not meet the community demand for affordable housing. The housing
demand generated by the development itself will exceed the 10% affordable mitigation
housing proposed by the developer.
3
6. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-401.I. Phasing Plan
Requirement. HRF has not submitted a binding Phasing Plan with firm contractual
deadlines for the completion of the various project phases.
7. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-301 and 302 PUD Map
Requirement. The PUD Map does not show the location, acreage, type, and densities of
all proposed land uses, lots, building sites, rights of way, easements, designation of
building envelopes, open space, and designation of flood or other hazard areas shown by
location and dimension.
8. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.B. PUD Site Plan
Requirement. There is no Site Plan showing the topography, storm drainage, parking
areas, driveways, emergency turn-outs, sidewalks, paths, existing and proposed roads,
utility lines, easements and rights-of-way, location and dimension of all existing and
proposed structures, elevation drawings showing existing grade, finished grade, and
height of the proposed structures, location and size of sewer service lines and treatment
facilities, the location and size of water lines, and location and size of signs.
9. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.E. PUD Grading
and Drainage Plan Requirement. No detailed Grading and Drainage Plan was
submitted.
10. The PUD Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.F. PUD Landscaping Plan
Requirement. No detailed Landscaping Plan was submitted.
11. The PUD Relies on “Form Based Zoning”. Form based zoning is not a
recognized or adopted type of zoning under the LUDC or the Comprehensive Plan.
12. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Overrides the LUDC’s Conflict Provisions. The
proposed PUD Guide would prevail over conflicting or more stringent public health and
safety requirements under the LUDC.
13. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Overrides the LUDC’s PUD Amendment
Procedures. The proposed PUD Guide would dictate what amendments to the PUD are
deemed minor and deprive the Planning Director of making that decision, including
increasing building heights, realigning streets, reducing lot line setbacks, decreasing
landscaping, and other significant amendments.
The Applicant’s forgoing failures mandate denial of this Application.
4
II. Detailed Analysis of Relevant Criteria for Review
1. The PUD is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, LUDC
Section 6-101.A.
Standard for Decision: “PUDs must be in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.”
Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan calls out this property for Residential High
(RH) density. Upon revocation of the existing PUD, the property will revert to
Residential Suburban (RS) zoning. RS zoning contemplates “low-density
suburban residential uses developed to maintain a rural character” with minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet and 50% lot coverage.
Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Urban (RU), Residential Mobile Home
Park (RMHP), and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are considered compatible
zoning districts under the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive
Plan sets the maximum density limits for RH at one (1) dwelling unit per 7,500
sq. ft. (i.e. 5.8 dwelling units per acre) to one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres.
HRF has an average density of 8.9 units per acre based on their Neighborhood
Standards. This density ranges from a minimum of 6 units per acre up to 15 units
per acre. These figures also include the 54 acres of the conservation easement
which is undevelopable under any circumstance. If the conservation easement is
excluded, the average density increases to 10.6 units per acre. This also assumes
1,500 total units. If 375 ADUs are included, the density increases even further.
The proposed density is twice that contemplated under the Comprehensive Plan
and is therefore non-compliant. The Applicant’s density table is set out below:
5
2. The PUD Application does not satisfy Section 6-202.B.1.c.
Standard for Decision: “The approved PUD zoning and the approved PUD Plan
are inseparable. PUD zoning shall not be approved without the approval of the
related PUD Plan documents.”
Analysis: The PUD zoning and the PUD Plan documents must be approved
together. Because HRF has failed to submit a detailed Phasing Plan, PUD Map,
Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, and Landscaping Plan that meet the
specific development criteria under the LUDC standards, a mandatory
requirement under Section 6-2-2.B.1.c is missing.
3. The PUD Application does not meet the criteria under LUDC Section 6-2-
202.C.1 through 5.
Standard for Decision: “An application for PUD Zoning shall meet the
following criteria:
Requirement 1 - Section 6-2-202.C.1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD
must meet the purpose and applicability of this Code, as provided in section 6-
101.A. and B.
Analysis: The PUD Application does not meet the purpose and applicability of
the Code, as required in Section 6-101.A. “PUDs must be in general conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan.” The Application fails because it does not comply
with or conform to the Comprehensive Plan due to higher than permitted density
(average 8.9 units per acre when the maximum is 5.8 units per acre).
Requirement 2 - Section 6-2-202.C.2. Development Standards. The PUD must
meet the Development Standards as provided in Section 6-401. Pursuant to
Section 6-401, “[T]he PUD Plan shall meet the following criteria:
6-401.A. Permitted Uses.
1. Permitted uses within the PUD are all uses that are either permitted in the
underlying zone district or are in general conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Analysis: Residential uses are permitted in the underlying RS Zone District, but
the proposed density of the residential uses does not generally comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. HRF proposes 55,000 square feet of commercial uses and a
6
120 room three-story hotel. Commercial and lodging uses are not permitted uses
in the underlying RS zone district and are subject to either limited or major impact
review. The density of nonresidential development allowed within a PUD shall
comply with the Comprehensive Plan and shall not exceed the level that can be
adequately served by public facilities. The proposed nonresidential density (i.e.
commercial) does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan as described above.
6-401.B. Off-Street Parking. The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in
terms of location, area, circulation, safety, convenience, separation, and
screening.
Analysis: There is no defined parking plan for the project because there is no
PUD Map or Site Plan that shows the proposed parking based on the conceptual
guidelines submitted by HRF.
6-401.C. Density. Nonresidential Density. The density of nonresidential
development allowed within a PUD shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan
and shall not exceed the level that can be adequately served by public facilities.
2. Residential Density.
a. Residential density shall be no greater than 2 dwelling units per gross acre
within the PUD; provided, that the BOCC may allow an increase to a
maximum of 15 dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and
sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special
district, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-103(20) are readily available.
b. Residential density shall be calculated by summing the number of
residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and
dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the
PUD. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed
upon a showing of conformance with the purposes of this section through
appropriate design features within the PUD that will achieve high standards of
design and livability.
Analysis: The proposed residential density is approximately 8.9 units per acre
with some areas at 15 units per acre. This exceeds the Comprehensive Plan and
does not conform with the RS Zone or adjacent uses. The BOCC may allow up to
a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre where public water and sewer systems
are available, provided that averaging and transferring of densities within the
7
PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of appropriate design features within the
PUD that will achieve high standards of design and livability.
The Comprehensive Plan describes how density transfers can be accomplished by
clustering. “For densities that encompass a range, the maximum density can be
achieved through a combined process of land conservation and clustering (refer to
Figure 4) in coordination with the conservation framework lands and/ or other
significant public benefits.” Figure 4 is set out below:
Figure 4: Hypothetical comparison of clustering options on a thirty (30) acre
parcel with a Medium High (MH) Future Land Use Designation (one (1) dwelling
unit per two (2) to six (6) acres).
HRF is not proposing clustering or conservation of property to achieve higher
densities on any portions of the property.
4. The PUD Application does not meet the Design Standards of Article 7 Division 1.
Requirement 3 - Section 6-2-202.C.3. Standards of Article 7, Division 1.
Standard for Decision: The PUD must meet the standards within Article 7,
Division 1, excluding 7-101.
7-102: The Land Use Change is in general conformance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan and complies with any applicable intergovernmental
agreement.
Analysis: The PUD is not in general conformance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan as described above.
7-103: The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with
adjacent land uses.
8
Analysis: The PUD’s proposed land uses do not conform to, nor are they
compatible with the nature, scale, and intensity of adjacent land uses. Adjacent
residential development has substantially lower density and much higher levels of
preserved open space and greenbelts. Aspen Glen has average density of one
residential unit per 2.25 acres (429 units on 965 acres). Iron Bridge has an average
density of one unit per 1.7 acres (322 units on 533 acres). Even the adjacent
Cavern Springs mobile home park has a lower overall density than HRF with a
density of 7 units per acre (98 units on 13.85 acres). The residential property to
the south has two units on 80 acres. Adjacent commercial properties are small-
scale retail and service businesses.
7-107: All roads shall be designed to provide for adequate and safe access and
shall be reviewed by the County Engineer.
Analysis: The internal roads proposed by HRF have not been finalized beyond a
purely conceptual stage. While the submittal does lay out generic defined
standards, the roads themselves are not accurately depicted on any map or plan for
the overall property. Thus, the actual roads have not been designed to provide for
adequate and safe access sufficient for review by the County Engineer. See below:
9
5. The PUD Application does not meet the Rezoning Review Criteria in Section 4-
113.C.
Requirement 4 – Section 6-2-202.C.3. Rezoning Review Criteria Section 4-
113.C.
Standard for Decision: The PUD must meet the Rezoning Review Criteria in
Section 4-113.C. An application for rezoning shall demonstrate that the following
criteria have been met:
1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development
pattern and would not constitute spot zoning;
2. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is
changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or
density in the area;
3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect
to facilities, services, or housing; and
4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement.
Analysis: The PUD rezoning does not result in a “logical and orderly
development pattern.” To the contrary, the proposed density of the development
far exceeds the permissible density under the RS zone district, is inconsistent with
existing adjacent residential developments, and is far in excess of that
contemplated under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning also fails to
address “a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or
10
housing.” The development will exacerbate traffic congestion on Highway 82,
will not provide effective mass transit services, and will not meet the community
demand for affordable housing. The housing demand generated by the
development itself will exceed the 10% mitigation housing proposed by the
developer.
6. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-401.I. Phasing Plan
Requirement.
Standard for Decision: Section 6-4-1.I. Phasing. “Each phase within a PUD
shall be planned and related to existing surrounding and available facilities and
services so that failure to proceed to a subsequent phase will not have a
substantially adverse impact on the prior and future phases of the PUD or its
surroundings.”
Analysis: HRF has not submitted a well-defined or binding phasing plan. While
HRF sets target dates for various portions of the project running from July 2026
through December 31, 2042, HRF expressly disclaims any firm commitment to
the phasing of the project. To wit: “The time frame for each phase listed above is
a good-faith estimate… If the phase is not 100% complete by the estimated end
date in the time frame, Harvest may extend that estimated time frame when it next
submits a preliminary plan application for that phase or simply by informing the
County of the new estimated time frame. Given the scale of the proposed
project and the adaptable nature of the proposed PUD, any delay in completing a
phase, change in phasing schedule/ order, or a failure to proceed to a subsequent
phase, will not have a substantially adverse impact on the prior and future phases
of the PUD or its surroundings. As described in this phasing plan, it is
acknowledged that detailed phasing for this project is subject to market influences
that cannot be forecast with any relative certainty.” The lack of any firm phasing
plan is not compliant with the LUDC.
7. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-301 and 302 PUD Map
Requirement.
Standard for Decision: Table 6-301 Application Submittal Requirements:
11
Section 6-302.D. PUD Plan Map. “The map of the PUD Plan shall be drawn at a
scale of 1inch equals 100 feet or a scale approved by the Director which clearly
shows the entire proposal.” This shall include Location, acreage and type of all
land uses and proposed densities; Location, acreage and type of land to be held in
common, Open Space devoted to community use, and land to be dedicated for
public use, including school sites; Location and acreage of all rights of way,
accesses and easements including the names and dimensions of each road; Uses
and grantees of all existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way on or
adjacent to the parcel, shown by location and dimension; Location and description
of monuments; Primary control points; Gross and net acreage of individual lots or
sites; Designation of any Building Envelopes; Designation of any flood or other
Hazard Area; Certification of title showing the Applicant is the land owner or
option-holder; Lienholder consent, if applicable; Certification by the project
surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the survey and Plat; Certification for
approval of the BOCC; and Certification for the County Clerk and Recorder. See
also, Requirement 5 - Section 6-2-202.C.5. Established Zoning Standards.
Analysis: The PUD Map must adequately establish uses and standards governing
development, density, and intensity of land use by means of dimensional or other
standards as described above. Because the applicant has not submitted a PUD
Map meeting the forgoing standards, this requirement has not been met.
12
8. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.D. PUD Site Plan
Requirement.
Standard for Decision: Section 4-201.A. Required Submissions. “This
Division identifies the application materials required by this Code, including
some submittal materials required for Article, 5, Divisions of Land. Section 4-
203.D. Site Plan.” “The Site Plan shall include the following elements:” existing
and proposed topographic contours at vertical intervals sufficient to show the
topography affecting the development and storm drainage; existing and proposed
parking areas, driveways, emergency turn-outs and emergency turnarounds,
sidewalks, and paths, shown by location and dimension; existing and proposed
roads, railroad tracks, irrigation ditches, fences, and utility lines on or adjacent to
the parcel, shown by location and dimension; users and grantees of all existing
and proposed easements and rights-of-way on or adjacent to the parcel, shown by
location and dimension; location and dimension of all structures, existing and
proposed, and distance of structures from property lines; elevation drawings
showing existing grade, Finished Grade, and height of the proposed structures
above existing grade; location and size of leach field, sewer service lines, and
treatment facilities to serve the proposed use; the source and capacity of the water
supply, including location and size of water lines to serve the proposed use; and
location and size of signs for the purpose of identification, advertising, and traffic
control.
Analysis: In this case, the Planning Director specifically advised the Applicant
that a Site Plan would be required due to his determination that this Application
was a Substantial Modification. See, Letter re: Pre-Application Conference
Summary dated 10/30/2024.
Section 6-301 also specifically calls for a Site Plan as part of the PUD Zoning
Application submittal process. HRF has not submitted a PUD Map or a Site Plan
that identifies any of the forgoing with the required detail or specificity. These
requirements are mandatory, and HRF has not requested a waiver. Instead HRF
states as follows: “Due to the number of jurisdictional entities and requirements,
and that Harvest is large and will develop in phases over a period of years, not all
of the information normally submitted with a zoning application is known or
available at the time of submittal. For this reason, the following items shall be
included at the time of the application for a plat approval of a subdivision or a site
plan approval.” The LUDC is unequivocal. An application “shall” include a Site
Plan meeting the LUDC standards. HRF has failed to meet this requirement.
13
9. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.E. Grading and
Drainage Plan.
Standard for Decision: Section 4-203.E Grading and Drainage Plan - “The
Grading and Drainage Plan shall include the following [23] elements:” Site Map,
Drainage Structures, Topography, Grading Plan, Soil Stockpile and Snow Storage
Areas, Drainage Plan, Equipment Storage Areas, Temporary Roads, Areas of
Steep Slopes, Construction Schedule, Permanent Stabilization, Erosion Control
Measures, Estimated Costs, Calculations, Neighboring Areas, Stormwater
Management, Stormwater Management Plan, Reclamation, Revegetation and Soil
Plan, Hydraulic Calculations, Maintenance Requirements, Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures Plan, Additional Information or Detail, Signature
Blocks.
Analysis: HRF did not submit a Grading and Drainage Plan that satisfies this
requirement.
10. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.F. Landscape Plan
Requirement.
Standard for Decision: Section 4-203.F. Landscape Plan: “Landscape Plans
shall be scaled at 1 inch to 20 feet for properties exceeding 16 acres in size, or 1
inch to 10 feet for properties less than 16 acres in size. The Landscape Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with section 7-303 and shall include, at a minimum, the
following [5] elements:” Topographic information at 2-foot contour intervals,
Location of all lot lines, improvements, and easements, Identification of all
existing trees of 6 inches in caliper or greater, and which trees will be preserved
or removed and other existing vegetation with the type, location, size, and number
of plants that will be installed, and specified seed mixtures, A Cost Estimate of the
materials depicted in the Landscape Plan, and a proposed maintenance program.
Analysis: HRF did not submit a detailed Landscape Plan as required.
11. The PUD Relies of “Form Based Zoning”. Form based zoning is not a recognized
or adopted type of zoning under the LUDC or the Comprehensive Plan.
Standard of Decision: In lieu of submitting a PUD Plan Map, Site Plan, Grading
and Drainage Plan, and a Landscaping Plan as required at the time of rezoning
approval, HRF suggests providing the required details at the time of platting and
subdivision. The LUDC does not allow this. Section 4-203 B. states that these
“basic materials are required for all applications for a Land Use Change Permit.”
14
Analysis: HRF proposes adopting a PUD “Guide” in lieu of these required plans.
As stated in the application cover letter: “The PUD Guide utilizes a form-based
zoning outline designed to adapt to both market needs and jurisdictional
approvals that will occur after the Board of County Commissioners considers this
zoning request.” The PUD Guide attached as Exhibit D to the application is
described as a “Neighborhood Exhibit, PUD Map, and Illustrative Concept Map.”
This is intended to “establish a form-based code within the Harvest Roaring Fork
PUD Guide. This guide will serve as a set of rules for the property, allowing the
planning staff to use these standards as a framework for evaluating and approving
future development within the PUD.”
Garfield County has not adopted form-based zoning, and it is not defined
anywhere in the LUDC. Moreover, HRF has admitted that the “guide” set out in
Exhibit D is not binding or regulatory. Exhibit D contains the following
disclaimer prominently on page 3: “ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN: This plan depicts
the design intent of the development but shall not constitute a regulatory
document.” The application goes on to state: “NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT
MAP: This map depicts two conceptual designs aligned with the proposed form
based code. This map is not a regulatory document. The Applicant and County
recognize that detailed site investigations and iterative planning are needed to
address neighborhood form, livability, grades, views, and environmental
conditions to achieve best-in-class development.”
In other words, the “plan” or “guide” is not binding on the developer. This
position directly contradicts HRF’s statement in its Project Description as follows:
“The PUD Guide will serve as the regulatory framework guiding the community’s
growth and ensuring alignment with Garfield County’ s vision for balanced,
responsible development.” HRF states that “Both the Applicant and the County
desired this [form based zoning] structure as appropriate for a large, long-term
development.” County planning staff does not have the authority to implement a
new type of form based zoning or to unilaterally waive the application
requirements in the absence of a formal request for waiver. None was made.
The “Site Conditions Map” contained in Exhibit D purports to substitute for the
detailed information required by the LUDC. It states as follows: “SITE
CONDITIONS MAP: This map depicts general site conditions, including possible
geotechnical conditions typical for this area. It is provided for informational
purposes only and is not a regulatory document. Given the significant amount
of site grading that is contemplated, this map should not be relied upon as the
basis for design, permitting, or construction decisions. Full size scalable copies of
15
this information have been submitted with this application. The Applicant' s
development team will conduct additional testing and site assessments with each
proposed development phase to identify specific issues and mitigation methods
that will be implemented to address conditions identified during the development
process.” The PUD Map, Grading and Drainage Plan, Landscaping Plan, and the
Site Plan are mandatory, not optional, and no waiver of this requirement has been
requested. HRF is requesting approval for 1,500 residential units of density, 375
ADUs, 55,000 square feet of commercial space, and a 120 room hotel without
providing the County with any binding details about where the improvements will
be located or any specific binding details about the plan for the overall
development. An approval of this application would flatly contradict the
mandatory requirements under the LUDC.
12. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Would Override the LUDC’s Conflict Provisions.
Standard for Decision: Section 1-108 of the LUDC states: “The provisions of
this Code shall be regarded as the minimum requirements for the protection of
the public health, safety, and general welfare…If a conflict occurs between
provisions of this Code, or between provisions of this Code and a State statute or
other applicable codes and regulations, the more restrictive provision controls
unless otherwise specified in this Code.”
Analysis: Exhibit D states: “In the case of a discrepancy between this
Development Ordinance [i.e. the proposed PUD Guide] and the current Garfield
County Land Use Development Code, this Development Ordinance shall govern.”
Exhibit D would prevail over any conflict with the LUDC even if the Code
required a more stringent condition necessary to protect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public.
13. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Would Override the LUDC’s PUD Amendment
Procedures.
Standard for Decision: Section 6-203 of the LUDC provides a mechanism for
amending a PUD. Minor amendments, as determined by the Planning Director,
can be processed in a more expedited manner than a PUD zoning application but
still require the submittal of General Application materials and a Vicinity Map.
Under the LUDC, the Planning Director determines whether the amendment is
minor or substantial.
16
Analysis: Exhibit D would limit the Planning Director’s discretion to decide
whether a proposed amendment was minor or major by explicitly defining
amendments that are considered “minor.” The Applicant contends that the
following amendments to the PUD would be presumptively minor including, but
not limited to: altering the alignment of the primary streets; increasing
commercial space within any neighborhood up to 5,000 square feet or 10%;
allowing up to 20% more single family driveways on primary streets; altering
street drainage to curb and gutter storm water collection; allowing streets to be
divided along the centerline to employ two different street types; increasing tree
spacing within required streetscapes (i.e. reducing landscaping); allowing an
increase in building height to add an additional story to one building in all but the
North Riverfront and South Riverfront neighborhoods; permitting a decrease in
front or rear building setbacks; altering the alignment of the Community Trail
network; granting exceptions to the Dark Sky standards; and permitting uses not
listed and/ or defined in the Permitted Use Table in the LUDC. Proposed Exhibit
D deprives the Planning Director of the discretion to determine whether these
changes are minor or major and conflicts with the LUDC.
III. Conclusion
The HRF Application does not meet significant mandatory requirements of the LUDC. It
relies on proposed form based zoning that is not recognized and has not been adopted by the
County. Due to these substantial failures, the Application must be denied.
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork LLC
Name: Mercedes Brown
Email: mermarbro26@gmail.com
Phone Number: (517) 449-1643
Message: Hello,
My name is Mercedes Brown and I am a 11 year resident in the Roaring Fork Valley. My
husband and I have built a life here through years of hard work and the desire to live in such
a beautiful part of our state and country. We are looking to grow a family and at the rate of
which our valley continues to get developed and land flipped for profit, I am deeply
saddened we will loose the meaning of why we live here.
We should be so lucky to have this opportunity to live high in the mountains, with clean air,
healthy water sheds and animals migrating through our backyards. The Harvest Roaring
Fork development is incredibly dangerous to the livelihood of not only our people who
cherish the land here but the wildlife, flora and fauna.
A development size and density of the proposed plan is detrimental to our existing
communities, resources and infrastructure. Our watershed, especially after considering
this dry winter, cannot withstand a new sea of homes.
Our current world seems to be moving at a pace without thinking about the consequences
of action and I am making it my civil duty to remind our officials that we care and I will stand
up for what I know is the right thing for the people in the RFV.
Please for the sake of the future health of our families and wildlife, I respectfully urge you to
reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle Creek Confluence for
current and future generations.
Thank you for your time.
Mercedes Brown
Subject: Proposed Harvest development
Name: Judith Fitzpatrick
Email: judithfitz@comcast.net
Phone number: 13039953719
Message: Dear Mr. Samson,
Please reject the proposed development. It is totally out of scale and inappropriate for
Garfield County. The valley would be ruined and highway 82 totally grid locked.
Please save the Roaring Fork Valley for us and future generations.
Thank you.
Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork Development in PUD
Name: Jada MacDonald
Email: jada.macdonald@yahoo.com
Phone number: (802) 793-4114
Message: To all County Commissioners & Community Developers,
I am writing with a very deep concern about the proposed large-scale development,
HARVEST ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the
Roaring Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital
not only to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork
Valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Key reasons as to why this should not be allowed:
1. Original zoning was for 370 homes, not the large-scale development it is calling for now
2. Traffic & Safety – per highway 82
3. Infrastructure to support this massive city
4. Clean Water availability in addition to residents' pollution
5. Open space for wildlife
6. Proposed proximity to the river
7. Flooding the valley with residents, which could significantly alter the pay scales in the
valley, which are already in flux
8. Public services, grocery, garbage, pollution, and crime
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a 120-room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality and quantity, an issue the Roaring
Fork Valley is already facing, wildlife migration, and an increase in traffic, which again is an
issue the Roaring Fork Valley is already facing, will affect the broader valley, including Pitkin
and Eagle Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural
resources and community well-being. Why are we trying to add to already existing
problems when we do not have a solution for the current state?
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence AND the Roaring Fork Valley for current and future generations. Thank
you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the Roaring
Fork Valley.
Additionally, I did vote for you, and this is NOT something I would vote for, rather against, so
if you really are doing the right thing for your constituents, then the answer is an easy NO
GO.
PLEASE protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the
proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD.
Sincerely,
Jada MacDonald
(802)793-4114
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Katherine Bennas
Email: katie.debesche@viceroysnowmass.com
Phone number: 9703195626
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a 120 room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Katie Bennas
February 15, 2026
Dear Garfield County Commissioners Samson, Jankovsky, and Will,
I am writing to voice my concern for the proposed development “Harvest
Roaring Fork”. I was planning on attending the public meeting at the end of
January 2026, but now understand the date has been moved to the end of
February and I will not be in town. I am unable to attend, but I would like to write
and voice my concerns.
I’ve lived in the valley for 40 years and have seen lots of change over the
years. I’ve also changed my lifestyle as time has gone by, and I understand that
change is all part of life and lifestyle. What I don’t believe in, is radical change, or
change for the sake of out of town developers making money. More and more
people have been, and are still, moving into the valley. That’s fine – it’s a
beautiful place to live and raise a family, and enjoy life. But for just one example,
we have all seen what it has done to the traffic situation on Hwy 82. There are so
many bottlenecks now, up valley in the morning and down valley in the
afternoon, not to mention the speeding cars and uptick in accidents. 82 has
become quite dangerous; I’ve seen other developments and other developers
trying to add more housing to the valley. Then when CDOT looks at these and the
amount of cars to be added to the roads without getting real about the true
impact they present on traffic and safety, CDOT has given these developments
“F’s”. I know you all know that developers have their own traffic study people,
and you’ve seen this show before. But I completely believe that this project,
adding over 1500 people and their transportation, and with the “Michigan turns”
on 82, is a terrible idea for safety on Hwy 82, as well as the congestion it will
bring. Going through Willits can be challenging enough, without adding all of
these extra cars to that “bulge in the snake”. I believe this project is like adding
another Willits Town to our valley! This Harvest project is Just Too Big.
Another big issue I have with Harvest is the over-the-top Zoning variance
they need to get in order to build this second city. I know and remember the
different proposals this area has seen over the years. And I understand how
developers have been eyeing this land parcel for housing, as well as commercial
land use. I do believe there is a housing shortage for employees in the valley. I’ve
also always been of the belief that Aspen/Snowmass and communities up valley
should house their own, and they do try. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth
when down valley developers play the employee housing card in order to get
their developments through, developments where they themselves will not be
living, and just to get more workers into the valley to work in Aspen.
Also, from what I have read, (from other valley residents, as well as
Harvest’s own literature) the developers are being untruthful/shifty in several
ways – their “conservation” land set aside (not true), where they are getting their
water from (they don’t have the rights they say they do), and just the zoning rules
they want to disregard. If we as a community don‘t adhere to zoning, then why
even have it?? Are we as a citizen community ok with that? I don’t think so. Way
of life demands it.
As others have brought up, there is also a daycare facility shortage in the
valley, which I agree with. Part of the argument for Harvest is that it will build
one or two more child daycare centers. I believe the land is already zoned for
that use……why not build a new daycare center, and build housing for the current
zoning? This Harvest proposal has so much more housing, it is actually adding to
the problem instead of helping with it, even with building new daycare!
That is what I see is wrong with this whole Harvest development – it ADDS
to our current problems instead of making lives better. Just for the sake of adding
employee housing – schools, traffic and safety, police and fire protection, grocery
shopping, social services - it puts way too much strain on what we have already.
And then there is the issue of our fragile ecosystem in the valley…..we are
all very worried about water come this spring/summer, as the snowpack is hurting
in the worst way this winter. We’ve seen extended periods of drought here; if
this continues, how does this development intend to get their water? And from
what I have researched and read, Harvest is not being entirely truthful when they
state the water rights they have…. And not to mention the wintering grounds for
our bird, deer and elk populations! That would be a whole other letter…..
This letter is getting a little winded, so I’ll wrap it up. I believe the Harvest
project is WAY TOO BIG and I am asking that you strongly deny it. They are asking
for just too much for this to be something positive for the valley, and indeed it will
be the opposite: a detriment.
Sincerely,
Sally Grange
1854 County Road 109, Glenwood Springs, Garfield County
February 16, 2026
Garfield County Planning Commission and County Commissioners
AƩn: John Leybourne, Planner III
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via email to jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov
RE: Harvest Roaring Fork, PUDA-12-24-9048 and PUDA-07-25-9079
Dear Planning Staff, Commission Members and County Commissioners,
Thank you for represenƟng Garfield County residents during your review of this pending land use
applicaƟon to rezone and develop the former Sanders Ranch between Carbondale and Glenwood
Springs. My comments at this Ɵme are limited to two focus areas regarding the applicaƟon.
1. The current proposal is INAPPROPRIATELY DENSE AND WILL HAVE SERIOUS IMPACTS on the lower
Roaring Fork Valley
a. The project proposes 1,500 units, or 1,950, if the 450 ADU allowance is permiƩed 450 (unclear).
Based on typical household demographics, the currently vacant parcel could have a populaƟon of
over 6,400 residents at build-out, plus retail and hotel acƟvity. That figure amounts to the
creaƟon of a completely new and densely populated town (larger than Basalt, New Castle or Silt)
but without the range of services that a town needs. The Applicant has developed very dense
projects at the Tree Farm adjacent to Basalt and the LoŌs in Glenwood, either immediately
adjacent or within exisƟng communiƟes. The proposed project is not in an “adjacent” or internal
locaƟon and replicaƟon of that model at CaƩle Creek is not appropriate and creates a
“dependent” community – dependent on vehicles (parƟcularly given RFTA’s comments) and
dependent on nearby communiƟes to fill in the gaps of all the services it will lack.
b. At the current scope, scale and locaƟon, the project will directly impact the services and
operaƟons of the towns of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale including the roads, retail basics,
medical, fire, trails, parks, and other services, and the safety and efficiency of the traveling public
on Highway 82. This last very visible item would be caused by the new trips to and from the
development by proposed residents, hotel and retail customers and employees, service
personnel, construcƟon vehicles and more.
c. The exisƟng residents in the CaƩle Creek and Roaring Fork corridors will be on the front lines of
increased traffic, noise, night lighƟng, water supply and quality concerns and loss of quality of life
for both humans and local wildlife, most notably the local elk herd over-wintering on this
property for generaƟons.
d. Yes, we have a housing shortage, due in large part to the combinaƟon of exaggerated values of
exisƟng stock, inventory loss because of conversions to vacaƟon rentals, an influx of new
residents since the pandemic and a resort economy that creates an upvalley-downvalley
economic and housing imbalance. Glenwood and Carbondale have been approving units, but all
communiƟes can contribute more to the true infill efforts and CaƩle Creek is not the silver bullet,
at the expense of other community needs and standards. The project can deliver some of the
products needed, but the sheer volume proposed is extreme, given that there are s Ɵll parcels
within or adjacent to incorporated communiƟes that could be developed or redeveloped.
e. There could be some absorpƟon by this project of some of the resident commuters that become
new residents, as noted by the applicaƟon, but how many is speculaƟve and impossible to
quanƟfy. It is equally possible that the housing units would by new (locally employed) residents
or invesƟng or seasonal buyers (the market price units).
f. Because the development company paid . a considerable sum, it does not guarantee that local
land use laws and processes should automaƟcally approve and grant valuable land development
rights to the buyer who made the choice to gamble on the risk. As is oŌen the case, the 1,500 (or
1,950 units) may not be the development company’s “real” number necessary to build and sell to
achieve the typical 20% target profit margin. At this juncture, many of us would like to know
what the developer’s “real” unit number is. Perhaps this is something the Planning Commission
can ascertain as a new starƟng point.
2. The EXISTING ConservaƟon Easement is not a commodity for moneƟzaƟon and should be
EXPANDED rather than diminished or undermined.
a. The 53-acre conservaƟon easement protecƟng CaƩle Creek and the Roaring Fork River appears to
be under threat of misuse and degradaƟon. There are several contradicƟons in the applicaƟon
about protecƟon and providing trails and river access for residents and the public. The proposal
needs to clarify that the river is not available for these uses. The clear intent of the easement is
to protect the plant and animal communiƟes and water quality within the rare and essenƟal
riparian zones of CaƩle Creek and the Roaring Fork River.
b. The Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) should not be put in the difficult posi Ɵon of defending the
easement requirements as part of this development applicaƟon process and reminding the
Applicant that trails and recreaƟon are not permiƩed in addiƟon to other protecƟons. It does a
disservice to an organizaƟon that is protecƟng the easement on behalf of the river system and
upholding the environmental regulaƟons and ethics of our state and community. The legal
condiƟons of the easement need to be upheld, respected and non-negoƟable. This was an issue
that the Applicant accepted as part of the purchase of the property and it’s disappoin Ɵng to see
how it has been portrayed as a new item the Applicant was responsible for and has some rights
to amend.
c. The easement needs to be fenced and protected. Rules signs will not be adequate.
d. The easement should not be degraded and moneƟzed with a hotel overhanging it, parking lots
abuƫng right up to it, backyard landscaping and acƟviƟes spilling into it. This item is worthy of
more aƩenƟon to detail in the overall plan. If retained as products in the ApplicaƟon, at the very
least, move the hotel and commercial spaces to a locaƟon not adjacent to the easement.
e. The fact that a porƟon of the Roaring Fork riverbanks are owned by a different property owner,
Ironbridge, needs to be more clearly represented on all of the exhibits.
f. The plan needs to be modified to provide much more park and linear greenbelt space needs to
be provided within the development to meet demand for resident acƟviƟes (see the current River
Edge development plan, 2011, with much more open space and common area proposed).
Providing these spaces will help reduce the interest of residents in using the river corridor as their
recreaƟonal space and harm ing the plant and animal communiƟes that live in the easement.
g. The CPW comments are a baseline for protec Ɵng local wildlife. Humans have not met the
standard of care in many instances in the Roaring Fork Valley and CPW should be commended for
their concern and efforts to try to keep populaƟons safe and thriving, or at least stable. The
Applicant should consider CPW’s comments more seriously and requests for mi ƟgaƟons.
h. Finally, a goal the Applicant could strive to achieve to build community support would be to
EXPAND the conservaƟon easement, not diminish its value, but physically expand it. Develop a
partnership with local, state and private partners to add acreage to the easement to provide
winter-resƟng grounds for the resident elk herd as well as other resident species. The Eagle River
preserve in central Edwards is a conservaƟon property on the old B&B gravel pit that supports up
to 50 elk in the winter for their rest and feeding needs, while they move between higher ground
then back down to the river boƩom. Mimic that model and gather funds to make it happen. 125
acres would be an ideal goal and fee-simple added rather than all in conservaƟon easement.
Then develop the remainder of the property in the uplands, eliminate the hotel and retail, or
focus on low profile design, limit lighƟng to be downcast for dark sky, build a proper interchange
at CaƩle Creek. These are items that should all be on the table for discussion before handing over
our valley’s very valuable development rights.
Thank you for your consideraƟon of my comments and concerns.
Respecƞully yours,
Eileen Caryl
Glenwood Springs
Dear Sirs,
We are writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure:
— Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
— During a major wildfire event, the added congestion of thousands of additional cars on
roads combined with inadequately scaled emergency services will likely lead to a
catastrophic loss of life and property. After witnessing the tragic consequences of the
California wildfires it would be grossly negligent to allow this development to proceed.
Water Quality & Watershed Health
— The Roaring Fork watershed is already under significant strain. A large development
without robust stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment,
degrading water quality for communities downstream.
Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
— The Developer’s self-serving pitch of conservation and affordability is an insult to the
community’s intelligence. In an effort to maximize profits, they are disregarding major fire
life safety issues, trying to cram a high density urban development in an environmentally
sensitive area, and trying to win public sentiment by claiming they are providing affordable
housing for workers while in reality 90% of the project will not be within the worker’s reach.
— The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and
commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and
with the valley’s rural identity.
Public Services & Community Costs
— Geographic, resource and ingress/egress constraints combine to limit the natural growth
within the valley. We are currently stretching the capacity of our fire, EMS, School and
other public services with the current population. Adding 4,000 plus residents and 12,000
daily trips to Highway 82 to the equation is unfeasible, irresponsible and not sustainable.
— The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and
utilities. This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
Ecosystems & Wildlife
— Natural beauty and wildlife are some of the most important resources the Valley has to
offer. Residents and tourists alike are drawn to the area for these irreplaceable
resources. To scar and pollute the landscape with this high-density blight of a
development will only serve to irreparably devalue some of the most precious resources
our valley has to offer.
— The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer,
foxes, trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat
and disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Fire life safety, water quality, wildlife migration,
and development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize safe sustainable growth that protects natural
resources and community well-being.
We respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Michael and Suzanne Dalton
Cc: Glenn Hartmann,
John Leybourne,
Perry Will,
Mike Samson,
Tom Jankovsky
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the
proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Dear Sir:
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring Fork
River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only to
Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring new
traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water quality
for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial
space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley’s
rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities. This
leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes, trout,
and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and disrupt
migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and development
precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Our region must
prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle Creek
Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the Roaring
Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Robert Brandon
405 Skipper Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Emily Burnham
Email: burnham.em@gmail.com
Phone number: (720) 737-9841
Message: Dear Commissioner Samson:
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a 120 room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Emily Burnham
Roaring Fork Resident and Educator
Subject: cattle creek confluence
Name: Margaret Ash
Email: tiggerash1@gmail.com
Phone Number: 19709485250
Message: Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable
Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK
PUD
Dear Mr. Hartman
I’m writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST
ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confluence, where Cattle Creek meets the Roaring
Fork River. This area is one of the last intact open spaces along the river and is vital not only
to Garfield County, but to the health and sustainability of the entire Roaring Fork Valley —
including Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed:
1. Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure
Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads, requiring
new traffic lights and stretching emergency response capacity. This puts residents at
greater risk.
2. Water Quality & Watershed Health
The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. A large development without robust
stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water
quality for communities downstream.
3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty
The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 375 ADU’s, a 120 room hotel, and
55,000 square feet of commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible
with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity.
4. Public Services & Community Costs
The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities.
This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth.
5. Ecosystems & Wildlife
The confluence is a rich ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, herons, elk, deer, foxes,
trout, and migratory birds. Development of this scale would fragment critical habitat and
disrupt migration and breeding grounds.
This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality, wildlife migration, and
development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle
Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and
community well-being.
I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle
Creek Confluence for current and future generations.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
Margaret Ash