Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAndrew McGregor_12-FEB-26 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 traƯic 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 aƯord 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