HomeMy WebLinkAboutEileen Caryl_16-FEB-26 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 posiƟon 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 disappoinƟng 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 harming the plant and animal communiƟes that live in the easement.
g. The CPW comments are a baseline for protecƟng 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 miƟgaƟons.
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