HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiriam Muñiz Fennell_J_24-NOV-25Dear John,
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