Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpetition_23-JAN-26PETITION Relating to the HARVEST FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION We the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge the County Commissioners and the Community Development professionals of Garfield County, Colorado to reject DENSE development of the 283 acres in the proposed PUD. Specifically, we request zoning calling for no more than one dwelling unit per six (0) to ten (10) acres - Residential Medium - be approved. The degradation in quality of life to all current users of Highway 82 is very significant. Additional traffic related to dense development impacts all currently approved developments, businesses and all workers using 82 in the Valley. Highway 82 already has far too much traffic. Critical infrastructure for water, sewer and electricity is already stressed. Dense development creates traffic and crowding issues with schools. Dense development interferes with protected game corridors. Dense development threatens the Roaring Fork River and creates additional air quality problems. Please REJECT any DENSE development. Printed name Signature Address Date 14 � 4G Q V-\1AJ /N P 4 t 21) � 1124 Development application. Nine _(Print andlgp,} 2. 3. Name (Print— n ga) Address 4. 5. b. Development application. Name (P n ign} Add= _ D ?0 F12 f H kD S�- 2. [ 6 �. 3. N Print and Sign} Address Date 4. 5, a 7. E:1 a M 11. 12. �3. 14. 15, 1::�y N6 + PETITION Relating to the HARVEST FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION We the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge the County Commissioners and the Community Development professionals of Garfield County, Colorado to reject DENSE development of the 283 acres in the proposed PUD. Specifically, we request zoning calling for no more than one dwelling unit per six (6) to ten (10) acres - Residential Medium - be approved. The degradation in quality of life to all current users of Highway 82 is very significant. Additional traffic related to dense development impacts all currently approved developments, businesses and all workers using 82 in the Valley. Highway 82 already has far too much traffic. Critical infrastructure for water, sewer and electricity is already stressed. Dense development creates traffic and crowding issues with schools. Dense development interferes with protected game corridors. Dense development threatens the Roaring Fork River and creates additional air quality problems. Please REJECT any DENSE development. Printed name Signature Address Date 1. 3eq Bvvve- 13 a� tt,-� f V 1 ez cyy '� cw ��t Page 2 - Petition - Harvest Farms PUD Printed name Signature _ Address Date 3. 4. f $ Gasl P 9. C"t"". 10 - ea �61 iPi 13. JG N& rI ,LS- t kr &Gibe 16 At P L; 6,,I.: V t- blZr-) �3 suje�-F��a�� JIP(, PETITION Relating to the HARVEST FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION We the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge the County Commissioners and the Community Development professionals of Garfield County, Colorado to reject DENSE development of the 283 acres in the proposed PUD. Specifically, we request zoning calling for no more than one dwelling unit per six (6) to ten (18) acres - Residential Medium - be approved. The degradation in quality of life to all current users of Highway 82 is very significant. Additional traffic related to dense development impacts all currently approved developments, businesses and all workers using 82 in the Valley. Highway 82 already has far too much traffic. Critical infrastructure for water, sewer and electricity is already stressed. Dense development creates traffic and crowding issues with schools. Dense development interferes with protected game corridors. Dense development threatens the Roaring Fork River and creates additional air quality problems. Please REJECT any DENSE development. Printed name Signature _ Address Date FJ 0iz Page 2 - Petition - Harvest Farms PUD 5. 6. q� �j Vy\ U� � � 10 7.� nc�. 6 I/ /C /N ta r k5 12. 13. 3 � ',�Vt"O C7vy��rr Ga :-,y (2-• m gel �6;no�� �O-Juk e�—O tv ( (1t ,'jL'OOh 4� � r 0 4&zz PETITION Relating to the HARVEST FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION We the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge the County Commissioners and the Community Development professionals of Garfield County, Colorado to reject DENSE development of the 283 acres in the proposed PU D. Specifically, we request zoning calling for no more than one dwelling unit per six (6) to ten (1 Q) acres - Residential Medium - be approved. The degradation in quality of life to all current users of Highway 82 is very significant. Additional traffic related to dense development impacts all currently approved developments, businesses and all workers using 82 in the Valley. Highway 82 already has far too much traffic. Critical infrastructure for water, sewer and electricity is already stressed. Dense development creates traffic and crowding issues with schools. Dense development interferes with protected game corridors. Dense development threatens the Roaring Fork River and creates additional air quality problems. Please REJECT any DENSE development. Printed name Signature Address Date i . -Ya' ' CAI � ,L3L L10 Page 2 - Petition - Harvest Farms PUD Printed name _ Signature _ Address date 3. 37( �x �c z. • - ,- 1 z �c 2r 4. ?", - 4/, /-- , - 7. y-i 9. /-Vlr��� 19. 11. 12. 13. PETITION Relating to the HARVEST FARMS PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION We the undersigned are concerned citizens who urge the County Commissioners and the Community Development professionals of Garfield County, Colorado to reject DENSE development of the 283 acres in the proposed PUD. Specifically, we request zoning calling for no more than one dwelling unit per six (6) to ten (16) acres - Residential Medium - be approved. The degradation in quality of life to all current users of Highway 82 is very significant. Additional traffic related to dense development impacts all currently approved developments, businesses and all workers using 82 in the Valley. Highway 82 already has far too much traffic. Critical infrastructure for water, sewer and electricity is already stressed. Dense development creates traffic and crowding issues with schools. Dense development interferes with protected game corridors. Dense development threatens the Roaring Fork River and creates additional air quality problems. Please REJECT any DENSE development. Printed name Signature Address Date 6,0 )z �� Page 2 - Petition - Harvest Farms PUD Printed name Signature Address Date 3. 7 4. - C.�v�� wy I Z z� -JI ���F"'� •�� L �f�� r �r7� `�'� � �y,f�(.JC.��I•rL L-''J � !+ 5.l� sG�-ir9/ a 10. 11. 12, 13, 3C_ i C� f Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 ADUs; 55,000 square feet of commercialspace; 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. Nam_ a (Print and Sign) Address Date 2. U I - to I Z 0 r4`- Lr► 'err .I c rz 70 L ` 6. A 11 6. 18. �� L, 7LOAt � I)19 19. ' L► I Eli �'� f (-,(J ���� ►��' is5�� 12/3�-,S_ 2-0-: L-OW 13 23. C� kc� e.r' n C__"c:K r�_o r I -�_ 3 24. A! - Ii Z13(Z 25. ' `�4Hcc � S I r 26. � ] . LAU, C��;-J t �� oil a3 �9y 28. !. ,,.C7 Crlrl►�'�'F-��] V,t���� ���jrr�er�Gc�s!(,3 °lam ��r 1 L S2gJ r : 1 27 16Z5 '701-:2741 Skn Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 duality of life for residents and wildlife in the area. Among our top concerns for opposing the development are the following: 1. Dens i . The development gpvsaLincludes: 1500 units of residential plus up to 450 ADUs: 5-M-00 Rauare feet of commercial space; A 120 room hot -el 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 -Quanti Thisd- - !1.l1.-1 II . Cattle Creek due to increased activity, cfflugnt and WIlutant run o and encroachment -into Einarian zones, will fWher atrain already! water siLlap-1-Y wj-o[ con-cern- in the and West. I 5_ Public Safety. Local infrastructure for fire protection, law enforcement, and medical services are already strained in 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. Name (Print and Ign) Address Date 11 0 cCi 310 7. PC1 T CI�11JV (x4t 1- f (W/o- r RQ 8'L6 Li 10 icy YS� _� (� I f 5i bICFr[J� ��rr ►�5'�� el, ;r c � Z., ?/( Z,3 13. 14. V ° i 7 C� �r �' � `� � C J (3 I klktq h, %.. mn, kv 4) myommobvi I "ItIM 17. 19. 20. --_ c t-f X( n. 22. 21 «c� 24. ACC R Q- � 0- C_ I.�, ! a. C � �- "115 V , 1 Ca 25. G S 15to 6-vi 29f��.�tf�,► ►� �7q�i i lilt 1'111 ��j - i'AAO j , VAt��4, puL,- In J Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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. S. 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 fife reasons, we urge the Garfield County Commissioners to deny the Harvest Roaring Fork Development application. CJ Name (Print and Sign) +� `' Address Date /'- 5 . /I-/. Lid,. 6 a � / ��-` �c _ r 3 cp,P a1 ) Ct f Co fa -$!too 10 I y; ��� -7 [=�4v��-��7.4G 4,3 12 13 14 16 JC �,J -� • r t-�' Ck �$�v'n.., � �.y. Id a 1 17 a tin Yi 18 20 22 f 23 c �� +�u u v SIB 24 �[ iti V'-� Ave- L(6 (,a 4j- n 'q, Atc O 1 27 e 65oN cle 28 29 z 3 Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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 additiona# 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. S. Public Safety. t.ocai 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. Name (Print and Sign) Address Date 2. 3. P!Z- 5, - 6. b ez)r- itl- L /Z 10.. 5 kQCL= CQlff+ L a i - I I- 2-5 11 12. 13. --bmva t Z - t .1E A ;.per-;..i.5C C-*. r8,15v !4, Ccp Ys&..xi A 17 MA er r' n C i (—i4-,r A A,.sJA3a 21. �' • 23. 2 25. 26. '6-- C9� 9Y Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 uD to ADUs• 55,000 square feet of commercial space; and A 120 room hotel y MI on less than WIrres. 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 Quality1Quantit)t 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 applicati t� Name Pri and Sin Address 1J Z-3� Date 0 `c fIQ3-5 3. la P 0A lkqoov�e- udkol V"-- I - �Zr 5. �. z, 7. �tZ5 I 1�W W `` [ ' [ G§`vt S t1 � � � r�i.. Eye. i" L� co ❑ ell 11. Z �{ i Cl 3 13. 14. 15.�'rC Jt- vt 'T CQY� ,'Yjf� Sg 3 �s� S G� -�fl Fm;jl� co 17 . I l Ue u"� I C' �4�• C'O'l .o�a� 19.2-a i CO 23 24. 613T1 G,ask CLCJ. �1�Sv _ l� e L'ao 25. Y�i1n fr-e qi co q)l b ll 26. t.-•���' G�.t�.ar� � � f � � � � Yl ivtl Yt/�-�d� � � !�! �(J �S 28 29. Gq 5-5 0,r,+ Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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. Name Print and Sin Address Date 2. 3. 4- 12 l�ly�► i w�. v`�y1 2 ©� C.c,4 c`F �,t� �► } a� G (.t] <�l6 a 3 1o. L (rvl- o e r,4 G 1i-Adr e-mle bfi+ov) RA "Lj k , eay- �dA 81 Z 3 12. '�l1Y.S r l Zf� C©� ❑L{..DW 43 - 0-0 f �� 13. 15. kij vF �tt a�t- 7 �ek w !/�4 jG I 16. 1T 21. VO, � J 1 22. 23. e ,� 2 , .r9 1 G c7 24. 25. 26. 27, IAAA I(N Mjj4 28. Ynvyifik 1,,3-3 F Zi b2 29. W P,MI/A O [ ti un - v r -im IA CAy u)vrl-rL-u CO Rd 66 I M ev HRF-Petit�(on,pdf fi I e:///C:/Users/kgkin/Downloads/H RF-Petitioii.pdf Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 a(ea. Among our top concerns for opposing the development are the following: 1. Density, The development proposal 'includes: 1500_units of residential talus up to 450 ADUs; 55,000 5 uare feet of commercial space; and A 120 roam 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. Name (Wria and Sin Address Date 1. a &PQf RR r aAa� 3 o2 Z1-� 12/10/2a25. 4:4_3) PINT HRF-Peti.ion.pdf file:111C:/Usersr kgk i n/Downloads/H RF-Petitioji.-.. Name Print and Sign) Address Date 4. P. c�.� �n prod Lug. I a ,2 S. 6--L,ar I C�� _� 4 ���. St.l �G Z A[ LIKO U C L [.A L� -_t.ti.i1l KI) 11. z-CL'zj 12. L(I" a i,. k•[� 16.— -1--444 ri 9— ADT �,t} _.......9�wS d 6Ld) U 17. tiy- Li� - T. 19. r, r t t zco G l 20. lef�t�if�L 1 6 4-- 21.ice- - Cb,r,i �'173 22. I t� r C Ci- t S C- C 23. �ir01 f� ' �. � � fCl1�� � �� 2—& 24. IF 25. SOIA k- C ycl� l �S�t �� i�� GWs lf��zso 26. 1 l n IcAO14 bo r �o.Ad a I /I 1 �� When completed return to: Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition P.D. Box 799 Carbondale, CO 81623 2 of 2 12110!2025, 4:4? P, Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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. focal 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. Name (Print and Sign) 1 A ft�- (N, PA 3. Date Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 ADLIs; 55 000 square feet of commercialspace; 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 devQ#open's own traffic projections state the site woutd 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 ualit uantit . 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 width 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. Name Print and Si n 1. 9co tv A4,,s-,1 Address Z ( z CO �(/Mki, a e, 2. a �' �a►, C i� z Date 1—s- a 0 A 6 3. Mar o �� e_ - d , '7'• �G�c�r! I1' Cnt,r—�rs-rzt ��� �� . CfJ �f�a 2 � 02 Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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_450 AOUs; 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�Qua_n_tity. This development ,.,_4..ntigIIV thr-;itPnS water quality in the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek du Pow off, and encroachment into riparian 7o s� supply which is a mayor concern in the � � pro - corridor lIfIrL� r' 4. Wildlife Disruption. The property �� which will be threatened by i 5. Public Safety. local infrastructure for r n services are already strained in the ar [emu 5-4t Lq- these resources to the breaking point y For these and other quality of life reasons, w the Harvest Roaring Fork Development appli Name [Print and Sign] A 10-f Ftk t cfle, LLO 2. I (3 Address Date 11L)IC tic/ HRF-Petition.pdf https-i/cattiecteekcc.corn/►ti•p-contentluploads120251121HRF-Petition.... Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition \J We, the undersigned strongly oppose the Harvest Roaring Fork development proposal currently Ender 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; I. Density. The development proposal includes: 1500 units of residential plus up to 450 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. Name (Print and Si n 1. YaL-Px i of 2 Ar+rlrnrr fib[ -Z' Q'r—'. 1;e' C? I_1o+3 (,z Date 'Z' Zry�S 01� 12/ 16125. 4-08 PM HRF-Petition.pdf r https://cattlecreelkce -conk/►►•p-eontent/uploads/2025/ 12/HRF-Petition.... Name Print and Sign) A dress f date �. o r m o.. Lcz, v 6. 4 YIQ1Vi(rs �]� !� I(Pf 2 [Z+HL OCG- RJ. le �a 4�Z3�ts 7. �f.Guv��{v�iS � 11(34% !?- 09R—A 5 - WV4c.-t Ue. L0 6oO�5 ► ZI 7,31 zs 10. P 3� h a 4 -L Co -3 11. 12-AAINI 4YI FLf)j( S-1a h) 21�,a rgy- L!n jq4 Cc). W/ 6,�J 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20, 21. 22. 23, 24. 26. When completed return to: Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition P.O. Box 799 Carbondale, CO 81623 2of2 12/16/25,4:08 PM I Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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 Civality/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. Name tPrint and Si n ,.M AIM if—{] W W l.J 3.5,OL-IIY YO. aala" �OJ Address 3X 6,4iO&OA4 co S 14;Z3 u yr Date Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition Petition 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, ❑ensi The development proposal includes: 1500 units of residential lus u to 325 ADUs• 55 000 s uare feet of commercials ace• and a 120 room hotel All on less than 230 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 Qualily/Quantily. 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 and West. 4. Wildlife Disruption The property provides major wildlife habitat and a migration corridor which will be threatened by this level of development. 5. Pubo is 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. Name (Print and Sign) dress . Date 3. �sl �.�.1c— I t $ Me,SCL uG-4k— Aie. e c4-!6A AIIVZ Name (Print and Sign) 6 , lee, �,k ��� -5I4?4 "*Q ff&y�*� (� 9. cca 10. Address Date �611M)ay C- 0e, Ce; (9-16 a 3 _ J 111R4 tbz -3 12. 1q 3! u �G 0,-, Jf, 1 14. 'k-►o.-i LZIE LO� �yc 1 1 1 1 1 20. u 21.E a 22. 23 16,SOf' Cht& _ '—/5--z4 96b yv\ eC44 - / 6 Z,6 UPI? I2�'S �o�r►�. C�. �r �.ca��. �� � � � I ��p 151 w MR E'. S \ 3 M Lk Ao U as 25. DillOr MUMA When completed return to: Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition (c lecreekc ) P.C. Box 799, Carbondale, CO 81623 cattlecreekcc@gmaii.com rccc Tr) �,7C7,- c o(a4- a Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 ADUs• 55,000 sguare feet of commercial space; and A 120 roam 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. Name 1. 2. 3. IC Address WJ WMA 1 - M- R MAIM) MIA M wo fflrmallfr =16 Name Print and Sign) Address Date Oq 6. 5. v T 8. Y `J` ds v-) 1 D C OUn ! tI Caf►coLndd 2-z/ Z:5 v\ *)14 4al-U� jiL4,VS4RV- (P (-,7 CA& r tn "& tg f1 it �` F� l { I�j 11y(� 14. I l 600 r tvlj r .,ram . 16. ,E Y-jd Ala, 67T? )Po;141-0j 1,4!3 La PLa"14e c o so, z-3 18. * n PO PDX. jj�-`�� Ize; Sr' 21... C0 1061 4, 22. 23. �L L vj to j iA 7 Llie . 24. LtL\ G V�; D { 26._ (6 A 9 Y- _ cis EMS When completed return to: Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition P.O. Box 799 Carbondale, CO 81623 �mst E1oaring i i n 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 developjntuLpmpgsal ingludes: 0 ply s up to 454 ,ADUs; 5-,4D• _ll Mua�t of commercial spgU A 20 roUm hoW All on less than 283 acres. This Ievel 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 Quali d uantity. This evelopment potentially threatens water quality in the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek due to increased a tivity, effluent and pollutant run off, and encroachMent into riparian zones. It wil-1 further strain already limited water suRly which is a Lnaj r concern in the arid 5. Eublic Sakly.. 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 wino s i�� k Development application. N (Print gn) Address 1. li�r.�c- c.•� 36a Dev- ,h +2 \-01\26' .,r- / ve i. C064 CC-3, g VY.7 ! r'?, , Wng"I 0 MIP, a � r ! • N P ' i9a) Address 4.r 5.l.F�-� G r✓ 9, CA%Aw4wke SicZ3 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15.(3 Slap Narve,t_ oaring Fork Petition, 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: i _ Density_ The daelo mentposal includes: 1500 units of resiftntial plop to 450 ADUs; 55,000 square feet of commercial space; and A 120 room lintel 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 underlvina 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 uali-t / n i This develo z n potentially thrgatens water_auality in the Roaring Fork River_ and Cattle Creek due to increased activity, effluent and pollutant rup, off, and encroachment into riparian zones_ It r strain already limited water mpplywhich is a major concern in the and West. 4_ Wildlife Disru p-mpQrly_provides major wildlife habiW_and a migration corridor which will be threatened �y this level of development. 5, Public Safety_. Local infrastructure for fire protection, law enforcement, and medical services are already strained in 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. Naine Print, and Sign) Cl /a5- 2. le I *'VA � W-4�0 3. 4. 5. o.- (k4--T- 7. 8. IZ66b 7411111"I of a s s b�- t-1�.�. n ►z �� s�rF�f [ `� �1 dr• } 1 Q UA-2 G,ler� si>'- , ALOabo w Rci&,� &IeO ►'u 0"0 d ►„e( Vas Ilenwc—,,A F-I60 t �s� [z►��,� V�� cle",kx-�A S1&1 (901 G WS , co (30�'Cn 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. L' Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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: 1.500 units of residential plus up to 450 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. Name [Print and Sign] Address 1. .c , f,,,.,,G, 2. Ma f t O".'a -S tilj��r � /� ❑ ate /C) � Z 3. �� I F 4�i� �. 12_ f 4 7 Gw !a �� zS 4.� CA C 10 - y-ZS' 6 r ��'S Gl�! t•�' Cam` t �Q - IC- � a ' 7. ; fWill lrwo [? rer-6CA (#A4 Co g. F �� �► r� �IG41 7 f.40S [c� /�� 1a�'''2. L1 ? 12. 14, 15. +fV GQvN i y 4 d T {�� Co �I l o w as" 16. ws Got 17, Cc-, I I QI,q-.3/as 18.E ths s Are S3 Rd. lb� CO 8 t6ot %�AS- 19. N W- be, ig-6 7 9 ver Q e i d Wes, L15 Cd Vt e, 1 1 Z21�� 1012 z��5 21.�� /h3412 id-�S 22,G cl'e a t � ""�L�IL r �J L7 23. 9v W 13)-Z-2�-,A I te--7 e R-+SCo wvI rui z4(eA 24. 6(AL CM" JAI A, A!�-k 25. 4"1 ��Tr� i�1f5 l� 26. [ c� �� i I (0©1 z 28. GtV�s' t51 ��9101 29.nor �� �led,- 'TO Oalt *- � . I-- pllt�) Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 ADft 55,000 square feet of commercialspace; 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. Name Print and Sign) Address Date 101sr1Zs ti -- 2.0 'ram � -- r 1%G3&/�-7 %�!� ��1�]� " 3. V-•r e n QS 2 ., 2L � Z CkS U 1 U 1 2 512 s 4. C. 7701 M(d1oi rfV-e- -tfIU.y JD1-25l2s s. , �� r r glu �. 5 1 s/�-� 7. �'1u., �o'JI�.I 'L I 1 Q► rr�'r ref G j 1012 ]/h IT- V. 8. ' ..0 13. L15 i,��Z�I 14 I 16. Et OZY P-,WK (4( (i►/�'F-�� �i - — -- - - - ---�---1'`=�_ .'.-- .ram r -_--� = 7 � � 17. A6ze5 20. 2t,p J4 Z24,1- 22. 23. ��AAA 24.!QaW +�A".fL-/ jf 5JS 25, I 11 � 2 OA , 1 9 fps 28. Zs. vl-� 23 b- C` C l,�S 1� Sto_p Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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. !t 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. Name (Print and Sign) Address Date 3. 'rLril��l � �b�t, ? l�V � �s� ►� �c�, � �— �y,L`".���� Name (Print and Sign) 5.-izC� 1t�11i� 6. 79. 8. VGea�le_ c�e�. 13 14. 19. 20. 21. ye, cR7- L r77.eA 22. (6.ret d rle 23. 1 24. AddressDate" C t Uhma S . , Co _s cool V1c -to .25 � 3�. �- t-fir ►:��.ti-� LIJA-t2 0,P\ t d,-\ 0 (A�s 94 ,r POYA 9AV 5 C C. vv DI I nA 73G &sgtr /! a1 26.ign..�v[ When completed return to: Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition P.O. Box 799 Carbondale, CO 81623 LD I2S f 1Ij 5 1 Qrt¢ I 11 Ca-44-rr(21- �--rC, r- ;VN Petition for Stopping Harvest Roaring Fork Development 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 450 Additional Dwelling Units; 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. Name [Print and Sign] 2. Arldrv,,c Date 14911512v2s� Name (Print and Sign) Address Date 3. I I e f 4 �Me4- 6 s L,j, � j oSe 0 (Uk a5 4. r 7 a-L �.n Tr..'L f Iv- �w S LO j J O�o5e �) f 10/ Pb-j 5 Oti@tom n 6omt(Kwk� �a�n �� , (K�Yr4-ee!a 4ja) 6. �d '� I h d / 1`[ kk PiTN. OR . 1f detlrut S CCj r l d it 7. ��Jc 71 S. l 12. ho cy hi 5 r I ck 1) L 4 y-0-' &4 7 3 +✓, I/ i C ; !v ' 13. me (At'1 Iri C5 e A- - t S AQ Ala ►n ti e VI W off . to 1 4. A t> C-p JAJ�j �� ' C 15. W L L 11 Ca L LI ►`'�c"�' 16. _� 17. r� ra ` �t - t V'L' V L.--1 rS, L60 �"9 Cif c&Ir 1 .~ r At20. �T7 21. MM A&- 22. K-51 W/ ld 24. 25. sDA, 27. TcT& 28. 041.Ad RN rJti Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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: 1S00 units of residential plus up to 450 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. Name Print and Sign) 1, •r1 ., N�r� �� k WI•► in Address a L.K to iv Date G-5 P C 0 t O[-(( z-<- 1dJkq 414a, -�� hpst-t TZ, r�sr -- e&" 5. 6. WA 1 G � 7. 10. r 12. qu A 13. ��= J � c oCI►l 14. Ail �? L. fC+ :. RIO15.Y31Y1� 16.4/Z/ V, 4?a 4 E - �t �w� glen IU�f��tl In v,j'lnQ YU 20, C- Ww T6 c 7 V m L.1; `c P,,jvl--o �►�-�. 'N �7 F'1� �[=a -�7 21. !' V 051 L/ 2 2. 3.,Li �`'1111_ �' L� } � Z + `'7 5 .l 23.� 24. a 25. 26. 27.. 28. ■► . 29.�IiN e1 1 t Gi f5 1�iGrti. 1/5-1 +yl I() I an (I c;l oc . Ncw C.-,A It 1 tc 2z co g(6g7 c �>25 Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 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 d i strict. 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 CWality/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. Far these and other quality of life reasons, we urge the Garfield County Commissioners to deny the Harvest Roaring fork Development application. Name (Print and Sign) i. ��► rl. aG1 Jel-n AridrP�,t M It MLLf Date T3. E'er' 4. CC) P8(5 f0 ev 0 7 6001v i I�'4 1 � i G L�Ir ECG' SPIP'".i6- 5 C E7 s. 6. 8. 16.. 12. r V L'� 4,(4 14. �C '.� ck1 a �iLunt,]4f,. r S Cif C�I (o 15� r co 16. V3 C' P l� ,� Cry o Z3 Lj/17. C '`4,1CC 1 (� 4 + r -A: C'Yc It C6� 3 29 1 r-� �+ 1� k.J �� [ �� �v r c � �� � e 20. 21, AA A 22. 23. 24. 2-5. G2MIJ e11 P M 26. i_ �� ti,)6- 27.l 1 f J c L ¢11{'��I Stop Harvest Roaring Fork Petition 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 450 AQUs• 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 I 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. S. Public Safety. Focal 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. Name (Print and Sign), Address / Date LJ 1 i vJ -y f 3. LctAA rot k 6 4. tAt6 �Vt�t KO 5. . t-0 Q r 6. 1 � G'�, taut r- 8. 10. i1.1�6y-rial a n 175-2— Gf2-- 1 6 12. �� I �Q r 13. 14.U, — - 7 �� ell, r 15. 1s. 6,�-30 -7 15�41&4tR! 6 17. Zj 18. L/O iV (0, 19. �'V►-�N c �> [ t 4 ,r►�Lp,.� rnC'� ink C Is L' sy,— uJ L ec v%-e (a vk-a aAd L�6 . c-c)%(G z-3 24. ��Z. '� 25. VJP& -i K*'Zp*A I-LO RdcW-Lsii�is DER. C wsiP 6 t GoA.— - 27. 151R, 13 C� �"O z 2s. L 29.