HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 7 - Public Comments HRF 11-MAR-26
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 24-151 Fred Standefer – February 25, 2026 24-152 Petitions – February 25, 2026; February 27, 2026 24-153 Dr Jeffrey Morris – February 25, 2026; March 3, 2026 24-154 Denis Nola – February 25, 2026 24-155 Dave Malehorn – February 25, 2026 24-156 The Vitali Family – February 25, 2026 24-157 Brian Golden – February 25, 2026 24-158 Geneviève Joëlle Villamizar – February 25, 2026 24-159 Unsigned – February 25, 2026 24-160 Brittany Bergin-Foss – February 25, 2026 24-161 Sam Gemus – February 25, 2026 24-162 Anne Austin-Clapper – February 25, 2026 24-163 Phil Nyland – February 25, 2026 24-164 Zachary Cherry-Newby correspondence with Commissioner John Kuersten – February 25 - 26, 2026 24-165 Ray Ciborowski – February 26, 2026 24-166 Ericka Crampton – February 26, 2026 24-167 Dough Greenholtz – February 26, 2026 24-168 Robert de Wetter – February 26, 2026 24-169 Postcards – February 27, 2026 24-170 John and Deborah Johnson – February 27, 2026 24-171 William Douglas – February 27, 2026 24-172 Eric Whiting – February 27, 2026 24-173 Cindi Davis – February 27, 2026 24-174 Joe Moon – February 27, 2026
2
24-175 Deborah Korbel – February 27, 2026 24-176 Richard Katchuk – March 1, 2026 24-177 Zachary Cherry-Newby – March 2, 2026 24-178 Reilly Anderson – March 2, 2026 24-179 Gabriela Rand – March 2, 2026 24-180 Ross Roginski – March 3, 2026 24-181 Debbie Crawford-Arensman – March 2, 2026 24-182 Susan Cuseo – March 2, 2026 24-183 Edward Davis – March 3, 2026 24-184 Ross Roginski – March 3, 2026 24-185 Wewer Keohane – March 3, 2026 24-186 Kent Dorr – March 4, 2026 24-187 Matt Hunt – March 4, 2026 24-188 24-189 24-190 24-191 24-192 24-193 24-194 24-195 24-196 24-197 24-198 24-199 24-200 24-201 24-202 24-203 24-204 24-205
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Development Comment
Name: Dr. Jeffrey Morris
Email: jeff@srmginc.com
Phone number: (360) 489-4595
Message: 1. HUMANS, BUILDINGS, VEHICLES, AND POLLUTION FROM HRF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL ASSAULT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND LIVES
Audubon Society experts estimate Harvest Roaring Fork (HRF) development lands could
support 300 households, not the 1,800 units the HRF project proposes. Housing density for
1,800 homes on the allocated 293 acres is four to six times the current density of the Willits
community.
2. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, GARBAGE, AND ROADWAY LITTER
1,800 residential households, the town center, and hotel will generate annually 3,000 to
5,000 tons of additional garbage, excluding new roadway litter and HRF development
construction debris.
What does this increase mean for Roaring Fork Valley (RFV) garbage management,
diversion and landfill disposal? Does the Valley currently have the means to manage this
type of growth? Waste collection, processing and disposition providers will need time to
upgrade current waste management methods.
Finally, who will finance the needed waste management upgrades? My guess is that the
financial burden will fall on the shoulders of local residents and businesses.
3. POLLUTION AND WASTES
The HRF development will increase pollution to air, land, and waterways. Costs caused by
this pollution will not be paid by Texas-based Realty Capital owners and investors. Impact
costs will be paid by the RFV community.
As an example, impacts from pollutants released each year by the HRF development
household and commercial garbage collections, transport and disposal will cause life
cycle human and environmental health costs in the million-dollar range. We will bare most
of those costs.
We cannot let an out of state corporation HARVEST our valley for their financial benefit. Our
Garfield County Commissioners must vote NO on the Harvest Roaring Fork development
proposal.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D. Economist
Sound Resource Management Group, Inc. ( www.srmginc.com )
Dear Planners,
This project is wrong headed and can not be supported. I am appalled that it has even
made it this far. Only humans can screw this valley up.
Dennis Nola, FASLA
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork
Name: David Malehorn
Email: dave.malehorn@icloud.com
Phone number: 9703792872
Message: I am very much AGAINST this proposed development due to the size of the
project. In a time of water shortage, traffic volume, and the loss of our quality of life, I know
we can do better than this development.
Respectfully
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Greg & Anna Vitali
Email: gvitali@att.net
Phone number: (661) 645-0066
Message: Commissioner Mike Samson,
I respectfully urge you to reject this development and to protect the Cattle Creek
Confluence for current and future generations.
Reasons to reject:
* Traffic, Safety & Infrastructure.
* Water Quality & Watershed Health.
* Rural Character & Scenic Beauty.
* Public Services & Community Costs.
* Ecosystems & Wildlife.
Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across this
beautiful Roaring Fork Valley.
Sincerely,
The Vitali family
Carbondale
2757 design co 1 | 1 po box 1764 carbondale, co 81623
Date: February 25, 2026
Re: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application
Dear County Planners and Commissioners
Sending a note for consideration in your review, based on our general professional
experience and also brief experience in communication with the developer applicant.
As an architect in Carbondale, with a focus on housing work locally in our valley and
throughout our connected mountain communities, we’ve had the privilege to collaborate
with genuinely motivated private and public partnerships to address our workforce
housing challenges.
To put it bluntly, the developer applicant for Harvest Roaring Fork is not that type. Call it a
hunch, or an easy read from years of experience and encounters with similar developers,
but their approach is transparently insincere. Their goal is to use the much needed, hot
button topic, of workforce housing as a path to harvest an open site and our valley
resources, for profit. Harvest Roaring Fork indeed… $$$.
*Blend in some talking points of local collaboration and environmental stewardship. Job
well done.
As a proponent of density rightly sized and rightly placed- close to our municipal centers,
infrastructure, and services- we often advocate for smart and thoughtful solutions to our
housing and sprawl issues. This proposal however, meets none of those criteria of rightly
sized and rightly placed, and will only contribute to the typical outcomes of sprawl.
For both factors, the developer and scale, I hope for the denial of this application.
Thank you
brian golden | principal. aia. leed ap.
Subject: Harvest
Name: Geneviève Joëlle Villamizar
Email: salt.dirt@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 505-8506
Message: The Roaring Fork Valley cannot bear this level of development.
The promise of affordable housing is false. The impacts of this kind of development are not
worth it.
I’ve lived all over the United States, in small towns and huge metropolises
like Washington DC. This valley is an incredible and unique place in part because of the
lower population. In part because of the wildlife that we see every single day that other
people across the country, only get to see on social media and in movies. With the shifting
demographics and the increase in affluent residents as small town locals are pushed out,
I’ve witnessed the highway and back road between Glenwood and Carbondale change.
People from urban areas bring city speeds, aggression, and entitlement. I have filled my
freezer with so many dead animals salvaged along Hardwick Bridge Road. This section of
the valley floor is critical wintering ground. Just this week you could see all of the elk on the
berms, sunning.
The commuter traffic takes such a significant toll on the *people* who already live here.
Building more houses in a very precious parcel of land isn’t a work force solution. Our
infrastructure cannot take 1500 at a minimum, upwards of 5000, more vehicles, 5000 more
people. More strain on our utilities. More demand for finite water. More pollution. More
stress. More road rage. More accidents on a daily basis.
As we witness, the human impacts on the planet at a global level, we have to ask ourselves,
how much more? This land has a carrying capacity and we have met that capacity. The
quality of life is decreasing here. There are other places to build and develop in this is not
one of them. It is far too precious. It does not meet the needs of the existing community.
How many more people are we going to allow to profit off of our losses?
Please do what you can to block this development. Thank you for reading.
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name:
Email:
Phone Number:
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. Traff ic, 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.
Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development
from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD
Name: Brittany Bergin-Foss
Email: babsdodge@yahoo.com
Phone number:
Message: Dear Mike Samson,
Thank you for taking the time to read my 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 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,
Brittany Bergin-Foss
Subject: Cattle creek harvest project
Name: Sam Gemus
Email: sgemus22@gmail.com
Phone Number:
Message: Please vote no on this project. This Valley and all of it's resources are not here to
appease developers' plans for housing and shopping. The great tragedy around most of our
state is the over-saturation of suburban sprawl. This valley is great because it limits sprawl
and maximizes natural habitat. Please choose to see that this crucial, beautiful land is not
for those with pockets deep enough to destroy it.
Thank you
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork
Name: Anne Austin-Clapper
Email: aaclapper8@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 319-9588
Message: Please deny this application! It is way too large; ADU’s are not rented to workers
but to Air B&B clients;The hotel is not necessary for local housing and wildlife needs space
to roam! Daycare will be needed for all families looking for affordable housing. The traffic
impact is the worst part of all this. The density is outrageous. Cut in half the size and let’s
see what that brings us. Ace Lane, the developer of the Tree Farm gets approval and then
sells out the individual development parcels! Should not be allowed. Thanks for taking time
to read these considerations.
Subject: Deny Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application
Name: Phil Nyland
Email: pdn711@gmail.com
Phone Number:
Message: Hello Perry and commissioners. Please affirm Garfield County Planning
Commission's recommendation to deny this planned unit development (PUD) application.
The proposed development creates irreversible impacts to traffic and transportation,
wildlife and natural resources, and water demand while providing no clear solutions toward
existing challenges of workforce housing, smart community development, and
transportation solutions. Vote to retain the rural character of unincorporated Garfield
County.
Thank you,
Phil Nyland
Glenwood Springs, CO
From: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 11:51 PM
To: John Plano <jplano@garfieldcountyco.gov>; john@kuerstenconstruction.com
Cc: Brooke Winschell <BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Public Trust Violation & 1st Amendment Interference -
Harvest PUD
Sorry for the mix up Mr Plano. This message was meant for Mr Kuersten. I apologize for any
confusion.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 11:28 PM Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 25th, you admitted on the record that you 'did not have adequate time to review
and evaluate' this $31M project. Yet, in the same meeting, you admitted that you agreed
with the developers "100% and will pass it". This has also been recorded and will be
added to the public record.
Respectfully,
Zachary Cherry-Newby
On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:10 PM Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
I am writing to formally state my disapproval of your testimony during the Feb 25, 2026
hearing regarding the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD.
Your attempt to 'vaguely' validate the applicant’s infrastructure claims—which the Board
already found to be deceptive—constitutes a direct assault on the First Amendment
Rights of the 67+ residents in unanimous opposition. By providing technical cover for a
Lethal Highway Hazard (already flagged by CDOT), you are de-authenticating your role as
a Chief Building Official.
I am archiving your removal from the microphone for use in the March 11th Public Audit.
The Backbone is the Law, and we do not appreciate 'Greedhead' tactics used to silence the
truth of this Valley.
Respectfully,
Zachary Cherry-Newby
From: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 2:08 AM
To: John Plano <jplano@garfieldcountyco.gov>; Brooke Winschell
<BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>; Glenn Hartmann
<GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>; jeffrey.erickson@pitkincounty.com
Cc: david.townsley@cogs.us
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE: Habitability Breaches & Code Violations - RealAmerica LLC
(MountainView/Roaring Fork)
Hello ,
I am writing to formally report systemic Building Code and Warranty of Habitability
violations at properties managed by RealAmerica LLC. Mountainview flats and Roaring
Fork Apartments. As a maintenance technician for both properties I have documented the
following conditions.
Mountainview flats
The bottom level of the building has drywall glued directly to the foundation. This was
documented to the out of state management on 1/5/26 with their official company
moisture incident report. I asked them to make a decision because the job was too big for
me to be able to do by my self. On 1/8/26 The out of state management told me to glue the
drywall back to the foundation. I did not do this. as of 2/9/25 nothing had been done to fix
the problem. I believe this issue is affecting multiple units.
Roaring Fork apartments
On 12/26/25 there was a flood affecting multiple units, I advised management that the
amount of water required professional mitigation. They refused because of cost leaving the
resident in the unit. They then refused to hire professional help to repair the ceiling in the
unit even though the entire bathroom and most of the living room was affected.
Management didn't care and refused to have it repaired in a timely manner. As you know
the history of this building it seems to be an on going issue with this company in the Roaring
Fork Valley
I would be happy to share my data with any of y'all
Thank you,
Zachary Cherry-Newby
970-904-9508
From: John Plano <jplano@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 8:57 AM
To: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>; Brooke Winschell
<BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>; Glenn Hartmann
<GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>; jeffrey.erickson@pitkincounty.com
Cc: david.townsley@cogs.us
Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE: Habitability Breaches & Code Violations - RealAmerica LLC
(MountainView/Roaring Fork)
Hello Zachary,
Neither of those properties are in Unincorporated Garfield County. Just a note that Garfield
County does not have a Property Maintenance Code adopted.
May I suggest that the State has help when there are conflicts between landlords and
tenants.
https://doh.colorado.gov/disputes-with-landlords
https://coloradohousingconnects.org/renters-i-need-help-with-a-tenant-landlord-issue/
I wish you luck with your situation.
Sincerely,
John Plano
Chief Building Official
Garfield County Building Department
108 8th Street #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-1377 Ext. 1560
From: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Public Trust Violation & 1st Amendment Interference -
Harvest PUD
To: John Kuersten <john@kuerstenconstruction.com>
Concern “I did not review this” and “ I’m going to approve this 100%” explain that. You also
said that people “knew what you were doing” and to “let you do it” explain your position.
What were you attempting to do?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 5:16 AM John Kuersten <john@kuerstenconstruction.com> wrote:
You should be more concern that county staff is trying to influence an outcome of a public
hearing and not allow its own planning commissioners to properly vet an application. When
allowed we are typically very thorough. You realize staff recommendation was for approval
and if I as a planning commissioner am not allowed to comment and ask questions that is
the information we have to base our decision on.
We on the Planning Commission have always allowed all parties time to ask questions,
offer their opinions and promote discussion on the application. The County Attorney was
out of line trying to rush the commission through their process and not afford the applicant
a fair hearing thereby opening up a potential claim from the applicant of not having a fair
hearing and due process. This helps no one either for or against.
John Kuersten
From: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:31 AM
To: Brooke Winschell <BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Fwd: FORMAL NOTICE: Public Trust Violation & 1st Amendment Interference -
Harvest PUD
Lets Make sure all of this is on the public record.
From: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:35 AM
To: John Kuersten <john@kuerstenconstruction.com>
Cc: Brooke Winschell <BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Conflict check
Vice Chair Kuersten, you stated on the record that you 'did not have adequate time to
review' the safety and infrastructure data, yet you promised to 'pass it 100%' anyway.
Given that your company, Kuersten Construction, specializes in the exact type of large-
scale excavation and infrastructure work this $31M project requires, how can the public be
assured that your '100% agreement' is based on Findings of Fact and not the Future
Business Interests of your private firm?
Zachary Cherry-Newby
From: Zachary Cherry <zachcherrynewby@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:35 AM
To: Brooke Winschell <BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>; Glenn Hartmann
<GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>; John Kuersten <john@kuerstenconstruction.com>;
John Plano <jplano@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: ADMINISTRATIVE ADMISSION OF ZERO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OVERSIGHT
This serves as a formal notice that the Garfield County Building Department has officially
admitted a Total Systemic Failure to protect the health and safety of residents in
unincorporated Garfield County.
In an official communication dated Feb 26, 2026, Chief Building Official
John Plano
confirmed:
"Garfield County does not have a Property Maintenance Code adopted."
Forensic Implications for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD:
1. Enforcement Vacuum: If this $31M project is approved, the County will have zero
legal authority to enforce basic habitability or safety standards once the "Texas
Suits" (Realty Capital) complete construction.
2. Bad Faith Approval: Any vote to approve this project "100%"—knowing the County
has no code to protect the residents—constitutes a willful disregard for public
safety.
Demand: We request an immediate stay on all PUD approvals until a Property
Maintenance Code is adopted. The Backbone is the Law.
Respectfully,
Zachary Cherry-Newby
Hi Glenn Ray Ciborowski here I hope all is well with you. I'm writing to you to protest the
new development that is trying to be pushed down our throats. That harvest subdivision is
too large and will greatly impact hwy 82 and our Valley. We still have 1 grocery store and a
hospital that is almost at capacity. The building going on in Glenwood Springs is ridiculous.
The young people have no chance at home ownership as all these developers which come
from different states build apartments ie the meadows .we need to have a building
moratorium until true affordable housing plan is reached. I'm asking you to please allow
common sense over greed. Thanks for your time Ray Ciborowski
Subject: Harvest Roaring fork
Name: Ericka Crampton
Email: cramptone@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 404-1777
Message: I am writing to urge you to vote no on this project. I am a mother of 6 year old
twins. My husband and I grew up in Carbondale. And this development will be detrimental
to the water most of all, and the wildlife in this area.
Please think about the future impacts and not just financial.
Please please don’t vote for this.
Thank you,
From a mother who hopes there is still the beautiful rivers for my future grandchildren
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Proposal
Name: Doug Greenholz
Email: doug.greenholz@gmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 868-8211
Message: I attended the P&Z zoning hearing last night for teh Harvest Cattle Creek proposal
and signed up to speak during the public comment section. Because the meeting ran long,
public comment was continued to March 11th, a meeting I cannot attend in person. Please
accept the below and enter into the record as my public comment:
I have been in the real estate development business for 35+ years and have been the
applicant on many projects - some with a very high level of public interest. Never have I
seen such a number of members of the public attend a public hearing; last night there were
literally many hundreds of attendees. This speaks volumes about the lack of support for the
Harvest project.
It's clear that the Harvest proposal is not compatible with a lot more than the
comprehensive plan. It's too dense, too big, resulting in too many big nagative impacts on
natural and local resources: traffic, emergency egress capacity, air/noise/light pollution,
wildlife, waterways, open space and WATER! As you know, water was already scarce last
year in the RF Valley and this year it's going to be critical with municipalities already filing
for alternative water sources. There simply isn't enough water for the valley already; this
development simply turns a blind eye to the crisis.
The proposal is ill-conceived and, as drafted, creates too many opportunities for the
developer and future residents to further increase density / impacts. The project was
touted as a partial solution to the shortage of affordable housing, but the arguments are rife
with flaws (severely under-estimated build costs, lack of monitoring on RO/affordable
housing, lack of monitoring/controls on ADU's, and many more).
The County staff recommends denial. The conclusion in the staff reports sums it up
concisely: "...the request for PUD Rezoning for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUS is NOT in the
best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, propserity and welfare of the citizens
of Garfield county."
The applicant is either out of touch or misleading or both. He claimed he had hundresd of
conversations with locals about the project where he found support. Yet of the 67
registered public comments received prior to the meeting last not a single one was in favor;
all were against. Hmmmmm.
Responsible development - OK. This proposal is NOT responsible. I urge the Commission to
do the responsible thing by denying the application as proposed.
Please share this with the P&Z Commissioners.
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork
Name: Robert deWetter
Email: rdwm22@gmail.com
Phone number: (970) 456-8957
Message: Dear Mr. Jankovsky. I attended the meeting last night at CMC. I was stunned by
the number of people attending and grateful to CMC for providing overflow space in
multiple classrooms in adjacent buildings. My wife and I have lived in Glenwood Springs
since 2023 and we were full time residents in Snowmass Village prior to this time for 15
years. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed development. Our
opposition is based upon the size the of the project, the increased traffic, the elimination of
the current open space beneficial to wildlife and quality of living, the impact the project
would have on numerous environmental factors, the opposition to the project from the
Roaring Fork Conservancy and local fly fishing guides, the further destruction of dark night
skies, and for many other reasons. Last night the vast majority of people were in strong
opposition to the project. As our commissioner, we are hopeful that the voices of your
constituents, the majority of whom oppose the project, will persuade you to oppose this
development. Thank you for your service to the people of Garfield County. Robert de
Wetter.
Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork development
Name: John and Deborah Johnston
Email: jsjohnston66@gmail.com
Phone number: (970) 922-9566
Message: I write for both my wife and myself and hope you will share our message with
your fellow commissioners. We strongly oppose the Harvest Roaring Fork development.
We attended the meeting of Feb 25, 2025 with an estimated one thousand others in
opposition.
We have lived in the valley for eleven years. We moved here for the beauty, the outdoors,
the mountain community and the wildlife. All of these will be damaged by the proposed
development.
The developers claim to only want to aid in providing more affordable housing. But, their
claim is specious. The added housing will only degrade the quality of life in the valley while
exacerbating travel times for workers and will do little to alleviate the cost of housing. If the
developers, and the Commissioners, truly want to aid workers they will turn their attention
from increasing crowding and traffic in the valley to improving mass transit in the valley and
surrounding areas. There are surely many creative ways to facilitate worker transit so
housing can be created outside the valley in more affordable and less impacted areas.
Dear Commissioners:
I am a homeowner in Aspen Glen. I am writing you to express my concern about the PUD
proposed at Cattle Creek. This would be a devastating degradation of Garfield County in so
many ways. I know this area to be a major elk habitat in addition to blue Heron and eagles.
The loss of this land to such a high density new city would doom Garfield County to looking
like the Vail Valley. The loss of wildlife habitat would be catastrophic and could never be
replaced.
Please do not approve this project.
Thank you;
William Douglas Jr.
13 Mariposa
Carbondale
Dear County Commissioners,
My name is Eric Whiting, and I am a lifelong resident of the Roaring Fork Valley. I am writing
regarding the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork development.
This property is long overdue for development. Growth is part of what keeps this valley
vibrant and economically viable. People invest here because it is an appealing place to live
and vacation. Thoughtful development sustains that vitality.
I would welcome a mixed-use, walkable development similar in spirit to Willits —
combining residential and commercial uses in a way that builds community and supports
local businesses.
However, after reviewing Harvest Roaring Fork’s proposal, I have serious concerns in
two key areas.
1. Traffic & Highway 82 Safety
Highway 82 is the primary artery of this valley. The current intersection plan is inadequate
and unsafe.
Major Concerns:
• U-turn access onto southbound Highway 82 is dangerous, particularly during
morning/evening rush hour. The current plan is not practical for the new users of the
development.
• Expecting existing Cattle Creek traffic to also execute U-turns shows little
consideration for current users. The Cattle Creek intersection should realistically be
merged into a single intersection with Harvest Roaring Fork.
• The Thunder River Market intersection is already failing to handle traffic volume. The
proposed intersections would exacerbate the issue at Thunder River.
• The Cattle Creek turnoff has long been one of the most dangerous intersections in
the valley. The current proposal doesn't fix this, while asking southbound Highway
82 users to quickly speed up, merge through all highway lanes, then slow down to
execute a U turn. That's not practical nor safe, especially in snowy weather.
• Adding high-density development with new direct access points will worsen already
failing intersections.
What Should Be Required:
• At minimum: Multiple fully functional stoplights designed for projected future traffic.
• Realistically: On/off ramps to prevent stopping congested high-speed highway
traffic should start to be implemented all along Highway 82, starting with
Harvest Roaring Fork.
• Planning for future capacity now, not retrofitting after congestion and accidents
worsen.
• Creation of local connector roads tying into Old State Highway 82, allowing
Riverview School traffic to avoid jumping on and off Highway 82 unnecessarily.
If this development proceeds, this is the moment to fix long-standing Highway 82 safety
issues — not compound them.
2. Wildlife Impacts
I also reviewed Harvest Roaring Fork’s wildlife assessment. Any development reduces
habitat. That is simply a fact. Wildlife populations in this region are limited primarily by
available winter habitat. The neighboring Colorado River Valley provides adequate winter
range.
The Roaring Fork Valley has abundant summer range, but winter habitat is wildlife's limiting
factor here. Reducing available winter forage and habitat reduces the number of animals
the landscape can sustain. I am not suggesting this parcel remain undeveloped. However,
the wildlife report should clearly acknowledge that development will reduce habitat
capacity and wildlife numbers in the region. Honest analysis strengthens good planning.
In closing, I support development on this parcel. But it must be done responsibly, with:
• A highway plan that improves long-term safety and capacity
• Realistic traffic mitigation
• Honest acknowledgment of wildlife impacts
Highway 82 is the lifeline of this valley. If we fail to plan properly now, we will live with the
consequences for decades.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Eric Whiting
February 28 2026
Dear Philip,
My name is Cindi Davis. I recently moved from Aspen to Aspen Glen. We chose Aspen Glen
for its openness and rural lifestyle — the same character and sense of space we enjoyed in
Aspen years ago.
The proposed Harvest Roaring Fork development would directly and negatively impact our
daily lives here in Aspen Glen. Our home sits within view of the proposed high-density
residential units and hotel. The views, quiet, and solitude we experience each day —
especially from our back patio — would be significantly affected.
This development would not only impact our home, but also our neighbors and the broader
Aspen Glen community.
I love living in Garfield County and have already made a positive footprint in the community.
We are involved in valley charities, and our daughter runs the after-school program at
Sopris Elementary. We intentionally moved down valley to experience and preserve the
rural character we have grown to love.
We believe this proposal goes against the existing land use code designated for this area of
Garfield County. While we understand and support the need for development and
affordable housing within municipalities and cities — which are better equipped to
accommodate higher-density populations — placing a high-density development in a rural-
zoned area will have serious unintended consequences.
Such a project would strain roads, hospitals, healthcare services, police, and fire
resources. Increased traffic alone would dramatically impact road safety and daily travel
throughout the area.
At this time, we respectfully request a site visit to our residence in Aspen Glen so decision-
makers can fully understand the visual and community impact this proposed development
would have.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cindi Davis
Gems of Aspen
75 Horseshoe Lane
Aspen Glen
Carbondale, CO 81623
970 948 2677 cell
Subject: No Development at Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River
Name: Joe Moon
Email: hikejoemoon@yahoo.com
Phone number: (970) 319-8856
Message: Dear Mike Samson,
Please do not allow any development in the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork area. It's
obvious to me that this area should remain as is for the sake of the majority of people who
live here, and certainly the ecosystem.
Joe Moon
Subject: “Harvest “planning/zoning
Name: Deborah Korbel
Email: debkorbel58@gmail.com
Phone Number: 19709488612
Message: Hi Glenn,
I’m Deborah Korbel, we go way back to our 20’s at Ski Sunlight. It is good to see a familiar
face on City Council at the meetings.
I am against the Harvest Development at the Cattle Creek area. For many reasons:
1. Highway 82 is already over saturated with commuter traffic and more.
2. Environmental impacts for wildlife habitat would be too much for elk, deer, heron
rookeries and the ecosystem of the area.
3. The costs of building affordable housing will continue to rise to be unaffordable for
service workers in Garfield County.
4. It is appealing to locals and guests of the valley to keep open spaces for what it is…wide
open spaces. This area would serve the community better to become park like not another
community bogging down traffic on highway 82 even more.
Thank you for your help!
Subject: Development at cattle creek confluence
Name: Richard Katchuk
Email: rfkatchuk@gmail.com
Phone number: 9703091608
Message: I strongly oppose the potential development by Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC just
across from Cattle Creek.
We have lived in Carbondale full time since 2002. Traffic, congestion, and quality of life in
our mountain town has changed significantly, especially in the last few years. This planned
development would add excessively to the traffic, congestion and quality of life in this
valley. Please vote no. Thank you.
Please share my thoughts with the other two commissioners.
Dear Commissioners,
We are formally requesting that the public hearing regarding the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
Application, currently scheduled for March 11, 2026, at 6:00 PM, be relocated from the
Colorado Mountain College (CMC) Spring Valley Ascent Center to a larger, more accessible
venue in Glenwood Springs.
Justification for Relocation:
1. Venue Capacity Failure: The February 25th hearing at the
Ascent Center is designed for only 100 people, which is woefully inadequate for a
project of this magnitude The ascent center
reached maximum capacity, with overflow crowds forced to stand in hallways or
leave the building entirely. Public records indicate the combined classroom space
at the
Ascent Center
2. Safety and Accessibility:
CMC Spring Valley
is located several miles up a steep mountain road (CR 114). This creates a significant
barrier for the workforce—including maintenance techs, snowmakers, and teachers—who
are the primary stakeholders in this housing debate. A central venue like Glenwood Springs
High School or the Garfield county fairgrounds provides safer, more equitable access.
3. Transparency and Notice: Given the 3.2k+ views on recent community outreach
threads and the active CDLE Strategic Enforcement Audit, public interest has
reached a critical peak. To maintain the integrity of the Garfield County 2030
Comprehensive Plan, the County must provide a venue that does not physically
exclude its citizens.
We request an emergency notice of venue change be posted by March 4th to ensure the
1,500+ interested workers have time to coordinate attendance.
Respectfully,
Zachary Cherry-Newby
Dear Members of the Garfield County Planning Commission,
I am writing as a concerned Garfield County resident to urge the Planning Commission to deny
the Harvest at Roaring Fork application. This project conflicts with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan’s directives on sustainable growth, water resources, wildlife protection,
and infrastructure capacity.
The Comprehensive Plan is the County’s adopted policy framework for evaluating growth, and
this application does not satisfy the standards the Plan requires before approving new
development.
Water Supply and Drought Resilience
The Comprehensive Plan requires that development demonstrate long-term, physically
available water supply and ensure growth does not exceed infrastructure capacity. The applicant
relies on service from the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District and augmentation contracts.
While augmentation addresses legal stream depletions, it does not guarantee physical water
availability during extended drought or climate variability.
Recent conditions confirm this concern: the Roaring Fork Watershed has experienced moderate
to severe drought, with late 2025 snowpack at roughly half of normal levels and river flows
below average. The Colorado River Basin — a critical regional water source — remains in
severe drought, with one of the lowest runoff seasons on record last year. Approving this
development without independently verified, drought-resilient supply is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and shifts long-term risk onto current and future residents.
Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity
The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes protecting wildlife corridors and ecological connectivity.
While conservation easements exist along the river, wildlife does not remain confined to these
protected areas. Upland transitional habitat and movement corridors provide forage, shelter, and
connections between riparian zones and the broader landscape. Claims that wildlife concerns
are “overblown” ignore the role these non-easement areas play in maintaining viable
populations. Fragmentation from density, lighting, traffic, and fencing contributes to cumulative,
irreversible habitat loss, which would undermine the County’s ecological protection goals.
Highway 82 Congestion and Infrastructure Capacity
Highway 82 already experiences significant peak-hour congestion. As someone who drives this
route frequently, I have firsthand experience with delays and bottlenecks. Additional residential
density from this development will generate substantial new daily vehicle trips, further degrading
safety, emergency response times, and air quality.
The Comprehensive Plan requires that development not exceed existing infrastructure capacity.
Approving this project under current conditions would violate that standard. If the Commission
determines traffic impacts are acceptable, it should make explicit findings explaining how the
project complies with Plan policies.
Growth Alone Does Not Solve Housing Affordability
Affordable housing is a real need in Garfield County, but simply approving more development
does not make housing more affordable. Large-scale projects often increase demand for land,
services, and labor, which drives up the cost of living across the community. Housing
affordability is a systemic issue that requires coordinated planning, long-term strategies, and
targeted interventions, not isolated development that may accelerate growth pressures. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for sustainable, planned growth — approving this project without
addressing broader economic impacts undermines those goals.
Precedent and Long-Term Responsibility
Approval would set precedent allowing development without verified water supply, on
constrained roads, and with cumulative wildlife impacts. Responsible growth requires strict
adherence to adopted policy. If the Commission considers approval, it must make explicit
findings demonstrating how this project meets all relevant Comprehensive Plan standards for
water, wildlife, and transportation.
Conclusion
The Harvest at Roaring Fork application fails to meet the Comprehensive Plan’s standards for
sustainable growth, resource protection, and infrastructure alignment. The Commission should
deny this application to uphold the Plan and safeguard the long-term interests of Garfield
County residents.
Thank you for your attention and your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Reilly Anderson
1017 Bennett Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Proposal – Opposition
Name: Gabriela Rand
Email: randgabriela@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 319-3046
Message: Dear Commissioners,
I am a 30-year resident of Glenwood Springs and live in Elk Springs. I am writing to oppose
the Harvest Roaring Fork development near Cattle Creek and ask that you deny the
application as proposed.
In Elk Springs I have seen how new construction displaces wildlife; deer and other animals
that regularly moved through the area are now far less visible. The Harvest Roaring Fork
parcel is one of the last undeveloped stretches of valley floor in the lower Roaring Fork
Valley, next to the Roaring Fork Conservancy easement and along Cattle Creek and the
Roaring Fork River. Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Roaring Fork Conservancy have
identified it as important habitat. Even if the easement stays intact, dense development
around it will bring lighting, noise, pets, fencing, traffic, and constant human activity that
fragment habitat and disrupt feeding and migration. Once this site is built out, that loss is
permanent.
Highway 82 between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs is already overburdened. I
commute to Aspen daily; what should be about an hour can easily become two hours or
more with a single accident or closure. Delays and speeding are routine, and basic
maintenance is lagging. The pothole at the intersection near Thunder River Market keeps
getting larger and still has not been properly repaired, forcing drivers to swerve on a busy
stretch. This shows our road system and maintenance budget are already stretched for
current users.
Adding a development “half the size of Carbondale and twice the size of Willits,” as
Commissioner Rudd noted, will greatly increase daily trips on Highway 82 and local roads,
yet there is no realistic, funded plan to add capacity, improve safety, or address deferred
maintenance. Without major, guaranteed transportation improvements and firm
commitments from CDOT, this project will worsen congestion, safety issues, and road
degradation.
Basic services, especially groceries, are already strained. Glenwood Springs stores
frequently struggle to keep produce and other essentials in stock; I often see empty
vegetable shelves. The application mentions commercial uses but does not clearly commit
to a full-service grocery store or when it would open. If thousands of new residents are
added without a real on-site grocery option, they will rely on already-stressed stores in
Glenwood and Carbondale, meaning more traffic on Highway 82 just for basic shopping.
County staff have found that the proposal does not adequately address traffic and
infrastructure impacts. Transit along Highway 82 is already heavily used; pointing to
regional bus service is not enough without concrete commitments to capacity and safe
pedestrian/bike connections. The Rio Grande Trail crosses this property and is a key
recreation and commuting corridor; high-density development, new driveways, and
crossings will affect trail safety and character. Water and wastewater systems, emergency
services, and schools will also be stressed unless robust, enforceable plans and funding
are in place up front.
I strongly support real affordable and workforce housing, but key details of this proposal
are unclear: how the deed restrictions will work, how many units will truly be affordable to
local workers, and how long affordability will last. The fact that “we need affordable
housing” should not be used to justify any very large project regardless of location, scale,
and impact. A development that degrades wildlife habitat, overloads an already congested
and under-maintained highway, and adds pressure to groceries, schools, and utilities may
ultimately harm the community it claims to serve.
Given staff’s recommendation for denial, the concerns from Colorado Parks and Wildlife
and the Roaring Fork Conservancy, and the unresolved issues around wildlife,
transportation, grocery and service access, and infrastructure, I respectfully ask you to
deny the Harvest Roaring Fork application as proposed. If it is considered further, it should
be significantly scaled down, with independent traffic and infrastructure analysis, firm and
funded transportation and safety improvements, strong wildlife protections and
open-space buffers, and clear, enforceable long-term affordable-housing provisions for
local workers.
Please enter this letter into the public record for the March 11 hearing.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Rand
Hello -
My husband and I have been Garfield County residents for nearly three decades now. We
wanted to attend the latest meeting of the county planning commission, but because of
health issues that make it difficult to get into and out of a small and crowded room, we
attended via Zoom.
We understand the public comment portion of the meeting has been rescheduled for
March 11. Because somewhere between 500 and 1000 people attended the meeting in
person last month, we are hoping that you can move the March meeting to the gym at CMC
Spring Valley. I know they have the equipment available because in the past they have
shared online guest speakers from a stage in the gym. I'm sure the folks at the
campus would be happy to help you out.
Thank you for listening to public input on this issue.
With regards,
Debbie Crawford-Arensman
Glenwood Springs
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork
Name: Susan Cuseo
Email: scoutqzo@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 618-9676
Message:
Dear Perry Will,
Attending the February 25th Planning Commission event went even further to solidify my
opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork development.
The size is too large an addition to that space and our valley in general. Harvest plans a
small city where no city is reasonable. Natural resources do not support it – starting with
water. Add highway safety, power infrastructure, desperately lacking real affordable
housing.
Wildlife has already been squeezed out of so much natural habitat by development in our
valley. Harvest leaves only a very small area of riverside for them, not enough.
Our community understands this Texas developer is clearly a build-sell-run business
model, and both the lack of responsibility and lack of honorable community involvement
speak to long term disaster.
Please make the right decision for long existing community stakeholders who are also the
citizens who elected you. Heed our opinions and warnings. Say NO to HARVEST.
Very Sincerely,
Susan Cuseo
Subject: Harvest Roaring fork Development
Name: Edward Davis
Email: nmss.teddavis@live.com
Phone number: (970) 274-1855
Message: Dear Mr. Jankovsky,
My name is Edward Davis. I recently relocated from Aspen to Aspen Glen with the
understanding that the property surrounding our home was designated and protected
under rural zoning standards established by Garfield County. Those zoning protections
were a material factor in our decision to purchase and invest here.
The proposed Harvest Roaring Fork development appears inconsistent with the County’s
adopted Land Use and Development Code, Comprehensive Plan policies, and the stated
intent of rural zone districts. Rural zoning is designed to preserve open space, limit density,
protect scenic corridors, and minimize infrastructure burdens. Introducing high-density
residential units and a hotel into this district would constitute a substantial deviation from
those purposes.
Under Colorado land use law and the County’s own Code provisions governing rezoning,
planned unit developments, or special use approvals, any departure from existing zoning
must meet clear criteria, including:
Demonstrated consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Compatibility with surrounding land uses
Adequate infrastructure capacity (roads, water, sewer, emergency services)
Protection of public health, safety, and welfare
Avoidance of adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated
Based on publicly available information, it is unclear how a high-density residential and
hospitality project within a rural zone district satisfies these required findings.
Further, approval of this proposal could raise serious precedent concerns. If rural zoning
protections can be effectively overridden through discretionary approvals, it undermines
reliance interests of property owners who purchased based on existing land use
designations. Predictability and uniform application of zoning regulations are foundational
principles of sound land use governance.
Traffic impacts along Highway 82 and local connector roads must also be evaluated under
level-of-service standards and cumulative impact analysis. Increased density will
inevitably affect emergency response times, law enforcement coverage, and healthcare
access. Any approval must be supported by substantial evidence in the record
demonstrating that infrastructure capacity exists or will be fully funded and implemented
without shifting burdens to existing residents.
We respectfully request that the Board require strict adherence to the County’s Code
standards and make detailed written findings of fact supporting any decision. If the
required criteria cannot be clearly satisfied, the application should be denied or
substantially modified to align with rural zoning intent.
Additionally, we formally request a site visit to our residence in Aspen Glen so that you may
directly observe the visual corridor and proximity impacts that are central to this matter.
My family is deeply committed to this valley. We support local charities, and our daughter
leads the after-school program at Sopris Elementary. We chose this community because
we believed in the County’s commitment to preserving its rural character.
Thank you for your time, service, and careful consideration of the legal and long-term
implications of this proposal.
Respectfully,
Edward Davis
75 Horseshoe Lane
Aspen Glen
Carbondale, CO 81623
970-274-1855
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork
Name: Ross Roginski
Email: rossroginski@gmail.com
Phone number:
Message: I oppose the Harvest Roaring Fork development. We should be stewards of all
our natural resources.
The. Size and density of this project should be seen as unacceptable.
Thank you
Hi Perry…
Why are we going through all these meetings and why didn’t the planning commission just
say no” to the Harvest property when it is so out of bounds of what should be allowed? The
DOT proposal is ridiculous as well. Seems like a major waste of manpower and
backbending for the benefit of the Harvest group when it could have simply been denied??
Help!! And no one seems to understand that this would massacre the elk and other four
legged habitat???
Thanks for whatever you can do to save this land from turning into a Denver suburb!!
Wewer Keohane
Sent from my iPhone
Good day - this email is to NOT support the proposed development at the confluence of
Cattlecreek and the Roaring FOrk river in Garfield County - by Harvest Roaring Fork LLC.
This development will not have a positive influence for the area, but will have a negative
impact on the river/water quality, wildlife, and in my opinion take away the rural aspect to
our community.
Thank you
Kent Dorr.
Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD
Name: MATTHEW HUNT
Email: matthew.hunt@huntcompanies.com
Phone Number: (303) 601-5692
Message: Dear Glenn 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,
Matt Hunt