The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit 7 - Public Comments HRF 25-FEB-261 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 24-1 Fred Standefer – August 25, 2025; Undated; September 6, 2025; February 8, 2026 24-2 Abby Matthias –October 2, 2025 24-3 Nicole Cavarra – October 5, 2025 24-4 Erin McVoy – October 5, 2025 24-5 Laura and David Hardin – October 5, 2025 24-6 Thompson Glen Ditch – Undated 24-7 Barbara Sport – Undated 24-8 Steve Kurschner – Undated 24-9 Mike Jeronimus – Undated 24-10 Wewer Keohane, Ph. D. – Undated 24-11 Dave Clair – Undated 24-12 Steve and Carol Udvarhelyi – October 13, 2025 24-13 Rosemary Burkholder, Cattle Creek Coalition – Undated; February 4, 2026 24-14 Eileen & Glenn Wysocki – Undated 24-15 Cailen Hollenback – Undated 24-16 The Vitali Family – Undated 24-17 Michael and Michaleen Jeronimus – Undated 24-18 Kae McDonald – Undated 24-19 Taylor Thackston – November 9, 2025 24-20 Pat Vandervelden – November 10, 2025 24-21 Michael Vandervelden – November 10, 2025 24-22 Joan Mantraga – November 11, 2025 24-23 Rolland and Andrea Luplow – Undated 24-24 Miriam Muniz Fennel – November 24, 2025; undated; February 13, 2026 2 24-25 Don Marlin – November 24, 2025 24-26 Gib and Lee Plimpton– November 28, 2025 24-27 Jay Merriam, DVM, MS – Undated 24-28 Renee DeRoeck – December 20, 2025 24-29 Denise Lefort – December 22, 2025 24-30 Rick Carlson – December 31, 2025 24-31 Wes Gardner – December 31, 2025 24-32 Sarah Greenholz – Undated 24-33 Doug Greenholz – January 8, 2026 24-34 Katie Dyal – January 8, 2026 24-35 Pricilla Prohl-Cooper – January 9, 2026 24-36 Collin Arnold – January 15, 2026 24-37 David Sundseth – January 20, 2026 24-38 Petitions Opposing Harvest Roaring Fork – January 23, 2026; February 17, 2026 24-39 Anna Arlein – Undated 24-40 Callie Brignolo – February 4, 2026 24-41 Lisa Sansom – February 4, 2026 24-42 Stephanie Eiseman – February 5, 2026 24-43 Abby Hammer – February 6, 2026 24-44 Jonathan Stokely – February 6, 2026 24-45 Judith Blanchard – February 7, 2026 24-46 Susan Nicholson – February 7, 2026 24-47 David and Melanie Badesch – February 8, 2026 24-48 Hilary Back – February 8, 2026 24-49 Nick and Katie Abrams – February 9, 2026 24-50 Roaring Fork Fishing Guide Alliance – February 9, 2026 24-51 Bob Anderson – February 10, 2026 24-52 Alison Richman – February 11, 2026 24-53 Andrew McGregor – February 12, 2026 24-54 Shannon Campbell – February 12, 2026 3 24-55 Megan Chester – February 12, 2026 24-56 Cattle Creek Coalition Memo – February 13, 2026 24-57 Mercedes Brown – February 13, 2026 24-58 Judith Fitzpatrick – February 13, 2026 24-59 Jada MacDonald – February 13, 2026 24-60 Katherine Bennas – February 13, 2026 24-61 Sally Grange – February 15, 2026 24-62 Eileen Caryl – February 16, 2026 24-63 Michael and Suzanne Dalton – February 16, 2026 24-64 Robert Brandon – February 16, 2026 24-65 Emily Burnham – February 17, 2026 24-66 Margaret Ash – February 17, 2026 24-67 Postcards Opposing Harvest Roaring Fork – February 17, 2026 24-6824-6924-7024-7124-7224-7324-7424-7524-7624-7724-7824-7924-8024-8124-8224-8324-8424-85 Mr. Leybourne, Can you tell me the current public meetings scheduled where information is going to be made available to the public on the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD? It certainly seems these people are getting a lot of things approved without public comment. This proposed project is going to negatively impact every person who uses Highway 82. But, apparently CDOT already has given approval and designed a plan. Doesn’t seem quite fair. Specifically, when do you think this matter will come before the Commissioners? Thank you, your input is appreciated. Fred Standefer 405-820-5608 fstandefer@msn.com or nytex6@gmail.com 94 Indian Paintbrush Aspen Glen Mr. Leybourne, This is basically a plea for common sense and responsible governance. I think there are currently three projects on your website that are “Under Review”. Harvest Roaring Fork, the Reserve at Aspen Glen and Sage at Aspen Glen. You are the professional planner. But, all of these use the same: 1. Roads/highways (what do we do if we have a big fire and everyone has to evacuate? ) 2. Electric Power systems (lots of outages now on Excel) 3. Water sources, including water to fight fires 4. Sewer and wastewater facilities (drove by Emma at night - the smell was awful) 5. Other important infrastructure like schools, fire stations etc. PLEASE, PLEASE consider all of these as one COMBINED application. The potential COMBINED impact from all of this proposed development is absolutely huge. Taken together, they are going to severely stress everything. We will lose something very special. Then, please consider that we have been told on multiple occasions that the owners of the land where Sievers Pit is located want to develop that land after gravel operations cease and the land is reclaimed. This is absolute madness. It is insane. The developers are going to destroy this valley. I don’t think that is an exaggeration. It also flys in the face of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please discuss this with your colleagues in planning. And please discuss it with the Commissioners. This is an existential moment in history for the Roaring Fork Valley and you and your colleagues are the only hope. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Fred Standefer 94 Indian Paintbrush Carbondale, CO 81623 fstandefer@msn.com or nytex6@gmail.com Cell 405-820-5608 HOW DO YOU POWER A NEW CITY? February 8, 2026 Board of County Commissioners/Community Development Garﬁeld County, CO 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Commissioners - Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson, Perry Will Community Development - Glenn Hartmann, John Leybourne Gentlemen, As you know, in late December the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued a ruling (Proceeding No. 25R-0309G) establishing enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) targets for the state’s major natural gas utilities, including Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy. This decision builds on Colorado’s Clean Heat Standard law which already mandated 4% GHG reductions by 2025 and 22% by 2030 from a 2015 baseline, by adding a NEW 41% REDUCTION target by 2035. The PUC also signaled an expectation for further decarbonization - EFFECTIVELY A 100% REDUCTION IN NATURAL GAS-RELATED EMISSIONS- BY 2050. The decision effectively accelerates the phaseout of natural gas in Colorado’s energy system. YOU understand how devastating this is for Garﬁeld County. Most do not. The negative economic impact will be immense. Oil and gas related taxes are very important to the county. The future development potential of the Mancos shale and other prospective formations is being destroyed. Published government studies show new gas development should add many years of supply to existing reserves. People will eventually be forced to replace gas ﬁred heating systems with electric. There will be no gas stoves or ﬁreplaces in the worst case scenario. The electric utilities become true monopolies. And, Xcel has already requested an increase in electric rates starting in August of 9.93%. The application of HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD (PUDA -12-24-9048) as currently proposed would be an incredibly dense development that effectively contemplates a new city along Highway 82 on 289 acres in Garﬁeld County. If approval is granted to such an enormous development, the new city will have a population greater than than Basalt today. The proposed new city will require long term planning and preparation which is not fully deﬁned or disclosed in the application. This new infrastructure must perform while also ensuring older infrastructure is capable of providing adequate electricity, water, sewer and traffic services to existing development. So, please ask yourself the following questions: If Harvest Roaring Fork must go totally electric, is that feasible? Where does the power come from? What infrastructure alterations are required by the various utilities to meet the new PUC mandate? Can they be accomplished in the required timeframe? Can they still provide reliable, affordable electricity to existing communities and population? How does the new PUC mandate impact the economics of affordable/workforce housing? Will potential owners of this housing be able to afford their electric bills? Can the developer actually obtain the necessary electric equipment/supplies required to make homes all electric when competing with current AI/utility projects nationwide? If there is an economic downturn similar to 2008 can Garﬁeld County actually end up with a SURPLUS of housing, depressing all home values? This happened to Iron Bridge, Aspen Glen, Teller Springs and Coryell Ranch. It can happen again. If affordability is the issue, then one can easily argue that the PUC just guaranteed high cost, low reliability electricity. That threatens many businesses. It makes life harder for people. Do they keep coming? Do they move? Did the PUC raise the risk of recession? What happens in a prolonged electric power blackout? Xcel put large parts of Denver and its suburbs in the dark a few weeks ago, due to high winds. The power was out in some areas for two or three days. Xcel seems to have numerous problems already in our valley with repeated blackouts. How does adding a new city to the electric load help anyone? How is all of this new infrastructure ﬁnanced? Do the citizens of the new town bear the ﬁnancial burden of the new infrastructure? Where is the detailed infrastructure plan showing everything required and how it will be paid for? From your vantage point as County Commissioners and elected representatives of the existing communities in the valley you must have many additional questions concerning the lack of deﬁnitive and complete information provided by the applicant. You must therefore question whether the foundation exists upon which a large new city, which would undermine the quality of life for everyone currently living in the valley, should even be contemplated. Sincerely yours, Fred Standefer Carbondale, CO Abby Matthias 56 Thu nderstorm Circl,e Carbondate, CO 80162 October 2,2025 Garfiel.d County Board of County Commissioners 108 8'h Street, Suite 100 Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners, As a Longtime resident of the Mid-Vattey, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork devetopment at the conftuence of Cattte Creek and the Roaring Fork River. I have l,ived in this vattey for over 13 years, and l've watched it grow- sometimes in ways that serve the community, and sometimes in ways that sacrifice what makes this ptace so speciat. This devetopment, as proposed, woutd be a mistake. lt's far too large, far too urban, and far too damaging for this uniquety sensitive [ocation. A Bad Fit for the Mid-Val,l,ey The proposed ptan-over 1,500 housing units, 450 accessory dwettings, a hotet, and commerciat buitdings on 283 acres-is comptetety out of scate with the rurat, natural character of the Cattte Creek area. lt doesn't reftect the Mid-Vattey vatues I know: thoughtfut ptanning, open space preservation, and keeping our communities livabte for everyone. l'm not against growth, but this isn't smart growth. lt's urban sprawt ptaced in one of the last naturaI entry points into the Roaring Fork Vat[ey. Traffic Witt Get Much Worse-And Less Safe We al,t know that Highway 82 is atready overburdened. Adding 12,000+ dail.yvehicte trips wittexacerbate a daity nightmare for Mid-Vattey commuters, schooI buses, emergency vehictes, and anyone trying to get through Gtenwood or downvattey. The traffic anatysis submitted by the devetoper underestimates the true impacts-teaving out major parts of the proposat. As someone who drives this stretch atmost daity, I know firsthand that we cannot absorb this kind of increase safety or efficientty. Emergency Services Can't Keep UP This proposal, aLso doesn't account for the massive demand it woutd ptace on locatfire, EMS, and law enforcement-atl, of which are atready stretched thin across the Mid-Vattey. ln fire-prone terrain l,ike this, stower response times are not just inconvenient-they're deadl,y. lt's irresponsibte to al.tow a devetopment of this size without guaranteeing the resources to protect the peopl.e who woutd live there. Viotates Existing Zoning and Long-Term Planning This tand is zoned for tow-density, suburban-styte residentiaI use, in keepingwith the character of the surroundin garea. ALtowing a high-density project of this scate woutd set a dangerous precedent and undermine the work done by ptanners, citizens, and commissioners over decades to guide batanced devetopment in our county. l've seen how quickl,y the fabric of a community can unravet when zoning decisions start to ignore context and community input. Witdlife Witt Paythe Price This area isn't just undevel,oped-it's vitaL wiLdtife habitat. l've seen etk, deer, foxes, eagtes, and herons in this corridor with my own eyes. l've taken watks atong the Roaring Fork and watched migrating birds stop to rest in the riparian zone. Paving over this l,and and introducing constant noise, [ight, and human activity woutd destroy an irrep[aceabte ecosystem that has existed here far [onger than any of us. A River Corridor Atready Under Stress The Roaring Fork and CattLe Creek are essentiatwaterways for our va[tey. With ctimate pressures atready shrinking water avai[abitity and stressing aquatic systems, we can't afford unchecked stormwater runoff and devetopment so ctose to the riverbank. Any contamination or sediment runoff f rom this devetopment threatens not onty the river itsetf, but downstream users, agricutture, and recreation. This ls Not What Our Valley Needs Cattte Creek is one of the last untouched gateways into the Roaring Fork Vatl,ey-a ptace where open space, witdtife, and rural [andscapes greet residents and visitors atike. Once we tose that, we don't get it back. We're not just tatking about buitding homes-we're tatking about changing the entire character of the Mid-Vattey. And that's a choice we shoutd not take tightty. What I Ask of You As a resident who loves this vatl,ey, I respectfutl'y urge you to: 1. Reject this proposal, outright, as incompatibl,e with the community, the zoning, and the environment, 2. Or require a substantial.l,y scal,ed-down version that atigns with Mid-Vattey needs and vatues, 3. Or initiate a comprehensive ptanning process for the entire cattte creek area, invol,ving community voices and environmentaI expertise from the outset' In Glosing I've tived here tong enough to know that once we approve projects like this, we set a tone for what's acceptabte. PLease don't Let this be the moment we say yes to short-term devetopment and no to long-term sustainabitity. The Mid-Val.l,ey deserves better. Our rivers, wil,dtife, and communities deserve better. I ask you to make the responsibte decision and protect what's l,eft of this rare and beautifuI ptace. Thank you for your service and for considering the voices of those of us who cat[ this vattey home. Sincerety, Abby Matthias Mid-Vattey Resident Subject: Protect cattle creek and RF valley Name: Nicole Cavarra Email: ncscarra@aol.com Phone Number: (970) 274-9280 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 82 is a NIGHTMARE NOW! Too many people, too many accidents, and an ass-backward HOV system where the HOV is the slow lane (right lane), so passing cars can’t pass on the left. More cars, more deaths, and less service workers who will be willing to travel up 82 to work at any town in the Valley. 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. Drought, fires, and NO WAY OUT!!! NO EMERGENCY PLANS FOR EVACUATION! That many more households and residents have no chance if emergency. 3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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. THE ROADS SUCK!!!! Potholes EVERYWHERE! Traffic, and no room for moving vehicles or those who live here as is! Fix what we have and expand infrastructure and roads before u add more fuel to this fire! The Valley is being ruined because the quality of life is diminishing! We all moved here to get out of the city and traffic, but in case no one is noticed, we are now just another small city full Of city problems. 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. We NEED MORE INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! Not more homes and not more people. 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, Nicole Cavarra (25+ year Valley resident, Colorado Native) Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Nicole Cavarra Email: ncavarra@aol.com Phone number: (970) 274-9280 Message: Dear Mr Jankovsky, 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 82 is a NIGHTMARE NOW! Too many people, too many accidents, and an ass-backward HOV system where the HOV is the slow lane (right lane), so passing cars can’t pass on the left. More cars, more deaths, and less service workers who will be willing to travel up 82 to work at any town in the Valley. 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. Drought, fires, and NO WAY OUT!!! NO EMERGENCY PLANS FOR EVACUATION! That many more households and residents have no chance if emergency. 3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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. THE ROADS SUCK!!!! Potholes EVERYWHERE! Traffic, and no room for moving vehicles or those who live here as is! Fix what we have and expand infrastructure and roads before u add more fuel to this fire! The Valley is being ruined because the quality of life is diminishing! We all moved here to get out of the city and traffic, but in case no one is noticed, we are now just another small city full Of city problems. 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. We NEED MORE INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! Not more homes and not more people. 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, Nicole Cavarra (25+ year Valley resident, Colorado Native) Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Erin McVoy Email: beer.loving.lady@gmail.com Phone Number: Message: Dear Planner 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Erin McVoy Laura and David Hardiri 5O Fox Prowl Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81623 October 5,2025 Gafield Corinty Bsrd of Counry Cs$ndssisners 108 8{'$reet, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs/Madams: 'lV'e have a home inAspen Glen, and we write becauselrye are concerned atiout the development proposed by Roaring Fork Capital adjacent to Rt. 82. The development goes by the naine,Flar'vestRoaring Forh LLC. According to newspaper aceormts, theproposed development will consist of 283 acres. The development is slated to include 1,500 residential units, 450 accessory dwelling units, 55,000 slprare feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel. We opposethe development formany of thereasons previously expressed: the adverse environrientzil iriipact on tlie aA; watert lrrnd, and local wildlife. the increased traffic and congestion on Rt. 82, and its impact on public safety; the sffain on in&istnrctuie rintllocal services; and the loss of open space and firther of the rural character of Garfield County. While we opixe the develcipmenl being proposed we do not oppose develop'rnect altogether. We suggest that any develolment ultimately permitted be less concentrated so that the intei'ests of the dev€loper, the publie, the env,iroiiment, local wildlifg and the coiiriqF ere ftilly considered and balanced. The concentrated development being proposed certainly takes into aceount the finarcial interests of Harvest Roring Fork ard its investots, brut it gives little to no weight or considerationto the other constituencies. For all the foregoing reasons we oppos the current development application. Very truly yours, I ) J 4 /4a,,ari P**4, *"^.[ Laura Hardin David Hardin Good morning John, Sorry this has taken so long but Glenn Jammerman asked me to send in our comments from the Thompson Glenn Ditch Company. For this project, water needs to be diverted at historically used diversion points and use on historically irrigated ground. Also user needs to only use water under decreed uses. Thank you Mike Jeronimus Sent from my iPhone Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roark Fork LLC Name: Barbara Sport Email: thebarbarasport@gmail.com Phone Number: (908) 397-1010 Message: This communication serves to formally oppose the development of “Harvest Roaring Fork”. The area’s infrastructure is not capable of supporting the increase in population - especially in regard to traffic, fire, water availability and public safety. The existing infrastructure is not equipped to safely absorb the projected level of vehicular traffic, leading to increased accidents and fatalities, longer emergency response times on the likely inability to safely evacuate in the event of wildfire or other emergency. We are homeowners in Carbondale and have been coming here for the past 20 years. We fear that this development would destroy the area’s natural beauty and wildlife. Subject: Cattle Creek Confluence Name: Steven Kuschner Email: steviek6@yahoo.com Phone Number: 15618704352 Message: Hello Perry, I am usually standing up for our environment here on the western slope but today I write to you to consider what could be a bridge too big to build here in the RFV. The reason for my message to you is to ask that you take very seriously the concern of many thousands of residents here in the RFV is that the construction of new developments could "muddy" the valley with thousands of new cars and construction vehicles long after you leave the office of Commissioner. Just because someone has ownership of land and wants to develop that land it doesn't give then the god given right without concern for the health and safety of the residents and inhabitants around that land to do whatever they want going forward. Our region is experiencing a daily inundation of transit that is detrimental to our quality of life now, can you imagine what 11,900 additional weekday trips on 82 will look like from above? That is what is estimated by this report chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cattlecreekcc.com/wp- content/uploads/2025/06/Harvest-Ex-I-Kimley-Horn-Traffic -Assessment.pdf if the CATTLE CREEK development is approved I hope you will review the document and give deep consideration to the damage this will create if we approve the plan in it's present form. The developer isn't denying this information but isn't addressing the problem either. Dear Perry Please don’t let your legacy be another small town outside Carbondale the size of Willits in Basalt. What a tragedy that would be. How about a legacy for the whole community, like the Eagle County Crown Mountain park. Couldn’t Garfield County and Aspen Valley Land trust purchase the land from the Harvest RF developers and create walking paths and fruit trees and maybe a soccer field and a pond for dogs and open space forever for the elk and eagles. If the Harvest RF developers do what they have planned, so much will be ruined further than it already is. Way too many cars on 82. Deadly accidents at the 115 intersection and below Cattle Creek Road. Please visit the www.cattlecreekcc.com site and possibly attend the educational open house at the Third Street Center Tuesday, October 14 from 5:30-7:30 for information from the small group of people who care so much about keeping our Elk and our open space and our water. We have seen too much loss already with the overdevelopment of the entry to Cattle Creek that used to be a farm and open space for elk. If this Harvest development happens, where do the elk go? Where do the cars go? How will our river and creek maintain? This is a huge issue. Please consider your legacy and how you want to be remembered by all. Sincerely, Wewer Keohane Ph.D. Cattle Creek Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Cattle Creek Development Name: David Clair Email: fitnessforliving@gmail.com Phone Number: (303) 550-3491 Message: I just want to say how strongly I disagree with the development that is now proposed for the Cattle Creek confluence area. Having a large, semi dense development, actually more of a community, is so inappropriate for our valley and especially for that specific location. Logical sense and research would show that's such growth is definitely not going to help our traffic issues, water limitations, wildlife habitat, as well as our overall quality of life. Thank you so much for reading and I do hope that common sense overrides in this development is not approved IAN STEVEN AND CAROL ANN UDVARHELYI I 09 DIAMOND A RANSH ROAD CARBoNDALE, CO a1629 October 13,2025 Commissioner Perry Will Garfield County, Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: The proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Dear Commissioner Will, We are 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. We strongly oppose this development moving forward and are asking for your assistance in stopping it. Here are key reasons why this proposed project should not move forward as proposed: L. Traffic, Safety & lnfrastructure Thousands of new vehicle trips would overwhelm Highway 82 and local roads. We are sure you have travelled on Highway 82 in either the morning or afternoon "rush hours," and are aware of the significant traffic issues we have already in the valley. Accommodating additional vehicles would require new traffic lights and stretch our existing emergency response capacity. This puts residents at greater risk. 2. Water Quality & Watershed Health The Roaring Fork watershed is already under strain. As you know, we had a significant drought this past year and the watershed can struggle to meet current demands, let alone support a development of this scale. ln addition, a large development without robust stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water quality for communities downstrea m. Commissioner Will Page 2 3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty The proposed density - 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU's, a hotel, and commercial space on 283 acres - is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley's rural identity. We realize that ongoing development in the valley is inevitable, but that should not include this type of high-density development. We need you to help protect the character of this area. 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. These issues extend 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. We 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, \a^rtX L steven Udvarhelyiand CarolA. Udvarhelyi Dear Glenn and John A recent web search for information on the PUD for Harvest Roaring Fork LLC brought up a letter of review and comments, April 9th, 2025 to the Garfield County Planning Department, from the Town of Carbondale. I sent a note to Jared Barnes letting him know that I was very impressed by the excellent reply from his staff and the Board of Trustees to your attention. Their sediments and careful considerations echo the concerns of many of us local citizens. A development of this size cannot be permitted on this parcel of land. To date I have not located Glenwood Springs reponse to this PUD and would be interested in seeing that as well. I would hope that municipality would share the same views. Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition is a small group of citizens that have formed to oppose the Urbanization of this parcel of land. At this time we are educating ourselves on how to strategically make the best impact with our mission. It is understood that the review process involves public comment. How can we ensure that we have all the necessary and up to date information to be informed? As we form our team, we want you to know that we are receptive to any way that we might work with the Garfield County Planning Department to be beneficial to the Health and Preservation of our Valley. It would be an honor to meet with or hear from you, or staff with direction and ideas. We respect your time and your diligent work for the future growth of our Cherished Valley. Best Regards, Rosemary Burkholder - Team Member 970 445-8441 -cell Breakfast on the berm! Had the pleasure of watching these creatures feed on this sacred ground this morning. I pray we don't pave over their land. Thank you for your sincere consideration. Rosemary Burkholder Dear County Leaders, 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Eileen & Glenn Wysocki 176 N. 6th Street New Castle, CO 81647 Dear Commissioners and County Planning Department, My home is 304 Riverbend Way in Ironbridge. I live directly across the river on a lot almost an acre in size that is in direct view of the proposed development. As a proud 25 year plus Garfield County resident - I strongly oppose any development of the magnitude being proposed. The development has historically been agriculture and zoned for one acre lots. Our freeway is already at overload and I did not build my home along the river to be looking at hundreds of lights. I am extremely concerned about the impact on the freeway, wildlife heard, mixing low density in an area that Garfield County has designated as low density. As I sit and write this email I look out to of the herd that lives everyday in the winter on that proposed development land. I hope you all will respect the zoning for this area and hope you will vote no on the proposal submitted by Harvest. Thank you for your consideration. Cailen Hollenback Glenn Hartmann, Please stop the Urbanization of Cattle Creek from irreversible, large-scale development. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE : Harvest Roaring Fork LLC, a Texas-based developer’s, proposal of 1,500 residential units, plus 450 ADUs, 55,000 square feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel on 283+/- acres at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. This project, a small urban city along the banks of an invaluable stretch of the Roaring Fork River, would jeopardize our already compromised traffic flow, threaten water quality, disrupt wildlife habitat and destroy the rural character of unincorporated Garfield County. Why This Land Matters - This is more than just land - it’s a living system…it is an ecologically rich corridor that sustains bald eagles, heron rookeries, elk and deer herds, foxes, migratory birds, and trout. This land sustains riparian habitat, vital for biodiversity, wildlife migration. The proposed development would drastically disrupt the vital ecosystems of the Roaring Fork Valley. Wildlife - including migratory birds, elk, deer, bear, mountain lions, coyotes, and wild turkey - depend on the seasonal habitats and corridors that crisscross this property. This land is essential winter and summer range for both mule deer and one of the area’s few remaining elk herds. Dense housing and commercial development here would fragment their habitat, obstruct migration routes, and jeopardize breeding and calving grounds. The entire ecosystem risks collapse when its most vulnerable species are displaced. Once it’s gone - it’s gone for good. Please preserve our valley. Thank you, The Vitali Family Carbondale HI Glen and John, We are adjacent landowners to the Harvest Roading Fork Project and oppose this PUD at this level. We expected that this property would be developed but within the county’s 2030 master plan that calls for a far less density. What this developer is seeking is almost 4 times the destiny in the valley. We feel that the zoning rules should be followed and not allow the developer to propose a long term plan using form based zoning. Form Based Zoning should never be allowed due to its huge impacts to traffic, wildlife, and water quality. This proposed develop will cause continuous urbanization of the valley and erase the rural feel of the lower Roaring Fork valley. Most concerning to us, is the traffic effects! At this proposed level, it will add at least 11,000 additional car trips per day, adding 50% more traffic to Hwy 82 that is already at capacity per CDOTs own admission. CDOTs proposed Reduced Conflict Intersection seems so unsafe and an a experiment that is not wanted by us. RFTA doesn’t think it can work for their needs either. The developer in their PUD doesn’t even discuss construction traffic that will exacerbate the amount of traffic! Wildlife impacts will be irreparable by this development. The pressure that 5,000 people, that will live there, to the Roaring Fork Conservancy easement is incompatible with the intent of the easement. Roaring Fork Conservancy has already stated in their referral all the requirements and set backs that the developer needs to follow. We except this to be the case. We support the planning staff in what we are sure, has been a very difficult PUD to review. We feel Form Based Zoning is so broad and open ended that is not appropriate for this site, we need to know drainage, building height and types, street lay out, that is required by the county zoning rules. We strongly believe what this Applicant is proposing, that staff should recommend denial. Thank you for your time, Michael and Michaleen Jeronimus 9173 HWY 82 Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Public Comment Name: Kae McDonald Email: kaemcdonald@comcast.net Phone Number: 9703792846 Message: Dear Garfield County Planning Department, I am writing today to comment on the magnitude of the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork development. I am aghast at the size of the proposal: 1500 residential units, plus accessory dwelling units; a 120-unit hotel; and more than 50,000 square feet of commercial space. This will be a small town shoe-horned between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. This magnitude of development WILL have an impact on everyone that lives in the Roaring Fork Valley, and in a variety of ways: The short commute between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale will be hamstrung by the additional of one or more stoplights. The transparent story that since the development will be close to mass transit, EVERYONE will take the bus is just that, a story. To state that commuters down valley will “jump at the chance” to move and therefore reduce traffic congestion doesn’t take into consideration other variables that may be at play in people’s lives. And the housing in New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Parachute will still be filled with people who will drive to Aspen because they will be paid more there than anywhere. Let’s also not forget the massive number of construction vehicles that will be traversing Highway 82 for the duration of build out. The already overcrowded boat ramps at Carbondale, Hardwick Bridge, and Two Rivers Park will be clogged with even more people and the “Disneyland” effect on the Roaring Fork will be even more intolerable for those of us that appreciate quiet. The trails on Red Hill – already busy throughout the year, will become even busier. I also have a hard time believing that “just one more development” will solve the affordable housing problem – and the advertised starting price of $320,000.00 will still be out of reach for many people. And let’s be realistic – the developer purchased this property for $33,000,000 anticipating a profit. The tired, and transparent, story that more housing will solve this problem has been told in this valley for more than 50 years and the needle still hasn’t moved. The only thing that more development will achieve is MORE Noise, MORE Pollution, and MORE Consumption of Resources – and this at a time when western Colorado is experiencing a prolonged drought cycle. I think many other people have pointed to the minimal conservation easement of 54 acres and the impact this development will have on wildlife. To be honest, I can’t find anything positive reading through the Harvest Roaring Fork’s proposal, and I hope the impact to the entire Roaring Fork Valley population will be considered when discussing approvals. Thanks, Kae McDonald 954 County Road 106 Carbondale Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Taylor Thackston Email: taylorthackston@gmail.com Phone number: (804) 519-9951 Message: Dear Community County Commissioner Tom Jankovsky, 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Taylor Thackston Frying Pan Anglers Dear Garfield County BOCC and Community Development Department, 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Pat Vandervelden Carbondale Resident Dear Garfield County BOCC and Community Development Department, My wife and I moved to Carbondale two years ago when we retired. We chose this spot specifically for its natural beauty, tranquility, welcoming community, and ease of access to so many wonderful recreational opportunities. We've come to really love and care about this place. As a result, 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Michael Vandervelden Carbondale Resident Subject: Access to Harvest Roaring Fork Plan Name: joan Matranga Email: joanmatranga@comcast.net Phone Number: (970) 274-1371 Message: I tried to see the plans for this project and needed a special user access. I don’t know what this is about. Also has P&Z reviewed this plan ? Where is it in the approval process? Thank you , Joani 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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. Sincerely, Rolland and Andrea Luplow Dear Glenn, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a concerned member of the Garfield County community regarding the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD, particularly about certain inconsistencies between what the developer is promising on their website and what is actually in their submitted PUD application. Specifically, I want to highlight three areas where the public-facing marketing appears to conflict with the application materials (or overstate certain commitments), which I believe is misleading to the community and warrants close scrutiny by County leadership during the current review process: Key Concerns 1. Affordability / Deed-Restriction Commitments On their website, the developer claims: "10% of homes will be deed-restricted ... and another 20% will be deed-restricted for full-time workers in Garfield, Pitkin, or Eagle counties." In the PUD application (and PUD Guide), I confirmed a 10% deed-restriction commitment (which aligns with County requirements). However, I found no clear, binding mechanism in the application packet for the additional 20% worker-specific deed restriction (as a legally enforceable, recorded restriction). The PUD states that there will be 300 attainable housing units. These attainable units are on top of the 1500 market price to luxury homes. That is just over 17%, not 30% as the website is marketing. This raises a serious concern: is the 20% "worker-targeted" deed-restriction merely a marketing claim, or is it part of the developer's formal, enforceable commitment? If the latter, where in the PUD documents is this legally secured (SIA, deed, covenant, or condition)? If not, I worry the community is being misled about the level of "affordable workforce housing" that will actually be delivered. 2. Sales Prices / Home Pricing The Harvest website advertises homes "in the $390's to $1.5 million" and unit sizes "800- 3,000 sq ft." In contrast, the PUD application is primarily a zoning-and-plan document; it does not formally commit to those exact sales prices, since market pricing is not typically locked in by a zoning application. The application describes housing types and unit sizes, but not binding price points. This disconnect means that the "$390's" starting price is likely a marketing projection, not a guarantee. To the community, this can be misleading - people may believe that below- $400K homes are certain, when in fact those prices could change (market permitting). As County leadership, you should consider whether additional assurances or conditions are needed to protect prospective local buyers who are relying on these public promises. 3. Water / Sewer Service The website states the project is planned to be served by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFWSD) - giving the impression of a fully permanent, reliable infrastructure. The PUD application, however, clarifies that while coordination with RFWSD is underway, the service agreements, detailed water-wastewater design, capacity, and infrastructure will be submitted during later phases (subdivision, engineering, development permit). There is no guarantee in the PUD packet that the full build-out will be immediately served, or that all phases will be fully covered by RFWSD without conditions. That raises a material risk: if later water/sewer designs or capacity issues emerge, the developer may alter plans, delay units, or impose additional costs. For residents and future homeowners, this uncertainty could have very real financial and lifestyle impacts. Why This Matters Trust & Transparency: The community depends on accurate, honest communication, especially for a project of this scale. Marketing that over-promises can undermine trust in the approval process and lead to disappointment or financial risk for future residents. Accountability: If the developer is making public promises (especially around affordability) that are not legally locked in via the PUD or related agreements, then there is a gap in enforceability. This leaves the door open for them to renege, scale back, or modify their commitments later. Public Interest: As County leadership, you have a duty to ensure that any PUD approval strongly protects the public interest. That means insisting that "public promises" made on marketing materials correspond to legally enforceable components in the PUD, SIA (Sub- area Improvement Agreement), deed covenants, or other binding agreements. What I Request / Recommend 1. Clarification and Conditions: Require the developer to clearly articulate and record their "20% worker-focused" deed restriction in enforceable legal documents (SIA, covenants, deed restrictions, etc.), not just in marketing. 2. Marketing-Application Alignment: Ask that the developer explicitly align their public- facing website claims (especially around price and amenity commitments) with language in the PUD or a legally binding agreement. This could be made a part of the approval conditions. 3. Water / Sewer Assurance: Seek more concrete commitments (phasing-based or capacity-based) from the developer about how RFWSD will serve all phases. If necessary, require them to provide a water/wastewater infrastructure phasing plan and legally binding infrastructure agreement to ensure that later phases are not "promised" but left uncertain. I strongly encourage the Board and Community Development staff to push for these alignments NOW, as we approach the hearing and approval process. Without stronger, enforceable ties between what the developer says publicly and what's recorded in the PUD, there is a risk the community will be misled and future residents could be left holding promises that are not legally secured. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to thoughtful, fair development. I appreciate your willingness to consider these concerns. Sincerely, Miriam Muñiz Fennell 630 Foster Ridge Rd Glenwood Springs 512-293-1167 Dear John, I am writing to formally express concerns shared by many community members and transportation professionals regarding the traffic mitigation plan proposed for the Harvest Roaring Fork development along Highway 82. After reviewing the application materials, it appears the traffic analysis relies on assumptions that do not reflect current conditions on Highway 82 or the long-term realities of this already constrained transportation corridor. First, the traffic projections do not appear to fully account for the scale of the proposed development. The project includes approximately 1,500 residential units, the potential for hundreds of accessory dwelling units, expanded commercial uses, and a larger hotel component. When more realistic trip generation rates are applied, the resulting traffic volumes may be significantly higher than those presented in the applicant’s study. Second, Highway 82 is already operating at or near capacity, with existing daily traffic volumes estimated between 24,000 and 29,000 vehicles. Introducing what could amount to more than 15,000 additional daily trips is functionally equivalent to adding a small city’s worth of traffic to a roadway that is already experiencing congestion and operational stress. Of particular concern is the lack of meaningful analysis of construction-related traffic. The application does not appear to adequately model the years—potentially decades—of heavy truck traffic, equipment hauling, material deliveries, and construction worker commutes associated with a multi-phase buildout. These impacts would be experienced well before project occupancy and would persist throughout the development timeline. Public safety is another critical issue, especially in the Cattle Creek area, which already presents elevated crash risks. Increased traffic volumes, additional turning movements, and construction vehicles are likely to exacerbate safety concerns for residents, commuters, emergency responders, and wildlife. Environmental impacts must also be carefully considered. This stretch of Highway 82 functions as important wildlife habitat and a movement corridor. Increased traffic, noise, and human activity further fragment an already stressed system and increase the likelihood of wildlife-vehicle collisions. The proposed density also raises questions regarding consistency with Garfield County’s rural character. When residential units, accessory dwellings, commercial space, and hotel uses are considered together, the resulting traffic impacts resemble those of a small city. However, the proposal does not appear to include the level of transportation infrastructure, transit capacity, or emergency services typically required to support that scale of development. Finally, the traffic mitigation strategy relies heavily on optimistic assumptions, including high levels of internal capture and widespread reverse commuting. Should these assumptions not materialize, the burden of additional trips will fall directly on Highway 82, resulting in chronic congestion and raising serious concerns regarding emergency response and wildfire evacuation capacity. In summary, if the traffic mitigation plan does not withstand rigorous technical scrutiny, the project itself may not be ready for approval. I respectfully request that the Board require a more comprehensive, transparent, and realistic traffic analysis before advancing this proposal. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to Garfield County. Respectfully, Miriam Muñiz Fennell 630 Foster Ridge Rd Glenwood Springs Dear Glenn, I am writing to share a concern and request clarification regarding marketing materials currently being mailed throughout the Roaring Fork Valley for the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork development. Residents are receiving postcards that present the project with imagery, pricing ranges, and language that strongly suggests an active, forthcoming community, despite the fact that the development has not been approved, permitted, or entitled. Several community members have contacted me expressing confusion about whether the project has already received county approval. I understand that developers are permitted to market proposed projects; however, the tone and presentation of these materials appear to imply inevitability and near-term availability, which may unintentionally mislead the public about the current land-use status and decision-making process. Given the scale and sensitivity of this proposal, clarity is especially important for maintaining public trust in the county’s planning process. I would appreciate guidance on the following: Whether the county has reviewed these marketing materials for accuracy regarding approval status. Whether there are requirements or best practices for disclosures when marketing unapproved developments in Garfield County. How the county recommends residents verify the official status of major development proposals to avoid confusion. My intent is not to impede lawful marketing, but to ensure the public understands that this project remains under review and that no final decisions have been made. Transparent communication is critical as the community engages with this process. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I would welcome any clarification you can provide and am happy to discuss further if helpful. Sincerely, Miriam Fennell 630 Foster Ridge Rd Glenwood Springs 512-293-1167 miriamexpress@gmail.com Subject: Collapsible Soils and Planned Urban Development in the Roaring Fork Valley Name: Don Marlin Email: donmarlin@aol.com Phone Number: (713) 503-1401 Message: Re: Harvest Sun Development vs Subsurface Karst Hazards Mr. Fred Jarman County Manager, I have some information with regard to Garfield County Colorado planning and development that I wanted to share with you. I am a local homeowner and have past certifications in geophysics and geology with a current certification to construct closed-loop geoexchange systems in Colorado. I have interests in the subsurface geology through collapsible soils of the Roaring Fork Valley and sharing my knowledge of the same. The underlying basis for these collapsible soils is due to being at the center of the Carbondale Collapse as referenced by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) in their 2002 MS-34 report (citation #1 below) as well as numerous other research publications. The Harvest Roaring Fork proposed urban development (PUD) area is located near the focus of this report and has approximately 15 known sinkhole and subsidence features within the boundary. Publications and my research reveal the collapse is influenced by salt at 2125' below the ground near this PUD which underlies evaporative rock and glacial terraces that have all been pushed toward the surface over geologic time creating collapsible soils. This PUD (citation #2 below) is surrounded some of the highest density of soil collapse and damages to structures as noted in this CGS report. The 2009 legal settlement at Ironbridge subdivision to 20 homeowners from building on such collapsible soils is directly West across the river from the PUD (citation #3 below). I have seen no mention of surface and subsurface hazards in any of the proposed development discussions or news articles to date. These subsurface influences and surface hazards in the form of karst topography could have a direct impact on Garfield County and Harvest Sun Development construction. Understanding or highlighting these risks could lead to reducing liabilities for all involved. Thank you for your service and let me know if you are aware of these scenarios. If not, I am able to discuss these with you as I have freely done in parts to civil engineering groups, state administrations, local businesses, utility providers, well operators, my homeowner association, and individuals to make them aware of these conditions. Don Marlin Citations: 1) White, Jonathan L. “MS-34 Collapsible Soils and Evaporite Karst Hazards Map of the Roaring Fork River Corridor, Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties, Colorado.” Soil and Karst Hazards. Map Series. Denver, CO: Colorado Geological Survey, Division of Minerals and Geology, Department of Natural Resources, 2002. https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/collapsible-soils-evaporite-karst- hazards-roaring-fork-river-garfield-eagle-pitkin-colorado. 2) Harvest Roaring Fork or https://harvestrfv.com, and 3) http://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/homeowners-left- with-sinking-houses-finally-allowed-to-tell-story/ Dear Commissioners Samson, Jankovsky and Will 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. I am president of the Teller Springs HOA, directly across the river from this potential festering abscess on our already crowded landscape. As I write I am watching a herd of elk graze happily there. We (21 homeowners) at Teller Springs HOA have already placed 32+ acres into conservation with AVLT and it is a winter dwell for the herd as well, allowing access to cross the river and a place to rest, calve and survive. This proposed project should not move forward: 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. The proposed “Michigan U=Turn concept would slow rush hours to a crawl. Taxpayers are being asked to fund all traffic modifications. 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. The demands placed on groundwater and commercially available water would devastate our riparian habitat. The presence of 2-3000 homes there is untenable. The air above and around the site is already so toxic from the unabated discharge of fumes from the asphalt plant (unknown exact type of VOCs because we have been unable to get the county to monitor and identify) that pays so little tax and always wants more working hours. Digging and placing a sewer pipe across our Gold Medal river is an act of environmental suicide. The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity. The developers have conveniently omitted real numbers, asking only for a new PUD with actuals to be discussed at some future date.It’s a bait and switch technique. 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. They advertise “redefining luxury” while touting a vague number and price for “affordable” housing units. The announcement of 2 child care facilities, again of undefined size and scope, is certainly a ruse and should not even be part of the discussion. 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. The developers boast about river access while they have NONE per existing Conservation Documents. They also include already conserved open space as counting toward their own… not possible. I respectfully urge you to reject this development and to protect the Cattle Creek Confluence for current and future generations. Jay Jay Merriam DVM,MS Teller Springs HOA, President 1800 County Rd. 109 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 508-498-0347 Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Renee Deroeck Email: reneederoeck@yahoo.com Phone Number: Message: Dear Mr. 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Renee DeRoeck From: Communications <Communications@garfieldcountyco.gov> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 10:24 AM To: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov> Subject: Garfield County website inquiry Subject: Harvest Community Name: Denise Lefort Email: denisejlefort@gmail.com Phone Number: (864) 361-0495 Message: Please stop this. This is one of the last beautiful open spaces in this area. There are elk and deer and our water was short last summer. Traffic would be unbearable and the scar on this landscape not to mention light and noise pollution. We have too many houses in area now. Please stop this. 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. Denise Lefort Dear Commissioners Samson, Will and Jankovsky, As a board member of the Teller Springs HOA, located directly across the Roaring Fork River from the proposed HARVEST ROARING FORK development at the Cattle Creek Confluence, I am writing to express deep concern about the wildfire and evacuation risks associated with this project. Recent large-scale fires in Colorado and California have shown how quickly wind-driven wildfires can overrun communities and overwhelm road networks, turning evacuation routes into life-threatening choke points. Highway 82 is already a congested corridor, particularly during peak commuting hours, and adding thousands of new residents, hotel guests, and vehicles at this single confluence will dramatically increase the number of people who must evacuate through a narrow, overburdened artery. In real fire events along the Front Range and in California, we have seen gridlocked highways, abandoned vehicles, and tragic loss of life when entire neighborhoods try to leave at once on constrained roads. Concentrating this much new development at Cattle Creek effectively creates a large, high-density pocket at the end of a funnel, where even a minor blockage, wreck, or stalled vehicle during an evacuation could have catastrophic consequences. With a direct view of Highway 82 from my house I have seen too many situations where a simple late afternoon single lane fender bender traffic accident can cause a complete stop of traffic flow for over an hour, even longer. Wildfire behavior in the West is becoming more extreme, with longer fire seasons, hotter and drier conditions, and more frequent wind events that can push flames and embers miles ahead of the main fire front. In that context, the combination of dense housing, limited ingress and egress, heavy reliance on Highway 82, and the river corridor’s natural funneling effect is a dangerous design. Fire, law enforcement, and EMS resources in our valley are already stretched; they would be forced to manage evacuation, structure protection, and traffic control for a development whose very location and scale amplify risk for everyone—residents, first responders, and neighboring communities like Teller Springs, IronBridge, Aspen Glen, Westbank, Coryell Ranch, etc. There is also the compounding risk of smoke and radiant heat in a fast-moving fire, which can make parts of an evacuation route temporarily unusable even before flames reach structures. If evacuees from HARVEST ROARING FORK, existing river communities, and up-valley travelers are all forced onto the same clogged segment of Highway 82, emergency managers may have little ability to stage, reroute, or prioritize vulnerable populations. Designing for best-case traffic flow in normal times is not responsible when the real test will be a worst-case, high-stress evacuation under fire, smoke, and shifting winds. The February 19, 2016 fire at a location 4 miles W/NW of Glenwood Springs was measured at 94 mph. What we have witnessed previously here in our own county can happen again. For these reasons, and in light of the clear lessons from recent large fires in Colorado and California, the proposed density and location of HARVEST ROARING FORK are fundamentally incompatible with safe wildfire evacuation and emergency response. I respectfully urge you to reject this proposal and to require that any future land-use decisions at the Cattle Creek Confluence place life safety and realistic evacuation capacity ahead of speculative large-scale development. Thank you all for the great work you do for the citizens of Garfield County. Rick Rick Carlson 1752 County Road 109 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 riccarlson@gmail.com 970-948-9650 Hi John, My name is Wes Gardner and I live at 9171 Highway 82 in unincorporated Garfield County. I own 1/2 of an 82 acre parcel along with Mike and Micki Jeronimus, adjacent to the HRF proposed development. I am a Colorado native, who has spent much of my life, enjoying the pristine Roaring Fork Valley. I have a son and three granddaughters that also live in the valley. We love our community and consider ourselves to be very fortunate to live here and pride ourselves on being involved. I am also part of a group of people who are trying to help bring affordable workforce housing to Colorado. We are combining philanthropic partners with proposition 123 funds and Churches with excess ground to bring truly affordable for sale houses to our communities. As a result, I have learned a lot about nonprofits, such as Habitat For Humanity, Rural Homes Colorado, The Telluride project, and of course LIHTC funding and land banking. I want to share my concerns with you about the lack of specifics and some problematic fundamentals to HRF’s model. I would like to make sure there are absolute specifications that will lead to both for sale and rentals that meet the prevailing wages of those who need these homes. I won’t go into any specifics on this email but want to make sure our voices are heard and that the end products are truly affordable in perpetuity! In general, I think this development is way too big and riddled with so many problems such as the impact to traffic and safety to our community and its Wildlife. Evacuation in the event of an emergency such as wildfires. The proposed 120 room hotel should not even be considered on the south end of the property if at all. I’m not anti development and I’m not one for yes to affordable housing but not in my backyard either. What I am is a thoughtful member of the community who loves the rule aspect and wants to see it remain intact with sensible development, and planning consistent with the 2030 plan and Article 8. Lastly, This development will create so many more jobs and thus the need for even more affordable housing then they are proposing. Unfortunately, it is not possible to build your way out of an affordable housing crisis. More on that in our next conversation. Please let me know that you received this email and what would be the best way for me and my team to give our input on the affordable housing piece of this project. Wishing you and your family a very happy new year! Wes Wes Gardner The Bridge Network Cell: 303-888-2971 Dear John, The Harvest Roaring Fork Development is a terrible idea.This is one of the last open spaces along the river and I feel the project should be canceled for these reasons: The thousands of cars added to Highway 82 and local roads will make our already terrible traffic even worse. I commute from Carbondale to Basalt and Carbondale to Glenwood daily. Many days, it takes an hour to get to either location due to traffic volume. I see traffic accidents often, including cars hitting wildlife on a regular basis. Now think what would happen if we had a fire in the valley? The traffic is already untenable during rush hour, but imagine if every single person in the valley had to get into their cars to flee a fire at the same time. The highway would come to a complete standstill and people would literally die in their vehicles. I've heard people say that would never happen, but I lived through the Marshall Fire and many others when we lived in Boulder County. No one thought a fire could move so fast and cross over Hwy 36. Fortunately, Boulder County is not in a valley where there is only one good way out and people have multiple options. That is not an option here. When a wildfire is moving as swiftly as it did during the Marshall Fire, people only have minutes to get out. We would be sitting ducks in the valley. Adding more huge developments and more people in this corridor is only going to make it worse. How about water issues? The development would increase runoff and pollution. The Glen Canyon Dam is also at a low point and close to hitting the point where it can no longer produce power. We need to think long and hard about how to manage our water for the future. Las Vegas is a good example, as they have decreased water use since the 1980's while increasing their population. People live here for the beauty and outdoors. Adding a dense development such as this one will take away from the beauty of the valley. The population in this valley can only increase so much before we lose the beauty, clean air, and water that we need. The development will also increase the strain on schools, fire protection, EMS, and utilities. Development of this scale would endanger wildlife and rid them of breeding and migration grounds. We must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well- being. Please reject this development and protect the Cattle Creek Confluence. Thank you, Sarah Greenholz Subject: Cattle Creek Proposed Development Name: Doug Greenholz Email: doug.greenholz@gmail.com Phone Number: (303) 868-8211 Message: Dear Commissioner Will 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Doug Greenholz Subject: HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Katie Dyal Email: kdyal9@yahoo.com Phone number: Message: Dear Mr. Samson I am writing with deep concern about the proposed large-scale development, HARVEST ROARING FORK, at the Cattle Creek Confiuence, 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 Garfleld 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 stretch emergency response capacity. That’s area saw flres last year and if the snow fall this year is signs of what’s to come, flres are a deflnite risk. 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. We already are hitting maximum capacity on water table reservoirs in summers. This is a serious concern for me and should be for you as well. 3. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity. This is just silliness. Approving a much smaller project such as half that many residential units could possibly be maintained. I also work in the travel scene here and there’s no lack of hotels… we deflnitely don’t need any more of those. And why are we not turning to the old city market area for more retail space if that’s what residents are wanting? 4. Public Services & Community Costs The proposal does not account for the strain on schools, flre protection, EMS, and utilities. This leaves existing taxpayers and communities to absorb the costs of growth. 5. Ecosystems & Wildlife The most important variable in my opinion is the rich ecological corridor at confiuence, 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 Garfleld 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 Confiuence for current and future generations. Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the Roaring Fork Valley. Sincerely, Katie Dear Mr. Leybourne, 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. I grew up living above Cattle Creek, and have seen the massive degradation to wildlife habitat, quality of life for local residents, and massive traffic impacts that large scale developments create in my 44 years here. 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Collin Arnold Carbondale 970-948-4402 Subject: HARVEST ROARING FORK Name: David Sundseth Email: dsundseth@gmail.com Phone number: 18089368726 Message: Please do not let the harvest development happen. The elk winter there every year and it is such a valuable open space. Dear John Leybourne, I was born at Aspen Valley Hospital and currently live just outside of Carbondale. I have been watching the continuous change to the valley over the years. 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Anna Dear Mr. Leybourne, 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Callie Brignolo Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Name: LISA Sansom Email: lisesansom@aol.com Phone number: 19700480466 Message: Dear Commissioners and Planners, We have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 47 years, 38 of those as homeowners in Cattle Creek (113 Road.) I am writing to express our concern about the proposed development, Harvest Roaring Fork. I have been commuting to teach in Aspen for 33 years. Traffic in the last few years has become horrendous and I cannot imagine what it will be like with a development of this magnitude. The already failing intersections will not be able to safely handle more volume. I am all in favor of constructing AFFORDABLE housing in the valley. Many of my co-workers and my own family members cannot afford to stay in the valley, even with decent paying employment. Harvest Roaring Fork is not affordable. $300,000 for a tiny studio and other houses over a million? This is not worker’s wages. There are other more practical alternatives. As I look at their newspaper advertisements that ask people to sign on to a wait list, I cannot fathom how they are promoting a rural eco friendly development. Sure, the picture shows a beautiful pasture open space now, but not after you cram 1500+ housing units, hotel , etc. into that space. Please don’t make this valley into a city devoid of wildlife and all the things that make it such a special place. The winter elk range and riparian zones are critical here. Water is always a concern, especially this year. Please consider the true amount of water 1500+ homes ,hotel and retail will use. Development along the river will further stress the fish and wildlife. Many years of drought and several nearby wildfires (Panorama, Grizzy Creek, Fisher Creek, and Basalt Mountain, all within a 10 mile radius) have caused us to be extra fire conscious. It seems the lack of egress and the pressure of so much development will have a disastrous outcome to new and current residents. The county roads in this area and highway 82 could not handle evacuation traffic especially with the added amount of Harvest Roaring Fork vehicles. Please keep these concerns in mind when determining if the Harvest RF Development project is right for our rural area and quality of environment. Sincerely yours, Lisa Sansom Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Stephanie Eiseman Email: manone.stephanie@gmail.com Phone Number: (239) 898-2020 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 375ADU’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, Stephanie Eiseman Subject: Please DO NOT APPROVE the Harvest Name: Abby Hammer Email: ahammer52@gmail.com Phone Number: (720) 323-2848 Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann, I’m writing not only as a resident of Garfield County but as a nurse who sees the consequences of our community’s choices every single day. In the emergency department, we already witness far too many car accidents and heartbreak on Highway 82. I can’t help but think about the lives that would be at even greater risk if more traffic is added to a road that’s already dangerous. This county has always been a place where people come to breathe—to find peace, space, and connection with the land and the animals that share it with us. It’s rural, it’s quiet, and it’s cherished for exactly those reasons. The Harvest Development would take away the very things that make Garfield County what it is. We don’t need more sprawl, more cars, and more strain on our community. We need to protect the spirit of this place—the land, the safety, and the people who love it. I urge you from the heart to oppose this ordinance and stand with those of us who call this county home for what it truly represents. Thank you for listening and for caring about the community you serve. Sincerely, Abby Hammer Carbondale, Co Subject: STOP HARVEST ROARING FORK Name: Jonathan Stokely Email: stokelyj@gmail.com Phone number: 14176894329 Message: Hello, I am a long time resident of Carbondale and now Glenwood springs. I am a boater, fisherman, hiker, and hunter. I am STRONGLY against the Cattle Creek Development. Its literally called Harvest Roaring Fork which means they are going to Harvest the last remaining beauty our valley still has. We don’t have the water, infrastructure, or literally anything to support the development. We need to keep the rich elite out of our valley, and this is only creating a better attraction for them to continue our gorgeous backyards destruction. Not to mention giving billionaire developers more money to rape and pillage our natural resources. You all are nuts to even be considering this. Not to mention, do you want to give that many more blue votes to GARCO? - Jonathan Stokely Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Development Name: Judith Blanchard Email: judiebee@icloud.com Phone Number: (970) 963-5779 Message: I urge you to deny the proposed development of Harvest Roaring Fork LLC, This development would add 1,500 residential units, plus 375 Accessory Dwelling Units, 55,000 square feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel on 283+/- acres at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. This project, a small urban city along the banks of an invaluable stretch of the Roaring Fork River, would jeopardize our already compromised traffic flow, threaten water quality, disrupt wildlife habitat and destroy the rural character of unincorporated Garfield County. Once it’s gone—it’s gone for good. Subject: Cattle creek subdivision Name: Susan Nicholson Email: fivestarevents@sopris.net Phone Number: Message: Dear Commissioner, Please vote NO on this proposed subdivision. Have any of you driven Highway 82 lately? Besides the traffic starting to look like horrible LA what is going to happen to the animals and migration? Water? Blithe on the land? Cars? Emissions? Save this valley PLEASE. Also think of your re-election. The people of this valley do not want this. Please don't make us all want to move away, I have been here over 40 years. Thanks for your consideration. Susan Nicholson Subject: Proposed Cattle Creek Development Name: David Badesch Email: David.Badesch@comcast.net Phone Number: (303) 880-8808 Message: 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 375 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. David and Melanie Badesch 108 Gossamer Road Elk Springs Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Hilary Back Email: hilary@backtobalancedoc.com Phone number: (970) 963-1278 Message: Dear Mike, 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, Hilary Back Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork Development Name: Nick Abrams Email: naabrams@gmail.com Phone Number: 5105936465 Message: Commissioner Will, As local residents, producers, hunters, and conservationists, we are writing to express our opposition to the Harvest Roaring Fork Development. While we support more limited development specifically to support workforce, teachers, and public safety community members, this proposal is an urban city shoehorned into a rural corridor. My opposition is supported by the following specific findings: Traffic & Safety Gridlock: The developer’s own traffic study estimates over 11,900 new daily vehicle trips—a 50% increase on Highway 82. The proposed "Michigan U-Turns" and two new traffic lights will create a permanent bottleneck. For those of us reliant on Highway 82 as a primary wildfire evacuation route, this level of density is a life-safety risk. Wildlife Crisis: This site is one of the last remaining winter habitats for a herd of approximately 120–150 elk in the lower valley. As a conservationist, we know that this range is already impact by 82 and that it will be further fragmented by 1,500 units and a 120-room hotel, these herds will be displaced with nowhere else to go. School & Infrastructure Strain: Adding an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 new residents without a dedicated school site or expansion plan will overwhelm the Roaring Fork School District. Furthermore, only 10% of units are price-capped "mitigation units"; the rest are "market- rate workforce" units (projected up to $1.5M), which fails to truly serve our most essential service workers. Incompatible Density: The proposed density of nearly 8 units per acre (on developable land) is unprecedented for this area. I urge you to uphold the integrity of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and reject this proposal. GarCo's rural character, agricultural heritage, and environmental resources are what makes this a special place for us to live, produce, and raise our family and we do not want to see these values jeopardized. Thank you for your consideration, Nick and Katie Abrams Missouri Heights P.O. BOX 4112 Basalt, CO 81621 February 9, 2026 John Leybourne, Planner III Garfleld County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 jleybourne@garfleldcountyco.gov RE: Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Dear John, The Roaring Fork Fishing Guide Alliance (Alliance) is providing comments on the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application. The Alliance is a group of professional guides dedicated to the protection and conservation of flsheries in the Roaring Fork region. The proposed development and its associated utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are of particular concern to the Alliance. The utility crossing the Roaring Fork will involve in-river construction, wetland disturbance, and permanent infrastructure within the river corridor. The construction is currently planned for late summer during a time when the river is busy with both commercial and private users. How will the construction efforts effectively handle river traffic and safe boat passage? How will sediment levels and turbidity be monitored and minimized to ensure the river downstream is ‘blown out’? The current proposed location of the utility crossing will intersect the great blue heron rookery, one of the most sensitive areas on the Roaring Fork Conservancy’s conservation easement within the Harvest Roaring Fork property. While impacts are described as temporary and mitigation measures are proposed, the Alliance has concerns about the long-term effects of the utility crossing in its current location. In addition, we have concerns about river health related to stormwater runoff entering the river. The proposal lacks a sufficient stormwater drainage plan, representing a signiflcant threat to the ecological health of the Roaring Fork and degradation of water quality. The Cattle Creek confiuence and associated 54-acre conservation easement held by Roaring Fork Conservancy is a thriving ecological corridor, home to bald eagles, great blue herons, waterfowl, elk, deer, Ute ladies’ tresses (orchids) and numerous other plant and wildlife species. While the conservation easement does not allow for any public access, a development of this size greatly increases the potential for the great blue herons and all other important wildlife species to be lost forever. Many of us realize that wildlife will not simply ‘go somewhere else’. As representatives of professional guides and the flshing public, we encourage Garfleld County planners and commissioners to reject this application. Approval of such a large development would change the character of the lower valley forever and greatly compromise one of the most special and ecologically important areas in the watershed. Saying ‘no’ to Harvest Roaring Fork will ensure the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries remain healthy, resilient, and flshable for future generations. Sincerely, Roaring Fork Fishing Guide Alliance Board Subject: Harvest Development Name: Bob Anderson Email: bnderson@gmail.com Phone Number: (970) 319-8271 Message: This message is in regard to the harvest development now proposed off of Highway 82 in Glenwood Springs and the previous Skokos Development known as river edge. To whom it may concern; planning/zoning, elected council members The proposed development of 1500 units and a hotel is way out of character for this prestigious valley, and the previous land use zoning expired which was only contemplated for 300 + units. Richard Myers has done harm to Gws, and the tree farm area with its expansion of development. This plan will cause harm to the views, the land, and the more importantly the traffic. Have you sat in the traffic lines in the basalt area? Eagle county allowed Richard to build and now its a total mess. If you allow his group to build on this site with this kind of density, it will absolutely destroy the character and essence of this valley. Please do not allow this to happen here....not to this road area, not to this view, not to this increase in traffic. Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Name: Alison Richman Email: squab7@aim.com Phone number: 19703790440 Message: February 11th 2026 Re: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork Development in PUD To all County Commissioners’ & Community Developer, 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. There are many key reasons as to why this small city should not be allowed to be constructed. One very interesting item that needs to not be forgotten is that the original land use zoning was for @370 homes and now the developer has let the expiration to that zoning expire as to push for a huge development. Key reasons as to why this should not be allowed: 1. Traffic & Safety – per highway 82 2. Infrastructure to support this massive city 3. Clean Water availability in addition to residents pollution 4. Open space for wildlife 5. Proposed proximity to the river 6. Flooding the valley with residents of which could significantly alter the pay scales in the valley of which are already in flux 7. Public services, grocery, garbage, pollution, Crime 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. 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. Additionally, I did vote for you and this is NOT something I would vote for rather against so if you really are doing the right thing for your constituents then the answer is an easy NO GO. Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Sincerely, Alison Richman 970-379-0440 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commissioners Attn: John Leyborne, Planner III 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via e-mail to jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov RE: PUDA -12-24-9084 and PUDA -07-25-9079 Dear Commissioners, After reviewing the above noted applications, I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend denial and BOCC to deny the above-noted applications. The applications are technically flawed, have significant omissions and are inconsistent with the LUC and Comprehensive Plan. The following issues should be addressed prior to any application on this property preceding forward. Scale – A project of this scale, without municipal services, is inappropriate in a semi-rural location. With upwards of 1875 dwelling units, the resident population could be upwards of 4875 people (2.5 persons/D.U.) For comparison, the population of Silt is 3575 (2023 census estimate) and the New Castle population is 4878. On 230 acres, the population density would be approximately eight units/acre. Glenwood Springs by virtue of parks, open space, rivers, and streets has a density of 1.2 units per acre. A project of this scale is not appropriate for this site and should only be placed in an urban context with urban level infrastructure. Imagine placing the population of Silt or New Castle on a 230-acre parcel. Transportation/TraƯic- Without any services (albeit a hotel and limited commercial square footage) Harvest will be an automobile dependent community. Generating 10 to 12,000 daily trips onto Hwy. 82, it will increase existing traƯic volumes by upwards of 50%. It will increase congestion, denigrate air quality, diminish functionality and levels of service negatively up and down the valley. The traƯic study should address the impacts of the project the length of the valley. How will this project impact the evening queue into Glenwood that currently can extend to the CR 109 intersection with HWY 82? The potential increase in traƯic from Harvest, when coupled with other background traƯic growth is simply unfathomable. RFTA has estimated that it will cost an additional $2.5 million annually to service the additional transit demand that Harvest would generate. With the nearest bus stops at CR 154/ HWY 82 intersection, RFTA has targeted infrastructure improvements including station upgrades and pedestrian underpass improvements. It would be incumbent on the applicants to contribute a portion of the associated capital costs for these infrastructure improvements in addition to annual operating costs. As long as Garfield County is not a RFTA member, capital costs will be born by development interests. Wildlife Impacts – As we have consumed the valley floor with housing and other land uses, Harvest is one of, if not the last, large remaining parcels left in the RFV in Garfield County. Coupled with its high-quality riparian habitat, it has become a significant winter habitat for deer, elk, other mammals, and bird life. With the upland portion of the property proposed for development, it will become functionally unusable by elk, deer and other mammal and bird species that reside there. We are running out of places for our game and non-game species to relocate on the Roaring Fork Valley floor. I dispute the applicants claim that the development will not harm deer and elk populations. Highway 82 deer and elk mortality will only worsen as they are forced elsewhere unless we make wildlife specific improvements first.Before we consider any more development here or elsewhere in the Roaring Fork Valley, we need to implement a comprehensive program of habitat connectivity, wildlife fencing and crossings and eliminate HWY 82 as a lethal threat. Otherwise, the wildlife that we all value will be reduced significantly. Environmental Impact – The application proposes no treatment of stormwater from the project. but channeling water directly into the Roaring Fork River. The runoƯ from the developed properties and streets will denigrate the water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Sediments, petroleum products, fertilizers, dog poop will all discharge into the river. In concert with reduced flows from increased withdrawals for domestic consumption and climate change, both the flow volumes and the water quality will suƯer. Stormwater must be treated if we are to retain a healthy river. As flows decrease, temperatures in the river increase threatening aquatic species and potentially compromising blue ribbon quality waters. What is the wisdom of adding 10 to 12 thousand more vehicle trips on Highway 82 adding both to congestion and air quality degradation? More particulates and greenhouse gases? Warming up our already warming valley and further reducing our frost-free days? This is not responsible growth. Where is the solar energy component, grey water systems, raw water irrigation and transit stations? In 2026 we can no longer aƯord to simply follow the standard development paradigm. Workforce Housing – We all acknowledge that we have a shortage of workforce housing in our valley. However, creating up to 1875 housing units in an area without any urban infrastructure is foolhardy. Who will provide police services, where will they recreate, go to the library, schools, and shopping? They will drive to Glenwood and Carbondale for all their needs, creating congestion, burdens, and expense for neighboring towns. Does Garfield County have the staƯing and resources to support this type of urban growth? Meeting the County’s minimum requirement of 10% workforce housing is insuƯicient. Providing additional market rate housing for resident workers is not a realistic and reliable solution to our housing needs. How many potential residents could truly aƯord purchasing homes in this community? And then the added burden of metro district, HOA, and transfer fees? Urban scale growth belongs in urban communities. This scale of Harvest cannot be supported in it’s proposed location. Workforce housing belongs where jobs and infrastructure are to support them. Disconnecting jobs, services/infrastructure and housing is a flawed recipe. Our communities up and down the Roaring Fork and Colorado River valleys are doing an admirable job in creating attainable housing. Simply adding to the supply without controls will not provide solutions to workforce housing shortages. Fiscal Impacts – The application does not address the fiscal impacts that the development as proposed would create. What are the impacts on the County, schools, CDOT, adjacent communities, fire districts, RFTA, landfills, etc.? Will these costs be born by the development interests, the prospective homeowners, or existing taxpayers? This type of analysis should be a pre-requisite to any development of this scale in order to have an informed discussion and analysis of this project. We can and must do better utilizing our limited lands in the Roaring Fork Valley. Please deny these applications. Sincerely, Andrew McGregor Subject: Harvest RFV proposal Name: Shannon Campbell Email: scampbell14302@gmil.com Phone number: (970) 309-7177 Message: I am concerned about the scope of the development that is being considered between Glenwood and Carbondale. It is too large and I have concerns about how it will affect the infrastructure and quality of life in both Glenwood and Carbondale. We do not want another Willits here, and there is already so much growth, our valley is not recognizable. This will affect the water quality, recreation, driving and educational situation. It needs to be scaled back significantly. We have lived in Glenwood for over 30 years and love this valley, but have significant concerns regarding the scope of the growth and issues this development will bring. Think about the citizens already living here. NO on Harverst RFV. Subject: Harvest Development Name: Megan Chester Email: maddy@rof.net Phone Number: 9703795777 Message: Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Dear Commissioner, As a 35 year resident of the valley, 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 hotel, and 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, Megan Chester 275 Sierra Vista,Carbondale, Colorado 1 CATTLE CREEK CONFLUENCE COALITION MEMORANDUM HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD – LAND USE CODE COMPLIANCE FAILURES I. Summary of Findings The Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) establishes mandatory requirements that an applicant must satisfy before The Planning Commission can recommend approval of a PUD Application. These requirements are not discretionary. They are as follows: a. LUDC Section 6-101.A.: “PUDs must be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.” b. LUDC Section 6-202. B.1.c.: “The approved PUD zoning and the approved PUD Plan are inseparable. PUD zoning shall not be approved without the approval of the related PUD Plan documents.” c. LUDC Section 6-2-202.C.: “An application for PUD Zoning shall meet the following criteria: 1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD meets the purpose and applicability of this Code, as provided in section 6-101.A. and B. 2. Development Standards. The PUD meets the Development Standards as provided in section 6-401. 3. Standards, Article 7. The PUD meets the standards within Article 7, Division 1, excluding 7-101. 4. Rezoning Criteria. The PUD meets the Rezoning Review Criteria in section 4- 113.C. 5. Established Zoning Standards. The PUD Plan adequately establishes uses and standards governing the development, density, and intensity of land use by means of dimensional or other standards.” Under Section 4-101.F.2. of the LUDC, “If the application fails to satisfy any one (1) of the applicable requirements and compliance cannot be achieved through conditions of approval, the recommending body shall recommend that the application be denied.” (emphasis added). In this case, the recommending body is the Planning Commission. Pursuant to LUDC Section 1- 108.B.3.: “The word ‘shall’ is always mandatory.” Accordingly, the Planning Commission would abuse its discretion and exceed its jurisdiction if it failed to recommend denial of the Harvest Roaring Fork (HRF) Application based on any one of the thirteen following failures under the LUDC: 2 1. The PUD Application is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by LUDC Section 6-101.A. The HRF PUD Application exceeds the maximum density of 5.8 units per acre. It includes commercial uses that are not contemplated under the RH land use designation. It is not consistent with the underlying RS zoning of one unit per 20,000 square feet. It is not consistent with the rural character of the area and the existing density of surrounding properties. The PUD does not use clustering or other mechanisms to achieve the higher density. 2. The PUD Application does not satisfy Section 6-202. B.1.c. PUD zoning and the PUD Plan are inseparable; zoning approval requires simultaneous approval of the Plan documents. Because HRF has failed to submit detailed PUD documents that meet the specific development criteria under the LUDC standards, including a Phasing Plan, PUD Map, Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, and Landscaping Plan, an essential requirement under Section 6-2-2.B.1.c is missing. 3. The PUD Application does not meet the criteria under LUDC Section 6-2- 202.C. The PUD Application does not meet the purpose and applicability of this Code, as provided in Section 6-101.A. and B, because it is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, does not meet the Development Standards as required in Section 6- 401, does not meet the standards within Article 7, Division 1, and does not adequately establish uses and standards governing the development, density, and intensity of land use by means of dimensional or other standards. 4. The PUD Application does not meet the Design Standards of Article 7 Division 1. There is no detailed road plan required by Section 7-107. The PUD’s proposed land uses do not conform to, nor are they compatible with the nature, scale, and intensity of adjacent land uses as required by Section 7-103. 5. The PUD Application does not meet the Rezoning Review Criteria in Section 4-113.C. The PUD rezoning does not result in a “logical and orderly development pattern.” To the contrary, the proposed density of the development far exceeds the permissible density under the RS zone district, is inconsistent with existing adjacent residential developments, and is far in excess of that contemplated under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning also fails to address “a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing.” The development will exacerbate traffic congestion on Highway 82, will not provide effective mass transit services, and will not meet the community demand for affordable housing. The housing demand generated by the development itself will exceed the 10% affordable mitigation housing proposed by the developer. 3 6. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-401.I. Phasing Plan Requirement. HRF has not submitted a binding Phasing Plan with firm contractual deadlines for the completion of the various project phases. 7. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-301 and 302 PUD Map Requirement. The PUD Map does not show the location, acreage, type, and densities of all proposed land uses, lots, building sites, rights of way, easements, designation of building envelopes, open space, and designation of flood or other hazard areas shown by location and dimension. 8. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.B. PUD Site Plan Requirement. There is no Site Plan showing the topography, storm drainage, parking areas, driveways, emergency turn-outs, sidewalks, paths, existing and proposed roads, utility lines, easements and rights-of-way, location and dimension of all existing and proposed structures, elevation drawings showing existing grade, finished grade, and height of the proposed structures, location and size of sewer service lines and treatment facilities, the location and size of water lines, and location and size of signs. 9. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.E. PUD Grading and Drainage Plan Requirement. No detailed Grading and Drainage Plan was submitted. 10. The PUD Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.F. PUD Landscaping Plan Requirement. No detailed Landscaping Plan was submitted. 11. The PUD Relies on “Form Based Zoning”. Form based zoning is not a recognized or adopted type of zoning under the LUDC or the Comprehensive Plan. 12. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Overrides the LUDC’s Conflict Provisions. The proposed PUD Guide would prevail over conflicting or more stringent public health and safety requirements under the LUDC. 13. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Overrides the LUDC’s PUD Amendment Procedures. The proposed PUD Guide would dictate what amendments to the PUD are deemed minor and deprive the Planning Director of making that decision, including increasing building heights, realigning streets, reducing lot line setbacks, decreasing landscaping, and other significant amendments. The Applicant’s forgoing failures mandate denial of this Application. 4 II. Detailed Analysis of Relevant Criteria for Review 1. The PUD is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, LUDC Section 6-101.A. Standard for Decision: “PUDs must be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.” Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan calls out this property for Residential High (RH) density. Upon revocation of the existing PUD, the property will revert to Residential Suburban (RS) zoning. RS zoning contemplates “low-density suburban residential uses developed to maintain a rural character” with minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and 50% lot coverage. Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Urban (RU), Residential Mobile Home Park (RMHP), and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are considered compatible zoning districts under the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan sets the maximum density limits for RH at one (1) dwelling unit per 7,500 sq. ft. (i.e. 5.8 dwelling units per acre) to one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres. HRF has an average density of 8.9 units per acre based on their Neighborhood Standards. This density ranges from a minimum of 6 units per acre up to 15 units per acre. These figures also include the 54 acres of the conservation easement which is undevelopable under any circumstance. If the conservation easement is excluded, the average density increases to 10.6 units per acre. This also assumes 1,500 total units. If 375 ADUs are included, the density increases even further. The proposed density is twice that contemplated under the Comprehensive Plan and is therefore non-compliant. The Applicant’s density table is set out below: 5 2. The PUD Application does not satisfy Section 6-202.B.1.c. Standard for Decision: “The approved PUD zoning and the approved PUD Plan are inseparable. PUD zoning shall not be approved without the approval of the related PUD Plan documents.” Analysis: The PUD zoning and the PUD Plan documents must be approved together. Because HRF has failed to submit a detailed Phasing Plan, PUD Map, Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, and Landscaping Plan that meet the specific development criteria under the LUDC standards, a mandatory requirement under Section 6-2-2.B.1.c is missing. 3. The PUD Application does not meet the criteria under LUDC Section 6-2- 202.C.1 through 5. Standard for Decision: “An application for PUD Zoning shall meet the following criteria: Requirement 1 - Section 6-2-202.C.1. Purpose and Applicability. The PUD must meet the purpose and applicability of this Code, as provided in section 6- 101.A. and B. Analysis: The PUD Application does not meet the purpose and applicability of the Code, as required in Section 6-101.A. “PUDs must be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.” The Application fails because it does not comply with or conform to the Comprehensive Plan due to higher than permitted density (average 8.9 units per acre when the maximum is 5.8 units per acre). Requirement 2 - Section 6-2-202.C.2. Development Standards. The PUD must meet the Development Standards as provided in Section 6-401. Pursuant to Section 6-401, “[T]he PUD Plan shall meet the following criteria: 6-401.A. Permitted Uses. 1. Permitted uses within the PUD are all uses that are either permitted in the underlying zone district or are in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: Residential uses are permitted in the underlying RS Zone District, but the proposed density of the residential uses does not generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan. HRF proposes 55,000 square feet of commercial uses and a 6 120 room three-story hotel. Commercial and lodging uses are not permitted uses in the underlying RS zone district and are subject to either limited or major impact review. The density of nonresidential development allowed within a PUD shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan and shall not exceed the level that can be adequately served by public facilities. The proposed nonresidential density (i.e. commercial) does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan as described above. 6-401.B. Off-Street Parking. The PUD shall provide parking areas adequate in terms of location, area, circulation, safety, convenience, separation, and screening. Analysis: There is no defined parking plan for the project because there is no PUD Map or Site Plan that shows the proposed parking based on the conceptual guidelines submitted by HRF. 6-401.C. Density. Nonresidential Density. The density of nonresidential development allowed within a PUD shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan and shall not exceed the level that can be adequately served by public facilities. 2. Residential Density. a. Residential density shall be no greater than 2 dwelling units per gross acre within the PUD; provided, that the BOCC may allow an increase to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per gross acre in areas where public water and sewer systems, owned and operated by a municipal government or special district, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-103(20) are readily available. b. Residential density shall be calculated by summing the number of residential dwelling units planned within the boundary of the PUD and dividing by the total gross area expressed in acres within the boundary of the PUD. Averaging and transferring of densities within the PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of conformance with the purposes of this section through appropriate design features within the PUD that will achieve high standards of design and livability. Analysis: The proposed residential density is approximately 8.9 units per acre with some areas at 15 units per acre. This exceeds the Comprehensive Plan and does not conform with the RS Zone or adjacent uses. The BOCC may allow up to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre where public water and sewer systems are available, provided that averaging and transferring of densities within the 7 PUD shall be allowed upon a showing of appropriate design features within the PUD that will achieve high standards of design and livability. The Comprehensive Plan describes how density transfers can be accomplished by clustering. “For densities that encompass a range, the maximum density can be achieved through a combined process of land conservation and clustering (refer to Figure 4) in coordination with the conservation framework lands and/ or other significant public benefits.” Figure 4 is set out below: Figure 4: Hypothetical comparison of clustering options on a thirty (30) acre parcel with a Medium High (MH) Future Land Use Designation (one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) to six (6) acres). HRF is not proposing clustering or conservation of property to achieve higher densities on any portions of the property. 4. The PUD Application does not meet the Design Standards of Article 7 Division 1. Requirement 3 - Section 6-2-202.C.3. Standards of Article 7, Division 1. Standard for Decision: The PUD must meet the standards within Article 7, Division 1, excluding 7-101. 7-102: The Land Use Change is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and complies with any applicable intergovernmental agreement. Analysis: The PUD is not in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as described above. 7-103: The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses. 8 Analysis: The PUD’s proposed land uses do not conform to, nor are they compatible with the nature, scale, and intensity of adjacent land uses. Adjacent residential development has substantially lower density and much higher levels of preserved open space and greenbelts. Aspen Glen has average density of one residential unit per 2.25 acres (429 units on 965 acres). Iron Bridge has an average density of one unit per 1.7 acres (322 units on 533 acres). Even the adjacent Cavern Springs mobile home park has a lower overall density than HRF with a density of 7 units per acre (98 units on 13.85 acres). The residential property to the south has two units on 80 acres. Adjacent commercial properties are small- scale retail and service businesses. 7-107: All roads shall be designed to provide for adequate and safe access and shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. Analysis: The internal roads proposed by HRF have not been finalized beyond a purely conceptual stage. While the submittal does lay out generic defined standards, the roads themselves are not accurately depicted on any map or plan for the overall property. Thus, the actual roads have not been designed to provide for adequate and safe access sufficient for review by the County Engineer. See below: 9 5. The PUD Application does not meet the Rezoning Review Criteria in Section 4- 113.C. Requirement 4 – Section 6-2-202.C.3. Rezoning Review Criteria Section 4- 113.C. Standard for Decision: The PUD must meet the Rezoning Review Criteria in Section 4-113.C. An application for rezoning shall demonstrate that the following criteria have been met: 1. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and would not constitute spot zoning; 2. The area to which the proposed rezoning would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; 3. The proposed rezoning addresses a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or housing; and 4. The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement. Analysis: The PUD rezoning does not result in a “logical and orderly development pattern.” To the contrary, the proposed density of the development far exceeds the permissible density under the RS zone district, is inconsistent with existing adjacent residential developments, and is far in excess of that contemplated under the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning also fails to address “a demonstrated community need with respect to facilities, services, or 10 housing.” The development will exacerbate traffic congestion on Highway 82, will not provide effective mass transit services, and will not meet the community demand for affordable housing. The housing demand generated by the development itself will exceed the 10% mitigation housing proposed by the developer. 6. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-401.I. Phasing Plan Requirement. Standard for Decision: Section 6-4-1.I. Phasing. “Each phase within a PUD shall be planned and related to existing surrounding and available facilities and services so that failure to proceed to a subsequent phase will not have a substantially adverse impact on the prior and future phases of the PUD or its surroundings.” Analysis: HRF has not submitted a well-defined or binding phasing plan. While HRF sets target dates for various portions of the project running from July 2026 through December 31, 2042, HRF expressly disclaims any firm commitment to the phasing of the project. To wit: “The time frame for each phase listed above is a good-faith estimate… If the phase is not 100% complete by the estimated end date in the time frame, Harvest may extend that estimated time frame when it next submits a preliminary plan application for that phase or simply by informing the County of the new estimated time frame. Given the scale of the proposed project and the adaptable nature of the proposed PUD, any delay in completing a phase, change in phasing schedule/ order, or a failure to proceed to a subsequent phase, will not have a substantially adverse impact on the prior and future phases of the PUD or its surroundings. As described in this phasing plan, it is acknowledged that detailed phasing for this project is subject to market influences that cannot be forecast with any relative certainty.” The lack of any firm phasing plan is not compliant with the LUDC. 7. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 6-301 and 302 PUD Map Requirement. Standard for Decision: Table 6-301 Application Submittal Requirements: 11 Section 6-302.D. PUD Plan Map. “The map of the PUD Plan shall be drawn at a scale of 1inch equals 100 feet or a scale approved by the Director which clearly shows the entire proposal.” This shall include Location, acreage and type of all land uses and proposed densities; Location, acreage and type of land to be held in common, Open Space devoted to community use, and land to be dedicated for public use, including school sites; Location and acreage of all rights of way, accesses and easements including the names and dimensions of each road; Uses and grantees of all existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way on or adjacent to the parcel, shown by location and dimension; Location and description of monuments; Primary control points; Gross and net acreage of individual lots or sites; Designation of any Building Envelopes; Designation of any flood or other Hazard Area; Certification of title showing the Applicant is the land owner or option-holder; Lienholder consent, if applicable; Certification by the project surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the survey and Plat; Certification for approval of the BOCC; and Certification for the County Clerk and Recorder. See also, Requirement 5 - Section 6-2-202.C.5. Established Zoning Standards. Analysis: The PUD Map must adequately establish uses and standards governing development, density, and intensity of land use by means of dimensional or other standards as described above. Because the applicant has not submitted a PUD Map meeting the forgoing standards, this requirement has not been met. 12 8. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.D. PUD Site Plan Requirement. Standard for Decision: Section 4-201.A. Required Submissions. “This Division identifies the application materials required by this Code, including some submittal materials required for Article, 5, Divisions of Land. Section 4- 203.D. Site Plan.” “The Site Plan shall include the following elements:” existing and proposed topographic contours at vertical intervals sufficient to show the topography affecting the development and storm drainage; existing and proposed parking areas, driveways, emergency turn-outs and emergency turnarounds, sidewalks, and paths, shown by location and dimension; existing and proposed roads, railroad tracks, irrigation ditches, fences, and utility lines on or adjacent to the parcel, shown by location and dimension; users and grantees of all existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way on or adjacent to the parcel, shown by location and dimension; location and dimension of all structures, existing and proposed, and distance of structures from property lines; elevation drawings showing existing grade, Finished Grade, and height of the proposed structures above existing grade; location and size of leach field, sewer service lines, and treatment facilities to serve the proposed use; the source and capacity of the water supply, including location and size of water lines to serve the proposed use; and location and size of signs for the purpose of identification, advertising, and traffic control. Analysis: In this case, the Planning Director specifically advised the Applicant that a Site Plan would be required due to his determination that this Application was a Substantial Modification. See, Letter re: Pre-Application Conference Summary dated 10/30/2024. Section 6-301 also specifically calls for a Site Plan as part of the PUD Zoning Application submittal process. HRF has not submitted a PUD Map or a Site Plan that identifies any of the forgoing with the required detail or specificity. These requirements are mandatory, and HRF has not requested a waiver. Instead HRF states as follows: “Due to the number of jurisdictional entities and requirements, and that Harvest is large and will develop in phases over a period of years, not all of the information normally submitted with a zoning application is known or available at the time of submittal. For this reason, the following items shall be included at the time of the application for a plat approval of a subdivision or a site plan approval.” The LUDC is unequivocal. An application “shall” include a Site Plan meeting the LUDC standards. HRF has failed to meet this requirement. 13 9. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.E. Grading and Drainage Plan. Standard for Decision: Section 4-203.E Grading and Drainage Plan - “The Grading and Drainage Plan shall include the following [23] elements:” Site Map, Drainage Structures, Topography, Grading Plan, Soil Stockpile and Snow Storage Areas, Drainage Plan, Equipment Storage Areas, Temporary Roads, Areas of Steep Slopes, Construction Schedule, Permanent Stabilization, Erosion Control Measures, Estimated Costs, Calculations, Neighboring Areas, Stormwater Management, Stormwater Management Plan, Reclamation, Revegetation and Soil Plan, Hydraulic Calculations, Maintenance Requirements, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, Additional Information or Detail, Signature Blocks. Analysis: HRF did not submit a Grading and Drainage Plan that satisfies this requirement. 10. The PUD Application Does Not Meet LUDC Section 4-203.F. Landscape Plan Requirement. Standard for Decision: Section 4-203.F. Landscape Plan: “Landscape Plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 20 feet for properties exceeding 16 acres in size, or 1 inch to 10 feet for properties less than 16 acres in size. The Landscape Plan shall demonstrate compliance with section 7-303 and shall include, at a minimum, the following [5] elements:” Topographic information at 2-foot contour intervals, Location of all lot lines, improvements, and easements, Identification of all existing trees of 6 inches in caliper or greater, and which trees will be preserved or removed and other existing vegetation with the type, location, size, and number of plants that will be installed, and specified seed mixtures, A Cost Estimate of the materials depicted in the Landscape Plan, and a proposed maintenance program. Analysis: HRF did not submit a detailed Landscape Plan as required. 11. The PUD Relies of “Form Based Zoning”. Form based zoning is not a recognized or adopted type of zoning under the LUDC or the Comprehensive Plan. Standard of Decision: In lieu of submitting a PUD Plan Map, Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, and a Landscaping Plan as required at the time of rezoning approval, HRF suggests providing the required details at the time of platting and subdivision. The LUDC does not allow this. Section 4-203 B. states that these “basic materials are required for all applications for a Land Use Change Permit.” 14 Analysis: HRF proposes adopting a PUD “Guide” in lieu of these required plans. As stated in the application cover letter: “The PUD Guide utilizes a form-based zoning outline designed to adapt to both market needs and jurisdictional approvals that will occur after the Board of County Commissioners considers this zoning request.” The PUD Guide attached as Exhibit D to the application is described as a “Neighborhood Exhibit, PUD Map, and Illustrative Concept Map.” This is intended to “establish a form-based code within the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Guide. This guide will serve as a set of rules for the property, allowing the planning staff to use these standards as a framework for evaluating and approving future development within the PUD.” Garfield County has not adopted form-based zoning, and it is not defined anywhere in the LUDC. Moreover, HRF has admitted that the “guide” set out in Exhibit D is not binding or regulatory. Exhibit D contains the following disclaimer prominently on page 3: “ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN: This plan depicts the design intent of the development but shall not constitute a regulatory document.” The application goes on to state: “NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT MAP: This map depicts two conceptual designs aligned with the proposed form based code. This map is not a regulatory document. The Applicant and County recognize that detailed site investigations and iterative planning are needed to address neighborhood form, livability, grades, views, and environmental conditions to achieve best-in-class development.” In other words, the “plan” or “guide” is not binding on the developer. This position directly contradicts HRF’s statement in its Project Description as follows: “The PUD Guide will serve as the regulatory framework guiding the community’s growth and ensuring alignment with Garfield County’ s vision for balanced, responsible development.” HRF states that “Both the Applicant and the County desired this [form based zoning] structure as appropriate for a large, long-term development.” County planning staff does not have the authority to implement a new type of form based zoning or to unilaterally waive the application requirements in the absence of a formal request for waiver. None was made. The “Site Conditions Map” contained in Exhibit D purports to substitute for the detailed information required by the LUDC. It states as follows: “SITE CONDITIONS MAP: This map depicts general site conditions, including possible geotechnical conditions typical for this area. It is provided for informational purposes only and is not a regulatory document. Given the significant amount of site grading that is contemplated, this map should not be relied upon as the basis for design, permitting, or construction decisions. Full size scalable copies of 15 this information have been submitted with this application. The Applicant' s development team will conduct additional testing and site assessments with each proposed development phase to identify specific issues and mitigation methods that will be implemented to address conditions identified during the development process.” The PUD Map, Grading and Drainage Plan, Landscaping Plan, and the Site Plan are mandatory, not optional, and no waiver of this requirement has been requested. HRF is requesting approval for 1,500 residential units of density, 375 ADUs, 55,000 square feet of commercial space, and a 120 room hotel without providing the County with any binding details about where the improvements will be located or any specific binding details about the plan for the overall development. An approval of this application would flatly contradict the mandatory requirements under the LUDC. 12. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Would Override the LUDC’s Conflict Provisions. Standard for Decision: Section 1-108 of the LUDC states: “The provisions of this Code shall be regarded as the minimum requirements for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare…If a conflict occurs between provisions of this Code, or between provisions of this Code and a State statute or other applicable codes and regulations, the more restrictive provision controls unless otherwise specified in this Code.” Analysis: Exhibit D states: “In the case of a discrepancy between this Development Ordinance [i.e. the proposed PUD Guide] and the current Garfield County Land Use Development Code, this Development Ordinance shall govern.” Exhibit D would prevail over any conflict with the LUDC even if the Code required a more stringent condition necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. 13. The Applicant’s PUD Plan Would Override the LUDC’s PUD Amendment Procedures. Standard for Decision: Section 6-203 of the LUDC provides a mechanism for amending a PUD. Minor amendments, as determined by the Planning Director, can be processed in a more expedited manner than a PUD zoning application but still require the submittal of General Application materials and a Vicinity Map. Under the LUDC, the Planning Director determines whether the amendment is minor or substantial. 16 Analysis: Exhibit D would limit the Planning Director’s discretion to decide whether a proposed amendment was minor or major by explicitly defining amendments that are considered “minor.” The Applicant contends that the following amendments to the PUD would be presumptively minor including, but not limited to: altering the alignment of the primary streets; increasing commercial space within any neighborhood up to 5,000 square feet or 10%; allowing up to 20% more single family driveways on primary streets; altering street drainage to curb and gutter storm water collection; allowing streets to be divided along the centerline to employ two different street types; increasing tree spacing within required streetscapes (i.e. reducing landscaping); allowing an increase in building height to add an additional story to one building in all but the North Riverfront and South Riverfront neighborhoods; permitting a decrease in front or rear building setbacks; altering the alignment of the Community Trail network; granting exceptions to the Dark Sky standards; and permitting uses not listed and/ or defined in the Permitted Use Table in the LUDC. Proposed Exhibit D deprives the Planning Director of the discretion to determine whether these changes are minor or major and conflicts with the LUDC. III. Conclusion The HRF Application does not meet significant mandatory requirements of the LUDC. It relies on proposed form based zoning that is not recognized and has not been adopted by the County. Due to these substantial failures, the Application must be denied. Subject: Harvest Roaring Fork LLC Name: Mercedes Brown Email: mermarbro26@gmail.com Phone Number: (517) 449-1643 Message: Hello, My name is Mercedes Brown and I am a 11 year resident in the Roaring Fork Valley. My husband and I have built a life here through years of hard work and the desire to live in such a beautiful part of our state and country. We are looking to grow a family and at the rate of which our valley continues to get developed and land flipped for profit, I am deeply saddened we will loose the meaning of why we live here. We should be so lucky to have this opportunity to live high in the mountains, with clean air, healthy water sheds and animals migrating through our backyards. The Harvest Roaring Fork development is incredibly dangerous to the livelihood of not only our people who cherish the land here but the wildlife, flora and fauna. A development size and density of the proposed plan is detrimental to our existing communities, resources and infrastructure. Our watershed, especially after considering this dry winter, cannot withstand a new sea of homes. Our current world seems to be moving at a pace without thinking about the consequences of action and I am making it my civil duty to remind our officials that we care and I will stand up for what I know is the right thing for the people in the RFV. Please for the sake of the future health of our families and wildlife, 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 time. Mercedes Brown Subject: Proposed Harvest development Name: Judith Fitzpatrick Email: judithfitz@comcast.net Phone number: 13039953719 Message: Dear Mr. Samson, Please reject the proposed development. It is totally out of scale and inappropriate for Garfield County. The valley would be ruined and highway 82 totally grid locked. Please save the Roaring Fork Valley for us and future generations. Thank you. Subject: Opposition to Harvest Roaring Fork Development in PUD Name: Jada MacDonald Email: jada.macdonald@yahoo.com Phone number: (802) 793-4114 Message: To all County Commissioners & Community Developers, I am writing with a very 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. Key reasons as to why this should not be allowed: 1. Original zoning was for 370 homes, not the large-scale development it is calling for now 2. Traffic & Safety – per highway 82 3. Infrastructure to support this massive city 4. Clean Water availability in addition to residents' pollution 5. Open space for wildlife 6. Proposed proximity to the river 7. Flooding the valley with residents, which could significantly alter the pay scales in the valley, which are already in flux 8. Public services, grocery, garbage, pollution, and crime 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. This issue extends beyond Garfield County. Water quality and quantity, an issue the Roaring Fork Valley is already facing, wildlife migration, and an increase in traffic, which again is an issue the Roaring Fork Valley is already facing, will affect the broader valley, including Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Our region must prioritize sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well-being. Why are we trying to add to already existing problems when we do not have a solution for the current state? I respectfully urge you to reject this development as proposed and to protect the Cattle Creek Confluence AND the Roaring Fork Valley for current and future generations. Thank you for your leadership and for listening to the concerns of residents across the Roaring Fork Valley. Additionally, I did vote for you, and this is NOT something I would vote for, rather against, so if you really are doing the right thing for your constituents, then the answer is an easy NO GO. PLEASE protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD. Sincerely, Jada MacDonald (802)793-4114 Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Katherine Bennas Email: katie.debesche@viceroysnowmass.com Phone number: 9703195626 Message: Dear Mr. 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, Katie Bennas February 15, 2026 Dear Garfield County Commissioners Samson, Jankovsky, and Will, I am writing to voice my concern for the proposed development “Harvest Roaring Fork”. I was planning on attending the public meeting at the end of January 2026, but now understand the date has been moved to the end of February and I will not be in town. I am unable to attend, but I would like to write and voice my concerns. I’ve lived in the valley for 40 years and have seen lots of change over the years. I’ve also changed my lifestyle as time has gone by, and I understand that change is all part of life and lifestyle. What I don’t believe in, is radical change, or change for the sake of out of town developers making money. More and more people have been, and are still, moving into the valley. That’s fine – it’s a beautiful place to live and raise a family, and enjoy life. But for just one example, we have all seen what it has done to the traffic situation on Hwy 82. There are so many bottlenecks now, up valley in the morning and down valley in the afternoon, not to mention the speeding cars and uptick in accidents. 82 has become quite dangerous; I’ve seen other developments and other developers trying to add more housing to the valley. Then when CDOT looks at these and the amount of cars to be added to the roads without getting real about the true impact they present on traffic and safety, CDOT has given these developments “F’s”. I know you all know that developers have their own traffic study people, and you’ve seen this show before. But I completely believe that this project, adding over 1500 people and their transportation, and with the “Michigan turns” on 82, is a terrible idea for safety on Hwy 82, as well as the congestion it will bring. Going through Willits can be challenging enough, without adding all of these extra cars to that “bulge in the snake”. I believe this project is like adding another Willits Town to our valley! This Harvest project is Just Too Big. Another big issue I have with Harvest is the over-the-top Zoning variance they need to get in order to build this second city. I know and remember the different proposals this area has seen over the years. And I understand how developers have been eyeing this land parcel for housing, as well as commercial land use. I do believe there is a housing shortage for employees in the valley. I’ve also always been of the belief that Aspen/Snowmass and communities up valley should house their own, and they do try. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when down valley developers play the employee housing card in order to get their developments through, developments where they themselves will not be living, and just to get more workers into the valley to work in Aspen. Also, from what I have read, (from other valley residents, as well as Harvest’s own literature) the developers are being untruthful/shifty in several ways – their “conservation” land set aside (not true), where they are getting their water from (they don’t have the rights they say they do), and just the zoning rules they want to disregard. If we as a community don‘t adhere to zoning, then why even have it?? Are we as a citizen community ok with that? I don’t think so. Way of life demands it. As others have brought up, there is also a daycare facility shortage in the valley, which I agree with. Part of the argument for Harvest is that it will build one or two more child daycare centers. I believe the land is already zoned for that use……why not build a new daycare center, and build housing for the current zoning? This Harvest proposal has so much more housing, it is actually adding to the problem instead of helping with it, even with building new daycare! That is what I see is wrong with this whole Harvest development – it ADDS to our current problems instead of making lives better. Just for the sake of adding employee housing – schools, traffic and safety, police and fire protection, grocery shopping, social services - it puts way too much strain on what we have already. And then there is the issue of our fragile ecosystem in the valley…..we are all very worried about water come this spring/summer, as the snowpack is hurting in the worst way this winter. We’ve seen extended periods of drought here; if this continues, how does this development intend to get their water? And from what I have researched and read, Harvest is not being entirely truthful when they state the water rights they have…. And not to mention the wintering grounds for our bird, deer and elk populations! That would be a whole other letter….. This letter is getting a little winded, so I’ll wrap it up. I believe the Harvest project is WAY TOO BIG and I am asking that you strongly deny it. They are asking for just too much for this to be something positive for the valley, and indeed it will be the opposite: a detriment. Sincerely, Sally Grange 1854 County Road 109, Glenwood Springs, Garfield County February 16, 2026 Garfield County Planning Commission and County Commissioners AƩn: John Leybourne, Planner III 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Via email to jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov RE: Harvest Roaring Fork, PUDA-12-24-9048 and PUDA-07-25-9079 Dear Planning Staff, Commission Members and County Commissioners, Thank you for represenƟng Garfield County residents during your review of this pending land use applicaƟon to rezone and develop the former Sanders Ranch between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. My comments at this Ɵme are limited to two focus areas regarding the applicaƟon. 1. The current proposal is INAPPROPRIATELY DENSE AND WILL HAVE SERIOUS IMPACTS on the lower Roaring Fork Valley a. The project proposes 1,500 units, or 1,950, if the 450 ADU allowance is permiƩed 450 (unclear). Based on typical household demographics, the currently vacant parcel could have a populaƟon of over 6,400 residents at build-out, plus retail and hotel acƟvity. That figure amounts to the creaƟon of a completely new and densely populated town (larger than Basalt, New Castle or Silt) but without the range of services that a town needs. The Applicant has developed very dense projects at the Tree Farm adjacent to Basalt and the LoŌs in Glenwood, either immediately adjacent or within exisƟng communiƟes. The proposed project is not in an “adjacent” or internal locaƟon and replicaƟon of that model at CaƩle Creek is not appropriate and creates a “dependent” community – dependent on vehicles (parƟcularly given RFTA’s comments) and dependent on nearby communiƟes to fill in the gaps of all the services it will lack. b. At the current scope, scale and locaƟon, the project will directly impact the services and operaƟons of the towns of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale including the roads, retail basics, medical, fire, trails, parks, and other services, and the safety and efficiency of the traveling public on Highway 82. This last very visible item would be caused by the new trips to and from the development by proposed residents, hotel and retail customers and employees, service personnel, construcƟon vehicles and more. c. The exisƟng residents in the CaƩle Creek and Roaring Fork corridors will be on the front lines of increased traffic, noise, night lighƟng, water supply and quality concerns and loss of quality of life for both humans and local wildlife, most notably the local elk herd over-wintering on this property for generaƟons. d. Yes, we have a housing shortage, due in large part to the combinaƟon of exaggerated values of exisƟng stock, inventory loss because of conversions to vacaƟon rentals, an influx of new residents since the pandemic and a resort economy that creates an upvalley-downvalley economic and housing imbalance. Glenwood and Carbondale have been approving units, but all communiƟes can contribute more to the true infill efforts and CaƩle Creek is not the silver bullet, at the expense of other community needs and standards. The project can deliver some of the products needed, but the sheer volume proposed is extreme, given that there are s Ɵll parcels within or adjacent to incorporated communiƟes that could be developed or redeveloped. e. There could be some absorpƟon by this project of some of the resident commuters that become new residents, as noted by the applicaƟon, but how many is speculaƟve and impossible to quanƟfy. It is equally possible that the housing units would by new (locally employed) residents or invesƟng or seasonal buyers (the market price units). f. Because the development company paid . a considerable sum, it does not guarantee that local land use laws and processes should automaƟcally approve and grant valuable land development rights to the buyer who made the choice to gamble on the risk. As is oŌen the case, the 1,500 (or 1,950 units) may not be the development company’s “real” number necessary to build and sell to achieve the typical 20% target profit margin. At this juncture, many of us would like to know what the developer’s “real” unit number is. Perhaps this is something the Planning Commission can ascertain as a new starƟng point. 2. The EXISTING ConservaƟon Easement is not a commodity for moneƟzaƟon and should be EXPANDED rather than diminished or undermined. a. The 53-acre conservaƟon easement protecƟng CaƩle Creek and the Roaring Fork River appears to be under threat of misuse and degradaƟon. There are several contradicƟons in the applicaƟon about protecƟon and providing trails and river access for residents and the public. The proposal needs to clarify that the river is not available for these uses. The clear intent of the easement is to protect the plant and animal communiƟes and water quality within the rare and essenƟal riparian zones of CaƩle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. b. The Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) should not be put in the difficult posiƟon of defending the easement requirements as part of this development applicaƟon process and reminding the Applicant that trails and recreaƟon are not permiƩed in addiƟon to other protecƟons. It does a disservice to an organizaƟon that is protecƟng the easement on behalf of the river system and upholding the environmental regulaƟons and ethics of our state and community. The legal condiƟons of the easement need to be upheld, respected and non-negoƟable. This was an issue that the Applicant accepted as part of the purchase of the property and it’s disappoinƟng to see how it has been portrayed as a new item the Applicant was responsible for and has some rights to amend. c. The easement needs to be fenced and protected. Rules signs will not be adequate. d. The easement should not be degraded and moneƟzed with a hotel overhanging it, parking lots abuƫng right up to it, backyard landscaping and acƟviƟes spilling into it. This item is worthy of more aƩenƟon to detail in the overall plan. If retained as products in the ApplicaƟon, at the very least, move the hotel and commercial spaces to a locaƟon not adjacent to the easement. e. The fact that a porƟon of the Roaring Fork riverbanks are owned by a different property owner, Ironbridge, needs to be more clearly represented on all of the exhibits. f. The plan needs to be modified to provide much more park and linear greenbelt space needs to be provided within the development to meet demand for resident acƟviƟes (see the current River Edge development plan, 2011, with much more open space and common area proposed). Providing these spaces will help reduce the interest of residents in using the river corridor as their recreaƟonal space and harming the plant and animal communiƟes that live in the easement. g. The CPW comments are a baseline for protecƟng local wildlife. Humans have not met the standard of care in many instances in the Roaring Fork Valley and CPW should be commended for their concern and efforts to try to keep populaƟons safe and thriving, or at least stable. The Applicant should consider CPW’s comments more seriously and requests for miƟgaƟons. h. Finally, a goal the Applicant could strive to achieve to build community support would be to EXPAND the conservaƟon easement, not diminish its value, but physically expand it. Develop a partnership with local, state and private partners to add acreage to the easement to provide winter-resƟng grounds for the resident elk herd as well as other resident species. The Eagle River preserve in central Edwards is a conservaƟon property on the old B&B gravel pit that supports up to 50 elk in the winter for their rest and feeding needs, while they move between higher ground then back down to the river boƩom. Mimic that model and gather funds to make it happen. 125 acres would be an ideal goal and fee-simple added rather than all in conservaƟon easement. Then develop the remainder of the property in the uplands, eliminate the hotel and retail, or focus on low profile design, limit lighƟng to be downcast for dark sky, build a proper interchange at CaƩle Creek. These are items that should all be on the table for discussion before handing over our valley’s very valuable development rights. Thank you for your consideraƟon of my comments and concerns. Respecƞully yours, Eileen Caryl Glenwood Springs Dear Sirs, We are 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: 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. — During a major wildfire event, the added congestion of thousands of additional cars on roads combined with inadequately scaled emergency services will likely lead to a catastrophic loss of life and property. After witnessing the tragic consequences of the California wildfires it would be grossly negligent to allow this development to proceed. Water Quality & Watershed Health — The Roaring Fork watershed is already under significant strain. A large development without robust stormwater safeguards would increase runoff, pollution, and sediment, degrading water quality for communities downstream. Rural Character & Scenic Beauty — The Developer’s self-serving pitch of conservation and affordability is an insult to the community’s intelligence. In an effort to maximize profits, they are disregarding major fire life safety issues, trying to cram a high density urban development in an environmentally sensitive area, and trying to win public sentiment by claiming they are providing affordable housing for workers while in reality 90% of the project will not be within the worker’s reach. — The proposed density — 1,500 residential units, up to 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and commercial space on 283 acres — is fundamentally incompatible with existing zoning and with the valley’s rural identity. Public Services & Community Costs — Geographic, resource and ingress/egress constraints combine to limit the natural growth within the valley. We are currently stretching the capacity of our fire, EMS, School and other public services with the current population. Adding 4,000 plus residents and 12,000 daily trips to Highway 82 to the equation is unfeasible, irresponsible and not sustainable. — 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. Ecosystems & Wildlife — Natural beauty and wildlife are some of the most important resources the Valley has to offer. Residents and tourists alike are drawn to the area for these irreplaceable resources. To scar and pollute the landscape with this high-density blight of a development will only serve to irreparably devalue some of the most precious resources our valley has to offer. — 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. Fire life safety, water quality, wildlife migration, and development precedent will affect the broader valley — including Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Our region must prioritize safe sustainable growth that protects natural resources and community well-being. We 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, Michael and Suzanne Dalton Cc: Glenn Hartmann, John Leybourne, Perry Will, Mike Samson, Tom Jankovsky Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Dear Sir: 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 450 ADU’s, a hotel, and 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, Robert Brandon 405 Skipper Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Name: Emily Burnham Email: burnham.em@gmail.com Phone number: (720) 737-9841 Message: Dear Commissioner Samson: 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, Emily Burnham Roaring Fork Resident and Educator Subject: cattle creek confluence Name: Margaret Ash Email: tiggerash1@gmail.com Phone Number: 19709485250 Message: Subject: Please Protect the Cattle Creek Confluence from Unsustainable Development from the proposed development known as the HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD Dear Mr. Hartman I’m 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, Margaret Ash