The Garfield County Planning Division staff recommended the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners deny the approval of Harvest Roaring Fork LLC’s application to build a 1,500-unit subdivision along Highway 82 between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs.
The decision was posted Feb. 19 as part of the agenda for the public hearing scheduled Feb. 25 before the Garfield County Planning Commission.
The recommendation for denial was based on numerous factors, according to the staff report, including concerns and noncompliance issues related to the developer’s proposed housing density and plans for commercial usages, water, wildlife, affordable housing, public transportation access, and impacts to traffic and other public infrastructure, among others.
“Staff supports a finding by the Planning Commission that the Application as submitted does not adequately adhere to the Comprehensive Plan’s strategies and policies on growth, including growth in unincorporated communities. In particular, the plan does not adequately address the impacts of a project the scale of Harvest Roaring Fork including transit, recreation, fiscal impacts, schools, and related public needs such as fire protection and law enforcement,” according to the staff report.
Richard Myers, the Texas-based Realty Capital developer behind Harvest Roaring Fork and owner of the 283-acre parcel of land, said on Saturday he’s been in productive discussions with county staff since the staff report was released, including working on clarification on items that “weren’t definitive enough.”
Throughout the process, Myers has emphasized the project’s ability to address the valley’s affordable housing shortage in a meaningful way.
“This mixed-use community aims to address Garfield County’s needs for sustainable growth, environmental stewardship, and attainable housing options, consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan,” writes Harvest Roaring Fork Manager Tim Coltart at the beginning of the 572-page application Planned Unit Development application submitted to Garfield County.
Myers said it’s “not unusual for staff to give county leaders different options.”
Alternatively to voting to deny the application on Feb. 25, the staff report lists other options for the commission as continuing the hearing to March 11 and a list of nine topics “that could be considered for drafting as conditions of approval.”
Those conditions include a “reduction in density” and eliminating the 120-room hotel and “reducing the provisions for such a wide range of commercial uses,” among suggestions for numerous other changes and the provision of additional information and analysis.
Acknowledging county staff took issue with a wide range of elements in the application, Myers said the staff also agreed with the vast majority of the plan presented.
“We’ve probably come closer to adhering to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan than almost any development since the plan was updated in 2020,” Myers said, adding he planned to make that point clear on Feb. 25.
“We actually feel pretty good about the discussion on Wednesday.”
But according to the staff report, the application “is not in general conformance with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.”
Many of the staff and referral agency concerns relate to a lack of detail provided on key issues.
Staff concluded, “Applicant’s analysis is not complete on physical water supply.”
A new fire station would be needed, according to the report. However, the application contained no specifics regarding timing and location.
Planners want to see more detail on the phasing of the massive build-out “to confirm that the development will be logical and orderly.”
Staff concluded the plan “doesn’t adequately address impacts of construction,” including on air quality, wildlife and traffic.
The plan doesn’t adequately consider “geologic hazards” in the form of areas prone to sinkholes.
Regarding the 55-acre conservation easement at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, staff concludes “Additional mitigation for impacts on wildlife are needed … including additional setbacks, buffering and separation from high density development.”
Public access is prohibited to the easement governed by the Roaring Fork Conservancy, but a referral letter from RFC Director Rick Lofaro notes that the developer’s project narrative states that the easement will provide residents with access to “recreation and education” along the Roaring Fork River.
“Harvest Roaring should be required to address with specificity how it intends to protect the Conservation Easements and the conservation values from negative impacts, including trespass on the easements, from such a large, dense development,” says the RFC letter.
Lofaro continues, “The proposed application involves a significant change to a historically open landscape. … While the conservation easement will remain intact, significant loss of habitat, feeding and migration corridors should be considered.”
Among other changes, the RFC recommended moving the proposed hotel site. “Including elevation considerations, the proposed hotel could be between 80 and 90 feet tall, towering over the Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River. The ecological and aesthetic impacts of such a hotel would be extremely negative,” wrote Lofaro.
According to a referral letter from Colorado Parks and Wildlife Area Wildlife Manager Matt Yamashita, “The area proposed for development is currently used by a variety of species such as mule deer, elk, river otters, black bear, raptor species, herons, and other small mammal, bird and aquatic species. This area is directly adjacent to mapped elk and mule deer critical winter range across HWY 82 to the east, and other high priority habitat for deer and elk.”
CPW also requests consideration of osprey nests, great blue heron colonies, the Gold Medal waters of the Roaring Fork, revegetation and mitigating against invasive species.
He describes the site as “one of the last undeveloped parcels on the valley floor, and a winter refuge for deer and elk.”
“With the potential for 3,000 – 6,000 new residents there will be an increased appetite for recreation on surrounding public lands and resources,” Yamashita writes. “Overall, there are potentially substantial impacts to wildlife to be considered for the Harvest Fork PUD project. CPW has concerns for both terrestrial and aquatic species in the area proposed for development, along with high potential for degradation of riparian areas currently protected under a conservation easement.”
On density, staff recommended approval of revoking the last PUD application and reverting the zoning to “Residential Suburban.”
But Harvest wants more units than what Garfield County allows.
“The proposed density of the PUD as well as the proposed variations of building heights within the are not compatible with the surrounding uses in terms of nature, scale and intensity. … The applicant’s proposal of 1,500 units exceeds the maximum in the Comprehensive Plan,” according to the staff report.
“The Application proposes a potential density that is at the very high end of the Residential High (RH) Range and appears to rely on affordable housing and a mix of housing types as the key public benefits.”
In order to justify the request for increased density, the developer needs a “much stronger commitment to public benefits,” according to county staff, and the application does not fully comply with the county’s code on affordable housing requirements.
While Harvest’s plan includes 150 deed-restricted “mitigation units” as required by the county, “the unit mix, location categories are not clear,” according to the report.
Staff also did not support the developer’s plan to phase in the affordable units with free market units, recommending to “front load” the deed-restricted affordable housing instead of one built per every 10 free market units. Staff also wanted more clarity, restrictions and enforcement guarantees on the proposed 300 “Resident Occupied” units, designated only for people working in Garfield, Pitkin, or Eagle County but carrying no income restriction or price cap.
On new subdivision roads, the report states that the application “represents that all internal roads will be dedicated to and owned by the County. This is in clear conflict with County Policies that the County is not accepting any new County Roads.”
On public transit, staff concluded, in part based on comments from RFTA, that the two existing bus stops were not adequate and not close enough to homes to be easily accessible. They recommended adding a bus stop, which was not included in the application.
On traffic — a dominant concern given existing Highway 82 congestion — staff concluded, “There appears to be a real potential for future unanticipated traffic impacts based on the size and scale of the traffic,” citing the plan’s “failure to adequately address transit needs.”
Based on a lengthy list of problems, the 49-page staff report concludes, “the request for PUD Rezoning for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.”
There are at least 67 written public comments attached to the report.
Not a single comment was submitted in support for the development.
The majority of commenters express opposition and “deep concern” about traffic, the health of the Roaring Fork River and increasing drought conditions, housing density, wildlife and environmental impacts, maintaining rural character, wildfire safety, and stress on public infrastructure and emergency services.
The public hearing will be held on Wednesday at 6 p.m. at the Colorado Mountain College Spring Valley Campus at 3000 CR 114 near Glenwood Springs. The meeting can be viewed online through a live stream.