On Wednesday, March 11, the Garfield County Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denying the application for a proposed 1,500-unit development in unincorporated Garfield County, between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs.
The commission denied the application at nearly 11:30pm, after hundreds of citizens came to the meeting in opposition to the project. Much of the time was reserved for public comment, which had not been reached at the likewise well-attended initial meeting on Feb. 25.
Held at the Colorado Mountain College Spring Valley campus’ Ascent Center, dozens of citizens raised their hands to stand at the podium to voice their opinions. Speakers ranged from locals living adjacent to the property, former local government officials, representatives of conservation groups and musical activists.
The development was originally titled Harvest Roaring Fork but was recently redubbed Harvest Village due to a local catering company already operating under the former name, which sent a cease and desist letter.
The applicant intends to create 1,500 units of mixed housing on a 283-acre property adjacent to Highway 82, formerly the Sanders ranch and the home of the old “U76” barn. The development would be the size of an entire town, housing between 3,000 and 5,000 people and offering 55,000 square feet of retail space.
The application was filed by Texas-based developer Realty Capital, which bought the property in the spring of 2024. Developer Richard Myers spoke on behalf of the company, pointing out the area’s housing needs and presenting Harvest Village as an effective solution.
Ten-percent of the units would be designated as deed-restricted affordable housing, which is the minimum required by Garfield County. An additional 300 units would not be price-restricted, but would be set aside for workers in Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin counties.
While the commissioners acknowledged the need for housing, many expressed reservations towards Harvest Village’s current high-density blueprint.
Lani Kitching, a former Carbondale trustee and chair of the State of Colorado Wildlife Council, came to the podium to speak of her own accord. Kitching argued that installation of road access and utilities, which the property currently lacks,“would cause unrecoverable damage to the surrounding ecosystem due to the instream and upland upheaval in and around the Roaring Fork River.”
Kitching pointed out that the region’s diminishing water supply would be further burdened by the development. She said it could be especially problematic in the event of “unforeseeable circumstances,” such as wildfire.
Members of the Cattle Creek Confluence Coalition (CCCC), an organization formed in opposition to the development, took up a significant portion of the public comment period.
“It is not in compliance with the land-use code,” Siri Olsen, a representative of CCCC, said. “It’s far too dense and urban for this area. It’s incompatible with surrounding land uses. It will exacerbate traffic congestion rather than alleviating it, and it threatens the safety and well-being of our community.”
Olsen emphasized that, according to a traffic report released by Realty Capital, daily trips through that section of Highway 82 would be expected to increase by 44%. She added that this projection did not factor in construction traffic during buildout.
Andrea Tupi, an ecologist from Roaring Fork Conservancy, weighed in on the ecological concerns of the development. Roaring Fork Conservancy currently manages the Cattle Creek Conservation easement adjacent to the developer’s property. She claimed that the proposed utility line for the development would be significantly disruptive.
“This crossing would pass directly through one of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the conservation easement,” she stated.
Tupi also pointed out the vibrant, green character of many of the developments’ digital renderings. “Our dry climate does not support this type of landscape without significant supplementation of water, fertilizers and chemicals,” she said.
Presently, the unused property serves as winter grazing habitat for deer and elk as well as a wildlife corridor.
A local chapter of the Raging Grannies, an international organization of musical activists, performed a locally-flavored and relevant rendition of John Denver’s “Take me Home, Country Roads” with lyrics that opposed the project.
Only one citizen came forward to speak in favor of the project.
Myers stated that he intends to consider the commissioners’ comments when he resubmits a renewed application. The Board of County Commissioners has yet to schedule a public hearing following the Planning Commission’s recommendation.