A proposed substantial amendment to the Spring Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) on more than 5,900 acres, east of Glenwood Springs, seems to have met its match with local resistance.
On Oct. 27, in a surprise move, Spring Valley Holdings LLC (SVH) withdrew the PUD amendment and rezoning application for the controversial mega-development. In a letter to county attorney Kelly Cave, Community Development Director Glenn Hartman and senior county planner Phillip Berry, SVH representative Daniell Goldberg wrote, “After hearing from the community, we believe it is in the best interest of both the neighbors and the greater community for us to abandon our historic PUD Plan in favor of the Rural zoning regulations in the Garfield County Land Use Code.”
Less than a week earlier, on Oct. 22, Garfield County planning staff recommended that the county planning commission deny the application. The proposal included 478 market-rate dwelling units, 24 deed-restricted employee units and 76 deed-restricted units in the affordable housing category. The development also featured two private golf courses, one private ski hill, a fire station, a car wash, a public general store, 15-20 miles of public trails and a 1,320-acre wildlife refuge so that the displaced ungulates and other animals can still congregate somewhere after the historic elk winter range and critical deer habitat are built out.
More than 170 people packed the hearing inside the Ascent Center at Colorado Mountain College’s Spring Valley campus.The commissioners’ packet included 96 letters mostly against the development. Twenty-eight spoke up at Wednesday’s meeting, also mostly in opposition.
Issues included increased traffic — upwards of 3,300 additional trips per day along County Road 114 and 115 — more pressure on the intersection at Highway 82 and Thunder River Market, water use and sustainability, the aforementioned critical elk winter range and deer habitat and the logic behind the ski area. “The proposed ski area on a south-facing slope is an excellent metaphor about how poorly this project considers the local environment,” wrote Doug Greenholz of Carbondale in a comment letter.
Despite developments such as High Aspen Ranch and Homestead Estates on the northeast border of Spring Valley Ranch, and Elk Springs and Lake Springs to the southwest, several local comments focused on preserving the rural character of the area.
“The proposed Spring Valley Ranch Development is simply wrong for our community,” wrote longtime Carbondale rancher Ginny Harrington. “We are opposed to developing this land at all. We believe its highest and best use is for ranchland and wildlife habitat.” Harrington’s letter included extensive research on the benefits of ranchlands compared to housing developments. Citing Rick Knight, CSU professor of wildlife conservation, she wrote: “Rural developments promote deficit spending, ecological decline, and cultural loss.”
Carbondale resident Ted Benge, co-owner of Capitol Peak Outfitters, told the Planning Commission that, being in his early 30s, he qualifies as the voice of the next generation. “Maintaining the rural character, open space and wildlife in this valley and in this county is absolutely critical to the culture and to the future and the next generations,” he said.
He also backed Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) referral comments about the critical elk and deer habitat on Spring Valley Ranch. “Those ungulates are umbrella species, meaning their health is indicative of the health of the rest of the ecosystem on down the food chain,” Benge added. “Valley-wide, we have declining [elk] calf recruitment rates, declining [deer] fawn recruitment rates and changes to habitual migration patterns as a direct result of development and recreation.”
He said that the SVH plan for a contiguous 6,000-acre parcel would ruin the ability for the elk to continue as a local herd. “The wildlife corridors proposed [in the amended plan], as CPW noted, are basically inaccessible,” he pointed out. “Elk won’t use them.”
Two Colorado Mountain College students spoke about safety, student stress, the environment, outdated data and a student survey about the proposed PUD. One said that 98.5% of the students polled said the development would not be beneficial to the Roaring Fork Valley.
After over four hours of presentations, public comment and discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion to recommend denial of the amendment to the PUD with six findings from the county planning staff.
Findings included how the PUD rezoning request and the modification were not in the best interest of “the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.” Other findings included lack of general conformance with the county’s 2003 Comprehensive Plan and the county Land Use and Development Code in terms of water source, compatibility, access, wildfire, wildlife and natural hazards.
Commissioners echoed concerns presented by the public. Brett Jolley, a longtime New Castle rancher, said basically that SVH has every right to develop its property. “It’s not giving anything back to the community, but you can do it.” He mentioned problems with Highway 82 and local wildlife management, adding that water is a big concern. “Who really knows [about the water]?” he said. “It’s too late after we approve this and find out there isn’t any.”
Georgia-based Storied Development pulled out of the application process last May before a scheduled planning commission hearing, which is when SVH took on the project. Storied is no longer under contract to purchase the land.
Mary Beth Minion, co-founder of the Spring Valley Coalition, which opposed the project, told The Sopris Sun in an email that the group commends SVH “for responding to community concerns by withdrawing the application for the proposed amended PUD and committing to initiate the process of restoring the property’s original Rural zoning.” The group also had an online petition with over 1,300 signatures against the development.