HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown of Carbondale - 09.18.2025TOWN OF CARBONDALE
511 Colorado Avenue
Carbondale, CO 81623
www.carbondalegov.org
(970 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140
September 18, 2025
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: John Leybourne
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Garfield County Referral
Harvest Roaring Fork PUD (PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079)
Parcels 239307200031, 239501400161, 239307300032, 239307200001, and 239307300033
Dear John:
Thank you for referring the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD application to the Town of Carbondale for review
and comments. The application proposes a significant change to the previously approved River Edge
PUD (Resolution Nos. 2011-84 and 2011-85). As outlined in the pre-conference summary, the existing
approval is for 366 dwelling units and associated facilities. It is important to note that Carbondale staff
and elected officials have had only a single conversation with the development team to clarify the revised
submittal. Carbondale Staff is willing to engage in additional dialogue with the Development Team
and/or Garfield County, if desired by either party. The project meets the threshold for major development
review referral to Carbondale as one of the two closest municipalities pursuant to the 2001 IGA with
Garfield County. Carbondale supports the IGA and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on a
significant project within both Garfield County and the Roaring Fork Valley’s economic shed.
The revised application was reviewed by Carbondale Staff, while the prior application included input
from the Carbondale Board of Trustees. Carbondale recognizes the pressing need for affordable and
workforce housing throughout the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys and generally supports
efforts that contribute meaningfully to the region’s housing stock. However, Carbondale maintains a
strong preference for densifying within municipal boundaries to reduce sprawl, enhance walkability, and
support climate-conscious development patterns. The proposed development’s scope, scale, and density
are inconsistent with the types of development that have been historically approved in unincorporated
Garfield County, and Carbondale would encourage Garfield County to consider whether this is an
appropriate development for unincorporated areas. Carbondale provides the following comments for your
consideration.
2022 Carbondale Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located outside of the Town’s two-mile review area as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the subject property is located outside of the more traditional three-mile
plan area for annexation purposes, as set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Town has no
interest in or legal ability to consider annexation.
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 2 of 5
Transportation & Access
1. Fully Signalized Access Across near Cattle Creek Rd
o The traffic study states that a signalized intersection will not occur until some future time
as warranted by traffic levels. Carbondale encourages Garfield County to set a clear
trigger point with the development (e.g. specific number of issuances of certificates of
occupancy, or prior to a certain phase of development) when the signalized intersection
must be completed prior to the issuance of any additional certificates of occupancy or
building permits. This will ensure the safety and functionality of Highway 82.
2. Traffic Impacts on Highway 82
o The application suggests that the development will reduce traffic impacts on Glenwood
Springs and I-70. However, given the employment distribution in the region, reliance on
neighboring community commercial centers, and the distance to the nearest transit stop, it
is likely that a significant portion of residents will commute and travel along Highway
82, increasing congestion. Garfield County should assess these impacts carefully,
especially those trips that travel “upvalley” on Highway 82 to Carbondale and beyond.
3. Connections across Highway 82
o Cattle Creek is a heavily used cycling route, and the development proposes numerous
connections to the Rio Grande Trail. Carbondale would recommend Garfield County
ensures safe access for pedestrians and cyclists across Highway 82, which could either be
at-grade or an underpass.
Housing & Density
4. Focus on “Missing Middle” Housing
o Carbondale supports the focus on workforce housing and urges Garfield County to ensure
a mix of unit types that cater to young professionals, families, service workers, seniors,
and outdoor enthusiasts.
o The Housing Mitigation Plan outlines that 30% of the units would be provided as either
mitigation residences (10% intended to meet Garfield County’s requirements) or deed
restricted residences (20% of the total development). Carbondale Staff supports the
increase in restricted housing units; however, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs both
require more affordable housing (deed-restricted units) than is proposed or is required by
Garfield County. The application focuses on unit types that are attractive to the local
workforce, but those same housing types are attractive to second-home owners as well.
Carbondale encourages Garfield County to be more aggressive with affordable housing
requirements to ensure the project goals meet the project outcomes. The project could
propose a voluntary real estate transfer assessment on the sale of all free-market
properties and a greater percentage of price-capped, income-restricted, and/or resident
occupancy-restricted units, which would ensure that the housing provided is available for
the local workforce.
o The Housing Mitigation Plan outlines that both mitigation and deed restricted residences
would be provided prior to the start of the next (future) phase of development. As
proposed, it would be reasonable to expect these units to occur at the end of each phase of
development. Carbondale requires that all deed restricted housing units be issued a
certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any free
market units, thus ensuring that the restricted units are “front-loaded” during each phase
of development. Carbondale encourages Garfield County to determine if providing the
restricted units at the end of each phase of development achieves the goals of the County
and the project, or if requiring them earlier during each phase of development would
improve housing outcomes for the local workforce.
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 3 of 5
5. Modified Parking Standards & Transit Access
o The plan does not appear to propose a transit stop and utilizes the nearest ones, ½ mile
from the northernmost and 1.2 miles from the southernmost points of the development.
Given the number of dwelling units and density proposed, this location would be ideal for
a new transit stop, improving regional connectivity and reducing reliance on personal
vehicles.
o The project requests reduced parking requirements due to its walkable and bike-friendly
design. However, many residents will still need to drive to Glenwood Springs,
Carbondale, or farther up the valley for employment, commerce, and recreation.
Carbondale would recommend that Garfield County discuss the appropriateness of
parking given the project’s location in relation to employment centers, as well as the
distance to the nearest transit stop and the lack of a proposed new transit stop.
o The parking standards seem reasonable but will require ample on-street parking to
accommodate multi-car households and residents with recreational equipment such as
campers, trailers, rafts, and ATVs. Garfield County should consider if the use of on-street
parking to meet off-street parking requirements is appropriate for all areas of the PUD.
6. Senior Housing Considerations
o While the inclusion of senior housing is welcome, its location may be isolating without
adequate transportation options. As Carbondale experienced with the Downtowner micro-
mobility service, ensuring that senior residents have access to transit, pedestrian-friendly
infrastructure, and essential services is critical.
7. Water Supply & Adequacy of Water Rights
o While the application states that the development holds “significant water rights” and is
within the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District service area, Carbondale
encourages Garfield County to review those water rights and initially ensure the
adequacy of these rights to support the full buildout of 1,500 dwelling units, 55,000
square feet of commercial space, and a 120-room hotel initially and reaffirm the
adequacy as phased development is reviewed. Given the increasing strain on regional
water resources, it is critical that Garfield County ensure the long-term availability and
legal security of these water rights — not only for domestic use but also for fire
suppression, irrigation of public spaces, and future resilience in drought scenarios.
Economic & Commercial Considerations
8. Impact on Existing Commercial Spaces
o Carbondale has approved commercial space that is proving difficult to fill. The proposed
55,000 square feet of new commercial space may compete directly with existing
municipal commercial areas in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Carbondale would
recommend that a market analysis be conducted to assess potential impacts.
o The location of the Village Center (commercial areas) within the development could be
unsustainable given the lack of convenience and difficulty of access from Highway 82
and the proposed hotel use. Garfield County should consider whether an alternative
location within the development would be better suited for viable commercial space.
Sustainability & Environmental Considerations
9. River Corridor Conservation Area
o Areas along both the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers, especially those within the 100-
year floodplain, are identified as river corridor conservation areas. The Harvest Roaring
Fork PUD discusses conservation areas and open space areas along both Cattle Creek and
the Roaring Fork rivers. Carbondale would urge Garfield County to consider protection
for critical habitats and other riparian areas along both waterways.
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 4 of 5
10. Building Performance Beyond Code
o Rather than simply meeting the minimum energy efficiency standards, the development
could incorporate Passive House or Net-Zero Energy-ready design elements for a portion
of the housing stock to reduce long-term energy demand and enhance sustainability.
11. Solar-Ready Homes
o Even if full-scale solar installation is not initially feasible, homes should be designed to
be solar-ready (pre-wired for future solar panel installation) to allow residents to adopt
renewable energy as costs decrease or desire is present.
12. Enhanced Water Conservation Measures
o Given the region’s semi-arid climate, additional water conservation measures should be
incorporated, such as xeriscaping with native plants, graywater reuse systems, and high-
efficiency irrigation technologies.
13. Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure
o The development should include ample EV charging stations in both residential and
commercial areas to accommodate the growing adoption of electric vehicles and future-
proof the project’s transportation options.
PUD Guide Considerations
14. Future Density Adjustments
o The PUD Guide states that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage shall not exceed
50% for the entire development. However, it is undefined how these will be used on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach. Carbondale would recommend including more
specificity in each neighborhood to help Garfield County Staff and future property
owners understand how additions and remodels may be pursued. In addition, this
approach could lead to underdeveloped lots later in the process, potentially necessitating
future PUD amendments to increase density or total development lot coverage.
15. Hotel Location
o The proposed hotel is located in the Sopris Neighborhood, which is far from the Village
Center, the primary commercial hub. The County should assess whether this location is
appropriate for hotel use.
Incorporation Considerations
16. Urban-Scale Development in Unincorporated Garfield County
o The scale of the proposed development, both in terms of residential and commercial uses,
suggests that incorporation into a municipal area may be more appropriate than remaining
within unincorporated Garfield County. The County should evaluate whether the scope
and scale of the proposed development are appropriate within unincorporated Garfield
County.
Conclusion. Carbondale supports increasing the supply of workforce and affordable housing in the
Roaring Fork Valley. However, we encourage Garfield County to consider the issues outlined above,
particularly regarding transportation infrastructure, local workforce housing, sustainability measures, and
the project’s long-term economic impact. Addressing these concerns will help ensure that Harvest
Roaring Fork PUD successfully integrates into the broader regional community while supporting
sustainable growth.
Harvest PUD Referral Response
PUDA-12-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079
Page 5 of 5
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any
questions regarding these referral comments.
Sincerely,
Jared Barnes, AICP
Planning Director