Garfield County Commissioners Kill 5,908-Acre Spring Valley Development Plan

Aspen —Will the 5,908 acres north of Carbondale stay wild? The Garfield County Commissioners said yes Tuesday. They killed a development plan that has hung over the land for more than forty years. The move returns the property to rural zoning.

Spring Valley Holdings LLC asked for three things. They wanted to cancel the final plat of Phase 1. They sought to revoke the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD). They asked to reclassify the land. The commissioners approved all three.

The result is a clean slate. Phillip Berry, senior planner for Garfield County, explained the logic to the board. The requests strip away existing subdivisions and development agreements. They restore the property to its base zoning code.

“La intención de estas solicitudes es, esencialmente, devolver todas estas propiedades a su condición anterior,” Berry told the commissioners. “Eliminar estas autorizaciones preexistentes y restituirlas a la zonificación base establecida en nuestro código.”

This isn’t just paperwork. It erases authorizations dating back to 1984. The owner now starts from zero for any future proposal.

The land sits near the intersection of County Roads 114 and 115. It lies about 6.9 miles north of Carbondale. That is 6.5 miles east of Glenwood Springs. The location matters to locals who commute or hunt here.

The original Spring Valley Ranch PUD was approved in 1984. It evolved over four decades. A preliminary plan from 2008 looked ambitious. It included more than 500 luxury homes. It offered 75 affordable and workforce units. The design featured an 18-hole golf course, a 12-hole course, and a ski trail. It also called for a sports club, a restaurant, a post office, and a general store.

Spring Valley Holdings tried to update that vision last year. In October 2025, the company withdrew a major modification request. The Garfield County Planning Commission had recommended rejection by unanimous vote.

The withdrawal followed heavy community pushback. More than 1,300 people signed a petition against the modification. Residents raised specific concerns. They worried about traffic congestion. They questioned water availability. They feared increased wildfire risk. They noted the impact on wildlife habitats. Most importantly, they wanted to preserve the rural character of the area.

Daniel Goldberg, representing the company, submitted a withdrawal letter after the Planning Commission hearing. The firm stepped back rather than fight an uphill battle.

The decision blocks the immediate realization of that 500-home vision. It gives residents breathing room. It also leaves the property’s future in limbo. The question now is what Spring Valley Holdings will do next. Or if they will do anything at all.