Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gardner Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardner/Main Street redevelopment hearing highlights debate over for‑sale homes, rentals and water limits
Summary
At a May 26 public hearing on the Gardner/Main Street plan, county presenters described phased development and utility requirements; residents and contractors pressed whether lots should be for-sale single-family homes or rental/denser housing and raised concerns about local water supplies and market demand.
Huerfano County commissioners and staff heard comments May 26 on the draft Gardner/Main Street redevelopment plan, which staff described as a county-initiated redevelopment effort that could use tax increment financing to support infrastructure, housing and economic activity in the Gardner area.
Presenter (S3) walked the board through a master-plan image and said the plan is phased: the first block is planned primarily for for‑sale single-family homes on small lots (about a half acre each), with later blocks left flexible for potential rentals, duplexes or other housing types. He emphasized outstanding work items: design engineering, environmental clearance, utility approvals, stormwater permitting (noting engineer Bruce Roscoe is testing off-site water inflows), and building a financing plan (the 'capital stack'). The presenter said the county is not planning to build houses directly but will work with developers, and noted one grant targeted single-family owner-occupied housing for part of the utilities work.
Public commenters were split. Several residents urged rental or denser housing for workforce needs (school employees, hospital staff and migrant workers discussed) and questioned whether a market exists to buy numerous half‑acre lots at the projected structure cost; Jamie Strickler (S10) asked who would buy $200,000 structures on half‑acre lots and warned the market may prefer rentals. Johnny (S8) and other residents pressed water‑supply questions (how many acre‑feet are available, hauling limits and domestic-use allowances). Dale (S12) and others supported the plan as a chance to keep Gardner viable, citing an MOU with a Water Conservancy District and Sheep Mountain holdings as helping guarantee water access in the longer term.
Staff said the county aims to proceed cautiously and in small phases; the presenter noted that market demand and the financing plan will shape whether units are sold or rented. The meeting record shows a 120‑day adoption window following the public hearing (staff will return with a final recommendation once utilities and financing are clearer). No adoption vote occurred at this meeting.
Next steps: staff to incorporate public feedback, continue site-level engineering and permitting (including any Army Corps or state-level permits), and present a recommendation to the commission for adoption consideration.
