County planning commission contemplates Whetstone project in final work session

Considering compatibility with community and density near transit

[  By Katherine Nettles  ]

The Gunnison County Planning Commission concluded its series of work sessions earlier this month to grapple with its remaining concerns and questions about the Gunnison County Whetstone project, currently in sketch plan and heading to public hearing in January. The commission discussed big picture concepts of the project’s main potential impacts, from sprawling growth to compatibility with the town of Crested Butte and reviewed a memo from the project team that addressed some outstanding questions. The commission agreed to flag several items to consider as conditions for its recommendations and agreed it was ready to move ahead with a public hearing on January 19.

The county’s proposed 231-unit development across from Brush Creek on Highway 135 is moving forward with other plans in parallel to the sketch plan approval process, such as preparing a developer request for proposals (RFP) and looking for an engineer, both of which would become key to the project attaining preliminary plan approval at a later date.

During the final work session with the planning commission, the project team reviewed a memo it had provided in response to questions about building sizes, road design and the overall philosophy of the build site. The project team again asserted that larger buildings with the greatest density would be best placed closer to the highway for numerous reasons of safety, neighborhood flow, accessibility to transit and road/traffic science. 

“We’re really trying to focus the density of housing where we believe the transit would be, whether it’s inside the community or not,” said John Cattles, assistant county manager for operations and sustainability. Cattles said the largest amenity to the site is a central greenway that connects to perimeter trails and connects to the highway bus stop, and provides snow and stormwater storage.  

He said the other large amenity is access to the Highway 135 bus stops for the majority of the residents since the denser housing units are closest to those stops and to the entrance/exits of the proposed site.

“It also keeps most of the cars from circulating throughout the site,” he said. The memo provided information on how larger buildings slow traffic down naturally, which makes a residential zone safer for pedestrians and trail users.

Commission members discussed at length how the large, dense buildings might fit in or stand out along the highway, and how the project could impact the town of Crested Butte in lasting ways. Commission chairperson Laura Puckett Daniels asked if the town or the county had considered this area in their respective three-mile plan or highway corridor planning, respectively.

Assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano, who presented an initial corridor draft plan to county commissioners in 2020 as part of their strategic plan, said the county intends to take it up in earnest in 2023 after years of planning and having set aside funds for that purpose. She also confirmed that the town of Crested Butte considers its Community Compass to represent its three-mile plan, although it is not specific. 

Puckett Daniels asked, “Where do we draw that line? The community has said they don’t want sprawl, but the town of CB has not defined what they think that line should be in a specific way in their three-mile plan.”

She said it would be hard to argue that the surrounding areas of the project site are rural, including Riverbend, Riverland Industrial Park or Skyland, and the site seems to be on the cusp of those and larger residential lots. “But there is not a clear sense of how far out to build Crested Butte. I’m not talking about as a town boundary, but as a community,” she said. 

“I think there’s a tension there, and I wanted to highlight this because this project does come right in and ask us those questions of what is the highest priority at this time, and how do we balance the other values of this community?” added Puckett Daniels. 

A whole new neighborhood that might shock people

As the commission discussed neighborhood compatibility with dense housing units next to larger lots, two general perspectives came out. 

“It’s different from everything else around it,” said planning commissioner Andy Sovick. “And change is really difficult for people to accept, including myself sometimes. It’s going to shock people. Those who were involved in the charrettes, it’s not going to shock them. Those who were involved in the conversations and know the story won’t be shocked…but those who haven’t been paying attention will be and they will look straight to how is this compatible with community character.”

Sovick also commented that the memo showed how important the project is, despite its size, but he said it didn’t give him a sense of how it could be compatible.

“I see this a little differently,” said commission member Matt Schwartz. He described year-round residents wanting to work and live in the same place, and said he felt that the project preserves character by perpetuating a lived-in community, and preserves areas like Elk Avenue which, without a stable workforce, would become less vibrant. 

Several other commission members said they appreciated that perspective as a less tangible, but very real benefit. 

Puckett Daniels said she hears a lot how CB is not what it used to be, and that relates to being a “lived in place” with ski bums and teachers alike.

“These are people already living in our community…they are not new people. They already have jobs—two or three,” she noted.

The commission decided to flag their potential conditions for approval, and discussed how to preserve deed restrictions even under recession circumstances, how the property and roads would be maintained, potential annexation into the town of Crested Butte, the importance of an underpass or other surface crossing to access trails and town and other potential public feedback.

Parallel efforts

Cattles said the project team plans to release an RFP for the engineering and utility extension plan before the end of the year and for a developer before the planning commission has made a decision, because of very long lead times for each of those processes. “Obviously if we are denied we can pull that RFP,” he said, but noted that the engineering might take up to nine or 10 months and would be required for preliminary plan. “Missing by a month moves a project by a year,” he said. “The ability to find engineers with the time in their schedule to take on a project like this is going to be a constraint.”

Cattles said the team’s next steps will also be applying for grants, researching public funding mechanisms and working with the chosen developer to understand their strategy and how grants might intersect.

“Then in late 2023, we will submit a preliminary plan,” he said. 

The planning commission will hold a public hearing on the project’s sketch plan January 19, before moving forward with a formal approval or denial.