Starview subdivision public hearing draws crowd

Hearing continued to February 6 to consider density, commercial changes

By Katherine Nettles

A joint public hearing with the Gunnison County Planning Commission and county commissioners held last week for the proposed Starview subdivision on a property located directly south of Crested Butte South had some contentious moments. But after hearing extensive public comments and discussing some major questions about the proposal, planning commission members agreed to take some time with the concerns raised and continue the hearing to February 6.

The applicant, Oklahoma City based firm HGC, first proposed the 90-acre project in 2022 with 76 units. After several work sessions with the planning commission over the past year, the proposal has changed to 129 lots, with 84 single-family homes, 44 multi-family units including deed restricted units and four residential units located above commercial spaces. 

The December 19 meeting got off to a rough start, as planning commission members and staff showed surprise at the large turnout of approximately 70 people in person and another 20-plus attendees on Zoom, despite reporting 70 to 80 written comments submitted prior to the meeting. After repeated issues with space and technology in the overpacked planning commission room, the meeting was recessed and moved to the more spacious county courthouse a few blocks away.  

Gunnison County assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano reviewed where the applicant is in the sketch plan process. Next, applicant representative Gary Huresky reviewed the project’s site plan for the 90-acre parcel. 

“We came in with single-family lots, and were asked to add commercial and more density,” said Huresky. He showed the updated proposals that reflected a small gas station, increased density and affordable housing. He indicated the applicant was trying to be responsive to planning commission input and that they remain open to variations.

Huresky went over the details of berms on the property meant to screen the homes from Highway 135 and provide recreational trails and the 100-foot setbacks from the highway beyond what is required by county codes and open space across 55% of the property with density situated closer to the entrance off of Cement Creek Road. 

He emphasized that initial water studies show sufficient water available at the site with surplus to benefit the CB South Metro District by adding more water to the CB South supply.  

After the planning commission and county commissioners asked clarifying questions of the applicant, the meeting was opened to the public for comment. Over the course of almost two hours, more than 30 public comments focused mostly on concerns that the project would deplete natural resources, impact already-limited local services, have negative environmental, commercial and community impacts and alter the rural character of the area.

Public comment on concerns

Patrick Wallace recommended stepping back and getting the Highway 135 corridor plan, which the county plans to revisit next spring, finished before addressing this proposal. The language the county adopted in 2005 as an objective but not a regulation for protecting the rural character of the corridor and its viewsheds was discussed several times, since the project is located at an iconic viewpoint from the highway. “Approving a plan of this scale…would set a precedent for a corridor plan that is going to be updated next spring,” he commented. 

Kevin Chedd said he has seen a lot of bad development in the county. “And I think this is a bad development,” he said, cautioning that the density in that area would further displace wildlife and bring traffic congestion. “I think this belongs in a Denver suburb, not in CB South.” 

Ann Johnston noted that the property is surrounded on three sides by protected open space. “Many, many millions of dollars went into protecting these lands,” she said, adding that the property is an important elk migration corridor. She asked what the water withdraw might do to the East River flows, and she encouraged the planning commission to take some time with it.

Brian Downs said the population increase would squeeze the local healthcare system as well as impact the rural vibe of the area.  “We live here because we don’t want density,” he said.

Jason Hogan called the project a tipping point for the valley that would not help the middle-class workers already here trying to make it. “Let’s not be a small valley doing what everyone else is doing,” he suggested. 

Sue Wallace tallied up the numerous other projects already in the works such as Whetstone, Homestead, North Village and more. She said the community is bumping up against its carrying capacity. “We have so much development. Do we need this?”

Elise Meier said there are still many empty lots in CB South and called Starview, “Our first entry into suburban sprawl.” She said she worries about the precedent it would set without a corridor plan in place, and that it would overwhelm EMS services, the schools, roads and parking. “We are overburdened and understaffed,” she said. 

Mark Schumacher said he appreciated that the project has density, that it is privately funded, and includes some accessory dwelling units for flexibility. He said the commercial plans on the site were unnecessary: “It’s hard enough for folks in the valley to run small businesses.” He said that, as one of the largest employers in the area, the people leaving are the “missing middle” who can’t afford to settle down and buy property. “To have affordability you must have density. The people we’re losing in my business and in the county are not the seasonal workers and service workers; it’s not the ski bums. It’s the ones that you try to pay more money and keep them in your business… I think this development could serve that purpose.”

Donny Doval said the type of housing the valley needs is for people who want to live here as primary residents. He agreed with density to reduce sprawl but wanted it to house locals. “Our community should not be a commodity,” he said.

Other concerns were that the subdivision did not include ball fields, that it would make childcare waitlists longer and block the only exit out of CB South in an emergency, that its commercial units would compete with current CB South businesses, that the 22 affordable housing units were unnecessary and that the planning commission and county commissioners were “forcing” developers to add density that didn’t match the area.  

Meaningful density?

After public comment was closed, the applicant’s attorney, Mike Dawson, responded to the many concerns expressed. “We are not going to get into the NIMBY or shut the door behind me comments that have been made,” he said. “We will address some planning principles and corrections.”

 He reiterated that the water would provide 400 gallons per minute and benefit the adjacent subdivision and metro district. “We have heard the issues on the commercial area, and we are open to different park amenities,” he added. 

HGC project engineer Norman Whitehead clarified that while the planning commission meetings had led to some changes to the proposal, “No one has forced us into this density at all. It was recommended,” he said.

Pagano addressed this as well, and summarized previous staff reports and meeting minutes from when the project was first proposed as 76 units with no affordable housing and the planning commission did express interest in them including affordable housing. Pagano said the tentative corridor guidelines have, since she arrived in 2001, not been used in land use decision making, but they could be. “Certainly, it is an advisory document that we have…you can consider it in your review of the application,” she told the commission. 

Pagano also said the county’s housing needs assessment in the fall of 2024 indicated a need for about 1,500 total more workforce housing units, 75% of which would need to not be free market.

“We have a waiting list of hundreds of people for our county affordable housing units,” Pagano said. She said leasing units out can take a while, but that doesn’t mean they are not needed.

County commissioners and planning commissioners then talked at length and determined with the applicant that they needed more time to reflect on public comments and consider potential adjustments from the applicant. They discussed density at length as well. 

Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels noted that “density often allows us to preserve open space elsewhere,” using the example of the town of Crested Butte.  “Density is how you don’t have sprawl,” she said, and emphasized that there are no perfect solutions. “There are only tradeoffs.”

Planning commission member Fred Niederer said that he had looked at the initial project and given its proximity to services, thought it should be considered to have a little more meaningful density. “Because once the project is built out, that’s it,” he said. 

“There’s no services from CB South all the way down to Gunnison,” noted Niederer. “Please don’t be mad at the developer. I’m the one that suggested it, because that’s my background is basically services. I am a water and sewer guy. It’s been my career.”

Commission chair Roland Mason said the request for density didn’t necessarily have to mean more units, either. “Density could have been to cluster the existing units,” he said. Mason called the meeting “a great option for the public who have not been at the work sessions or been paying attention, to weigh in and say what about this is not acceptable.” He said the commission was hearing loud and clear about public opinions of the commercial and gas station, “Those are the things we will be working on.”

Commission member Julie Baca said from the beginning the planning commission discussed how to connect the development to CB South and its commercial district, particularly through trail access.  “And it evolved from that to worrying if they would use CB South services too much.” She also noted that density is what funds affordable housing.

“That’s why we have these meetings, to hear from people,” reflected planning commissioner Eric Phillips. “We were imagining for those commercial spaces, could they get more plumbers, electricians, the professionals who we need more of here…The intent was not to go after any of the local businesses that we love so much.”

After more discussion, the applicant and the planning commission agreed to continue the hearing to February to further discuss what the density and commercial standards might look like. They discussed the lack of affordable commercial units in CB South, the potential need for a bike shop or additional childcare facilities and how else to be responsive to the community’s needs and desires. 

County staff will compile some key summary points and give the applicant time to reflect as well. Other points they touched on were as a planning commission, how to define or ensure  that free-market units are attainable for middle income workers; how to define the neighborhood, and match CB South; how to make lower density work for affordability and workforce housing; how to ensure “wildlife permeability” of the site; and it was also acknowledged that the planning commission might want to define more clearly where it stands on density.  

The public hearing was continued to February 6 at 9 a.m. in the county commissioners’ room at the Gunnison County Courthouse. 

Although public comment was closed in the hearing on December 19, the public can still weigh in at the February 6 meeting during which time the planning commission will reopen public comments if there are in fact new aspects to the proposal to consider at that time.