Planning commission holds public hearing for Starview

Lands on approval with “significant” conditions

By Katherine Nettles

The Gunnison County commissioners and planning commission held a sketch plan joint public hearing last week for the latest iteration of the proposed Starview project that would bring a mixture of 107 new homes to the area just south of Crested Butte South. After public comment and extensive discussion, the commission directed the county planning staff to draft a recommendation for approval with conditions for the major impact land use change application to move into preliminary plan.

The meeting on Thursday, December 18 began with a presentation on the applicant’s updated plans for the 90-acre parcel owned by Oklahoma-based firm Harrison Land Estates, followed by public comments and discussion among the planning commission members leading to a vote in favor of approval with conditions.

The original plan was first submitted in 2022 and has changed several times in response to planning commission direction and suggestions. It first grew significantly in density from 75 units to 129 units with some light commercial added based on planning commission input and now has settled at 107 housing units.

Local realtor Gary Huresky presented on behalf of the applicant, reviewing how the project had evolved from what was presented during the joint public hearings of December 2024 and February 2025. “The revisions we present to you today reflect deliberate changes to the site plan, density, access and open space to better respond to what we’ve heard from the community and the commission,” he said.

The applicant had submitted changes twice after those hearings, first in the form of a second amended sketch plan in March and as a third amended plan in September. All commercial development has been removed from the proposal, and housing density and layout have been adjusted, “to better align with the surrounding community character including larger lots adjacent to the stables at East River and clustering of the open market areas to preserve open space,” said Huresky.

The plan includes 107 residential units with 83 single family lots and 24 deed-restricted units (making up 22% of the project). The site plan increases setbacks and reduced berm heights and density between the development and the highway to improve wildlife permeability, protect view sheds and provide a buffer to neighboring properties. Huresky said the planned roundabout at Cement Creek Road was now included in the site plan, as was a secondary access point at the south end of the site to improve traffic circulation and emergency access. Additional parking at the north end would support public transit and access a rec path through the property along Highway 135, which the applicant has proposed to build.

Space for a multi-use rec field was added at the north end of the property next to the parking lot.

Last, Huresky shared recent data that showed 70% of homes sold in the CB South and nearby subdivisions in the past year had gone to local buyers for an average of $1.6 million for single family homes and $865,000 for multi-family units. “This demonstrates strong local demand for ownership housing at these price points,” he summarized.

The planning commission spent some time reviewing the lot and structure sizes and restrictions.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) at a minimum size of 600 square feet would be allowed on 25 of the open market lots, but the developer has no plan to construct them. The 10 larger lots would have a maximum size of 5,000 square feet and the other 77 homes would be maxed out at 2,800 square feet (not including garages).

The 24 deed restricted units would have an allowed range of 800 to 1,200 square feet and additional space for garages if there proves to be demand. One lot, 78, is designated for CB South Metro near the northwestern corner by Highway 135.

Short-term rentals (STRs) would not be allowed in deed-restricted areas, and there would be a cap on STRs at 90 nights per year for other units.

The commission also spent some time discussing the proposed relocation of an existing gravel driveway on the southern portion of the property to access summer cabins, moving it further north to leave more open space.

Huresky affirmed that it is the developer’s intention to build the homes, but assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano said that the approved plans would transfer with the property whether it was fully developed or sold, as the property is currently listed for sale.

“We’ve been at this for some time, and there has to be an option for the owner,” responded Huresky. “If someone came along we have to ensure there are workable plans.”

County commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels asked about making the homes attainable for the “missing middle” and Huresky said their intention is still to do that, matching the current market but with more inventory around an average of 2,400 square feet to be in keeping with other homes in CB South. He said there were no price caps planned.

During the public hearing more than a dozen people spoke, raising concerns that ranged from protecting private views to viewsheds and wildlife corridors, to river health and irrigation management for adjacent ranchers. Several people asked why a corridor plan was not a priority prior to this application, or if one could now supersede it.

Tracy Wentz said she lives at Hidden River Ranch, and commented, “Nothing of this scope has ever been allowed this close to the highway. This would be a significant departure from the commission’s allowances in the past and their levels of expectation.”

Brian Downs lives on Cement Creek Road and said he likes the current rural feel and open space. He suggested the property be subdivided into three 30-acre sites with large homes to allow the developer to make the same amount of money with fewer homes. Jason Hogan, Gayle Mancuso and Pat Wallace said they would like to see the project assessed through the lens of a north valley corridor plan.

Tim Williamson of CB South asked that Starview be all electrical with heat pumps.

Ann Johnston encouraged the commission to protect the landscape. “The property is basically surrounded by permanently protected open space that the community has been working on for over 50 years. It’s an important wildlife corridor. The ‘Oh My God’ views are absolutely irreplaceable; there’s the river and the lush wetlands. These are all things that are critical to the ecosystems.” She noted that millions of dollars have been invested by local residents, state grants, second homeowners, 1% For Open Space, the Gates Family Foundation and local ranching families. “There’s a lot of commitment to keeping this general area protected and special,” she said. 

Stewart Hunter said elk migrations would be impacted, and the river would also be a concern after extensive restoration he helped complete.

Derek Harwell, CB South Property Owner’s Association (POA) manager, advised the commission to consider different ways than 90-day caps to manage STRs “so it doesn’t feel like a vacant community.” He also said that there is no source of funding for the field unless the developer completed it, as the CB South field was also struggling to find funding. “I think it would go as an unrealized placeholder for the community for many years to come,” he said.

As the commission deliberated for more than an hour after the comments, they eventually landed on what Pagano named as “significant” requirements for their recommendation for approval. Planning commission member Eric Phillips said he felt the application was striving to tick all the boxes to get approval, without an overall net positive effect on the community.

County commissioner Liz Smith said public comments have been asking for almost two opposing things, from balancing density and affordability to preserving open space and matching a more rural feel. “I wanted to acknowledge that,” she said, but the proposal missed both marks, in her opinion.

Puckett Daniels said 1.2 units per acre was “sprawl” and that it was not the housing people need. She said it would present a barrier to wildlife, and density should be more consistent. Phillips agreed that the project seemed to meet the county’s Land Use Resolution definition of sprawl.

Planning commission member Julie Baca said she believes it is an attractive site to develop, but not the right mix of density and price points with negative cumulative effects to the community.

Phillips repeated that he didn’t think it is the right project for the community right now.

Commissioner Jonathan Houck pointed out that building costs would not allow for the $300,000 to $500,000 homes being discussed as a need and urged the commission to be more realistic. “It’s really hard to have an expectation that’s almost impossible.” Houck cautioned against slipping into designing the project for the developer and asked what conversation they were having. “Do we want to reshuffle the deck again? Or do we want to give recommendations based on what we see?” he asked.

Phillips said he understands affordability is out the window but asked if single-family homes are still the methodology.

Commission member Roland Mason made a motion for approval with conditions, with four in favor and one (Phillips) against. The commission agreed to conditions Mason suggested: removing three lots (64, 65 and 66) from the southern end of the property to allow more open space; adding more deed restricted units up to 30 to 35 units; moving the second access point north; and requiring the ball fields––with public restrooms––be constructed by a time certain. Staff will draft the approval language with conditions, and the hearing was continued to January 8 at 9 a.m.

The county will accept written public comments up until noon on January 7.