The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
I did not attend last week’s public hearing on the proposed Starview development. I figured it would move to the next step based on conditions suggested by the Gunnison County Planning Commission at the previous meeting. I was wrong.
Instead, what appears to be a clear message was sent to probably not just this proposal and development team, but any other developer looking for county approval for a subdivision. Again, having not been at the meeting, I am interpreting last week’s rejection of the development plan after years and months of going through the process, that unless you bring something that has clear long-term community benefit, it won’t be approved. The planning commission didn’t seem to think this proposal, at this point anyway, met that criteria.
I actually have some empathy for the developers in this situation since they seemed to roll with some of the yoyo suggestions coming from the planning commission over three years (remember the commercial gas station?) and probably felt the rug was suddenly pulled out from under them. That’s how the Land Use Resolution (LUR) provides flexibility and works, like it or not. There are crux points when a proposal can spring forward or fall apart. This one fell apart.
While the development team put forward the idea that some of their homes would be targeted to the county’s so-called “missing middle,” the fact they didn’t contain deed restrictions to protect that economic demographic probably didn’t help the confidence of the decision makers. Construction cost realities also probably played a role as most people saw those homes which were limited in size to help control costs, as still too expensive for working folk given the price of building these days. I’m guessing the fact that the property was for sale while moving through the county evaluation process didn’t help either. No matter what the current developer promised, if the next guy decided to make those homes medium-sized but high-end and they were on the free market, they wouldn’t help the “missing middle” get a roof over their head.
Other issues involved from what I can see included the percentage of workforce housing (could have been closer to 30+% than 20%), the very real issue of protecting wildlife corridors (thank you) and confusing messages sent by the planning commission at the start of the process. Oh, and any bit of sprawl is a definite no-no.
The county LUR is not a black-and-white document. It is meant to be somewhat vague and take into consideration the specific development parcels and where they are and what they can offer. Starview is a particularly sensitive piece of land given its location touching the “Oh My God” view corridor as you come around the highway on the final stretch to Crested Butte. It is special.
If I may suggest… for this and other upcoming development proposals… don’t even submit something without the “community benefit” factor being front and center. That message appeared clear. It’s not enough to throw a few bones under the label of workforce housing or open space. It has to be real.
I would suggest the county set a minimum percentage of “affordable housing” with any proposal. I’m not sure what the appropriate number is, or the appropriate type of housing to include, or who should build it, but that will probably come up in the upcoming corridor plan discussion.
I would suggest again that at least a good number of the affordable housing have the lightest of deed restrictions. Seriously. Consider having the restriction be only that a buyer, any buyer in perpetuity, must only be a full-time resident of the county for X-number of years prior. That’s it. I think what that does is set up a secondary “free market” where the second homeowner buyers don’t throw the local market out of financial whack. That really addresses the missing middle. Yeah, it limits the possible investment potential of a house in the North Valley, but it opens up housing to workers who work hard and save, retirees who volunteer in the community, local kids who grew up here and want to stay and find a house in which to raise a family. Yeah, someone with a lot of dough might sink a ton of money into their local dream home but they would have to sell it to a local and whatever that local market will bear. And the market is limited to locals. Local housing for locals only. Tighter income restrictions can also be appropriate on different units for workforce housing but creating a wide market limited to locals is, I think, valuable and useful.
The other suggestion I would share with future developers is to include within their rules and covenants, or whatever legal mechanism works, a clear provision that a certain percentage of any sales price on free market units —whether it is in 2026 or 2056 — must account for impact fees. Colorado banned real estate transfer taxes in the 1990s but I believe developers can include such fees through their property owners’ associations or be included as part of the deeds that go with each owner. The appropriate percentage could be determined during the corridor planning discussions. The impact fee money would go toward things like transportation, housing, recreation, open space, schools, roads, cops or whatever is deemed needed at that particular time by a board made up of county and North Valley municipal officials. So many of the North Valley amenities people are buying into are funded through sales taxes, and while second homeowners all pay property taxes, the fact they aren’t here much of the year puts a limit on their sales tax contributions.
The reality is that Gunnison County allows a maximum house size of 5,000 square feet. Add in garages and accessory buildings and people can get 7,000 total square feet on a parcel. It is generally assumed that under state rules, 35-acre parcels are considered the threshold to move forward and not be considered subdivided. At 90 acres, Starview would basically see two parcels without needing county subdivision approval. That is part of the consideration for both sides.
The message I think that was sent last week was that development approvals in the county, particularly in the North Valley that draw no shortage of public participation and engagement, are not automatic. Developments here must be tied to strong community benefit. If I heard the message correctly, that is not an unfair message.
—Mark Reaman
