Planning commission denies Starview application

Cited inadequate affordable housing and negative net impacts to wildlife, community

By Katherine Nettles

In a unanimous vote last week, the Gunnison County Planning Commission voted to recommend denying the Starview major impact sketch plan proposed for a parcel on Highway 135 just south of Crested Butte South. The denial was based on several factors, including a sprawling pattern, incompatibility with community character and lack of adequate workforce residences. Ultimately the decision will be up to county commissioners, who have participated in the most recent joint public hearing and will review the recommendation on January 20.

The applicant, Oklahoma City-based firm HGC, first proposed the project in 2022 for the 96-acre parcel. The original proposal was to subdivide the parcel into 76 units, and after several work sessions with the planning commission over the past two years, the applicant made several rounds of revisions to the proposal before settling at 107 residential mix-use units, including 83 single family residential lots of varying sizes and 24 essential housing units.

The planning commission held a joint public hearing with county commissioners on December 18, 2025 and after closing the hearing to public comment they continued the meeting to January 8 to allow board members time for deliberation and additional written public comments.

A petition was submitted prior to the hearing with 315 signatures of North Valley residents and property owners who were not in favor of the development. There were about a dozen letters submitted prior to the meeting in addition to more than a dozen spoken public comments against the proposal at the December 18 public hearing. Concerns voiced related to the project scale, density, wildlife impacts, affordability and general impacts to the community in relation to population growth, demand for services and more traffic. Repeatedly, people raised concerns about the project being approved in the absence of a North Valley corridor plan that might help steer how density, growth and infrastructure needs might be addressed.

The proposal had offered several measures to offset the negative impacts, including designating one lot for the Crested Butte South Metropolitan District to be used for a shop space and employee housing, designating other essential housing units and public ball fields, among others.

Planning commission members had asked community development staff at the December meeting to draft two separate recommendations for them to consider in January, one for approval of the application with conditions and one for denial, as they had not yet established consensus on which way they might lean after having a discussion.

The commission reconvened last week for an extensive discussion on January 8, covering various aspects of the proposal. Planning commission members ultimately voted to recommend denial, and the meeting was recessed to allow staff to update the draft denial document according to the commission’s findings.

Deliberations

Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels weighed in first on the project. “I am very concerned about the wildlife connectivity,” she said. “I think they need more room to maneuver than what is allowed for here.” She mentioned taking into consideration the cumulative project impacts to wildlife habitat and open space.

Commissioner Liz Smith echoed Puckett Daniels’ comments and also stated her concerns that there may not be adequate workforce housing for a development of this size. “Could a more condensed development work in a way that does serve a missing middle market?” she asked, suggesting a more compact design might address concerns.

There was some question about what criteria could be considered in final deliberations, including the wildlife planning tool that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) developed and which county commissioners adopted in 2025, and the often-cited county housing needs assessment. It was determined that new considerations could not be entered into the record at this point, however the housing needs assessment had been part of the discussion throughout the many work sessions and the public hearings.

Planning commission member Sean Patrick said he believed the impacts to the viewshed from the highway were unacceptable.

“I do think this site is suitable for development, based on proximity to other services,” said commission member Eric Phillips. There was general agreement on that point.

Commission member Roland Mason asked them to consider what else might be developed there, noting the applicant’s use of berms and increased highway setbacks.  “Do you want to see something like at Whetstone? To me the viewshed here was mitigated as best as possible given the design…that was presented to us,” said Mason.

Gradually, the commission members built an argument of possible denial based on several factors that they did not meet several standards of the LUR (Land Use Resolution), including insufficient essential residences, lack of compatibility with community character, locational standards for development, that the parcel is not adjacent to an existing development and net adverse impacts not being sufficiently mitigated. Phillips noted that they had attempted to mitigate such impacts through setbacks, water/sewer connectivity, contributing to construction of a roundabout at the Highway intersection with Cement Creek Road, and through public fields and workforce housing.

There was debate over which neighborhoods it was connecting to, and how it did or did not use clustering to minimize visual impact and impacts to wildlife habitats as depicted on wildlife habitat maps. They determined that clustering residences did not meet the LUR standard, and that CB South could not be considered the neighborhood because it was separated by Cement Creek Road.

Phillips said in his opinion the development was not compatible with the community based on the trade-offs of impacts to wildlife, development and land not being efficient in use of space.

Commission members voted unanimously to close the public hearing, and Patrick made a motion to recommend application denial. Commission member Julie Baca seconded, and the rest of the board voted unanimously in favor.

Assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano worked with county attorney Matthew Hoyt to update the document based on commission input, and the planning commission reviewed it after a 30-minute recess.

The document cited first that the project did not comply with all applicable standards for approval in the county’s LUR and that it lacked compatibility with community character as defined in the LUR; second, it identified 11 potential issues related to the application: insufficient workforce housing, trail construction and public access, recreation field construction and bathrooms, wildlife and open space, the Highway 135 roundabout, view sheds from neighboring properties and highway, adequate snow storage, maintenance of irrigation ditches and traffic impacts, the impact of the proposed southern access on wildlife and overall design and layout of the development.

Third, the denial recommendation determined that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that there would not be “a significant net adverse impact to the neighborhood and wildlife.”

The commission had numerous other findings related to incompatible density, insufficient clustering, insufficient affordable housing for the scale of the development, insufficient mitigation to wildlife habitat and migration impacts and more.

The denial document states, “While the overall project density is relatively low, the proposed layout represents a sprawling development pattern that does not address the key concerns raised by the planning commission and board of county commissioners at the public hearings. Those concerns emphasized the importance of compact, clustered development that limits land disturbance, preserves open space, and supports efficient infrastructure and transit. Although the revised plan reduces the number of lots and removes development from the southern portion of the site, it still lacks the design elements necessary to achieve a cohesive, clustered form consistent with county standards and community goals. The planning commission finds that the proposed development is not clustered sufficiently for smaller lots.”

The commission proceeded in a unanimous vote to accept the document.

The News reached out to the applicant’s team of representatives regarding this recommendation for denial; however, they declined to comment. County commissioners will review the recommendation for a final decision at their January 20 meeting.