Lower Verzuh remanded to planning commission

Tentatively set to revisit on August 6

by Katherine Nettles 

Gunnison County commissioners decided this week that they want more analysis from the county planning commission before making any decisions regarding a major impact sketch plan for a housing development at the Lower Verzuh Ranch near Brush Creek. The final decision to approve of the sketch plan application, deny it or approve it with conditions landed with commissioners on Tuesday, July 28 in a special meeting after the planning commission closed its joint public hearing on the matter two weeks ago and a stalemate prevented the board from issuing a recommendation. The planning commission will now have another round of reviewing the sketch plan application and potentially approving a recommendation for commissioners.

The applicant, Bill Lacy and Daniel Dow of Lacy and Dow LLC, have proposed to subdivide a 450-acre parcel along the east side of Highway 135 about three miles south of Crested Butte, to create 433 housing units. The proposal includes 254 single-family, free market lots and 179 for-sale deed restricted units that would be designed and constructed by local developer High Mountain Concepts. The proposal includes a connection to a future CB to CB South rec path, parks, ball fields and a transit stop and intercept parking lot.

County commissioners Jonathan Houck and Liz Smith indicated they were not satisfied with the depth of discussion and analysis among planning commission members earlier this month leading up to the stalemate vote and ultimately voted to forego holding another public hearing in favor of first sending it back to the planning commission. Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels voted against forgoing a public hearing, but the motion carried with the majority. All three commissioners then agreed to remand the discussion back to the planning commission for a more robust analysis of how, or if, the application meets Land Use Resolution standards as required.

The planning commission will most likely revisit the issue again next week on Thursday, August 6, during their regular meeting. Once that process concludes a second time, county commissioners will again reconvene and have the final say on the sketch plan application. The commissioners also retain the ability to hold a public hearing.

The public hearing question

Commissioners on Tuesday were first tasked with deciding whether to hold a public hearing on the application as they prepare to analyze the application and ultimately decide whether to approve, disapprove or approve it with conditions. They briefly discussed whether a new public hearing would bring forth new information after having participated in an extensive joint public hearing with the planning commission on July 9 that lasted nearly five hours.   

“I appreciate the due diligence with which the community is looking at this proposal,” expressed commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels, “and the ways in which the applicant is answering questions.”

County attorney Matthew Hoyt said the commissioners could decide whether to hold a public hearing based on the overarching standard of considering whether it is in the public interest.

Houck spoke up first to say said he did not want to hold another public hearing at this time, as he had another approach in mind. He said he preferred to remand the application back to the planning commission, citing LUR codes that call for such action if there is insufficient information. He said he felt they had not dug deep enough into the application’s compliance with the LUR in their final deliberations.

“My thought is that if we don’t push for a public hearing, but we remand it back to the planning commission with some very specific information we want…we would get that [opportunity] back. It preserves our ability to still have an additional public hearing. But I want more clear opinions on the planning commission,” he said, asking if that was legally sound.

Hoyt advised that could be an appropriate reason to remand it back, and that it would reset the question of a public hearing upon commissioners receiving their recommendation.

“I’d like more specifics toggled to the specific standards [of the LUR],” said Houck. “This is a really important issue no matter where you stand. Both sides deserve a fair shake. And my concern is that we don’t have enough information.” He said he did not want the planning commission to reopen their own public hearing, but to revisit their discussion in which they would tie their findings to specific LUR guidelines.

Smith agreed. “The conversation that was had in the lead-up to a vote left me a little confused as to the rationale behind the vote,” she said of the planning commission hearing. “I don’t think that I’ve ever been in this position where we are potentially in a decision-making capacity with no recommendation from the planning commission. The level of public interest in this is significant. And there’s a reason we have a planning commission. It puts us in a very uncomfortable position as decision-makers to move forward without an actual recommendation from that body. So, I’m not inclined to rush that decision and I would like to have a more refined understanding of the perspectives that led us to that split vote.”

Commissioners discussed how remanding the application to the planning commission might affect the application’s trajectory to ensure a timely review, including if the commission were to come back again without a formal recommendation.

Hoyt cited that the LUR gives commissioners 60 days to make a final decision on an application if they refer it back to the planning commission for additional review. “That’s a tight timeline,” he cautioned.

Smith noted the planning commission’s previous lack of regular members in attendance and asked if regular planning commission member Julie Baca could participate in the discussion, having not been present for the previous public hearing. Hoyt indicated that she could, as the meeting is available in the public record and the meeting was recorded.

Puckett Daniels felt somewhat differently about remanding the application. “What are the variables that would make a different outcome?” she wondered. “Or are we just going to end up with the same split vote again?”

“I’m not concerned about the vote,” said Houck. “What I want is some actual input…I feel they didn’t complete the final step.”

“I’m fine with the split vote as well,” agreed Smith, emphasizing that she wanted more analysis from them to support whatever vote they came to.

Puckett Daniels reviewed the LUR language that stated reasons to remand it back based on insufficient information in the recommendation or need for clarification.

“I’m a little hesitant about the remand,” said Puckett Daniels. “I don’t want to drag it out unnecessarily.” She said she wanted to give people answers and be respectful of the time, money and effort that has been put forth.  She asked what role the other commissioners believed the planning commission plays in the process. Smith responded that it was understanding on a deeper level of detail how they find the application matches up against LUR criteria.

Pucket Daniels noted that the commissioners still had to be the final deciding body. “For me we have to do that part whether or not we get a clear recommendation,” she said. “We still need to do this at the end of the day.”

Houck and Smith agreed with that sentiment but said they wanted more information leading up to it.

Smith asked if they could simultaneously remand the recommendation back to the planning commission and also schedule a public hearing. Hoyt said if they remand it back to the planning commission, it leaves their jurisdiction temporarily. He advised they could schedule a public hearing once the planning commission has revisited their recommendation, and that public hearing could take place in August.

“I just want to make sure we’re not working the process to death,” said Puckett Daniels.

Commissioners then voted on a motion to not hold a public hearing. Commissioner Houck and Smith voted in favor, and Puckett Daniels voted against. The motion passed.

Commissioners continued deliberating their next steps before landing on needing more specificity from the planning commission to give a “full recipe for decision-making,” as Houck phrased it.

“This whole process that we have is so murky for developers, and I think conditions start to provide more specificity. The LUR felt pretty broad and so conditions are where we start to give more specific feedback,” said Puckett Daniels. “We want to give as clear a message as we can if we’re going to move forward.”

Smith made a motion to remand the application back for more analysis, get a more refined understanding of the basis for their decisions, and a more robust discussion of the conditions in the event they decide to move the application forward for recommended approval.”

Staff indicated the motion was clear enough for them to manage, and the motion passed unanimously.

Houck reiterated that the commissioners have preserved the ability to hold a public hearing. “I don’t want this to be a drag on forever,” he said, noting the prioritization to be most likely on the August 6 planning commission meeting.

Applicant attorney Marcus Lock said that the applicants can be patient. “This is really important. You guys take the time you need to make the best decision you can make. We will be here with you in that process as best we can.” He said at some point there will be a time for a decision.

The planning commission is tentatively set to revisit their recommendation findings at their regular August 6 meeting. The agenda will be confirmed within 24 hours prior to the meeting.