The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
From split vote to unanimous approval
by Katherine Nettles
During the county planning commission review of the Lower Verzuh project application on Thursday, August 6, the discussion centered around the county’s Land Use Resolution (LUR) standards for density, neighborhood compatibility and additional considerations for community character and wildlife.
County planning director Hillary Seminick updated a previous staff report about the project, noting that the updates “don’t effectively change the recommended staff analysis for planning commission consideration.”
Seminick also responded to some community concerns on the density of adjacent properties used in determining if the project is “substantially similar” to neighboring properties as required in the LUR Section 10-103. She said some adjacent lands did not meet the definition of neighborhood based on either the inability to develop due to conservation easements or their location across Highway 135. Staff determined that regardless, the proposal is not substantially similar to the neighboring properties as it calls for greater density and smaller lots.
Seminick noted that while much of the information the public asked for to evaluate certain impacts, such as those related to traffic, water or wildlife, cannot be submitted at the sketch plan stage. “This is an opportunity to have the project evolve based on public feedback and comment—and it certainly has over time,” she said.
The discussion was then directed to the standards of approval for major impact projects at sketch plan review.
Planning commissioners Eric Phillips, Beverly Troxtell and Anna Fenerty agreed with the staff finding that the residential density was not substantially similar to neighborhood parcels, which carried the vote 3-2. Planning commissioner Julie Baca did find the proposed density compatible with neighboring properties, and likened the density to CB South, Buckhorn and Skyland areas. “Honestly, I attended the CB Community Compass planning and suggested that they annex in CB South to Mt. Crested Butte and be one city,” she said, for financial and government efficiency. Baca said her bigger concern was that the view corridor would be impacted by the proposed development.
Planning commissioner Brett Atkins agreed. “I see a commonality in the area that this does fit,” he said. “I think that it does meet the standards of the next step.”
With the majority vote, the commission ruled that the application failed to meet that criteria which referred them to LUR Section 10-103a in which conditions must be found appropriate for smaller lots or greater density. The four requirements included that the development be served by a public wastewater treatment system, other services and facilities (such as water supply and public transport if feasible), demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood and mitigate the impacts of the increased density.
Commissioners agreed generally that the first three criteria were met. As far as density impacts, the LUR states that mitigation methods include providing additional open space, provision of essential housing, clustering of residences and/or participation in public transportation.
Phillips stated the applicants have gone above and beyond in providing and clustering essential housing. “I’m not convinced that the standard of clustering has been applied to the rest of the neighborhood,” he said. “When I look at a map I see it touching almost every other neighbor boundary.”
“There’s still very much a ranchland feel between [CB South and CB],” said Troxtell, and she commented that should be preserved. “There might be some more opportunity to cluster on the free market portion of this development.”
The commission discussed LUR section 11-106 around clustering and wildlife, and Troxtell suggested more clustering for the sake of wildlife as well, while Baca argued that more clustering might be offensive to neighbors. “I would like to see more of a consideration for wildlife habitat within the sketch plan,” said Phillips.
The board agreed to add the condition that the applicant consider clustering to avoid wildlife fragmentation, as well as to include the Gunnison County Housing Authority comments as a condition for approval on the referral document.
They discussed compatibility with community character, and Fenerty said she felt the project did so in the essential housing portion. “It’s been quite meaningful to see an applicant push forward on that in such a new and interesting way,” she said. “I am still unsure if in the open market part I really feel like the community character has been achieved to a broad conceptual element.”
“I’d like more information from the preliminary plan to make that final decision,” Phillips stated.
Troxtell said she would like for the applicant to consider whether ball fields would be useful or be better off as open space, and Phillips suggested the MetRec District weigh in on the community needs.
The commission considered the draft referral document from the staff to approve the application with conditions. “Part of what the BOCC has asked us to do today is have a more robust discussion on the specific conditions to be included in this document,” said Phillips.
The commission added some conditions based on the discussion, including that the applicant cluster the free-market homes to promote unfragmented wildlife habitat, mitigate impacts of increased density and retain contiguous land.
Baca also spoke against some of the Housing Authority input that asked for specific income restrictions for the essential housing. “Two people living in a residence hitting an AMI (area median income) is incredibly difficult,” she said, given that people may live and work locally but come from varied backgrounds which may include family assets. Baca advocated for the least restrictive conditions possible. “The goal is to ensure that people who are providing services have a place to live in the valley.”
The referral document then passed unanimously.
