Gunnison discusses major commercial, apartment complex

GUNNISON—The Gunnison City Council took no action May 13 on a proposed mixed-use development on the old Gunnison Valley Elementary School property after developer Joshua Flake of Gunnison asked to postpone the conditional-use permit discussion.

Mayor Mike Wanner noted that Flake said he could not attend the meeting. He then asked City Administrator, Dennis Marker to brief the council because residents concerned about the development had to the council. “It’s not been approved,” Wanner said. “We can discuss it, but no decisions will be made.”

The proposal, submitted by Flake, who owns JL Construction, would redevelop the old school property at 700 S. Main St. with a 40-room hotel; a fast-food business; a financial institution; more than 12,000 square feet of new retail, office or retail space inside the former school; 80 townhomes and 120 apartments.

The property is already zoned mixed-use residential and commercial. But the mixed use zone requires conditional-use approval before building permits can be issued.

Marker said the concept keeps the older school building standing and treats it as “good bones” for redevelopment. He said the developer has discussed converting classrooms into retail and office space and using the gym for an indoor recreation venue.

The plan calls for commercial development fronting on Main Street with residential development behind it.

Marker said the developer had discussed townhomes priced near $300,000 and five three-story apartment buildings totaling 120 units.

He said the developer does not plan to build the full project at once. “They’re not going to build all of this on day one,” Marker said. “There will be a phased component to it.”

The proposal drew immediate concerns from residents and at least one council member over water, sewer, traffic, schools, agriculture and Gunnison’s small-town character. Council member Stella Hill said she opposed the scale of the housing proposal.

“I think there’s too many apartments, and I think there’s too many townhouses in that area,” Hill said. “I don’t think that we need them that much.”

Hill said Gunnison has “700 plus” water connections and said the proposal would add “another fourth to the city” if approved. Denise Kroff questioned whether Gunnison needs the commercial and residential growth proposed. “I just don’t see the potential that we need this growth yet,” Kroff said. Kroff also took to Facebook to urge more public attention to the proposal.

“Gunnison Valley, Are you ready to grow with one-fourth of the current hookups in just one proposed development?!” she wrote. She argued the project would bring growth before the community needs it, writing that “this much condensed growth does not fit our rural and farming heritage” and that “it is FORCED when we do not have a demand for this growth.”

Tana Newton, who lives near the area, said she worries about traffic, water and the effect on nearby farms and families. “I live here because I love it,” Newton said as she struggled to control her emotions. “I love this small town.” She said she did not want the area “ruined because of some unneeded apartments and townhouses.”

Kroff also read a letter from Deina Mitton that focused on agriculture and water. The letter asked, “How will the city ensure agricultural water needs are protected as the population grows?” and urged the council to consider impacts on farms, water resources and Gunnison’s rural way of life before making decisions that could permanently alter the community.

City officials said water questions remain unresolved, but they did not say the city lacks water for the project. Marker said, “We believe there’s sufficient water at this point,” but added that the city has not completed a water study showing how much each part of the development would require. He said the city also must determine whether water tied to the former school property is enough to cover the project’s full impact.

An engineering memo in the council packet says the project would increase demand on the city’s culinary water system, including average day, peak day, peak instantaneous and fire-flow demands.

The memo calls for water analysis, line extensions or upsizing, looping, valves, hydrants, pressure improvements, possible storage or source-capacity contributions and water rights or water dedication.

It says looping a water main to 600 South or 300 West is likely and says high-level modeling showed “sufficient backbone capacity” if proper looping and sizing occur.

The same technical review identified other impacts that would need study or mitigation, including traffic, access, parking, pedestrian safety, fire flow, sewer capacity, stormwater, construction impacts, noise, building scale and compatibility with nearby uses. It says the developer would be responsible for constructing or funding improvements needed to mitigate the project’s impacts.

The site is already zoned for the proposed. Marker told the council the conditional-use process limits how the city can respond to general opposition.

Referring to state land use laws, he said, “We have to look at what are the reasonable impacts that this proposal will bring to the city, and what are the reasonable mitigations that can be proposed to address those reasonable impacts.”

The council packet says the council may request more details, approve, conditionally approve or deny the application only in limited circumstances. Citing state law, the memo says cities must approve conditional uses if “reasonable conditions can be proposed or imposed to mitigate reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use.” Residents also questioned the effect on Gunnison’s existing Main Street businesses.

Connie Sego asked whether new retail would pull businesses away from the historic downtown and asked whether the city needs another hotel, as existing motels are not always full. Wanner said any answer from him would be opinion, but added that the project could affect Main Street.

Marker said approval of a conditional-use permit would not by itself allow construction to begin. If the permit is approved, the developer would still need building permits, infrastructure bonding and other approvals.

Josh Spear asked the council for its consensus on the project. Council member Brian Nielson noted that the applicant has a property right to develop the proposal if he can mitigate the impacts of the development, but there was still “a lot of questions to answer,” and Wanner said he wanted more public input before taking a position.

“I think it’s very preliminary,” Wanner said. “Let’s talk about it some more, and hopefully we get more public input on it.”