Gunnison planning commission recommends denying rezoning for Sanders parcel, allows reapplication

The Gunnison City Planning Commission on July 9 voted to forward a recommendation to the Gunnison City Council to deny a request to rezone a 79-acre parcel owned by Jim Sanders.

The commission’s action followed the staff report from Dennis Marker, who recommended denial because the applicant had not submitted a development plan sufficient for the commission to determine compliance with the city—s standards (section 603). The applicant and his representative waived the requirement that they receive the staff report before the hearing and presented to the commission during a public hearing.

Jim Sanders, the property owner and applicant, told the commission he is not seeking to develop the entire parcel himself but wants to be able to sell part of it. "We—re not requesting to develop the land or anything else. We merely want to sell the land," Sanders said. He said a prospective buyer (identified in the hearing as IHC) would only buy a 10-acre portion but cannot do so under the current A-1 zoning because A-1 requires a minimum sale of 40 acres.

Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives, including subdividing a distinct 10-acre parcel for commercial use and leaving the remaining acreage as A-1 or rezoned later for residential (R-2). Commissioners emphasized they could not find evidence in the record that the applicant had satisfied requirements tied to section 603, including public health, welfare and safety considerations, access, and infrastructure needs such as water and sewer extension. Dennis Marker, author of the staff report, advised the commission the report—s recommendation reflected those missing elements.

Members raised specific concerns that a new commercial site would require water and sewer extensions across neighboring properties, potential right-of-way or access agreements for an unapproved roadway commonly referred to in the hearing as the Indian Road, and UDOT approvals for access from Highway 28. Commissioners also cited traffic-safety concerns at the highway approach and said they wanted evidence that property owners along the route would allow needed utility extensions or road upgrades.

Several commissioners noted the property is shown in the city—s general plan, "Our Valley, Our Vision," as open space or neighborhood in the long-term plan and said changing zoning now could set a precedent for other parcels. At the same time, some commissioners said a small commercial parcel adjacent to existing businesses (Valley Furniture and Valley Builders were cited) could be reasonable if all infrastructure and access issues were resolved.

After discussion the commission approved a motion (mover and seconder not specified in the audio record) to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the rezoning request based on the findings in the staff report. The motion as amended also noted the applicant may reapply with the required development information and supporting studies; commissioners said a future application that included a development plan, traffic and water/sewer information, and access agreements could be reconsidered. The commission—s recommendation will be considered by the City Council in a subsequent public meeting.

The hearing record shows the applicant and a partner, identified only as Charlotte in the record, spoke in support of allowing at least a parcel to be sold to the prospective buyer. City staff repeatedly advised the commission that, under current code, the lack of a development plan prevented a positive recommendation under section 603.

Next steps: the City Council will review the commission—s recommendation; the applicant may refile with the more detailed development materials the commission and staff identified as missing.