Annexation talks generating some heat

Back to the drawing board or a little tweaking?

The process of whittling down the concerns of the town and the public over the proposed Foothills annexation began Monday night. The ultimate objective is to see if the Town Council and developers can agree to carve out something acceptable to both parties.

 {mosloadpositions user1}

The Crested Butte Town Council, acting as the Planning Commission, discussed the project in a three-hour work session. While highlighting more than 20 major issues, the board agreed to address five primary topics at its next meeting—wetlands, development in the flood plain, the Slate River, views and the old town dump. That meeting is scheduled for September 8.
The Planning Commission first heard from attorney Jim Starr, who represented the developers. Starr explained that the proposed 68-acre development would be located north of town, wrapping around the cemetery to the current Moon Ridge development. Proposed density ranges from a total of 40 units under compliance with the Crested Butte Area Plan to 400 total units under the most dense variation proposed by the developers.
Starr suggested the council give the developers extra credit under affordable housing guidelines for actually building deed-restricted, affordable housing units. Making it clear again that the developers need to make a profit with the project, Starr said “This really is a collaboration with the Planning Commission and the applicant. We have issues here such as affordable housing, public lands, parks, public buildings and other amenities and we hope to get a read of the Planning Commission on how to prioritize different factors.
We want a sense from the council on what you value.”
Starr shared a list of “potential amenities” such as an arts center, ice rink, firehouse, rec center, and health care facility that could be included in the annexation.
 The developers are also suggesting they could implement a voluntary 1 percent real estate transfer fee to help raise money within the development. “On things like open space, we certainly understand open space will have to be provided,” Starr said. “It’s one of the trade-offs in the process. It comes down to money. Do we spend more money on open space or on affordable housing? All of these issues are out there.” Under the list of potential amenities, the proponents made it clear that “The level of amenities provided will be relative to the level of approved density.”
Crested Butte town planner John Hess began a lengthy overview of how the proposal fit in with the town’s Area Plan. That plan, originally developed in 1993 and revised in 2005, outlines in some detail what Crested Butte expects with development near its borders. Hess gave the Planning Commission a document showing areas of conflict between the Area Plan and the proposal.
Hess noted conflicts between the proposal and town guidelines with density, public lands, open space, water rights, wetland concerns, view corridors and other issues. But the Planning Commission felt Hess was taking too much of the allotted time in the work session and wanted more public input, so Hess was cut short. “This is a real complex proposal and it will take a lot of time,” he told the board. “As long as you understand that, I’m fine with not going deeper into it at this time.”
While the proponents had an issue with how Hess calculated density, the town planner told the board that current density in Crested Butte, excluding the school and open space on the Town Ranch property, the commercial property in town and Verzuh open space land was about 3.6 units per acre. At build-out it would be 4.2 units per acre. Hess said Foothills is coming in at about 7.5 units per acre. He also told the council that while there was a process for considering the annexation, “You can tell them you only like white and they shouldn’t even talk about black. The clearer you say it and the earlier you say it, the less brain damage for everyone.”
During the public comment period of the meeting, resident and former Gunnison County Planning Commission chair John Banker wanted to know if the council could make a motion at any time to reject the annexation proposal or if it had to go through a series of meetings. He was told they could reject the plan at any time.
Resident Peter Bridges told the board that approving this annexation would “make a mockery of Crested Butte’s long-standing National Historic District designation. The fact is the Foothills would be a suburb of the town and we don’t need a suburb in Crested Butte.”
Former councilperson Margot Levy told the board that the Area Plan she helped update “doesn’t lay out outrageous numbers for developers. It’s very reasonable. Remember too that the Verzuh annexation that was finally approved was probably the third or fourth proposal for that property. These things come and these things go. Think of the town today and what you want to reflect in this development, for example having 60 percent occupancy in the town.”
Moon Ridge resident Maureen Hall said that while there was nothing wrong with the developers making a profit on the project, “It’s not up to the town to ensure that they make that profit. A prudent investor would look at the Area Plan and wonder what the land was worth if they followed those guidelines.”
Longtime Crested Butte resident Wayne Meredith brought the board’s attention to the potential danger of the old town dump, which is on part of the proposed annexation land. “It was a nasty place and probably was 20 acres big,” he said. “There’s no doubt that there is toxic waste in the old dump.”
Glena Galloway spoke in favor of the proposal. “This is an opportunity to address growth that’s already happened in town,” she said. “Change isn’t necessarily all bad. When we needed a school, we built it and made the community better for our kids and everyone. Some changes are right here in front of us and I think we have community needs that this annexation can help address.”
Acting mayor pro tem Billy Rankin (both mayor Alan Bernholtz and mayor pro tem Leah Williams were absent from the meeting) said the town also sees some potential with the plan. “We won’t be making any motion to reject this tonight because I think our whole planning commission sees some opportunity here,” he assured Galloway.
Mary Jane Bridges asked who would pay for another addition to the school if this annexation brought more people to town. She wondered who would pay for the snow plowing and the upgrade to the water facilities. “Not everyone will walk or ride their bikes from there. So how do we handle the increase in traffic?” she asked. “I just think given the tight financial situation in the country that the timing of this venture is completely wrong.”
High Country Citizens’ Alliance board member Larry Mosher said his group had confidence in the town officials to oversee the proposal. “HCCA won’t take a position for or against this but we do have concerns over the water supply, impacts on wetlands and riparian corridors and things like the storm water pollution into the Slate River. We trust you will address those topics.”
John Banker recalled he used to see plenty of fights at the county level over preserving the entrances to Crested Butte as open space. “With the help of organizations like the Land Trust we helped protect these open spaces along the highway,” he pointed out. He also asked the town to keep national and international issues like the rising price of oil and gas in mind and what the ramifications of things outside the valley mean to Crested Butte. He also suggested the Planning Commission perhaps hold a meeting focused on “why consider this at all. That’s the big question to be answered before getting into details about specific issues. It’s difficult to have a meeting that jumps between the big questions and then into details about lot sizes or setbacks.”
Sue Navy wanted the developers to stop referring to the two parcels of land separated by the Slate River in the Texas vernacular as the North 40 and the South 40. “The southern part is 20 acres, not 40. It’s misleading. Call it what it is,” she said.
Navy reminded the council that the town’s Area Plan was there for developers to use as a tool for development in Crested Butte. “It’s easy to use if they want,” she said. “Let them see what fits and then bring back a proposal that works. This isn’t it. And while the affordable housing aspects of the plan look good, it shouldn’t come at the expense of the other values of town. I’m also concerned about the cemetery, which is part of our heritage. Having an unending construction zone in that area is an affront to all of us. I just think it is premature of the council to look at detail issues. Send it back to the drawing board and focus on that.”
Crested Butte attorney David Leinsdorf said it was a strange day when he and Sue Navy were on the same page. “As the old saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. It’s not every day David Leinsdorf agrees with Sue Navy,” said Leinsdorf. “Look at the staff report and look at a legitimate comparison of the town density and the proposed density of this annexation. It is a non-starter. John Banker’s point is a good one. This is a waste of time to try and tweak this proposal. They need to be told to come back with a proposal closer to your Area Plan.”
Longtime council watcher Harvey Castro agreed as well. “When you come in to negotiations with an extreme position, you can’t have a negotiation and this is an extreme position,” he said. “I agree it should go back to the drawing board. Also think about the important view corridors from the Rec Path looking up Paradise Divide. With this, that view will be suburbia.”
And then it was the Planning Commission’s turn to comment. “I thought our Area Plan was out there as a document showing what we’d really want but it’s always negotiable,” said board member Skip Berkshire. “It’s not written in stone. It’s not the Magna Carta. I always thought the Area Plan and Land Use Plan encouraged more development between Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte.
“It all boils down to transportation for me,” continued Berkshire. “I can’t imagine putting that number of units out there and not ending up with one or two traffic lights.”
Board member Kimberly Metsch was concerned over the “look and feel of the proposal.” She also wanted the density issue and amount of park space addressed. “I’m concerned that it’s supposed to be an extension of town but it doesn’t look like an extension of town,” she said. “Traffic is also a concern.”
“Whatever is built out there should be built with intelligent design like passive solar elements,” added board member Dan Escalante.
Rankin had his laundry list of concerns, including wetlands issues, energy efficiency and sustainable building practices, open space and park issues, public access to the Slate River and trails, water, who builds the affordable housing, maximum size of buildings, the town dump, waste water capacity and how to utilize the Area Plan. “We can use the Area Plan as a guide but at the end of the day, it is up to us to use it like we want,” he said. “But I’d really hate to take months and months to talk about certain issues and then hit a deal breaker. I want to prioritize our concerns and address them.”
“Then perhaps we go back to what John Banker suggested,” said board member Reed Betz. “Is it worth doing all this with the feeling that we need a lot more information on certain topics? Maybe we do need to take a giant step back and ask… Do we want to do this at all?”
Escalante disagreed. “There are so many variations it could end up really cool,” he said. “I feel like we need education on some things like how much water the town will need in the future.”
“Maybe I’m not looking far enough down the road,” added Berkshire. “This is probably one of another 100 meetings.”
The town staff will begin compiling data for the Planning Commission to use at future meetings. The next meeting on the annexation will be September 8 at 6 p.m.