The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Plopping an urban grid over there will have an impact
Proponents of the Foothills of Crested Butte annexation heard from the town Planning Commission last week that the town was willing to work with the developers over the wetlands issue—even to the point of agreeing to fill in some low-quality wetland areas—but protecting wetlands in general remained a priority.
In a two-hour meeting on Wednesday, March 11, town planner John Hess told the Planning Commission (which is also the Town Council) that he and the town’s wetland expert, Andy Herb of Alpine Eco, had been working with the developers and their expert, Dave Mehan of Bikis Water Consultants. They came up with areas of both agreement and dispute over wetland issues and asked the commission for further direction.
The Foothills is a proposed annexation development on the northern border of Crested Butte. Recently reduced to 43 acres (see story on page 1) the proposed annexation is comprised of the land generally between the highway to the west, the cemetery to the north and the recreation path to the east.
“The Crested Butte Area Plan and subdivision regulations reflect the community attitude toward wetlands,” said Planning Commission chairman and Crested Butte mayor Alan Bernholtz. “Wetlands are obviously a priority for the town. We are willing to look at anything, but everyone should understand that wetlands are important to us.”
After much discussion between the Planning Commission, staff, developers and public, the commission concluded that allowing an annexation would mean changing the character of the wetlands north of Crested Butte.
That epiphany came during a long discussion of whether to allow people to access the Slate River from a trail planned to run along the east side of the river. Bernholtz asked for access that would allow people and pets to recreate in the river. Others wanted to limit access to restrict people and animals from trampling the wetlands on the shore of the river.
“We want good access to the river, I think,” said Bernholtz. “This community is hardy. The area will be impacted by people and domestic animals a lot. I am concerned we will put up a glass wall and the river will be restricted to just looking at it. I envision more action with the river.”
Foothills attorney Aaron Huckstep of Starr and Associates asked if the town wanted a trail inside the wetland area, since the developers were planning a trail that followed the river but on the edge of the river wetland.
Bernholtz said he just wanted more access points to the river.
“I’m not sure I agree,” countered planning commissioner Skip Berkshire. “I would discourage too much activity to the river. I am okay with a trail away from the wetlands.”
The town’s wetland consultant, Andy Herb asked if the commission was looking for “a recreation corridor or a wetlands corridor, because they are not very compatible.”
Commissioner Billy Rankin said that was a great question, one that should be addressed with other experts at another meeting. But he and commissioner Kimberly Metsch suggested the possibility of elevated trails through the wetlands to the river.
Commissioner Leah Williams said the council shouldn’t “talk out of both sides of our mouths.” She said if wetlands are a stated priority of the town, they should be protected.
Bernholtz asked if it was possible to protect wetlands “with houses developed on both sides of the river and a trail running along it.”
“You guys are missing the big picture here,” said Crested Butte resident Steve Glazer. “Plopping an urban grid over a wildlife corridor has an impact. A herd of 50 elk migrate through those wetlands. There is a huge complex of wetlands east and west of this proposed development. You are creating a social grid here and the functions the wetlands exhibit now will be lost. Kids and dogs will find the river. By approving this annexation, you cannot help but change the character out there.”
Bernholtz said the town had moved to the point of at least considering development on that land. “We have to ask ourselves if we are okay with the adverse impacts of a neighborhood and things like a trail by those wetlands.”
Commissioner Reed Betz said Glazer’s comments gave him some pause. “I’m not comfortable with the big picture and the impact this is imposing,” he said. “It is something to think about.”
“When the wetland discussion is going on between the town and the developers, I don’t like that it always centers on trying to reduce the recommended wetland buffer,” said Rankin. “We need to look at it not just from the developer’s point of view, but from an ecological point of view as well.”
Berkshire agreed, but he wanted any wetland buffer recommendations to be based on scientific facts.
Moon Ridge subdivision resident Joe Knox again asked the council to take into consideration the impact development would have not just on wetlands inside new town borders but on wetlands in the greater area.
“I don’t think any buffer should be measured just in feet, but also in terms of density,” Knox said. “Once you start putting people in there, the impact will spread to the wetlands in the entire area.”
Herb agreed. “This is the balancing act we have been trying to achieve,” he said. “If you want development, there will be changes to the wetlands.”
The town’s overall position appeared to be that wetlands in the proposed annexation that lie east of the Slate River were generally of higher quality and more sensitive than wetlands west of the river.
The town felt that filling in some wetlands, known as wetland D and E, would be okay to fill in to accommodate the grid system of town expansion. Mitigation measures would be required somewhere else in or near the site.
The highest quality wetlands on the site were labeled the “East Wetlands” on the eastern side of the property. The staff recommended smaller lots near that area, a 100-foot buffer between wetlands and any building and perhaps the prohibition of dog or cat ownership for people living in houses next to those wetlands.
“What’s the reality of telling someone they can’t own a dog or cat if they live on that street?” asked Bernholtz. “I can’t support that.”
The rest of the commission was equally lukewarm about the pet prohibition idea, but Berkshire did point out local coyotes could help control pets wandering into those wetlands.
“My gut just went nuts when Steve was talking about how we were going to impact the wildlife corridor,” commented Crested Butte resident Glo Cunningham. “I personally don’t want any development on the east side of the river now. It impacts the wildlife too much.”
Other citizens at the meeting, including Sue Navy and Nancy Wicks, agreed with Cunningham.
Bernholtz again emphasized that the town was looking to strike a balance.
Citing the good that came out of the Verzuh annexation—where there are now many year-round residents— Bernholtz said he was not opposed to development at the Foothills site. “We are trying to find a balance,” he said. “Balance with the wetlands, the community and the wildlife. I haven’t closed my mind to development on the east side of the river, but I feel strongly about protecting the wetlands.”
The developers and town are still in negotiations but no further meetings with the Planning Commission are on the docket.
