Density reduced in Forest Hollow sketch plan for annexation

Public hearing continued

Developer Gary Garland may have been hoping that he could speed up the annexation process in the town of Mt. Crested Butte by reducing the density of the proposed Forest Hollow neighborhood, but it will still be several months before the Town Council will have a chance to consider the annexation.

There was a public hearing to discuss the preliminary sketch plan for Forest Hollow on Wednesday, June 17. Due to a decision by Garland to reduce the density of the development, and the Planning Commission’s desire to see more trail easements on the plan, the public hearing was continued to August 5.
Earlier this spring the Planning Commission, and subsequently the Town Council, approved the Forest Hollow parcel’s eligibility for annexation into the town. Simply put, the parcel of land met state and town standards for incorporation. The early sketch plan presented by Garland called for a total of 43 units in a mix of high density and single-family homes on an 8.9-acre parcel of land at the very northwest corner of town, at the base of Snodgrass Mountain.
The high number of units on less than nine acres caused some concerns among Mt. Crested Butte residents, primarily because the higher density on the edge of town went against the provisions of the town’s 2007 community plan, which calls for lower density on the edges of town.
But in approving the parcel’s eligibility, the council did not make any approval of lot layout or density.
On Wednesday, community development director Bill Racek told the Planning Commission that they were now making a decision on more specific aspects of the sketch plan and the development’s density. Racek said one thing the commission should consider was the layout of trails and easements. He also suggested that the commission require 100-foot buffers from wetlands, rather than the 50-foot buffers proposed by Garland.
Planning Commission member David Eleeson asked if the commission should consider the location of ski lifts accessing the proposed Snodgrass ski area expansion as part of their recommendation to the Town Council approving the sketch plan.
Racek said there was no way to tell where any ski lifts will ultimately go at this point and the commission would have to plan around that. He said the town’s community plan did charge the commission and Town Council with making sure any new developments can accommodate the proposed ski area expansion.
The public was then given an opportunity to comment. Mt. Crested Butte resident Bob Goettge said the density of the sketch plan that was presented would increase density on the edge of town and went against the town’s 2007 community plan. Goettge said the town’s approval of the re-zoning of the Promontory subdivision supported the community plan’s goals.
Mt. Crested Butte resident Jim Sharpe agreed with Goettge on the density issue, saying, “If you guys don’t follow the principles set for in the community plan, we might as well not have a community plan.”
Sharpe also voiced his concerns about the necessity of a sharp u-turn on a steep hill to access the property.
He said the developer also needed to prove that there was a public benefit in the annexation. In previous meetings, Sharpe said, the public benefit being pitched was more “hot beds” (i.e., units for rent). “If that is indeed the case,” he said, “you guys need to deed-restrict that. It could easily be a bait and switch.”
Crested Butte resident Sue Navy, on behalf of High County Citizens Alliance, asked the Planning Commission to consider possible effects on an adjacent conservation easement on Crested Butte Mountain Resort property. “We think the high density if approved would create many impacts to the conservation easement,” Navy said.
Garland then had a chance to respond, saying he originally came in with a plan for higher density based on a Snodgrass lift coming down on the property. “I’ve tried to get a commitment from Tim Mueller over the last few months, but we haven’t come to a conclusion whether that lift is going to come down there or not,” he said.
“I don’t want to play ‘what if,’” Garland said. “If that lift doesn’t happen, I don’t want high density.”
Garland proposed taking the public advice and returning to a lower density, with a plan very similar to what he presented a year and a half ago when the Forest Hollow (then called the Astronaut Parcel) annexation was first proposed. Garland suggested a plan with eight single-family units and one duplex.
Regarding Sharpe’s concerns, Garland said his engineers had confirmed the u-turn would be feasible to build and drive on. Garland admitted the turn looked narrow on paper, but the plans represented a 60-foot wide easement.
Garland said he did not show trail easements in the sketch plan because the town did not require them at this stage in the planning process and it would make the plan look messy.
Planning Commission chairman Dusty Demerson asked the other members of the board if they wanted trail easements shown on the plans.
Planning Commission member David O’Reilly said he would be more comfortable approving the sketch plan if trail easements were shown. O’Reilly said he was also pleased with the reduction in density.
Racek reminded the commission that once they close the public hearing they have only 28 days to make a recommendation to the Town Council. Racek said there was a lot on the table regarding the reduction in density and the need to show trail easements.
Demerson said, “My personal feeling is that [the density is] a really significant change to the proposal. I would like to see how the lots lay out and how the easements are drawn.”
Garland said he thought lowering the density would make the decision easier, and he hoped they would not lose more time in the annexation process. Garland said if the commission wanted to see trail easements at the sketch plan stage, the town should include such a provision in the town code.
Racek said the town was revising the code and that may be considered. He noted the Planning Commission can ask for additional information as they see fit prior to recommending any plans for approval by the Town Council.
The public hearing is being continued on August 5 to allow the Planning Commission time to see the revised sketch plan with trail easements.