The Foothills gets tepid reception from public

Open space includes acreage and access

Hundreds of acres of open space throughout the upper Gunnison Valley are part of the latest Foothills of Crested Butte annexation proposal. The sketch plan proposal was unveiled on Thursday, August 6 to a skeptical crowd of about 40 people during an informational meeting put on by the proponents at the Crested Butte Town Council chambers. Water issues, concern over the old town dump, and protecting a possible elk migration corridor were the primary concerns voiced by the citizens.

The Foothills has been in the works for more than a year. The 44-acre development is proposed for the land just north of Crested Butte, east of the highway, south of the cemetery and west of the recreation path. “Several years ago the town studied the area up here and this parcel was identified by the town and citizens as the place to expand the town,” explained Foothills lead attorney Jim Starr. “Keeping growth close to population centers to help not have sprawl was one big reason.”
 The developers purchased the property from the Trampe Ranch two and a half years ago and put an option on the adjacent Spann property, which they have since let go. In order to meet the town’s Area Plan and subdivision regulations, the annexors have met regularly with town staff and the Planning Commission and changed the plan several times over the last year.
According to Crested Butte town planner John Hess, the sketch plan process is meant to determine if the general proposal is appropriate. The details get discussed in the preliminary plan phase. The town Planning Commission, which is made up of the Town Council members, will hold a sketch plan public hearing on September 14.
As outlined by Starr, the current plan calls for approximately 160 units, of which about half will be deed-restricted as affordable housing. There are two commercial lots in the development across from the Gas Café. The configuration is similar to the current town grid. A one percent real estate transfer fee would be imposed on every sale in the annexation and put into a “sustainability” fund. Wetlands in the development are buffered, there is a river park, and no development is located east of the cemetery.
Based on the number of units proposed, the development is required to provide about 350 acres of open space. To meet that, the developers have put 384 acres of land owned by the Kochevar family along Slate River Road under contract. Seventy of those acres would be retained for the Kochevar family to build on. The developers would cluster another three or four building sites in the proximity of Nicholson Lake. About 100 acres of that land is visible from the town and would be free of development. A 26-acre parcel by Round Mountain, south of Crested Butte South, is also under contract by the developers and will provide trail access to Granite Basin that is on Forest Service property. The developers have also negotiated a trail easement at Baxter Gulch just south of Crested Butte that would eliminate 23 switchbacks on the current trail. By including the 15 acres of open space located on the annexation site, the developers feel they have more than met the open space requirement. Those contracts are all contingent upon annexation approval.
Foothills attorney Aaron Huckstep advocated the benefits of the annexation to the roomful of people. “Sales tax and real estate transfer tax in town has been going down consistently in the current economy,” he told the crowd. “A lot of the residential units would be owner-occupied and generate dollars for the town, so there is an economic benefit. If revenues drop, services from town will drop, so this can help keep revenues coming in and protect our quality of life.
“The second benefit is having some control over the property,” he continued. “It is likely that something will happen with that property and it will eventually get developed. The town has some control with where the units are located, the acquisition of open space and affordable housing. The town gets to have a role in crafting what this looks like. The clean-up of the old town dump is another benefit. There is a concern that hazardous materials are out there and we are willing to help address that.”
Starr said control from the town over the subdivision was a big benefit. When asked if the county wouldn’t allow such a dense development in the same area, Starr, a Gunnison County commissioner, said that wasn’t necessarily the right conclusion.
“While I obviously wouldn’t participate in any discussions if it went to the county, the county’s recent position is to put development next to current development. The county philosophy is to put growth near current population centers,” Starr said.
The amount of affordable housing and open space were also cited as benefits. Brant Bryan, one of the principals in the development group said they have made significant efforts to address the affordable housing issue. The town planning commissioners have stated they want to see at least 60 percent of the development deed-restricted for affordable housing. The annexors say the plan has about 53 percent of the units under deed restrictions.
“We don’t just want a second home development,” Bryan said. “We had originally proposed more overall units in an effort to get a lot more affordable units included. We are trying to do this right. We want to use a variety of tools to address the situation.”
The developers want to set aside vacant land designated for affordable housing; they’d be willing to give it to the town. They want to require deed-restricted accessory dwellings. They have some deed-restricted and free market “micro lots” that are about half the size of a normal town lot, which, they feel, will be sold at a discount.
“The county currently suggests 30 percent is the mark for affordable housing in new development,” said Huckstep. “The 60 percent mark has never really been reached anywhere. Currently, the town at build-out will have about 15 percent of its units as affordable housing. We are proposing 60 units of affordable housing on-site and maybe more off-site. It is pretty significant. We want to bring in as much affordable housing as reasonably possible.”

The audience checks in

The audience had several questions and comments for the proponents. Two members of the town Planning Commission, Billy Rankin and Margot Levy, attended the meeting but it was not an official town comment forum.
Crested Butte citizen and resident water expert Steve Glazer expressed several concerns about the water situation. He wanted to know from where water for the development would be obtained and how it would get to the development. “We want to make sure this project doesn’t give risk to the existing town,” he said.
Bryan said that water details would be addressed at the preliminary plan phase but it was the intention of the developers to purchase the needed “wet” water to service the development. It was estimated the development would use 62,000 gallons a day at build-out. Bryan said the water rights would be sufficiently dated to avoid putting the town at risk of having to supplement the new development with the town’s older water rights.
Glazer said the issue should be part of the sketch plan phase since it could be a “show stopper.” Several other people in the audience echoed Glazer’s concerns about water. Resident John Banker wanted assurance that the water rights obtained would be senior enough to not be “vulnerable to downstream calls.”
“I’d suggest also that there are implications to buying water,” said Glazer. “You take that water out of existing use. Just look at the Jack’s Cabin cutoff, where one of the most beautiful pastures in the state has disappeared.”
The old town dump was another issue repeatedly mentioned at the meeting. That dump is buried by the bus barn and is located on both town property and the development parcel. People who had lived in Crested Butte in the 1960s and ’70s said it would pose a major problem if it were dug into because all sorts of hazardous materials were simply dropped off at the site.
“How that will be addressed and paid for specifically between the developers and the town is still up in the air,” said Huckstep.
Starr said a bond would most likely be required to insure that once started, the work would be completed.
“I would encourage you and the town to be prepared for a recommendation to not disturb that area at all,” said resident Vicki Shaw. “That may be the best solution.”
Longtime residents Sue Navy and Glo Cunningham asked that development east of the Slate River be eliminated to accommodate wildlife, specifically elk migration. “I’m asking that you remove all development east of the river. Will you do that?” asked Cunningham.
“It doesn’t pencil out,” responded Starr. “It just doesn’t work. I’m waiting to see if the Department of Wildlife even identifies that as a migration corridor. The Recreation Path has already had a huge impact on that area.”
Planning Commissioner Billy Rankin asked about the goal of making the development carbon-neutral.
“It probably can’t be carbon-neutral with the current footprint,” responded Foothills sustainability expert Dan Richardson. “The scale may not make that possible right now.”
Bryan said a carbon-neutral development was still the goal and imposing a 1 percent transfer fee on all sales in the Foothills could help the development attain that goal if the money is spent wisely for sustainability.
Crested Butte’s Larry Mosher asked about the overall logic of annexing land at the moment. “The details are fascinating but the timing of the proposal is unfortunate because of the state of the economy. To expand in a time of uncertainty seems foolhardy,” he said. “How will there be a market for these houses? It really seems foolhardy for the town to take on an expansion and all the costs. That’s gambling at a time we should be conservative.”
“When do you know when it’s safe?” asked Bryan. “Three years ago, all the signs said do it. We should have bought the land a year ago. In real estate, you never know. Our projections have the rate of growth for the next several years as being half of what is has been.”
Mosher, who is president of the Public Policy Forum, said several of this summer’s speakers have been lecturing about the changing future with problems in climate change and population growth. “We are heading into tremendous problems to maintain our lifestyle,” he said. “There is no clear idea of how to deal with what’s coming and it seems weird to me for the town to take on this added responsibility at this time.”
Resident Chuck Shaw chimed in on the topic as well.
continued on next page
“It’s your option as a speculative developer to roll the dice,” he said. “But the town risk is then being responsible for the installed infrastructure that doesn’t get used if the development doesn’t turn out like you planned. It will be the town’s responsibility to maintain it.”
“That’s why we want to phase the project and start at the southwest and roll it out,” said Bryan. “We are sensitive to that concern. Believe me, I have spent a lot of nights awake thinking about it.”
Crested Butte homeowner Jamie Walton said he’d have to see a lot more benefit to the town before he jumped on board. “If you are adding 14 percent more homes to the town, the laws of supply and demand imply that the value of my house will decrease 14 percent. I’d say the current homeowners in town need to see a lot more than what you are offering.”
“We are trying to be partners and not adversaries,” said Bryan. “There will come a time when the town either decides they want it or they want to walk away. You all have to decide if you think it’s a good deal.”
The meeting ended after about two and a half hours of discussion. The developers said they would try to schedule a walking tour of the property for the public in the near future. The formal public hearing for the sketch plan in front of the Crested Butte Planning Commission is slated for 5:30 p.m. on September 14 in the council chambers.