Access issue stalls new annexation proposed in Mt. Crested Butte

Town Council taking a new route with developer

The proposed Forest Hollow annexation in Mt. Crested Butte is at the end of the road, literally, and developer Gary Garland is having a tough time finding a way to access the property because of a nearby conservation easement.

Garland appeared before the Mt. Crested Butte Town Council on Tuesday, October 20 with a special request—to approve the annexation without a subdivision plan.
The 8.9-acre Forest Hollow parcel rests at the northwest edge of the town of Mt. Crested Butte. Garland is proposing nine single-family lots for the potential annexation. The town has already approved the parcel’s eligibility for annexation, and over the course of the summer Garland has been meeting with the town Planning Commission to iron out a sketch plan for the development.
Garland’s current plans call for an access to the property that would slightly overlap a conservation easement held by Colorado Open Lands. That easement was created during the negotiations for the annexation of the East and West Trade Parcels in 2001, which led to the development of the Prospect subdivision.
The easement is located on Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s (CBMR) property in a proposed development called Promontory.
During the meeting, Garland told the council that the Planning Commission and neighbors of the proposed annexation were pleased with the current plans, but “the Planning Commission has made it very clear that before they go through the sketch and preliminary [plans] they want the access issue cleaned up.”
Garland said when he purchased the property he was told that CBMR had the unequivocal right to grant his access through the conservation easement. “I found out that wasn’t really the case,” he said. Garland must now work with CBMR and Colorado Open Lands to have the conservation easement amended, in order to allow the access he is proposing. Garland said he and CBMR planning director John Sale were working to get the conservation easement amended, “but it’s going to take several months at best.”
Garland said because of town code his petition for annexation will expire on April 21, and he doesn’t think he will be able to resolve the access issue by then.
“What I’m asking the town to do is say ‘Fine, we’ll annex it and establish that zoning… but access to the property will have to be approved before final subdivision approval,’” Garland told the council.
“I really don’t know exactly where to start,” said Mt. Crested Butte community development director Bill Racek. “The Planning Commission, concurrent with their consideration of a subdivision sketch plan, is considering the zoning plan as well. With regard to the Planning Commission’s general impression and the neighbor’s impression of the proposed zoning, it is accurate, it’s positive, but it hasn’t even been brought to the council.”
Racek continued, “My impression was tonight’s meeting would be a discussion in relation to Gary’s annexation agreement. It is premature for you guys [the council] to judge the zoning and whether or not it’s appropriate to annex. It is not premature for you to consider Gary’s proposed annexation agreement.”
Town attorney Rod Landwehr was also unsettled by Garland’s proposal. “First of all, I am concerned about the lack of clarity on the access. From my experience, when problems like this arise people turn to the town to expect some resolution to their problem… I’m concerned about bringing a property into town that cannot be accessed. I’m not saying this can’t be done, but it’s not there yet. We’re just going to be in the middle of that potential issue.”
Councilmember Mike Kube said Garland was concerned about the annexation petition expiring and asked, “Can we extend that?”
Landwehr said yes.
“So that’s not an issue,” Kube said. “It seems to me what Gary’s asking is in violation of our own resolutions,” Kube said.
“It could be,” Landwehr said, noting that town usually requires a development plan before annexing a property.
Kube then asked, “What are the consequences? Is that going to restrict us in a certain way down the road, with our being able to say what the developer can or can’t do, or set a precedent with other developers or annexations?”
Landwehr replied, “It’s not like our hands would be tied… but your ability to bargain for things you want is much better now than it will be then.”
Racek said, “I think the best we can do at this meeting tonight is for the council… to appoint a committee to work with Gary to negotiate this annexation agreement.”
Landwehr said, “Without finding yes we’re going to [annex the property] or no we’re not, we can certainly start this negotiating process with the applicant. I would hesitate for you to make any yes or no decision on this annexation.”
The council agreed that the best way to proceed would be to form a committee to work with Garland on the annexation agreement. Council members Kube and Dave Clayton were selected for that committee and will be meeting with Garland over the next few weeks. A future meeting with either the Town Council or the Planning Commission has not been scheduled at this time.