The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
“This level of information is required at this level of the process”
The devil is in the details, and there’s a lot on the line when you’re planning the future development of Mt. Crested Butte’s Mountaineer Square North and the proposed Performing Arts Center (PAC). The daunting task of reviewing those plans falls to the town Planning Commission, town staff and the Town Council. The Planning Commission has approved the preliminary plan, and for the second meeting in a row, the public and the Town Council had the opportunity to dig deep into the details.
The public hearing on the preliminary plan for the Mt. Crested Butte Performing Arts Center and the rezoning of Mountaineer Square North continued on Tuesday, September 7 at town hall. And while the public hearing closed relatively quietly, the council’s discussion of the preliminary plan was tabled until its next meeting on Tuesday, September 21.
Mt. Crested Butte resident Moss Wagner was the lone member of the public to speak at the hearing. He had visited the town of Mt. Crested Butte’s website and had a question regarding whether the proposed Aquatic Center was back on the table in addition to the Performing Arts Center. Wagner explained that he read the town has the ability to borrow up to $25 million in bonds, and listed the Aquatic Center among potential projects.
“Is the Aquatic Center on the table now?” Wagner asked the council.
Mayor William Buck clarified, “The DDA [Downtown Development Authority] has authorization to borrow up to $25 million. The $25 million is more than we can afford. What the town is proposing is in the neighborhood of $5 million.”
Town manager Joe Fitzpatrick explained, “The recreation center came in under the last PUD [Planned Unit Development] alteration that went through preliminary planning. Getting into that, once we looked into it and had a feasibility study completed, it was too expensive. In order to have a recreation center at this end of the valley we need partners.”
A letter from Steve Bunt, vice president of Evergreen Homeowners Association, was submitted for the record and the council’s consideration. Bunt did not attend the meeting, but wrote, “Mountaineer Square North is a plan we have to live with for a long time. We feel that the snow shed and storage problems and unclear building height origins proposed by [Crested Butte Mountain Resort] need to be addressed before the public hearing is closed, to give the public a chance to address our concerns once the heights and setbacks are specified. What is the rush?!!”
With no more public comment, the hearing closed but not the discussion. Several of Bunt’s concerns were discussed at length during the regular meeting that followed.
Council contemplates the preliminary plan
The Planning Commission has already approved the Preliminary PUD III plan for Mountaineer Square North, and now it’s come before the Town Council for discussion and potential approval.
In a memo dated September 7, the Community Development Department—specifically Bill Racek and Carlos Velado—informed the Town Council of three concerns it has related to the requirements of a PUD Preliminary Plan that should be addressed prior to approval by the council.
According to the September 7 memo and town code, the intended setbacks for all lots must be included in the PUD Written Statement, and the Preliminary Development Plan must include the location and approximate dimensions of all structures and improvements. According to the Community Development Department, some of those details are lacking in the current plan and must be addressed to be in compliance with town code.
Another concern revolves around height and defining from where building heights are to be measured. Also, the allowable distance between buildings on particular lots in Mountaineer Square North needs to be referenced in the plan.
Community Development Department director Bill Racek opened the discussion by listing the issues noted above. He then addressed the council, saying, “These are fundamental problems with the PUD. The solutions are in the developers’ hands, and before you approve the preliminary plan you need to see those solutions, and allow the public to comment on those solutions.”
Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s director of planning John Sale responded to Racek’s concerns. “We’re moving forward with the thought that this would be adopted as a condition, and we would address this in the PUD guide. What we’ve outlined is what we’ve worked out with the [Performing Arts Center].” Sale said CBMR had adopted a 10-foot setback for the entire PUD, but said the requirements regarding distance between buildings would be challenging to calculate since the specific development plan for those lots are not yet in place.
“We’re not sure what’s going to be built there yet; it would fall under design review at that time,” said Sale.
Mayor Buck commented, “So it’s somewhat of a burden to figure out lines between buildings that aren’t built yet.”
Sale responded, “We really have no idea, other than density and height limitation, what [will be built] on MSN [Mountaineer Square North] 2, 3 or 4.”
But Racek said, “It’s not good enough. The process is predicated on that information being included in the preliminary plan. It allows the public the opportunity to comment on concerns related to what’s being proposed.”
Councilperson Gary Keiser asked about the concerns being raised, “Did this just come up? Has this been floating around…?”
Racek responded, “Hunter [Dale] handled the project until now and, candidly, I think he overlooked it.” Hunter Dale is a former employee of the Community Development Department.
“How can they determine it?” Buck asked.
“The setback between buildings?” Racek clarified. “The same way they figured it out for the buildings along Emmons Road—by resigning yourself to the fact that this level of information is required at this level of the process. If you put everything off to final, and not take on public comment, I think you’ve done a disservice to the community.”
“That’s one potential outcome, among others,” Buck stated.
CBMR vice president of resort planning and development Michael Kraatz said, “The town code is the town code—we can’t ignore that.”
Councilperson Chris Morgan added, “If you don’t follow town code, unintended consequences could happen. It could be detrimental to the public amenity of the project.”
Then councilman David Clayton said, “This is really a Planning Commission issue. One option is to kick it back to the Planning Commission and say, ‘How could you overlook this stuff?’”
“Or it can be dealt with at final,” commented Buck.
Questions were then raised about how delaying the approval process might affect the proposed Performing Arts Center.
“They all get approved at the same time,” explained Racek, who added, “There is no way to separate” the PAC from the rest of the PUD.
Len Segel of architecture firm Slaterpaull then spoke from the crowd. Slaterpaull is designing the proposed PAC. “To slow the process down would not be a good thing for the PAC, because it is in the mode of fundraising and it would create some uncertainty, and how it is perceived by the public.”
Buck said, “It sounds a little too fuzzy and undefined to hold this thing up, when the applicant can be accommodating at final.”
Carlos Velado of the Community Development Department then explained, “These issues are being addressed one way or another. The larger issue… these are big enough issues you want to allow the public to comment on. In the end, it’s a matter of if you feel comfortable enough not going by code. The bigger issue is allowing the public comment, and knowing the public might change your thoughts on the project.”
Councilperson Keiser said, “I don’t feel it’s very fair for the applicant to get all these ‘new problems’ at the last minute.”
Buck asked, “Are these aspects intense enough or numerous enough to delay the process? According to our co-applicant, they are not. Is it worth delaying the process, when we can work this out at final?”
Kraatz responded, “I think it’s worth waiting two weeks to address the issues Bill has brought forward. It’s well worth the two-week delay to do that.”
With that, the discussion was tabled until the next council meeting on September 21.
