Sixth Street Station feels town treating them unfairly

Town contends the “application” was far from complete

Developers of the proposed Sixth Street Station came to the Crested Butte Town Council Monday, December 19, charging the town with being unfair. They alleged that action by the town is putting a new burden on the Sixth Street Station project that will cost them millions of dollars.

Attorney Chuck Cliggett and architect Gary Hartman told the council that because they believe they made a formal application for the project before the council adopted new and significantly higher affordable housing fees, they should be charged the old rate of $2.09 a square foot.
The town staff contends the application was incomplete when submitted and thus was not accepted before the affordable housing regulation change. Hartman said the difference in the fee is huge. Under the old fee, the development would have been charged $250,000, compared to almost $7 million under the current fee. That fee is expected to be decreased at some level by the current council.
The Sixth Street Station is a proposed retail, lodging and commercial development that would be located along the west side of Sixth Street between Gothic Field and the north end of town.
It has been proposed to be approximately 62,500 square feet in several buildings.
Mayor Aaron Huckstep made it clear that because the project could come to the council under an appeal from the Board of Zoning and Architectural Review (BOZAR) and the council would be acting in a so-called “quasi-judicial manner,” the council should listen to the presentation for information purposes only. Council members were advised to not ask questions.
“Our project has been in the mill four years,” Cliggett told the council at the council meeting. “We originally applied for approval three years ago. We withdrew that application at the ‘suggestion’ of the town and refiled it in April of 2011. That was two months before the new affordable housing regulations and fees were adopted. We felt we were in under the old ordinance. But then we were told by staff that we had to abide by the new ordinance regulations. This concerned us greatly.
“It’s an exciting project but we feel we were being treated unfairly and unreasonably by the town. We filed a good faith application,” Cliggett continued as he showed a thick binder of paperwork. “The town asked for some more information. Fine. There is never an application that is perfect at first. There are always questions and feedback. Our position is we filed the application. This has a sort of ‘gotcha’ feel. It’s wrong and unfair and unreasonable. To be treated in such a capricious manner is unfair.”
Cliggett said if the project is held to the new fees or even the lower fees that the council has been contemplating, it would “kill” the project. “If we messed up, that’s one thing. But we didn’t. We filed two months before the ordinance was passed. To play this game over the application is inappropriate. It is so patently unfair,” Cliggett said.
“We believe in this project,” added Hartman. “It brings a lot to this community and is coming with a group of local investors. Now we are at an impasse. As it stands, this project is dead without resolution about this ordinance.”
Hartman outlined a list of potential benefits associated with the large project, including local jobs, an increase in tax revenues for the town and potential beds for tourists.
Town attorney John Belkin told the council they should be looking at the presentation strictly from a legislative angle since they could be judging it at a later date.
Councilmen Jim Schmidt and John Wirsing asked for an executive session at the next meeting so they could receive legal advice from Belkin concerning the situation.
The town’s stance is outlined in a letter from Belkin to the developers dated September 16. It essentially states that town building and zoning director Bob Gillie made it clear to the developers in May that significant elements were missing from the application and “not in sync with the Town rules.”
According to the Gillie correspondence, numerous specific variance requests, the need for a conditional use, parking requirement calculations, an updated utility and grading plan and a traffic and parking plan were all absent in the application.
An executive session will be held with Belkin and the council at the next meeting to discuss legal matters over the issue.