The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Additional public meeting planned for October 11
On Friday, September 6 at 8 a.m., more than 90 people converged on the bi-monthly meeting of the Gunnison County Planning Commission to give testimony on the sketch plan for development of property in the Irwin area by Scarp Ridge LLC and its associates.
They came with notepads filled with bullet points listed out like recipes, with files of legal documents in 11-point print, with handbags and backpacks clutched to their chests. Leaning against the cream-colored walls, jammed thigh to thigh in plastic-backed chairs, sitting cross-legged on the floor, they came to lend their support or opposition to the plan, the project and the developers. Some came to build consensus while others came for a fight.
Here are some of the reasons why.
Beginning in September 2007 and continuing through 2011, Scarp Ridge LLC purchased several old mining claims in the Irwin area 12 miles west of Crested Butte. In those four years, the group acquired 19 mining claims, five of which were clustered together. Together the claims included the old Irwin Lodge and totaled 145 acres in an area some considered ripe for economic development and others considered pristine backcountry.
Sold like private property, these claims granted the owners the right to develop the land in a manner consistent with current state and county land use regulations. However, development that caused a significant negative impact or potential impact to the environment, the wildlife or the culture of the area may require approval from the county in the form of a land use change permit under the land use resolution (LUR), the set of regulations that govern most land development in the unincorporated areas of Gunnison County.
This stipulation, which has been part of county law since the mid-1970s when the LUR was adopted, came into play this summer when Scarp Ridge LLC submitted a preliminary sketch plan to Gunnison County for the commercial development of its purchased land.
“The county does not require land use change permits for people who want to build residential on mining claims as long as there are no impact issues. On each parcel you’re allowed to build at least one unit,” said David Leinsdorf, the lead attorney for Scarp Ridge LLC in its negotiations with the county.
“However,” Leinsdorf continued, “because they are proposing construction for commercial use, the county asked to see a comprehensive sketch plan. What we’re trying to do is just enlarge the tourist-oriented business that is established at the Irwin Lodge and has been for the last 35 years.”
The preliminary master plan, which outlines everything the developers wish to do in the course of the next 20 years, called for the renovation of the old Irwin Lodge, the construction of six cabins ranging in size from just a few hundred square feet to 8,000 square feet, mountain biking trails, ropes courses, ziplines, infrastructure for canopy tours, expansion of several existing structures, a kids’ village and the rerouting of the popular Scarp Ridge Trail, among other things.
“There are only two really significant issues to be decided on,” said Leinsdorf. “One of them is for the Forest Service and the other is for the county.”
Those issues are the proposed relocation of the lower section of the Scarp Ridge Trail, which falls under the jurisdiction of Gunnison district ranger John Murphy and the United States Forest Service, and the impact of the proposed development on wildlife and its associated habitat—that’s an issue that the county must rule on with the help of state and private biologists, said Leinsdorf.
According to Scarp Ridge LLC employees, the trail reroute would serve to move the beginning of the trail from its current location behind the Irwin Lodge. With the reroute the construction of an actual trailhead on the developer’s private land is being proposed. The trailhead would include a parking area with room for up to 22 cars, two pit toilets and an information kiosk. The reroute would intersect with the trail out of the Irwin Lake campground and would quickly move onto public land as it intersects with the existing trail on 70 Ridge.
“This would be a designed trail with switchbacks, water bars and proper construction techniques,” said Scarp Ridge LLC employee and Irwin operations manager Billy Rankin. “The reroute would require about 4,000 feet of new trail and would add approximately 2,300 feet of total distance—the equivalent of the Elk Avenue business district. It would also add about 300 more feet of elevation, moving the total trail elevation gain from 1,200 feet to 1,500 feet.”
Planning commissioner Susan Eskew added, “The overarching theme of concern is the privatization of public amenities. People don’t like change. I didn’t like the proposal to change the Green Lake trail, but it’s a good trail. A designed trail is a preferred experience. A trailhead is a good thing, and change will benefit us in the long run.”
Concerning wildlife, Scarp Ridge LLC has been working with a private wildlife biologist to determine effects on local fauna. In addition, the developer has recently reached out to the state and is working with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to arrange a site visit.
“The wildlife issue was raised with county staff back on August 13, and we decided at that meeting that we needed to get the government and the private wildlife biologists on a site visit together to show the government people what’s being proposed, because they’ve never really known where things are being planned,” said Leinsdorf.
“Until we have that site visit and do some further information gathering,” Leinsdorf said, “nobody can really say which species of wildlife will be affected, how they will be affected and whether the impacts will be significant, minor or moderate. None of that has been scoped out, and that’s typically the kind of information that will be gathered at this stage. The other aspects are just preliminary.”
Preliminary or not, those other issues, along with the wildlife and the Scarp Ridge trail relocation, remained in the forefront for many members of the Planning Commission’s audience.
Of specific concern were issues including water availability and treatment; the size and timing of the construction of the proposed cabins; public access on the private property and in terms of easements for reaching public lands; trail maintenance; fire protection; noise pollution; and overall ecological health.
Peter Bridges, a 25-year home owner in Crested Butte, said he feels “very strongly that the proposal of the developers should be rejected. The land use change proposed is not compatible with the land use resolution and existing land uses in the development area.”
Bridges said Scarp Ridge LLC’s record of land stewardship in the Irwin area is suspect.
As evidence of the developer’s failure to mitigate for recreational uses on its land, Bridges cited the state of the current Scarp Ridge Trail, which is heavily eroded and has severe trenching in some of the sections of the trail on private land.
A lack of detail and perceived discrepancies within the plan also raised concerns for some people.
“We’re still unclear about this plan and whether this is the full plan and how long it goes,” said James Thomson, a summer resident in Irwin since the late 1970s. “We are confused that these six cabins are described in some places as single-family residences but in other descriptions they’re basically dormitories for conference attendees and this sort of thing. We don’t know what it’s going to be. Are we getting neighbors who are residents and sort of in the community there, or is it more a Club Med thing where there’s a flow-through?”
Others in the audience, however, supported the plan and Scarp Ridge LLC’s prerogative to develop their property as it saw fit.
JW Smith, a full-time year-round resident in Irwin for the last five years and a property owner in Irwin for 12 years, argued in support of private property rights and for the relocation of the beginning of the Scarp Ridge Trail.
“I own property up there and I expect to be able to build someday,” said Smith. “These people own property, and I just see no reason for them not to be able to build up there, because it’s sort of their right and that’s how the county taxes them.”
Smith went on to say that the proposed trailhead and trail relocation would also benefit private property owners in the Irwin area by serving as a means to educate the public and protect natural lands.
“[Currently] there is no signage [at the trail], there is no information for people that are coming out there. People are parking; they’re pulling off in all kinds of new places. … Even though they’ve been going there for 30 years they’ve been trespassing for 30 years. This is an old mining town, and it’s always been private.”
The Planning Commission meeting on the development proposal ended before many in the audience could have their say. However, board chairman Kent Fulton assured the audience that the commission wished to continue to hear comment and opinion from the public.
“Know that the Planning Commission has not come up with a draft, nor have we come up with any idea as to how we sit on this current application,” he said. “Part of the reason we’re hearing public opinion is we want to know where the public stands.”
The Planning Commission will again hear public comment on the development proposal on October 11 at 9 a.m.
In the meantime the public is still invited to submit letters and emails to the commission.
For more information visit gunnisoncounty.org.
