The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
“But it’s still not a done deal…”
The 30-unit affordable housing project proposed for Crested Butte, Caddis Flats, has cleared one more major hurdle on its way to approval. The Board of Zoning and Architectural Review (BOZAR) approved the “General Plan”’ with several conditions on Tuesday, January 28.
The proposal has one more major town review and vote at the building permit phase, when the details of things like the architecture and landscaping will have to be worked out. The BOZAR approval last week came with some disagreement among the board, primarily over size and massing of the building at Sixth and Belleview, next to True Value.
Caddis Flats is a public-private partnership primarily between the Coburn Development Group and the Gunnison Valley Housing Authority. Financial support and expertise has also been received from an Ohio development firm, The Snavely Group, which has dealt in similar projects; the towns of Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte and Gunnison; Crested Butte Mountain Resort; and Gunnison County.
The three-story, 21,000-square-foot project would utilize about $5 million in tax credits awarded through the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), which the development team hopes to apply for by March 3. The renters who qualify to live in the units will have to earn less than 60 percent of county AMI (average median income) per year. At the moment, that would be less than $30,250 for a single-person household.
During Tuesday’s BOZAR meeting, Bill Coburn gave an overview of the project and the changes that have been made in the process. The building, which will have a maximum height of 35 feet, meets all town setbacks and has been pushed to the east to more closely front Belleview Avenue. There will be a pedestrian sidewalk as part of the project. All required parking, 45 spaces, will be located behind the building. The managers will have to contract with a local business to haul some snow from the lot since the project does not provide enough snow storage based on town regulations.
The BOZAR members took a series of votes at the meeting that ultimately passed the project through the General Plan phase.
During discussion over whether a flat roof was appropriate for the building, BOZAR member Peter Carey said he was not in favor of the roof. “It’s a three-story building with a flat roof and that seems to add to the mass of the building,” he said. “I think this building is too big for the lot. I’d like to see some of the mass and scale reduced.”
“I think in the context of the neighborhood they’ve made it work with the façades,” countered board member Crockett Farnell.
“The density of the building is where I have an issue,” said board member Carolina Alling. “I’d frankly prefer separate buildings.”
The board voted 3-2 to allow the flat roof, with Carey and Alling voting against it and Farnell, Liz Sawyer and Andris Zobs voting to allow it.
The next step was to discuss the appropriateness of low-income rental housing at the site. Again, Carey touched on the size of the building. “Snow storage is inadequate for a building that will house this many people,” he said. “I’d suggest the board look at other projects where snow removal is an issue. The landscaping is inadequate as well.”
Board chairman Sawyer disagreed. “I think to serve workers making less than 80 percent AMI, the size works,” she said. “They placed the building forward with the required parking on site. Yes, snow storage requirements aren’t met but under a PUD (planned unite development) they can have a contract for snow removal, so I am okay with that. I agree that the landscaping needs some fine-tuning. This is a unique project. There are no similar land uses like this.”
“Generally I think the size is relative to the buildings in the area,” said Farnell. “It’s not significantly different. Snow removal is manageable and enforceable. Landscaping is inadequate and we’ll need to see more at the next phase. As for Pete’s concern with congestion, putting a building of that size there will cause an impact but the traffic study shows that it won’t tick up close to a critical point.”
“What about the parking issues it will bring when the lot has to be plowed?” asked Carey.
Coburn said about one-third of the cars in the lot would have to be moved at once to accommodate plowing. “But that’s not dissimilar to other areas. We have to do that up in Pitchfork,” he said.
“Pitchfork isn’t as congested as that part of town already,” said Carey. “There will be a big impact in those situations.”
Zobs said he didn’t think finding parking for 15 cars in the area during a plow would be a significant issue. “From my perspective, I think the project meets variance criteria,” he said. “I think as far as the size, it is comparable to surrounding buildings.”
“I’m in support of the use but I still have issues that I would like to see changed, primarily in its scale and the landscaping,” added Alling. “It has a large amount of units but I think it all can be worked out.”
Jack Smith owns a unit in the Crystal Creek condos, located next to the project site. He told the board that he and some fellow owners have been disappointed in the public process to date. He said he only recently received a notice from the town about the opportunity to comment.
“We try really hard to include the public,” said Sawyer. “We want to hear your comments and tonight is an appropriate time.”
“We rely on public comment to make our decisions,” said Alling. “It helps us make the final decisions. The fact is, there was always the possibility for a building to go there and thus there would always be an impact.”
“I think the building is out of scale to the surrounding area,” Smith said.
Coburn then used a rendering of the project to show Smith some of the measures the developers have used to reduce the impact on Crystal Creek. “We looked at your windows and decks and reduced our width to try to accommodate the existing building. We moved it forward to lower the impact.”
“One fear is that too often government-funded housing projects seem to turn into ‘projects.’ But it sounds like you have it figured out better. But it’s a concern,” said Smith.
GVHA executive director Karl Fulmer outlined the long-term maintenance plan and said a hefty maintenance and replacement budget is part of the plan. “We are being aggressive over time,” he said. “We want to keep this a nice place.”
“When we started we were in the same boat as you,” Sawyer said to Smith. “We have included a list of things we need to see happen to maintain this project for years. We have to believe in the management.”
Carey again touched on the building’s size. “What if you took out a couple of units?” he asked. “Would that be a deal breaker?”
Fulmer said CHFA likes to see at least 30 units in the tax credit projects. He also said the budget with the low rents was pretty thin, especially for the first ten years. “We’d have to probably adjust that maintenance budget down and no one wants to do that. Given CHFA’s feedback, losing two units could be a deal breaker,” Fulmer said.
“When you go over to the lot, pinpoint to pinpoint, it is not that big,” said Sawyer. “The Majestic Plaza is that big. Crystal Creek Condos are that big, but spread out in three buildings.”
“The Crystal [Creek] Condos are half the size,” said Carey. “It’s 12,000 square feet versus 21,000.”
“Isn’t stacked density better?” asked Zobs. “I like it taller as opposed to broader. I’d rather see more ground space.”
Zobs noted Crystal Creek was about 12,000 square feet on 7,000-square-feet worth of foundations. Caddis Flats has a similar footprint with a much larger building.
“If you want to make it noticeably smaller, it would take more than eliminating two units,” suggested Farnell. “I think this size fits in the neighborhood.”
“I think losing two units could have an impact and make it much better,” said Alling.
“I just feel that because this thing is called ‘affordable housing’ everyone wants to see it happen,” said Carey. “I think we are glazing over some of our criteria to make it happen.”
“I really disagree with that,” said Sawyer. “We have asked for and gotten some changes.”
”It’s just too big,” said Carey. “The size and scale and parking are real issues. I’m not opposed to the concept of the project but am concerned with the speed. Everyone thinks this is already a done deal.”
“It’s not a done deal,” said Sawyer. “There is still the building permit review process.”
“We’ve looked at multiple buildings and various shapes,” said Coburn. “We couldn’t fit in the required parking. But we’ve spent a lot of time looking at a lot of different configurations. We’ve changed a lot of things with the project.”
“The parking is more responsible than anything in shaping this project,” commented Zobs. “I think the look of this building is similar to Sixth Street Station. It’s as good looking a building as any other building we’ve approved in town.”
“I don’t think that once it is built it will look as big as it does on the renderings,” added Farnell.
Carey also brought up some concerns about not bidding out the project and the fact that the Market Housing Study has not been completed.
When it came time to vote for approval of the overall General Plan, the BOZAR voted 4-1, with Carey voting against.
The developers will continue to meet with BOZAR with the hope of applying for tax credits in March and getting approval this spring. If the tax credits are not received in the March cycle, the development team will reapply in September.
