Debate over Brush Creek conditions continues between the two towns

December 3 joint council meeting scheduled

By Mark Reaman

A joint work session of the Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte Town Councils to continue hashing out appropriate conditions that a majority of both councils can support for the proposed Corner at Brush Creek affordable housing project will take place sometime in December.

Crested Butte town manager Dara MacDonald has redrafted a proposed letter for the two councils with seven potential conditions. They ranged from requiring five of the 14 acres on the site be set aside for future parking needs, limiting the remaining acreage density to no more than 15 units per acre, providing some “for-sale” units for low-income workers, suggesting a board be established to listen to disputes between tenants and landlords, and having the developer provide a financial pro forma to be analyzed by an outside expert.

Mayor Jim Schmidt told the council that he and Mt. Crested Butte mayor Todd Barnes had spent time with new Crested Butte Mountain Resort vice president and general manager Tim Baker to fill him in on the history of the project. Schmidt said Baker intended to be more involved with the project than the previous CBMR administration had been.

There is a split between the various council members from both councils on what should be included in the letter to the county commissioners. The Mt. Crested Butte council in general does not appear to want to demand any for-sale units or a pro-forma as part of the conditions. Crested Butte councilman Will Dujardin has consistently stated his desire to see the for-sale units in the project and allow more units on the property than is being suggested in the draft letter. He feels carving out five acres for parking is too much and said some of the demands were simply meant to “handicap” the developer, Gatesco Inc., so the project couldn’t be accomplished.

“Five acres seem too much to me,” he said. “Since 6A [the ballot measure to fund affordable housing] didn’t pass, it puts more of a burden on us to find a solution to keep moving forward with affordable housing. I encourage Gatesco to comment on these points at the joint meeting. I’m worried that we’ll send something that won’t be taken seriously.” He said he was concerned that Gatesco would walk away if the demands were too unreasonable and years of trying to craft a deal for the property would be for naught.

“We disagree on some points,” responded Schmidt. “I don’t think the five acres for parking is too much. Todd mentioned it and I agree that having Gates at the next meeting to comment is a good idea.”

“What we have done with these meetings with the two councils is try to define what is important for the whole community in general,” added councilman Kent Cowherd. “This can provide a variety of uses for a variety of the public. The five acres for parking is important, given the resort sale to Vail and the opening of a paved Cottonwood Pass. The number of Epic Pass holders will also provide a need for more parking and we are already short with parking.”

“It just feels to me the five-acre chunk is meant to make the thing smaller,” said Dujardin.

“I agree it is important to keep this moving forward and it feels like some are trying to handicap the project,” said councilman Paul Merck. “But I like the points and the questions we’re asking, but want it to move ahead.”

“I’m not trying to handicap anybody,” responded Schmidt. “We’re trying to get a project that works for the community. The five acres is a compromise. There are some that want more acreage for parking.”

“The dominant use on the parcel would still be housing,” pointed out Cowherd, “but this recognizes that the parking issue has to be preserved.”

Citizen George Gibson brought up the timing of transferring the land to the developer. He said it was important to be fair to Gatesco while protecting the public.

Written comments from Dujardin, Cowherd and councilman Chris Haver will accompany the draft letter for council members from both towns to review at the joint meeting that has not been formally scheduled.