Mt. CB denies rezoning request

“Zoning is a promise”

By Kendra Walker

During their June 20 meeting, the Mt. Crested Butte town council denied an application to re-zone the property at 740 Gothic Road from the single-family zoning district to the low-density multi-family zoning district. The rezoning request and proposed development included two affordable housing units. The council held a public hearing, heard from the applicant’s representative Aaron Huckstep and listened to public comment before ultimately deciding not to set the precedent that zoning can be easily changed in Mt. Crested Butte. 

The applicants, Stephanie and Brandon Giles, own the lot that is currently in the single-family residential zoning district and has an existing A-frame single-family home. The property is adjacent to single-family residential and low-density multi-family lots, including the Spellbound Condos and Pinnacles, and is across the street from the Out Run Condos in the high-density multi-family zoning district. 

The applicant requested to re-zone the lot to the low-density multi-family zoning district, proposing four total structures. Three of the buildings would be single-family and one would be two 600-foot deed restricted community housing units with garages. Community development coordinator Leah Desposato explained to the council that by providing two deed restricted units, the applicant would exceed the required .55 units of community housing triggered by the proposed development. 

Background

The application originally came before the Mt. Crested Butte planning commission in November 2021 for a public hearing and consideration. The planning commission made conditional approval in January 2022, with a condition that if the proposed access changed, the plan would need to come back to them for review. The applicant amended their proposed site plan to access from Gothic Road on the west side of the property, instead of the south side sharing a portion of the Pinnacles access. In February of this year, the planning commission held a public hearing and made a motion to recommend the town council approve the new proposed access and rezoning. 

“During review, the Planning Commission was concerned about setting a precedent,” explained Desposato to the town council. “They included approval motion criteria and findings to address their concerns.” These items included the following: the rezoning provides a significant community benefit by providing and constructing more than the amount of required community housing; three of the five neighboring properties, or 60%, are multi-family zoning; the current home on the property was developed prior to the incorporation of Town and before the Town’s zoning was established; community housing would have to be built prior to or concurrent with the other units; and the quality of the community housing would be consistent with the other units. 

Public hearing and discussion

“We think this particular plan as revised is a good solution for everybody. From our perspective we think the application has merit,” said Huckstep, noting the affordable housing component and updated access point from Gothic.

He also pointed out the property’s proximity to higher density zoning. “As you look at the adjacent properties, they are low-density or short-term rentals. If you look at the zoning map, it is literally across the street from high-density and low-density and a high-volume short-term rental property,” said Huckstep. 

Several neighbors to the property attended the public hearing and spoke in opposition of the rezoning development. 

“We purchased the property right across the street. We made a sizable investment,” said 

Jurgen Teintz. “We selected this location to find our permanent vacation home and retirement home based on the views. This is a single-family residential zoned property across from us, and we took that into consideration when we made our purchase. We assumed that zoning and the subsequent developing on that property is a settled matter and not up to some choice of the current council or property owners.”

“I believe its character, appearance and density are not consistent with surrounding neighborhood,” said Daniel Terral. “Four buildings and pavement for 16 parking spaces is not appropriate for that location.”

Bruce Bahnsen referred to the council’s decision last fall regarding the Future Land Use Map in the town’s Master Plan. The Future Land Use map proposed changing certain neighborhoods from low-density residential to medium- or high-density, however the town received community feedback opposing the changes and the council agreed the map would reflect the current zoning moving forward.

“The town shut the plan down based on community feedback which was strongly in opposition to the idea of upzoning,” Bahnsen stated in a letter to the council. “The subject property is adjacent to exactly three lots. Two of the three are single-family residential, and one is low-density multi-family. It is currently in harmony with this plan and no zoning change is warranted. The zoning map has a sharp line at which high density gives way to single-family residential density.”

He continued, “Moving from single-family to multifamily, on a given parcel of land, requires larger, taller buildings. These will create substantial visual impact. More people means more cars to park, more car alarms going off, more noise from slamming dumpsters, etc. The construction process also creates more disturbance when we consider the prospect of a single-family residence vs four distinct buildings.”

Elizabeth Bahnsen also spoke and submitted a letter to the council. “We let our guard down because we thought the council made a decision to not upzone any single-family residence. Ultimately, the Giles have no right to upzone. They paid a single-family price, are adjacent to single family properties and should make do with the existing single-family zoning. It would not be fair to those of us who bought relying on the existing single family zoning codes.”

“We recognize that it is a difficult decision for both the planning commission and the town council to allow upzoning,” said Huckstep. “That’s why there’s a focus in the application of establishing a high precedent for the provision of affordable housing. Housing has become a massive, massive issue. You all know this with firsthand experience how difficult it is to get affordable housing built and delivered to the town. The proliferation of short-term rentals has decimated the opportunity for folks to live here. It’s also changed the look and feel, the character of what would be single-family to an area where you have high turnover.”

He continued, “I ask you all to consider with an open mind the fact that this will not change the neighborhood. What it will do is bring more affordable housing to this lot and the community as a whole.”

“Does your client believe zoning is a promise between the town and the property owner?” asked councilmember Steve Morris. 

“Zoning is nothing more than a plan, zoning is always subject to change,” said Huckstep. 

Mayor Nicholas Kempin pointed out that everything north of the property is zoned single-family residential. 

“You’re right, everything north is single-family,” said Huckstep. “But it literally shifts from low-density to high-density. It’s right there on that boundary.”

“In looking at our code, have you proposed that there’s a mistake in the zoning? Is that part of your argument?” asked Kempin. 

“Procedurally, no,” said Huckstep. “Practically, perhaps.”

Councilmember Michael Bacani reiterated that upzoning the property would go against the feedback the council received last year during the Master Plan process. “We have to keep that in consideration,” he said.

Councilmember Dwayne Lehnertz agreed. “I’m not too enthusiastic about upzoning, especially in light of the whole process with the Master Plan. There’s no compelling reason to change that neighborhood. It’s neighborhood versus community. What they’re trying to accomplish with the affordable housing component is addressing the community, not the neighborhood.”

“I like this plan because, short of zoning, it checks a lot of boxes. This was kind of a tough one,” said Morris. “But I see zoning as a promise. It’s a promise that we make to people in our community and people plan their lives and major life decisions based on those promises. The current owner purchased that knowing it was single-family residential. I can’t get behind this solely because I believe we are breaking a promise to property owners in Mt. Crested Butte.” 

“I know it’s right on the boundary, but a boundary is a boundary,” said Kempin. “I do appreciate the housing aspect of it and trying to be creative in what you have brought to us. I just don’t see that as a good precedent to set. I don’t see anywhere in our code that says we can change zoning if it comes with affordable housing.”

The council voted unanimously to deny the development plan.