Mt. CB reviews parcels for potential workforce housing

“We’re either losing snow storage, or parking or both”

By Kendra Walker

 On June 6, the Mt. Crested Butte town council held a work session to review potential parcels in the town that could be pursued for future workforce housing developments. While the town has made it a priority to get the 22-unit Homestead affordable housing project back in action before turning to new projects, town staff asked the council to consider where it wants to focus next. 

Community development director Neal Starkebaum presented a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats/Needs) analysis of several parcels in Mt. Crested Butte, including the TC-1 Lot (Rasta Lot), RC-1 Lot, Snowmass Lot, Saperstein Lot C and Parcel F.

Starkebaum noted that the SWOT analysis looks at the maximum amount of housing units possible on each lot identified by planned unit development (PUD) or zoning, based upon the smallest unit square footage and minimum parking. “Utilization of the maximum units allowed may be unrealistic,” he said. 

“We’ve identified the best opportunities to pursue, and you can give us direction on what avenues you wish to take once we get Homestead settled,” said town manager Carlos Velado. 

TC-1

The TC-1 Lot, also known by community members as the Rasta Lot, is located at the corner of Gothic and Treasury. The lot is approximately one acre and currently home to free town parking, EV chargers and restrooms. It could provide a maximum of 60 housing units.  

The lot’s strengths include that it is town owned, has existing infrastructure, proximity to the base area and is zoned for mixed use development. Starkebaum noted that among opportunities, the lot would qualify for Downtown Development Authority (DDA) funding, and the town could potentially acquire the adjacent .25-acre Elk Ridge III lot to expand TC-1. 

Among weaknesses, Starkebaum said there is a four-story maximum on the PUD and developing it would result in the loss of the existing parking, bathroom and EV charging station investments. The lot is used for snow storage and the PUD has several other base area parties involved that would have to approve any development adjustments. 

RC-1

The RC-1 Lot is a one-acre parcel located across from the Rasta Lot on the other side of Treasury and is currently used as snow storage in the winter. The RC-1 Lot could have a maximum of 67 units. 

RC-1’s strengths include being town owned, proximity to the base area and having a PUD zoned for mixed use. Among opportunities, the lot could provide mixed use options and qualify for DDA funding. 

Its weaknesses include potential access issues with the grade from Gothic Road and the PUD has a four-story maximum. It also provides critical snow storage for the town and there are several other base area parties tied to the PUD.

“Maybe in the greater scale, those lots (TC-1 and RC-1) are not the greatest place for housing,” said Velado. “But as part of the PUD we can put housing elsewhere and something else that is necessary there.”

“I’ve been a big advocate for these two parcels because of the potential for DDA money,” said councilmember Roman Kolodziej. “The DDA has voiced its intention of supporting affordable housing projects with that funding, and I’ve seen the asks for DDA funding start to ramp up.”

Saperstein Lot C

The Saperstein Lot C located at 13 Marcellina is approximately one acre and could provide a maximum of 54 units.

Of the lot’s strengths, Starkebaum noted that it is possibly available for sale and is close to transit. Opportunities include potential partnerships, snow storage and parking at grade. 

However, the parcel is not level and would require drainage and wetlands mitigation. It is also not in the DDA so it could be tricky to acquire the needed purchase or funding sources and development would add more traffic on Marcellina. 

Parcel F

The town owns Parcel F, which is 17 acres between the Mt. Crested Butte town hall and the Village at Mt. Crested Butte (North Village) property. If developed for workforce housing, Parcel F could provide a maximum of 247 units. 

Among its strengths, Parcel F is town owned, a sizable parcel and could be integrated with transit and the Rec Path. Starkebaum noted many opportunities with Parcel F, including that it could be higher density, allow for different types of housing units and partnerships, could provide snow storage and could combine recreation amenities with community housing. 

Parcel F’s weaknesses include bringing additional traffic to the north end of town, requiring wetland mitigation and funding sources. Many community members have also advocated for ballfield space on Parcel F. Starkebaum noted there are still many unknowns as the PUD for the Village at Mt. Crested Butte is still under review. 

“I like the idea of a small practice field and 30-40 units of housing,” said councilmember Janet Farmer. “I don’t think we need to build 240-some units.”

“I think there’s a difference between numbers of units and sizes of units,” said Kolodziej. “This could be an opportunity for some real homes for people and not just a minimum size apartment.”

“This would also bring additional traffic going up the mountain,” said councilmember Michael Bacani.

“In theory all these parcels will be developed at some point,” said Kolodziej. “For Parcel F, I would be way more amenable to a playing space if one of these other parcels was developed first. But I don’t want to spend money on a ballfield before anything.” 

Snowmass Lot

The Snowmass Lot on Snowmass Road is approximately two acres and currently used for free town parking. The town does not own the parcel but currently leases it out for parking. It could provide a maximum of 109 units. 

Some strengths of the Snowmass Lot include being a level parcel that could provide significant density. Among opportunities, the parcel could qualify for DDA funding, allows for partnerships and bike/pedestrian connectivity improvements. 

Among weaknesses, the town does not own the lot and could run into drainage and wetland issues with Wood Creek located underneath. Starkebaum said the lot’s purchase price is unknown, as well as the utility infrastructure. Developing would also result in a loss of the current public parking.

Velado noted that the town’s lease expires in 2028 and the town has a good relationship with the property owner. “For the right price I think they would be open to sell to town,” he said.

“In my opinion, the easiest thing to do is develop property that we already own,” said councilmember Dwayne Lehnertz. “I would focus on what we already own and developing that first, but at the same time not ignoring future needs and the potential to buy it now to develop it later.”

“With the Snowmass Lot being the farthest down the hill, it would bring the least amount of traffic (to the base area). That is something to consider,” said Bacani.

“When I look at the Snowmass Lot, I can see something there. It’s relatively square and relatively flat. We could still have parking on the first floor,” said mayor Nicholas Kempin. “Apart from the purchase price it seems like the most straightforward one to deal with.”

“It makes sense to absolutely buy it if we can,” said Lehnertz. “I look at our housing problem as a minimum 50-year plan. Things we do now are setting us up for success in the future.”

“We don’t necessarily just have to pick one either,” said councilmember Alec Lindeman. “Let’s keep ourselves as flexible as possible because we don’t have an idea of what project we’re actually talking about.”

“If we develop one lot, we’re either losing snow storage, or parking or both. It’s not in a vacuum,” said Kempin. “But maybe we’re dedicating one to snow storage because we’re dedicating another to housing.”

The council agreed that getting an updated appraisal of the Snowmass Lot would be helpful. “Maybe that’s the first step and we can see if that purchase price is a strength or weakness,” said Velado. “At this point we just don’t know.”