Mt. Crested Butte council considering Parcel F priorities

Exploring housing possibilities within Villages development

[  By Kendra Walker  ]

While the Mt. Crested Butte town council still needs to clarify its priorities for the town owned 17-acre Parcel F, the conversation is front of mind as the adjacent Villages at Mt. Crested Butte development moves forward with its recently approved planned unit development (PUD) major alteration. 

Previous council conversations have included building community housing on the property, extending town hall or developing some sort of public ballfield or gathering space. During their May 21 meeting, the council agreed to reserve Parcel F for common open space options and work with the Villages at Mt. Crested Butte team to explore community housing possibilities within the Villages development where there will be infrastructure in place. 

As confirmed by town attorney Gerald Dahl, Parcel F is platted for common open space as per the Planned Unit Development (PUD) guide. If the council wants to build community housing on Parcel F, both the town and the adjacent property owners must agree to a change in land use.

“We’ve determined if we wanted to change the land use on that parcel, now is the time,” said mayor Nicholas Kempin. “If we’re serious about the next housing project, should it be in the Villages where they have infrastructure, instead of Parcel F? Do we have staff spend time changing this land use PUD or spend time communicating with Villages and trying to get the next project going? We have Homestead in process, but when it is finished, we’ll be hopefully moving on to the next one.”

“I in no way think this should be exclusively affordable housing. I’ve always felt there should be a community gathering space,” said councilmember Roman Kolodziej. “If I could wave a wand, I’d love to see some affordable housing and a very large, open gathering or field space.”

“I personally view Parcel F as a place for a community amenity or town amenity,” said Kempin. “I do have concern that if the town ever got in a really big jam, we have nowhere else to put the extension of town hall. It would be nice to have that option.”

Members of the public have pushed for the development of field space on Parcel F. During public comment, Mt. Crested Butte resident Cassia Cadenhead advocated for a turf field. 

“Today I bring to you a petition with over 68 signers, 29 of which I have personally been able to verify as Mt. CB residents or property owners, this is a statistically significant show of support,” she said. “I have heard consistently from families, soccer and lacrosse participants, and the Town of Crested Butte that the North Valley is in dire need of additional field spaces. This is a regional issue and a wonderful opportunity for regional solutions. Mt. CB, you have land available for Parks and Open Space, a lot that is large enough to accommodate a regulation sized multi-use turf field.”

She continued, “Please do not plan on using Parcel F for housing unless you have determined a better alternative location for a field. Dedicating Parcel F to a field does not necessarily reduce options for housing. These opportunities are not mutually exclusive.”

Town manager Carlos Velado said that while not all 17 acres of the parcel are flat, he does think some sort of field could go in certain areas. “To what extent, more analysis would need to be done from the town,” he told the council. 

“Are you open to having conversations about allowing affordable housing on Parcel F?” Kolodziej asked Villages project manager Crocket Farnell. 

“I can’t say one way or the other,” he said, explaining he would have to consult with Villages owner Claudio Alvarez and the rest of the team. “We’re willing to work with you when you know what your priorities are.”

Farnell noted, “There’s an economy of scale to be taken advantage of here. There’s a substantial opportunity to be had in that we’re spending money and time getting all this entitlement work done and fully in the process of working and proceeding to help solve the water and sanitation issue and getting on-site permits and building a ton of infrastructure. I’m in the camp of putting density together, put it in the Village. We’re more than happy to engage in the conversation and facilitate a really good, meaningful project in partnership.”

“I’d like to see that (Parcel F) remain a community amenity and not alter the PUD,” said councilmember Steve Morris. “I’m in support of how it’s currently defined in the binding documents.”

Both councilmembers Dwayne Lehnertz and Janet Farmer agreed. 

Kolodziej made a motion to give staff direction to work with the Village partners to explore affordable housing options within Parcel F and within the Villages. “My intention is to have the conversation with concerns of having affordable housing on Parcel F and the likelihood of developing on Parcel F,” he said. 

The motion failed in a split vote, with Kolodziej, Kempin and councilmember Alec Lindeman voting in favor and Lehnertz, Farmer and Morris voting against. Councilmember Michael Bacani was not at the meeting.  

“I’m all about exploring anything but housing (on Parcel F),” said Lehnertz. “Take Parcel F housing out of that.”

“What’s being suggested is that effort would be better directed within the Villages where infrastructure exists,” said Kempin. 

The council unanimously agreed on a new motion to work with the Villages team to explore opportunities within the Villages development for community housing, excluding housing on Parcel F.