Upper Prospect nearing final PUD approval

Mt. CB council approves first reading 

By Kendra Walker

During their January 21 meeting, the Mt. Crested Butte town council passed the first reading of an ordinance and accompanying conditions approving the Upper Prospect major alteration final planned unit development (PUD) plan. The public hearing was a continuation from the council’s January 7 meeting, in which the council still had questions regarding public trail access and parking, the status of Water and Sanitation and maximum home sizes. The council will review the second reading of the ordinance approving the final plan on February 18.

As previously reported in the Crested Butte News, the proposed plan by developer GCM Squared LLC creates 52 single-family lots over approximately 42 acres of unplatted land within the Prospect subdivision in north Mt. Crested Butte located at the end of Prospect Drive, adjacent to Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR). 

Mt. Crested Butte resident Reggie Park voiced his opposition to the development during public comment. “It still seems like there’s a lot of unknowns and that will cause issues – trail access, climate impact, wastewater,” he said. “It does seem like whenever private property is involved in this valley, the public loses access. A good portion of the year these homes will probably remain vacant and still use a good amount of energy. There are already plenty of single family zoned lots in Mt. Crested Butte. I’m asking the town council to do whatever is in their power to at least continue to fight for the community’s best interests.”

Mt. CB resident Carl Tucker argued that the current proposal goes against the town’s guiding principles in its strategic plan. “I’m not against this development. I recognize development will and should happen. How do we do this in a way that enhances our community as opposed to a way that takes away from our community?”

He continued, “The reality is this will reduce recreational opportunities and reduce accessibility for the community. The current six proposed open spaces will operate as access points for homeowners in Upper Prospect and provide no value to other users as currently designed. How do we proactively realign those trails prior to development?” Tucker asked. 

“This development as it stands is fully focused on part-time needs and does not consider the needs of full-time residents or tourists. You can’t tell me with a straight face that any of my neighbors are going to build a 10,000-square-foot-home,” said Tucker. 

The applicant addressed the council’s concerns regarding Water and San, home sizes and public access. 

One of the town’s conditions for approval of the final plan is that the town will not issue any construction, excavation, land disturbance or building permits for the project until the developer obtains written approval from the Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District of the developer’s final engineer stamped and construction-ready water and wastewater utility plans. The district has asked that no building permits be issued for upcoming major developments until it has rectified its main sewer line capacity issue, and has suggested that development must pay its own way. 

“We are prepared to work through the issues with the water and sanitation district regarding what is the right way to allocate the costs of the trunk line. Ultimately, the district is legally bound to allocate costs in a way that is fair,” said Prospect attorney Carolynne White. “The project is a benefit to the town and the district that will contribute tap fees (approximately $4 million) and create new monthly ratepayers – all of which benefit existing ratepayers and help solve existing issues.”

Additionally, the applicant agreed to capping the maximum home size to 8,500 square feet, per the council’s request to decrease the plan’s original 10,000 square foot allowances on some of the lots.  

Another condition for approval asks the applicant to ensure that the onsite trail access points located within the PUD boundaries provide functional connections to the offsite CBMR trail system. The current CBMR summer trails going through the property will need to be rerouted. The council expressed concern that the new trails wouldn’t get built and the new development would prevent the public from accessing the mountain.

“Absolutely this applicant wants there to be the continued ability to connect to the public trails in the vicinity of this property,” said White. “We do not really have any control over those trails other than doing our work to work with the owner of those trails.”

The applicant provided the council with a letter from CBMR vice president and general manager JD Crichton confirming that CBMR representatives have had conversations with the applicant regarding the relocation of the summer hiking/biking trails affected by the development. 

The council also asked the applicant to consider creating public parking to replace where people currently park where Prospect becomes a dirt road. However, applicant representatives said that the location where people are currently parking is not on Prospect property, and there is designated public parking on CBMR property near the Umbrella Bar during the summer.

“It would be inappropriate to condition approval of the application on adding dedicated public parking,” said White. “The place where people are parking today is in fact not on the Prospect property. There are currently no legally designated public parking spots on the application property; in fact, current parking activity on the application property and adjacent properties is arguably in violation of the Town Code. No evidence exists to suggest that the proposed development of homes creates an increased need for public parking. The applicant understands that people enjoy this unofficial parking system, but there are no legal parking places that would be taken away to make way for this development.”

Council deliberation

Some on the council weighed their dilemma of approving a project that checks all the requirements and conditions, but doesn’t feel like a good fit for the community at this time. They noted such issues as not enough affordable housing for locals, empty homes using unnecessary energy and the impacts to the community’s character.

“I feel like approving this isn’t addressing community needs, but can I say no when it’s gone through approval to this point already?” said council member Valeda Scribner. “I know we can’t approve or not approve something based on if I feel good about it…but I feel a little stuck. Can we legally vote this down?”

Town attorney Gerald Dahl explained that the council can vote to reject the ordinance if they don’t think it matches up with the review criteria for zoning in the town code.

“My biggest concern for Mt. Crested Butte is losing our identity as a funky town where people can still afford to live,” said council member Bobbie Sferra. “It frightens me that these are probably going to be 5- or 10-million-dollar homes and we’ll have this elite group of people that are going to leave their houses empty. I worry that this will become common where a teacher and doctor and essential workers won’t be able to afford to live here. It’s hard because the applicant is following the rules, it’s the effect on the community and the access.”

Council member Steve Morris said he didn’t necessarily see Mt. Crested Butte as a quaint, eclectic town. “I don’t know if that’s the community vibe that I get when I go up Prospect and Hunter Hill,” he said.

Morris also brought up the contradiction the council often faces with developments and the impacts of those builds – when they’re in favor of a development, they can easily point out its positive impacts like housing and community, but then when they’re against a development they can easily argue its negative impacts such as more traffic, high density, water and climate effects. “I’m struggling with what seems like playing both sides of the reasoning,” he said. “If we’re able to ramp up the EEOP (Exterior Energy Offset Program) discussions, I think there’s a way we can have a relationship with houses like this in our community and the environmental impacts a lot of us are concerned about,” he said, referring to the town’s work toward implementing programs that mitigate residential energy use for new builds.

“I do feel bound by the way we’ve applied these criteria in the past to other developments, so from my point of view I would vote to approve this on first reading,” said mayor Nicholas Kempin.

The council voted 4-1 to approve the first reading, with council member Roman Kolodziej voting against. Council members Bruce Nation and Alec Lindeman were not at the meeting. The council will review the second reading of the ordinance approving the Upper Prospect major alteration final PUD plan at their February 18 meeting.