The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Housing, transit, impact fee issues along with request for development moratorium
By Mark Reaman
The Crested Butte town council agreed at the March 17 meeting to submit an initial letter to Gunnison County with three major concerns over the proposed Lower Verzuh Ranch development plan. As part of the letter, the council asked the county commissioners to also “consider a temporary moratorium in new large-scale development proposals” in the Highway 135 corridor near Crested Butte.
“Given our shared values, we are concerned that the Lower Verzuh Ranch proposal—a large and impactful development— is moving forward ahead of this critical planning process,” the letter stated in regard to a joint Corridor Plan the county and town hope to start in the future. “With Whetstone, Starview, and the Lower Verzuh Ranch proposal combined, nearly 1,000 new units could be added to the North Valley—approaching the size of the town of Crested Butte itself and a quarter of the approximately 4,000 existing homes in the North Valley. Without the framework of the Corridor Plan, this and other potential projects risk undermining our collective goals…”
The Lower Verzuh Ranch sits roughly halfway between Crested Butte and Crested Butte South along Highway 135. The 450-acre parcel is being proposed for sketch plan review to be subdivided into hundreds of residential lots of varying sizes.
The letter briefly details three major concerns. The first is “community-serving housing and affordability.” The council is concerned that “the proposal does not include any affordable or community-serving housing among its proposed 301 residential lots.” While acknowledging the potential for an additional 256 accessory dwelling units, council points out there is no guarantee those units would be affordable or used as long-term rental units without deed restrictions or restrictive covenants.
Secondly the council’s letter asks for better connectivity and transit integration. The letter asks the board to “prioritize transit access and explore non-car-centric mobility solutions, including trail connections for use by all and integration with the planned CB to CB South recreation path, or other creative solutions with the Valley’s local transit agencies.”
The council wants to ensure that future residents in the development have sustainable transportation options and “are not reliant on single-occupancy vehicles.”
Third, the council wants the county to consider impacts and coordination with the Corridor Plan. Given that the proposal rivals major subdivisions like Skyland, Riverbend and even CB South in terms of potential numbers, it is expected to bring “significant regional impacts—including on schools, parks and recreations, transit and the capacity of local businesses and services. We urge the county to proactively address these impacts and explore a structured impact fee or dedication process for new developments as part of the Corridor Plan.”
“The lack of affordable housing is so concerning,” said councilmember Mallika Magner. “We definitely need to talk about that.”
“As is connecting the subdivision to mass transit,” added councilmember Beth Goldstone.
“It is ridiculous that a commuter trail isn’t connected to current easements on adjacent property like Hidden River,” said mayor Ian Billick. “That should be an automatic expectation.”
Billick said there appears a lot of angst in the community over the new proposal. “There is a lot of anxiety in the community with the amount of proposed development in the North Valley,” he said. “That’s why we wanted the Corridor Plan. I can also understand why the county might not want to do a moratorium, but I think it is important to acknowledge the community anxiety.”
Town attorney Karl Hanlon said he hadn’t seen the actual application in detail yet. “The next level of analysis and comment by the town would be after the details and the complete application comes out,” he said.
Councilmember Kent Cowherd said that this was just the council’s initial letter, and the town would be active in the county’s review process. “We don’t have to include everything in this first letter, but the county needs to know we have concerns,” he said.
The draft letter was approved by the council 7-0 and will be sent to the county commissioners.