CB council brainstorms corridor “values and priorities”

Vocalizing need to go into the process with a positive attitude

by Mark Reaman 

The Crested Butte council is working on details of a developing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Gunnison County over the Gunnison Valley Corridor Plan. That MOU is generally intended to clearly define roles and responsibilities of all the stakeholder entities (see story on Mt. CB’s MOU discussion on page 13). The council also wants to prepare its key values and priorities to be addressed in the planning process.

The plan is expected to take 18 months and address the corridor between Gunnison and Mt. Crested Butte. It will touch on topics such as land use, transportation, utilities, wildlife and environmental protection and growth management along Highway 135. Crested Butte’s representative on the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) is community development director Mel Yemma. The PAC is a staff-level, non-decision-making group with one representative from each participating partner. That group meets twice a month.

The town has been clear that it wants to clearly articulate the issues it sees as most important to the North Valley. Those include things like affordable housing, the cumulative impact of future development on community services, deciding the locations where development should be located and figuring how to emphasize mass transit opportunities. Council also wants plenty of opportunity to gather public input during the planning process.

“The plan has had sort of a funky start,” Yemma told the council at the July 20 council meeting. “The MOU is meant to clarify responsibilities, and we want clarification of when elected boards will engage at key milestone and decision-making points. That is still not clear. We also want to ensure that constituents are engaged and heard to help inform council direction. Again, this is a county plan. We aren’t running it.”

“That is true. It is the county that will make the final decisions,” said mayor Ian Billick. “But we want to be sure we get public feedback on the weighty issues and want to be sure we have adequate time to provide feedback.”

Let’s play well together in the sandbox

“I want to be collaborative partners in this process, not combative partners,” urged councilmember John O’Neal. “That provides the best chance to get what we want.”

“I agree but it has to be from both ways,” said Billick. “That hasn’t always been the case. I feel like there’s a little bit of a powder keg brewing in the north end of the valley. It’s pretty complicated.”

“Is it helpful to keep bringing up past complaints,” asked councilmember Mallika Magner.

“Going forward, if it’s collaborative, I won’t say another word,” said Billick who has not been shy about raising communication issues with county officials.

“We need to be positive and move forward and not be combative,” O’Neal again emphasized.

“For me, it’s a real warning sign if you can’t ask questions and lay out facts,” responded Billick. “I’m committed to a positive, collaborative partnership going forward. It’s not healthy to not be able to have honest conversations.”

“I think the message you sent when the county representatives were here was loud and clear,” said Magner referring to a sometimes-tense meeting between council and county representatives last month when Billick listed several recent points of conflict between the two entities. “Do we have to keep bringing it up?”

“I’ll judge the process as it goes forward and hopefully it is collaborative,” promised Billick.

“To be clear, we should expect some conflict along the way,” said Yemma. “That’s part of the process.”

“We should assume we’re all doing our best,” said Magner.

“I agree,” said Billick.

“Let’s keep our half of the relationship as good as it can be,” added councilmember Kent Cowherd.

High level values

Yemma outlined possible values the town might want to emphasize. “She included things like “community first,” environmental stewardship and a “connected corridor.”

“Those three things work really well,” said O’Neal. “Maybe add something like economic opportunities.”

“It is an opportunity to tie in some of our values to the existing county Land Use Resolution, things like the importance of agriculture,” said Cowherd. “The idea of determining the valley carrying capacity is important. Maybe include the value of preserving spots where there won’t be development like between Almont and the North Valley. It also feels like Mel is out there on her own. Is that okay? And do we want to emphasize keeping Highway 135 two lanes?”

“I’d include things like providing park-and-rides and a focus on affordable housing,” said Magner. “I also think it’s important to have dark sky protections.”

“The growth should come where it is appropriate and already exists,” said councilmember Kate Guibert.

“I think scale is an important value,” said Billick. “The location of homes is important. Retaining a rural feel is a priority and that goes to support of agriculture operations.

“Wildlife protection is important,” continued Billick. “Again, keeping the rural feel is important. So is affordability and livability. The location and size of developments along with the cumulative impacts in terms of things like water treatment, parking in town and mass transit.”

Yemma said staff will refine the draft values and review the MOU based on council comments. The county and corridor planning consultants have scheduled a “listening session” with the town council for the August 4 work session.