The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Some members of the public say start at zero
Members of the general public had another chance to comment to the town planning commission on the proposed Foothills of Crested Butte annexation proposal. The public overwhelmingly voiced concerns Monday night about the current 263-unit proposal.
The Planning Commission is comprised of the Crested Butte town council. The latest idea basically calls for development of 68 acres north of Crested Butte with three clustered pods wrapped around the town cemetery.
Planning commission chairman Alan Bernholtz opened the public section of the Monday meeting by saying that despite his reputation, he takes the issue very seriously. ”I like to have fun and that is one reason I like living here but this is a difficult situation and it is a big deal.”
Bernholtz reminded the audience of about 30 citizens that people don’t move to Crested Butte, in his opinion, “to get rich. They come here because they like it here and they like what the town is. I think we need to preserve the qualities of the town. I don’t want to sacrifice our community because growth is inevitable.
“It’s like the movie theater,” Bernholtz continued. “If it’s full, you might just have to come back the next day or another time. Someday, our town may simply be full. The idea of money helping us solve our problems isn’t enough for me to change our community. Money won’t buy me love. I like the way we all live here. It’s a simple life.”
A litany of public comments in the same vein followed.
Nancy Wicks lives south of town but hopes to move to Crested Butte. She pointed out there were currently hundreds of lots, houses and condos for sale in the Crested Butte area. “Do we need more houses?” she asked. “I’m neither for nor against the idea of annexation but how sustainable is it really?”
Former councilperson Margot Levy pointed out that the Crested Butte Area Plan could answer a lot of the questions on the table in a definitive manner. “When the proponents point out they’ll put in two miles of trails, that is exciting only in the context of what is called for based on density in the Area Plan. Wetland buffers are addressed in the Area Plan. A lot of the work has already been done. A big question for me is how many of the units will be occupied more than a few weeks a year. It is important to not have ghost neighborhoods in Crested Butte. That still makes us different from other resort communities.”
Resident Peter Bridges read a letter to the council (see page 34) and he too pointed out that hundreds of units are already for sale in the upper valley. He opined that adding more units is not needed when even affordable housing is open for rent at the moment. “And the word sustainability is one of those good, emotional words being bandied about. Every study shows that the prospect of water is declining in the mountain west. We basically think this annexation would destroy the way the town is currently,” Bridges said.
Bob Hall of the Moon Ridge subdivision north of the proposal said he and his neighbors expected some eventual development on their southern border “but when I saw this plan I thought ‘Oh my goodness, it’s a distant suburban area.’ We support the Crested Butte Area Plan,” he said. “I think this town board has an interesting attitude toward annexation. You certainly aren’t just saying no. I think some developer could make it work with 100 to 110 units. We also agree with Peter Bridges that this will hurt the historical nature of Crested Butte.”
Longtime resident Glo Cunningham asked the commission to remember, “We are a biking and walking town.” She echoed the council that no development should be allowed on the east and north parts of the proposal. “As far as number of units shouldn’t the town start at zero and then the proponents have to prove the need for more? If I were on the commission, I would ask that they provide adequate amenities like affordable units with 10 or 20 lots, and then they can have more. If they then throw in trails, they could get more. I would ask that the development proves it needs what it needs.”
Harvey Castro lives on the side of town proposed for the annexation. “For every unit you allow, that means two more cars for Crested Butte,” he said. “It is naïve to think that people living in that northern section will walk to the Center for the Arts or the movie theater. This will add significant traffic to town.”
Peter Espositio had asked the town for annexation specific information online. It has been posted and he was appreciative. He lives north of the proposal. “I have seen traffic backed up on Gothic Road during the holidays. With the Snodgrass expansion planned up there and more development down here I can’t see how it will work from a traffic standpoint,” he said.
Esposito said he is also renovating his home to use more solar energy. “It is terribly expensive and not always available,” he said. “How will this type of energy really pencil out in the proposed development?”
Steve Glazer is a Crested Butte resident and water expert. “Water resources are a concern,” he said. “Development brings demands on water. This development should be required to not just provide water rights but “wet” water as well. I am concerned with snow removal and storm water management. I would ask that subterranean development be limited so as not to impact groundwater which impacts the wetlands.” Glazer said he has been here decades and while growth can bring many good things, it is a moving target. He questioned the timing of the annexation proposal and suggested the town had better things to deal with given the lack of necessity for more development at the moment.
Vicki Shaw sided with Glo Cunningham’s idea of starting the development proposal at zero and moving from there. “Remember to honor the Area Plan,” she said. “Full build out of the town is a lot different than what we see looking out the window now. Transportation is also a huge issue and make sure an expert looks at the old town dump situation. In some circumstances, the best thing may be to not disturb it.”
Sue Navy of Crested Butte jumped on the zero baseline bandwagon. “I’m in the camp that believes you should start at zero,” she said. “What do we really get and what do we really lose with this? Affordable housing is important but at what expense? Not at the loss of the character of town. And use the Area Plan to determine appropriate density.”
When asked by Bernholtz what the Area Plan said about density on the 20 acres bordering town, Crested Butte planner John Hess said it called for about five units per acre or approximately 100 units depending on land donated for public uses.
Foothills attorney Jim Starr responded to the public comments.
“A lot of the people who spoke tonight are friends of mine,” he said. “I see the future a little differently from them. Every week, there are more and more dire predictions about the health of the planet due to Global Warming. It’s always been assumed that one place people will go when the weather gets warmer and the coastlines disappear as the ocean levels rise, is places like this. That saddens me. I’d like to see this place remain the special place it is. The future will make that a challenge.
“When those people come here, we need to have a well planned place,” Starr continued. “Starting at zero? I’m not sure that’s the right place to start. There will be more people moving up here. This annexation provides a good opportunity for the people coming here, the full time residents, that move here. If we don’t take advantage of the land next to town then I think we will have missed an opportunity. This place is changing and I don’t want to trash it. We have to take advantage while we can. I would ask that everyone remain open minded about the proposal.”
The planning commission listened to all concerns. Bernholtz complimented the audience and reminded them the developers had made a good faith effort to incorporate concerns into recent plans. The next meeting on the development is slated for February 23.
