Proposed apartment complex near Nordic Inn could bring more rental units to Mt. Crested Butte

Not an affordable housing complex

By Alissa Johnson

The Mt. Crested Butte Planning Commission took its first look at a proposed apartment complex behind the Nordic Inn this month. The project aims to bring about 80 long-term, market-rate rentals to the town—and while members of the Planning Commission expressed general support for the idea, they raised several concerns that need to be addressed during the design process.

Under the current plan, Legend Communities, Inc. would purchase the Nordic Inn and the adjacent vacant lot, which includes a cul-de-sac vacated by the town a couple of years ago. The developer would then build two to three buildings, one of which could be an addition to the Nordic Inn and would feature a combination of rental units and hotel rooms.

The development is being proposed as a planned unit development (PUD), which would require rezoning.

“From our standpoint, …the Nordic Inn in its current configuration would continue to be operated with this development in place,” said Ken Stone. He and his wife help manage the Nordic Inn and are in discussions with Legend Communities to continue doing so if the sale and development move forward.

Current Nordic Inn owner John Johnson explained, “When I bought [the inn] I realized that it was one of the largest undeveloped lots on the square… One of the goals was to find a project that is economically viable, beneficial to the community, and keep the inn intact.”

Currently, there are two concepts under consideration, both in sketch form.  Architect Chris Morrise of DTJ explained that Concept A has two four-story buildings tucked against the hillside, accommodating 76 one- and two-bedroom units, and a small building that would be an expansion of the Nordic Inn and would likely include hotel rooms and long-term rentals on different floors.

“One of the things we are trying to do is achieve a density that makes sense financially,” Morrise said, also noting that the multi-building design was intended to preserve view corridors and break up the mass of the buildings.

Concept B also offered two buildings tucked against the hillside but included a third building near the inn. The buildings would scale down in size as they moved away from the hillside and toward the inn, and the third building and the inn could potentially be connected.

Both concepts included surface parking (one spot per bedroom), gear storage, outdoor play areas, some snow storage, and access to the parking lot off of Treasury Road. A two-bedroom unit is expected to go on the market for $1,800 a month.

Planning Commission member Sara Morgan said she liked the density and the way the massing of the buildings was pushed against the hillside, but pointed out that if the lot is part of the Downtown Development Authority, certain design guidelines would need to be met. The potential development of the Biery-Witt Center across the street would also need to be considered, and she wanted assurances that the units would be rented to long-term locals.

“The market rate for a year could be less than a week at Christmas,” she said.

Planning Commission member Reed Meredith pointed out that the town received considerable pushback when it vacated the cul-de-sac without receiving financial compensation. He wanted to see a buffer or step-down toward the nearby residential lots, and access to and from the parking lot off of Emmons Road instead of Treasury.

Meredith also noted, “The narrative characterized this as workforce housing, and I think without some kind of protection, it won’t be workforce housing because they won’t be able to afford it.”

He was not alone in his concerns. Morgan suggested that the developer hire a credible consultant to determine whether Treasury would need to be re-graded and the intersection with Emmons re-engineered.

Johnson responded, “This is a partnership. Do you want this addition in your town? I can’t speak for [the developer], but I think that’s going to be something you guys need to take on. There’s only so much the economics will support… Why wouldn’t the town want to take on that responsibility?”

“Because you’re asking for a change in zoning and density to what the town roads were built for,” Morgan said.

The Planning Commission ultimately advised the group that having access off of Emmons would alleviate that need. Member John Anderson echoed Meredith’s sentiments about affordability.

“At $1,800, I’m concerned about the little guy. [I think that’s] on the outside of what’s affordable,” Anderson said.

“We think it’s going to come in at a level that is quality but not unaffordable for the incomes people have,” responded Stone, emphasizing that he saw the units as a great alternative for community members in management positions at the north end of the valley but living in Gunnison.

“It’s not necessarily seasonal affordable housing, but for the person who’s making a long-term commitment to the community and it may be a transition to owning a home,” Stone continued.

Community development director Carlos Velado advised the Planning Commission against calling the development affordable housing because that’s not what it is. He also confirmed that there will be an affordable housing requirement, the details of which still needed to be calculated.

Overall, the Planning Commissioned leaned toward Concept A, advising the proponents to revisit access to the parking lot, ensure that planned parking was adequate, and consider the site’s impact on neighboring residential areas. They also wanted to ensure the buildings remained long-term rentals.

Planning Commission chair Dusty Demerson commented on the value of the idea, given the shortage of housing in the community. “I’m glad to see this, so while it may sound negative I can only say from my perspective that I’m happy to see and entertain this, and as a community we all ought to be,” he said.

“We need to figure this out,” Johnson responded. “This is the best viable spot to do it and if we don’t do it here, we’re never going to address the issue.”

The developer hopes to begin construction in late May or early June. In the meantime, the Town Council will need to address planned unit development rezoning and regulation development, and the Planning Commission will conduct a design review.

“It is somewhat ambitious,” Velado said of the timing.