Slate River development gets planning commission okay

Recommendation sent to commissioners

By Mark Reaman

The Gunnison County Planning Commission voted Friday, August 5 to recommend to the county commissioners that they approve the sketch plan presented by Cypress Foothills, LP for the Slate River Development north of Crested Butte. The 13-page recommendation included findings and suggested conditions for the commissioner approval.

As part of the recommendation to the commissioners, the planning board continued to emphasize certain issues with the proposal, including the elk migration route that passes within some of the Cypress property; the location of any road that provides access to the subdivision from Highway 135, especially the impact of headlights on existing properties; the possibility of not only hooking up houses in the subdivision to Crested Butte’s central sewer line but possibly connecting to Crested Butte’s central water service system as well; looking at the idea of a possible access through town on Eighth Street; and they want to take a closer look at the seven lots (lots 7-13) located directly east of the Crested Butte cemetery.

Forty-four acres just north of Crested Butte and west of the highway would be subdivided according to the proposal. It would allow 23 home sites and a newly proposed Homeowner Association “cottage” on the 30 acres east of the Slate River. While the homes would remain in the county, they would be connected to the Crested Butte sewer system.

The west side of the property would go through a Crested Butte annexation process. The developers would retain six home sites with the rest of the property earmarked for public uses outlined in a pre-annexation agreement between the town and Cypress. The potential uses include property for affordable housing, open space, an emergency services parcel for something like a new firehouse, a potential site for school uses, public river access, trails, parks and snow storage.

Cemetery concerns

The planning commission continued to take public comment on the proposal at the August 5 meeting. Aside from concerns voiced before, such as the impact on wildlife, particularly elk known to be in the area, several people voiced concern over the location of seven home sites platted just below the Crested Butte cemetery’s east flank.

“Can any more clustering be done?” asked Crested Butte resident Jim Starr. “The current layout has a negative impact on the field to the east of the cemetery. Cemeteries are important public assets for a community. They provide a place of peace and quiet. The cemetery will almost be surrounded by 60 houses when you take in the homes and the accessory dwellings.”

Former town planner John Hess said that when a previous development proposal for the land came in several years ago, his department received several comments from people “outraged” at the idea of houses being located to the east of the cemetery.

Resident Sue Navy asked if people that owned plots in the cemetery were notified in writing about the potential development.

Cypress attorney Marcus Lock said the town owns the cemetery and was noticed. He also responded to Hess that the current proposal was far less dense than any previous development plan for that property, including the one that was represented by Starr.

“That proposal had about 150 units and this contemplates 23 sites on that side of the river,” he said. “As for clustering, Cypress has gone through great pains to look at the east side of the river and make sure it respects wetlands and follows the topography of the site. The town grid doesn’t work well on that parcel.

“As for the cemetery we obviously agree that a cemetery is a place of solace and we respect that. The cemetery is surrounded by private property and the recently approved Foxtrot development will have homes east of the cemetery. On our property there is a wetland that provides a buffer between the home sites and the cemetery.” It was also noted that the cemetery sits about 30 feet higher than the Cypress property.

Gunnison County Community Development Department assistant director Neal Starkebaum responded to Hess’ concern saying that an outraged public hasn’t materialized with this plan. “These meetings have been well noticed and the hearings have been held in Crested Butte,” he said. “We haven’t received one comment regarding the lots to the east of the cemetery.”

Water issues

Starr also brought up concerns with the water source for the project. “The impact on the wetlands from the wells they plan to use for water should be looked at closely,” he said. “Be aware of the aquifer and the wetlands we are all trying to save.”

“At this point we are looking at different options about supplying water for the project,” said Lock. “We have talked to the town about supplying water and while they haven’t said ‘no,’ they haven’t been warm and fuzzy with the idea. We are open to it but are considering all options. If the town gave a thumbs-up to the idea, you would probably see us hooking up to their water system.”

The Planning Commission instructed the developer and staff to make a specific point of asking the town about the possibility of connecting the subdivision to water.

Starr had other concerns that he suggested should be addressed in the sketch plan phase of the county review process. “The traffic study they conduct should look at not just their development but the other planned developments in town, such as the major hotel being planned along Sixth Street and the expansion of the Center for the Arts. Look at the cumulative impacts of all the traffic and the parking instead of looking at each project individually.”

Neighbor Adam Schichtel again broached the topic of overall carrying capacity for the upper valley. “This one development won’t deplete the water supply up here, but it adds to the problem,” he said. “You will look back and ask ‘What was the straw that broke the camel’s back?’ Well they all broke it. We need to really look at the carrying capacity of this valley.”

He said in his view the public benefits associated with the west side of the proposal wouldn’t be needed if the east side wasn’t developed with more homes.

Hess suggested that the seven lots east of the cemetery be moved and folded into the other 16 lots away from the cemetery thus keeping the same number of lots but making them smaller.

Starr said affordable housing units proposed in the plan should be co-mingled with free market housing as opposed to concentrated in a block at the south end of the development.

Navy suggested the Planning Commission should be looking at several potential plans that could be considered by the public instead of just one finite proposal from Cypress.

Next steps

Planning Commission chair Kent Fulton said that the number of plans provided was up to the applicant but changes could be made to the sketch plan when they submit a preliminary plan. “The sketch plan is a 50,000 foot overview of the proposal,” he said. “It’s meant as a conceptual understanding of the project.”

“Under the county’s Land Use Resolution it is the burden of the applicant to modify the plan based on public comment and Planning Commission comment,” said Planning Commission member John Messner.

“We are listening and may make changes based on the comments we have heard. But it is not the applicant’s intent to make any major changes,” said Lock. “Cypress has gone above and beyond to work with the public, the town and the county. Understand that Foxtrot is east of the cemetery. Eliminating those lots from us changes the economics of the development significantly. Our intent is to continue with this proposal. But we’ll do everything we can to listen and react to comments made by the public and consider changes.”

Noting that the east side and west side of the property are intertwined, Lock said the Planning Commission should consider the whole 44 acres as part of a unique hybrid development proposal even though they were looking at only the 30 acres on the east side of the Slate River. “This proposal is substantially less dense than even the town’s Area Plan for this property,” he said. “And on its own, 50 percent of the east side is open space.”

Lock said while the developers and town have a signed pre-annexation agreement, the town has to go through its own thorough annexation process.

“That makes it a little sticky,” said Messner. “How do we view that piece? Is it a binding agreement?”

“I hope so,” said Starkebaum.

“It is binding on both Cypress and the town,” said Lock.

“A pre-annexation agreement doesn’t mean it will happen,” said Hess. “It’s just a ‘pre’ agreement. Plus the town is paying $350,000 for part of the cleanup so that is like paying for the land.”

“The $350,000 will go toward capping the dump on the west side,” explained Cypress vice president Cameron Aderhold. “Cypress will clean up portions on the west side and that will be very expensive. This was all heavily negotiated with the town.”

“We are in the sketch plan phase and listening to all the comments,” promised Cypress engineer of SGM Tyler Harpel. “We have started the process of adjusting some things and looking at other things like the road and clustering. Those seven lots east of the cemetery are more clustered and there is a good wetland buffer there, but we are listening to comments and can look perhaps at the building envelopes. We are hearing that as a concern.”

“The east side review is totally under county jurisdiction,” said Lock as he gave a history of the action that produced the unique hybrid development proposal. “It is up to you guys. If don’t approve the application that is up to you. Then the pre-annexation agreement will be null and void.”

The Planning Commission approved the recommendation to the commissioners to okay the sketch plan. Approval of the sketch plan is an approval of the conceptual plan and if approved by the commissioners, would allow the applicants to go to the next phase of the review process and submit a much more detailed preliminary plan to the county. They would have a year to do that. The commissioners will look at and act on the Planning Commission recommendation at the August 16 meeting.