Gunnison county voters opposed to Brush Creek proposal

Government Officials:

We are not supportive of Brush Creek development plans, nor the speed and lack of transparency of recent actions. Is high density housing the first thing we want visitors to see, and smell, as they enter the town of Crested Butte? Do renters want to be separated from town and isolated in a high density development? Absolutely not. Does everyone south of Skyland want a stoplight at the corner of Brush Creek adding to their morning and evening commute? No. Do we want our beautiful entrance view forever destroyed with the addition of high density housing that is not aesthetically in keeping with the surrounding community? No. There was an incredible surge in traffic this summer because of the SUP’ing on the Slate. Developing this corner will have an unimaginable effect on the traffic entering Crested Butte, and all of the neighborhoods on Brush Creek. We are supportive of affordable home ownership and embedded affordable long term rentals. Embedded affordable housing and ownership should be key principles for planners. Is this housing truly affordable for workers? A first year teacher making $35,000 would have to pay $992 a month for a one-bedroom studio apartment. That is not affordable housing. Government officials should be reminded projects that appear to be a ‘must do’ during a Boom quickly become an albatross. Even if boom times continue. Labor challenges will change dramatically in the decade ahead. The robots are coming. Maybe not Westworld by 2020, but robots will replace many labor jobs sooner than most of us can imagine. Instead of the rush to build this complex right now, why not off er county and town tax incentives for one tiny house or accessory dwelling per resident. No sewer needed with incinerator toilets in tiny houses. A provisional program could be operational before next summer, put full time residents back into empty second home communities, and give voters a tax break. This would result in embedded caretakers who live in the community, not ‘out there’ and provide some fl ex seasonal worker capacity immediately. If the planners decide to move forward, please consider a few additional conditions to a final plan.

  • Design: Why not more like miner’s cabins on hillside instead of the current plan that looks very I-70? —Lighting: Don’t destroy our wonderful night sky! Please aggressively manage site lighting plan. —Sewer: Please do not allow horrid smells (think Pitchfork), or foul the Slate River.
  • Forced Air Heat: How about adding LEED platinum requirement so low-income tenants will not need tax dollars to pay their heating bills.
  • Snow Plan: How about more consideration of snow plan? Flat roofs and poor snow storage plans = more labor required and trucks hauling. I suspect a bit more thinking in this area could lead to a model for others similar to recent urban designs handling rain water. Their are many in the valley that could provide ideas for a world class snow design minimizing labor and improving child safety with loaders and trucks backing up in tight spaces.
  • Traffic: Upgrade the Brush Creek intersection to a large traffic circle as first step to make a safe intersection.
  • Schools: As a part of any approval, create bond proposal for new school that will be required to hold the new students and for the buses.
  • Explore Different Approaches: Start with winter overflow parking and summer tiny housing parking for seasonal employees.

This is easy, immediate, affordable and leaves future development options open. This parcel was purchased with taxpayer dollars to provide overflow parking. We do not approve this parcel to be used as a site for high-density housing. Our future voting selections are being easily decided for us as we see how current county commissioners are proceeding with this project.

Sincerely, Amy, Barney, Benjamin and Eleanor Debnam, Gunnison County Voters