Home › Breaking News
Ski area west of Denver alarms neighbors
But developer says federal land swap good for community
STORY TOOLS
More Breaking News
- Former Buffs player Dizon could face contempt of court
- Boulder irked by CU's plan for four-story building at 15th and Grandview
- Boulder biotech Array cuts 40 jobs, reduces spending
Share and Enjoy [?]
Standing on a snow-covered slope above 11,000 feet, 26-year-old Michael Coors looks out over what he hopes will one day become his legacy - the revival and expansion of a long-defunct ski area with stunning views of the highest peaks along the Continental Divide.
But down near the base of the land he bought for his Eclipse Snow Park, some fear the potential development would alter their own dream: the quiet, slow pace of life they've come to expect as residents of a small community stretched out along a winding nine-mile road about 30 miles west of Denver.
Adding fuel to the controversy: U.S. Rep. Mark Udall has agreed to sponsor legislation that would allow for a federal land swap with Coors in exchange for public parking, trailhead facilities and access through his property to the nearby James Peak Wilderness Area.
"It's a good solution for the community," Coors said Tuesday before clicking his orange boots into skis to carve some turns down the mountainside. "We're looking to do whatever it takes to get the ski area open."
Area residents have been split for the past couple years about the prospect of having a ski area at all, with opponents largely concerned about the extra cars and possible traffic jams more visitors would bring to a heavily forested neighborhood that has only one access road.
Those who live along Fall River Road, which starts at Interstate 70 just a couple miles west of Idaho Springs, have been among the most vocal.
"My thing is the traffic," said Jan Ziman, who lives about three miles up Fall River. "This is a dangerous road. We'll probably sell our house if this happens. This road can't handle any new development."
Rick Galmish, whose house sits on a roughly 100-yard stretch that has blind curves on either end, said cars have skidded off the road and crashed into the river that runs along the edge of his property and the two-lane road.
"I have no problem with skiers," said Galmish, who moved to the area in 1979. "But I don't think this road's going to handle it. We have wrecks all the time."
Others see change as inevitable, especially given the number of new homes being built in the area and the parcels of land for sale.
"There would be more traffic on Fall River Road," acknowledged Sandy Halls, who lives in a cabin near the planned ski area. "But lots of us get in the state of mind: 'OK, I'm here, nobody else should come in.' That's not how the real world works."
Coors has already received Clear Creek County's approval for a rezoning of the property he bought in 2005 with the help of his father, CoorsTek CEO John K. Coors.
But the great-great grandson of brewery founder Adolph Coors can't move forward with the project until he gets the county's approval for the development itself - a process that won't start until he files an application.
The land swap would resolve yet another issue: Coors doesn't own all the land he needs to make his vision work. He already combined 66 separate parcels to gain zoning approval, but a map still reveals a patchwork of land that belongs to the U.S. Forest Service.
Coors figures he needs about 100 acres of the federal land so he can offer longer runs than those offered by the rudimentary ski area that operated at the site until 1984.
Coors would offer about 75 acres of land appraised at an equal value.
He initially inquired about applying for a permit that would allow the ski runs to pass through the federal land. Most existing ski areas in the state operate that way. Another option: the Forest Service could approve what's known as an "administrative land swap." But the Forest Service has moved on neither option, so Coors turned to federal lawmakers for help.
The land swap plan, contained in a bill Udall introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives near the end of last year, has raised alarm bells among those who worried it would allow Coors to skirt the federal environmental review process.
"The legislative approach has the effect of moving the process up by several years and subjecting the exchange to a less stringent set of environmental standards," said Don Bucher, a homeowner in St. Mary's Glacier.
Heather Ulrich, whose home offers a picture postcard view out over a lake toward the ski area site, also worries that "the environmental consequences will affect the entire area and the entire watershed."
Udall's office recently drafted a revised bill to take neighbors' concerns into account, including a provision making it clear a land swap would be subject to a formal environmental review.
"We're in the process of collecting input from the community in an effort to build a wider consensus," said Tara Trujillo, a spokesman for Udall. "This is the start of the process not the end."
As Udall's office sees it, the land exchange would help resolve the issue of how to provide access to the James Peak Wilderness Area. A 2002 law sponsored by Udall directed the Forest Service to establish a trailhead with parking, but the agency hasn't had the wherewithal to move forward.
Under the terms of the proposed swap, Coors or any future owner of his land, would be required to provide parking for the droves of hikers and others who flock to the area to get to the nearby glacier and to the wilderness area.
"We've just been inundated by tourists and our community can't take it," said local resident Erin Johnson. "Even if Eclipse doesn't happen and gets turned down by our county, if the land swap has gone through we'll still get the parking and the sanitation and the trailhead."
If the legislation passes, Trujillo of Udall's office said it would be up to the Forest Service to decide whether the swap would require an environmental "assessment" or a lengthier and more involved "impact" study.
Coors has tried to soften the impact of his proposed ski area by positioning it as a family ski area that would offer a range of runs for various abilities. Initially, he had plans to build a terrain park targeted at a younger audience.
He also scrapped plans to offer night skiing. "The community didn't want it so I backed off," he said.
But he does plan to offer summer ski and snowboard camps given the abundant snow the area has been getting. "We think we can run through most of the summer," he said.
Before any of that happens, he faces more county hurdles, including ways to deal with traffic and other issues that came up during the rezoning process.
"We thought we'd be up and running in three years and it's been three years," Coors said. "But this is what I want to do with my life."


Posted by rlopesino on April 24, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We don't need another Echo mtn thank you Mr. coors, focus on making crappy beer.
Posted by tcrjunk on April 24, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about we make Mr. Coors pay for the traffic impacts of his new ski area on I-70 first?
Posted by Toxic_Prairie_Dog on April 24, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Ski area west of Denver alarms neighbors"
Even more alarming would be a ski area just east of Denver.
Posted by boulder_native on April 24, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go for it Michael, don't listen to the whiney nay-sayers. It's not like its a toxic dump or a strip-mining site, its a freakin' snowboard park. Good clean fun backed by good clean capitalism.
Enviro-weenies...think of all of the carbon saved by folks driving fewer miles to go snowboarding.
NIMBY-neighbors... you only own the 1 acre along the road, NOT the road. by the way, Berthoud and Loveland passes are WAY MORE DANGEROUS than your little canyon. and yet, somehow, the skiers and boarders negotiate them pretty well. Lame excuse.
Posted by CityGirl on April 24, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HMMM Michael Coors is only 26??!! Wonder if he is single....??!! =)
Posted by PCR on April 24, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What do the people (non-skiiers that is) gain from this deal? What natural areas are going to be preserved by this? I thought Udall was the environmental guy.
Posted by FMSOTS on April 24, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Population grows number of ski areas drops. Go ahead and let him build it, we need more ski areas!!!!
Posted by fgd135 on April 24, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I support Coor's idea; it gets more snowboarders off I70 early on, leaves more powder for me at the real resorts.
Posted by oryoki on April 24, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PCR on April 24, 2008 at 12:12 p.m.
"What do the people (non-skiiers that is) gain from this deal?"
The proposed land swap is to enhance the James Peak Wilderness area.
Posted by meatpieandtatters on April 25, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Udall=shill for the rich and powerful.
Posted by Bigair on April 25, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like a great idea to me, a good deal with public land. A lot more of the public will enjoy this area when the ski area is there YAHOO.....
Posted by Tailgunner_Joe on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by PCR on April 24, 2008 at 12:12 p.m.
"What do the people (non-skiiers that is) gain from this deal?"
Access to the James Peak Wilderness. There is currently NO public parking on the Fall River Road side of the wilderness. There is a parking lot on private land, and the former owner allowed people to park there for free. The lot changed hands recently, and the new owner charges a very reasonable $5 to park there. There are not many parking spaces on the private lot. St. Mary's Glacier and James Peak are extremely popular hiking areas, and the public would benefit from improved access.
I'll admit to being an evil and unrepentant Repuglican, and this is probably the only issue on which I would trust Udall. He and his family have been active in the Colorado Mountain Club for decades, and he has summited all of Colorado's fourteeners. This gives him more credibility on the issue than most politicians have. I'll grudgingly admit that he is probably motivated by doing what is best for the public, and is not just exchanging political favors for campaign contributions.
Posted by gilpin_observer on April 28, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go for it Mike, don't let these NIMBY, anti-development whiners slow you down (more than three years that is...)
Great location, good snow and terrain (thanks for the tour last year)... never gunna make you rich, but it should pay for itself in a few years. The road can be worked with and a solution will be found.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.