Ski area divides neighbors

But developer says federal land swap good for community

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Originally published 07:00 p.m., April 23, 2008
Updated 12:08 p.m., April 24, 2008

Dennis Schroeder / The Rocky

Michael Coors skis on terrain he wants to open to skiers and boarders at his proposed Eclipse Snow Park where the old St. Mary's ski area used to be.

Dennis Schroeder / The Rocky

A sign on Fall River Road expresses the opinion of a resident about a plan to reopen a ski area near St. Mary's Glacier.

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."

kelleyj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-964-5068

• April 24, 2008

  7:40 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  bushmaster writes:

  bitchin' dude!

• April 24, 2008

  8:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Earl writes:

  oh wow a new toll road for chrissy romer

• April 24, 2008

  8:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Froward69 writes:

  I bet those home owners will sell out and move... not before the ski area is up and running... then sell out for three to four times what the property is worth now. all the while whining Development is bad!

• April 24, 2008

  8:52 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  American100 writes:

  Froward69 IS CORRECT...

  That being said, Ski resorts are notoriously bad investments.

  Ask all bankrupt owners of Berthoud, icluding Maritci Cipriani who has sunk millions into SolVista in an effort to make it Winter Park.

  Here's a clue Coors, lay off the booze and look at the numbers.

  Here's why you won't make it: You need x amount of skier days, the area in question won't support this.

  Also, does your new resort face south or north? Why Sol Vista has a short season, uh, faces South, melts, ices over duh.

• April 24, 2008

  9:50 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BJG writes:

  Here we go again. We have the same problem in NW Montana, some "rich"dude, with no concern about locals, wildlife, and the environment wants to come in and impose "his" view of what should be done to PUBLIC LANDS. If Coors wants to swap land with the govt give him some Rocky Flats open space. He would probably develop it into a family friendly neighborhood, with a Coorbucks on every corner. Shame on CO Senator Udall for selling out to the Coors family.

• April 24, 2008

  10:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  PACE2008 writes:

  It wouldn't happen if there wasn't a market for it. Locals (in colorado) are the ones that are letting it happen.

• April 24, 2008

  11:19 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  scastaneda writes:

  American100 says:
  "Here's why you won't make it: You need x amount of skier days, the area in question won't support this." Did you even read the article? He thinks he can operate most of the summer, dude!

  This sounds like a win-win situation for (almost) everyone. Skiers get a new place to play that's closer to Denver. That should help with traffic between Eisenhower and St. Mary's. Hikers get parking, a trail head and some services up at the glacier. That's cool, I think.

  The only people who think they lose are homeowners who wish they lived in a world where development never, ever occurred. It's already been pointed out that their property values will most likely go up. Some of them might even be ambitious enough to start businesses serving the skiers and hikers. But most of them will probably just whine: "progress = BAAAADDD."

• April 24, 2008

  11:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BlueSled writes:

  He isn't doing this as an investment...the name is Michael Coors and he doesn't need the cash. He's quoted saying, "...this is what I want to do with my life." All he has to do is look at Echo Mountain to see that he probably won't be making a lot of money doing this.

  Those of us who live up here in Winterland and Alice, right where Eclipse is planned, have different concerns than the people who live on the road to get here (Fall River Road). More traffic on the lower road means more parking at the top (and hopefully badly needed road improvements). More visitors walking around near the glacier and doing whatever up here means we get more facilities to service them. Those of us who like to ride or ski get a lift right in our backyard, but lose some of the back country experience we moved up here for.

  So many issues and everything is going to be a trade off.

• April 24, 2008

  11:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BlueSled writes:

  My biggest concern is the snowmaking machines that will be right in the middle of a residential area. It's nice and quiet up here and I don't mind a small resort, but the constant grind of those machines trying to keep Eclipse open in the summer would be bad.

• April 24, 2008

  noon

  Suggest removal

  DavidG writes:

  Hey, a new ski area would get traffic out of the tunnel. If it were me, I'd get a road built from Central City or Rt 119 then get somebody interested in a new tunnel under the divide with a route right through his property. Leave the poor folks on the existing road alone. If Dick Bass can build Snowbird, Mike can have his dream.

• April 24, 2008

  12:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  farsidefan writes:

  Isn't Echo Mountain owned by a Coors family member ?
  Yea, give us another ski area..what happened to Berthoud ?
  Geneva Basin on Guanella Pass ? Ski Idlewild ? Loveland East ?
  I understand the frustration of living in the mtn.s with peace and quiet and then losing that for another ski area.

• April 24, 2008

  12:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  Fall River Road is scary as hell in the wintertime, that's for sure. Will definitely result in some accidents, unfortunately. Hard to say if the trade-off for a ski run closer to the foothills is worth it, although it would be nice to have more smaller places to go to, like this one being proposed. The huge corporate ski resorts are just that: corporate.

• April 24, 2008

  12:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BlueSled writes:

  And don't forget Arapaho East and Lookout Mountain!

  People forget he is only reopening an area that was open before. I don't suspect Eclipse is going to be as big of a draw as some are forecasting. Ticket sales at Echo Mountain suck and the millionaires who own it keep it open as a hobby of sorts...much like Michael Coors would do if it didn't take of like planned.

  There is only going to be a couple of hundred acres available via lift and it's only going to draw a specific set of riders. Those who like extreme backcountry off the lift, terrain parks and the family type would come up here...but guess what, those people are already coming up here. It's not going to take visitors away from the major Summit/Eagle County resorts.

  So what if the park gets approved, all of the critical improvements get done, and then nobody shows up??? The residents win for sure!

• April 24, 2008

  12:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BlueSled writes:

  Here's the planned resorts website:

  http://www.eclipsesnow.com

  Looks sick!

• April 24, 2008

  12:36 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  BlueSled, I tend to agree with you that this kind of ski run won't attract the type who prefer the large resorts. Look at Eldora, it's fairly closer to the foothills, and mostly draws a more local crowd.

• April 24, 2008

  12:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BlueSled writes:

  mytwosense, I agree with you as well. Eldora is a very small area, yet it's still about three times as big as Eclipse is planned to be. It also has a scary winter road that is one-way in and out.

  One of the things I do see happening more are the casual tourists types on a road trip who end up driving the road from I-70, just because of curiosity. We could do without big freeway signs that say:

  ***SKI AREA*** FALL RIVER ROAD - NEXT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!

  Eclipse would be better as a locally kept secret.

• April 24, 2008

  1:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  naturegirl writes:

  "We're looking to do whatever it takes to get the ski area open."
  What really makes me see red is the fact that Coors, because he's wealthy and powerful, gets special treatment from a congressman for a private, commercial venture that apparently isn't favored by a lot of his constituents. I was up there last weekend and there already is parking (for $5) and a porta potty. There has always been a trail to the glacier (and thence to the wilderness) and there have never been no tresspassing signs posted to keep hikers away. There is no access problem up there as far as I see it. Udall/Coors, don't take us for a bunch of ignorant peasants. It's pretty obvious what the real agenda for the legislation is.

• April 24, 2008

  3:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  buzzman writes:

  stick to making suds and control your ego

• April 24, 2008

  6:51 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chc writes:

  We can have all the opinions, plans, and words we want but in the end it will all be defeated by the road. If the road count goes any further up, the law will stop it. The wilderness, the housing development, Eclipse, and the existing local traffic can not all be on that road. The road can not be realistically improved. Eclipse will provide only a pittance in tax money so it won't even justify it. No one will spend the millions the improvement will cost for a bottom end market that Eclipse can only attract. If everyone looks the other way, a few seasons of traffic jams on the road (and skidding off it) will kill Eclipse. How can real estate go up because of a minimum ticket price customer? Does it happen around skate parks? Then the law suits will start the first time a traffic jam stops an emergency service need which happens all the time up there, which will increase exponentially with these new activities.... and on and on and on... interesting concept.. REALLY bad location. OK reader, you're the Boss. Would you hire a 25 year that has never run a large company, nor never even been employed by one in the ski business, as the CEO? I'm betting not. I'd welcome a good new business here. We need the income. But this ain't it.

• April 25, 2008

  5:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  purplewolf writes:

  I was under the impression that back in the seventies the people got together and passed laws that there could be no more development in Clear Creek County.
  I was looking to buy a small piece of ground up the Ute Creek Road and was told I would be unable to build on it.

  Has the laws changed? People are going to destroy the very thing that makes Colorado and the Denver area so great.

• April 25, 2008

  9:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  psu96 writes:

  naturegirl,
  you are misinformed. 7miles up Fall Rivers road is private, always has been. Its your responsibility to know when you are on private land, no signs are needed. The private owners have been gracious to let hikers pass, but that has now changed due to a private owner buying up lot 4, small parking lot and is now charging.

• April 25, 2008

  11:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  naturegirl writes:

  psu96, ever heard of adverse possession??

• April 25, 2008

  1:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  psu96 writes:

  I have thanks for asking.

• April 25, 2008

  2:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Bear_Paw writes:

  It's a great fit for the area. People already visit the glacier area year round for a variety of recreational activities and skiing has been part of the local history for years.

  The road has it's issues, but growth and change are inevitable.

• April 29, 2008

  9:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  oompaloompa writes:

  This is a terrible fit for the area. It is a ski area with a long track record of failing being doubled in size and plopped right in the middle of a residential area. But Coors (who previously stated he liked to do things himself - not by leveraging the family name) now will "do whatever it takes" to open this area and disrupt the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people. It's nice that he's found what he wants to do with his life - too bad he has no regard for people who found it a long time ago by moving to a quiet, peaceful area. What a selfish little boy - "Daddy I want an Oompa Loompa".

  After Mike grows up - maybe he'll get smart and try to re-open a ski area that stands a chance - like Geneva Basin - something that isn't right smack dab in the middle of a residential community and is in the 285 corridor.

  Shame on Mark Udall for pandering to the ultra right wing Coors family and bringing this bill to the house. It isn't a swap - it's a 2 for 1 land giveaway being made to gain political influence. The last think I thought I'd be doing when I voted for Udall was voting in a tool for the ultra right. Incredible.

  Doing what a normal citizen would need to do to gain access to this land is too slow for young, spoiled Mike Coors. So he stirs up the Coors political machine to do an end around of the rules. Disgusting. I sure wish he'd play out his childhood fantasies elsewhere.

• May 1, 2008

  6:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  glacierpaul writes:

  Hello all,
  1) Traffic jam on Fall River Rd? Look at I-70 every weekend!!
  2) The road- what about it? It was paved, used to be dirt, and the county zoned all the private lands to allow some kind of development, residential, commercial, multi-family, even mining!
  Here is a possibility- Michael decides to mine the property, no barriers to stop that, and the trucks 24/7 up and down Fall River.
  I would rather have what we have now-- tourists, and residents.
  3) As an American, all I see is outsourcing, insourcing our industries, jobs, etc. All that is left is our land, TOURISM.
  4) A peacful, quite area? On some days, but with 80% 0f Clear Creek being public lands, and 80,000+ visitors up Fall River rd just to see the Glacier, quite is funny too, all I mostly hear up here is the wind and airplanes flying directly overhead.
  5) Adverse Possession- where you possibly can be rewarded for breaking the law. Look at the Boulder case. As for trying it up here, good luck, you would be fighting our whole community. Besides, my pay parking lot, and Eclipse are continuing the use, not stopping it, you would be laughed out of court. And if you were to get said possession, how would you manage the use?? You see the USFS has not done this, but 2 private owners are taking up that task. Well, at least me for now.
  6) Attacking Michael or the COORS family, is just plain ridiculous.
  Stick to the real concerns and it will be beneficial for all. I am glad it is Michael Coors, a long time Colorado native, and the money goes without saying, is'nt that one of the keys for a successful endeavor?
  Thanks, Paul

• May 1, 2008

  8:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jwood2323 writes:

  It's amazing to me that so many people are commenting about the ski area and Michael Coors who don't know the area or the man. The fact is that the people on lower Fall River are only concerned with their property values and could care less about the property owners in St. Mary's. There are approximately 350 homeowners in St. Mary's and hundreds of vacant lots. The 350 homeowners support their own water and sanitation system which costs nearly $100/month. The system is 30 years old and in desperate need of repairs. The only way we can lower the monthly costs and make the necessary repairs is if more people build to spread the costs among more people. Currently there is nothing to attract people to build as there are no services ie, newspaper delivery, trash removal or school bus access. All problems that lower Fall River Road people don't have to contend with. The hysteria around the road is ridiculous. I have lived in St. Mary's for a number of years, traveling that road to Idaho Springs every day and have seen 1 accident in all that time. The road is not dangerous as they suggest. If there is going to be an accident it will be much further past lower Fall River Road and up on the switchbacks. I am so tired of the personal attacks on the Coors family, insinuating that they are money grubbing people with no concern for the environment. In fact I know for certain that the Coors family has been more philanthropic than any other family in the State of Colorado and have an impeccable environmental reputation. They have personally purchased hundreds if not thousands of acres of land in Colorado to protect wildlife in developing wildlife reserves. I guess when you don't have legitimate reasons to be opposed to the ski area other than pure greed, the only thing you can do is personally attack Michael and his family. The Fall River Road people should be ashamed of themselves!

• May 4, 2008

  8:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  chc writes:

  Let me see.... a 25 year old Coors kid with no experience in running a snow park, let alone a big business, is using his fathers political and financial power,(because he has neither) to bypass the normal process, and use public taxes to do so, by grossly misusing the Bill system, to turn public property, into private profit.

  When Coors discovered Eclipse would take the car count over its legal limits, he hired a professional engineer to take a car count during a snow storm to argue down the existing count. yes, I said a snow storm!

  Udall stated the Sierra club, Clear Creek County Commissioners, and the local residents supported the bill. They did not.

  The Clear Creek County Sheriff wrote a multi-page report against Eclipse because of a list of very dangerous safety issues it will cause on the road.

  The road is controlled by law. It lists the maximum number of cars. It also states that the developer that causes the count to go over it must make the upgrade... which would cost millions and millions and in actuality, not even reasonably doable... it would need to condemn houses to do so, and one of those is mine, The dream house that took my life's savings to build. Yes, I am bit greedy on that issue.

  The road is the only way in and out for 1000s of people. Think about that. Lift tickets can not be taxed. People that buy homes at 10,000 feet must grasp the concept they probably made a very limited investment decision. Every business, and there are many, has failed for years at St Marys. Could it be a BAD LOCATION?

  I can go on and on. These are not opinions or attacks, they are just facts. Young Mr Coors has virtually no business experience at this, no personal money on this scale, and no political power. Had he not been a Coors, no one... NO ONE... would have anything to talk about. This wouldn't exist. Why does everyone want to hand him their life?

  This is OJT on a grand scale. How many examples of failed plans of the rich must you see to get this? And those were experienced developers.

  Why didn't each young Coors' become CEO of Coors Brewing at 25? They were rich? They were even family?

• May 5, 2008

  2:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Bear_Paw writes:

  Yeah, he watched the long term forcast and waited for the right time to plan the vehicle count during a snow storm..that's a good one!

  "People that buy homes at 10,000 feet must grasp the concept they probably made a very limited investment decision."

  People that buy or build homes next to a paved county road leading to a developing community and highly used public access area should do a little more research!

• May 6, 2008

  5:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  glacierpaul writes:

  Great point bearpaw!! Also, about the traffic count being done in a snow storm, is that not the time of year most ski traffic would be coming up here?? And my paid parking lot has filled up every weekend since Feb. and the ski area is'nt drawing them up here.
  Some other points:
  1) Michael had to do the "bill" because he is a Coors, most all seem to have a problem with "Coors" in general, it seems to me.
  Even people in the USFS have expressed this sentiment. Facilitating the need for legislation. Stigma's abound.
  2) Bear_Paw made this one.
  3) Fall River residents only have the "traffic" concerns, and have no other impacts to deal with as we at the top do, as this is where they end up, once they drive past FRR residents.
  4) If no Eclipse, what will happen with the road when all other available properties are developed?? Do you think the one house that puts the road trip count over has to rebuild FRR?
  5) 1309 seperate lots in St. Mary's alone have paid taxes for 40 years, maybe all of us should demand the road upgrade now, what then?
  6) FRR residents seem to not be concerned with the current problems the bill will help fix. The ski area is the bonus to me.
  7) Last I remember, we are in America, where anyone has the right to start, and fail a business. As for Michaels abilities to run a business, you would be speculating at best, as to how he will do.
  8) Do not say certain people did not support the bill, as I have hundreds of locals and customers that support the bill and Eclipse.
  9) The "road" is controlled by law? Please read my earlier post #1-4.
  Thanks, Paul

• May 9, 2008

  9:37 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  oompaloompa writes:

  I'm amazed to see that Jwood2323 would want the area developed more - I mean being a realtor and all (or married to one) - I suppose it would be good for business. Coors has a "impeccable environmental reputation" - what planet are you on????

  glacierpaul has been quoted in the local paper that the reason he wants this to go in is because he wants to make a killing selling his large real estate holdings in the area.

  So - proponents are motivated by greed despite the detriment to so many people around them. What a surprise!

  Excuse me, but exactly who should be ashamed here?

  Disgusting.

• May 15, 2008

  6:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  glacierpaul writes:

  Hello all,
  Well I am certain we are not on planet-Charley Chocolate Factory:)
  As far as what I was quoted saying, I suggest all go to the source.
  www.clearcreekcourant.com, March 12, 2008 I was the headline leading story. I certainly did not say anything about making a "killing" or selling any property for that matter. In fact all of the ideas I have for my properties are tourism/recreation based. Basically, accomodating all of the visitors that come up here, and making it a better place to live and visit.
  The greed comment is ridiculous. Everyone is bound to have to work, to make money, to be a consumer right? I guess when you want something your greedy? I would agree that oil companies are greedy. And the detriment to so many? You must not live up here.
  80,000+ thousand people come to our area every year, no restrooms, no public parking, no designated campsites, pretty much no control or management. Now times that by 20+ years--detriment?
  All should be ashamed that the USFS has not done the above mentioned and have been mandated by the James Peak Wilderness Bill, to do so. Why are private owners, Michael and myself stepping up to solve some of these problems and being ridiculed for doing so? Guess most do not know the "whole" story.
  Disgusting is right.