Nordic Inn revamp faces potential denial by Mt. CB

Proposal includes hotel remodel, rental cottages and parking garage

By Kendra Walker

After several months of review and multiple years of various development iterations, the Mt. Crested Butte planning commission is recommending denial of the application for a major alteration preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan to remodel the Nordic Inn. 

Concerns regarding emergency road access, the use of town property and building placement led to the commission’s recommendation for denial, which is next slated to come before the Mt. Crested Butte town council for review during their March 18 meeting. 

The Nordic Inn, owned by Pearls Management LLC and represented by Huckstep Law, has gone through several proposed designs for a major alteration PUD. The latest proposal would give the existing building a makeover and add cottage-style lodging to the property. The proposal incorporates the development on three different lots totaling 3.56 acres, including lots NI-1, NI-2 and town-owned ROS-1. The plan includes 27 rental cottages, eight hotel rooms, a manager’s residence, eight community housing units, a 130-space, two-level parking garage, internal pathways, common open spaces, landscaping and visitor amenities including a pool, hot tubs and fire pits.

The planning commission held a public hearing for the Nordic Inn PUD preliminary plan on January 8, continued it to January 22 and then closed the hearing and continued deliberation during their February 5 meeting. After back and forth with the applicant, hearing public comment and working with staff to develop multiple conditions for approval, the planning commission ultimately decided that the proposed plan needed to address several issues and should be reworked, therefore recommending denial of the application. 

ROS-1 concerns

In February 2024, the Mt. CB town council and Pearls negotiated a housing agreement that the development would include the construction of four two-bedroom community housing units to be owned by the town on the ROS-1 lot. The other four units are proposed for lot NI-1.

However, the placement of four community housing units on ROS-1 produced concern, as the building has zero setbacks closest to the neighboring single family homes. Planning commission chair Dusty Demerson pointed out that the underground parking garage occupies more than half of the lot, forcing the community housing units onto the small remaining space. 

“I have issue with the employee housing proposal on ROS-1, it was supposed to be an open space buffer,” he said, noting the ROS stands for “recreational open space.”

“And now it’s got zero setbacks. It has virtually no space for landscaping. We all want employee housing, we just don’t think that this is a very good solution for this project.”

Emergency access and cottage placement  

The proposal adds new access points on Treasury Road and includes a 16-foot-wide main maintenance road that winds throughout the cottages on the property, designed only for maintenance and emergency vehicles. However, the local fire district has stated that the vehicular access is non-compliant with the Mt. CB adopted codes, indicating that the internal road widths, turning radius, turnaround design and access points do not yet meet applicable fire safety standards.

The planning commission also expressed concerns that the proposal uses a traffic impact study from 2017. “The traffic study is seven years old,” said planning commission member Reed Meredith. “The applicant said they are downsizing (from the previous PUD proposal) so it’s less impact, but I disagree because Epic Pass sales have increased 50% in the last four years and I think everybody will agree that our drive traffic from the Front Range has increased exponentially. I feel like the traffic study is a little useless.”

The planning commission also found concern with the setbacks of the proposed cottage placement, which encroach into easements or extend beyond property lines in multiple locations. Town staff noted that it would be further evaluated during the final PUD plan review to ensure adequate setbacks and encroachments.

“The density is not the issue, it’s the number of buildings and their placement on the property and the road access is what’s causing the problem,” said Demerson. “The building separation needs to be greater because it’s leaving no room for landscaping and access to fire. I would recommend they look at lowering the number of buildings and improving the vehicle access.”

Water and San holdup

As with any large development currently in the pipeline for Mt. Crested Butte, the Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District is not accepting any utility plans for new major developments at this time until they resolve their main trunk line capacity issue. One of the conditions for approval is that the town will not issue any construction, excavation, land disturbance or building permits for the project until the developer obtains the district’s written approval of the utility plans.

Public comment

Many neighbors along Treasury Road attended the public hearing meetings. Mt. CB resident Noah Eckhouse argued that the process has been too fast, especially for a 293-page proposal full of detailed drawings that the public had less than a week to review before the first public hearing. “I’m not trying to stop this project, because I respect the rights of the developers and the free market. I also understand the pressing need for workforce housing in town,” he wrote in a public comment letter. “But I seek to have a collaborative process with the developer, the town and the surrounding neighbors to find a mutually acceptable solution that is consistent with its location adjacent to the oldest planned community in Mt. CB: the 11 homes on the Treasury Road cul-de-sac.” 

Tim Greydanus and his wife Sarah own the property on Treasury Road directly to the north of the proposed Nordic Inn development and adjacent to ROS-1. “The planning commission and town council approved the original PUD with the stipulation that ROS-1 remain as open space for snow storage and more importantly, a buffer between commercial and residential areas,” they wrote in a public comment letter. “We are well aware of the need for affordable housing in our area and we have family members who have felt the strain of finding dependable housing allowing them to live and work in the Upper Valley. But the density in this case is the concern. Smaller or fewer units on ROS-1 might be workable, but shoe-horning four two-bedroom units onto a .29 acre lot with the attendant requirements for parking, snow storage, etc. is problematic, and adversely impacts the quality of life and value of neighboring homes.”

Demerson ultimately made a motion to recommend denial of the application to the town council. “​​Approval of this PUD alteration will create entitlements making this design review much more difficult, if not impossible to approve,” he stated. “The proposed design makes emergency access to much of the site very difficult and does not comply with fire district regulations or town codes. The proposed design will make creating an approved site and landscaping plan almost impossible due to the tight distances between buildings, snow storage requirements and requirements of the newly adopted town landscape codes. The proposed plan seems to entitle the applicant to use a large portion of ROS-1, which is owned by the town, for their parking garage. The proposed plan created a four-unit building on space that was supposed to be a recreational open space buffer between the neighborhood, the single-family homes. This proposed building would also have zero setbacks on several sides, parking in the town’s right-of-way and very little space for landscaping buffer. The proposed plan also requires retaining walls that also do not comply with town code. Many of the challenges could be solved with fewer buildings and better vehicular access which the planning commission suggested nearly a year ago.”

The planning commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial. Planning commission member Matthew Ruiz voted against, arguing that this isn’t the last stage for the applicant to make changes to meet their requirements. “I’m in a conundrum about having these issues addressed and this just being dragged on. It seems like there would be a more effective way for the applicant to address these issues without running into this wall,” he said. 

“I would agree with you and encourage the applicant to withdraw the application and address the issues that we have discussed,” said Demerson. “The reason I made a motion is to send a strong statement to council.” 

If the applicant does not withdraw the application, the Nordic Inn major alteration preliminary PUD and the planning commission’s recommendation for denial is scheduled to come before Mt. Crested Butte town council review during their March 18 meeting.