Mt. CB council reviewing Nordic Inn redevelopment plan

Public hearing continued to May 6

By Kendra Walker

The Mt. Crested Butte town council is currently in the process of reviewing a major alteration preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan to remodel the Nordic Inn. However, with a recommendation from the Mt. Crested Butte planning commission to deny the application, the council still has questions and concerns about the current plan after a lengthy public hearing and discussion at their March 18 meeting. The council decided to continue the public hearing to the May 6 meeting and has asked town staff to work with the applicant to develop information that responds to the concerns raised by council members. 

The Nordic Inn proposal, owned by Pearls Management LLC and represented by Huckstep Law, incorporates development on three different lots totaling 3.56 acres, including lots NI-1, NI-2 and town-owned ROS-1. The plan proposes 27 three-bedroom rental cottages, a redesign of the existing structure with eight hotel rooms and four community housing units, four additional town-owned community housing units on the adjacent town-owned lot and a 130-space, two-level parking garage. The design also includes an internal pedestrian road, common open spaces, landscaping and visitor amenities including a pool, hot tubs and fire pits. 

Nordic Inn PUD background 

In 2018, a PUD for the Nordic Inn property was approved for a 125-room hotel and 140 public parking spaces in a surface lot. The town purchased ROS-1 and NI-2 for $1.05 million from Pearls with the intent to construct a surface parking lot as part of the PUD. NI-2 ownership was transferred from the Town to Pearls at no cost to Pearls to allow Pearls to construct and maintain the surface parking lot. At that time, the intended use of ROS-1 was for open space for the purposes of snow storage. 

Then in 2020, an alteration of the Nordic Inn property’s original PUD was approved for the development of a 132-room hotel, eight community housing units and 220 parking spaces, 75 of which must be public. That PUD currently remains valid and in place. 

Following the COVID pandemic, Pearls revamped the proposal to scrap the large hotel plan for the cottage-style concept. 

In February 2024, Pearls and the Town entered into an Amended and Restated Development Agreement, determining that public parking was no longer a priority and instead Pearls would construct four two-bedroom community housing units on ROS-1 to be owned and managed by the town. The four community housing units triggered by the development per the town’s inclusionary zoning are proposed for lot NI-1 in the hotel structure.

The preliminary plan came before a planning commission public hearing and review on January 8 and January 22 and February 5, and the planning commission ultimately recommended denial of the application due to concerns related to emergency road access, the use of the ROS-1 property and building density, among other items. The planning commission encouraged the applicant to withdraw the application and address the issues they had with the plan; however, the applicant chose to bring the plan to the town council for review. 

According to a staff report to the council, the planning commission’s findings for recommending denial included the following: “1) Approval of this PUD major alteration will create entitlements, making design review much more difficult if not impossible to approve; 2) The proposed design makes emergency access to much of the site very difficult and does not comply with fire district regulations or town codes; 3) The proposed design will make creating an approved site and landscape plan almost impossible due to the tight distances between buildings, snow storage requirements and the requirements of the newly adopted landscape code; 4)  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; 5) The proposed plan creates a four-unit building on space that was supposed to be a recreational open space buffer between the neighborhood of single-family homes. This proposed building also would have zero setbacks on several sides, parking in the town’s right of way and very little space for any landscape buffering; 6) The proposed plan requires retaining walls that do not comply with town code; 7) Many of the above challenges could be solved with fewer buildings and better vehicular access which the Planning Commission suggested nearly a year ago.”

March 18 public hearing

Seven neighbors to the Nordic Inn spoke during public comment, voicing their support for the planning commission’s recommendation for denial. 

“I believe the planning commission worked really hard on this proposal and put in a lot of time,” said Sarah Greydanus. “There are many unresolved issues. I believe it should be withdrawn and possibly reworked.” She suggested the town and applicant provide opportunities for community input regarding the project moving forward.

“The project density is too high,” said Laura Meredith. “Twenty-seven three-bedroom cottages on this small parcel of land is too much. Visit the site to observe and visualize potential impact of this area. The highest density of the whole thing is on ROS-1, and it’s within 50 feet of the Greydanus residence with zero setbacks,” she said. “Remember you all work for the residents and constituents, not the big money developer.”

Tina Baker noted the traffic study in the application was unreliable given it was done in the summer of 2017. “Traffic on Treasury is at its peak during the winter ski season,” she said. 

Pearls attorney Aaron Huckstep summarized in his view that the reason for the planning commission’s denial was that they did not like the plan for ROS-1. He reminded the council that there is a vested right for a 132-room hotel and a 220-space underground parking lot, and that the developer could possibly move forward with that original plan if the council denied the preliminary plan before them. “I have been surprised at the neighbors’ reaction to this,” he said. “If this goes away then we go back to the underlying zoning for a big hotel.”

In a letter to the council, he asked the council to either 1) embrace and reaffirm the Development Agreement regarding ROS-1 or 2) abandon any intent to develop on ROS-1. “The Development Agreement contains a provision which allows the Applicant to pay the Town $1,050,000 if the Application is denied. If the Town Council chooses path two described above, the Applicant believes a more efficient manner of handling this circumstance is to approve the Preliminary Plan with a condition which requires the Applicant to revise the Application by removing ROS-1, terminate the Development Agreement, and transfer monies to the Town.”

He also disagreed with the Crested Butte Fire Protection District’s stance that the application does not meet town codes, because the purpose of a PUD is to allow for variances to town codes. “Your process with respect to the fire department is broken,” he said. “They view their job as taking the application and literally applying the code. I don’t know what they mean when they say it doesn’t meet town code. In my perspective, if it’s a PUD and it’s approved, it meets town code.”

Regarding the traffic study, Huckstep noted that the application seeks to reduce density from the originally approved PUD. “Logically, any traffic impacts will be reduced because of the reduction in proposed density.”

Huckstep also asked the council to consider removing the condition that the town will not issue any construction/building permits until it receives approval from the Mt. Crested Butte Water Sanitation District. Currently, the district is not accepting any utility plans for new major developments until they resolve their main trunk line capacity issue. Water and San has held the stance that “development should pay its way” and help finance the trunk line repair. 

“The manner in which the MCBWSD is treating different projects in Mt. Crested Butte right now is unclear,” said Huckstep. He noted that the recent Oros development was approved and made with no written feedback from Water and San. “This Application is below Oros on the trunk line…There is no public infrastructure involved with the Application. The Application seeks to substantially reduce the density currently allowed by right on the property. Yet MCBWSD will not respond to repeated requests for what is required from the Applicant, why Oros was handled without a condition of approval, and why my client would be asked to pay for an expansion project when my client’s currently vested property rights include the right (with no such payment) to construct substantially greater density than is being sought now.”

Council discussion

Council member Valeda Scribner asked what the town had done regarding a lodging needs assessment. “What is the demand vs. our ability to accommodate that? We know we need housing, do we need lodging?” she said. “I think our needs have shifted from 2018 until now and our ability to accommodate those needs.” 

“At some point we need to put hotels where we have zoning for hotels and houses where we have zoning for houses. It’s our job to do zoning and we zoned it for a hotel,” said council member Bruce Nation. “I would like to see nothing on ROS-1.”

“The applicant saw a change in the market and came with this idea. In principle we were on board with the idea and it went through the process,” said council member Roman Kolodziej. 

“I wasn’t on town council when they made that decision,” countered Nation. 

“I’d like to see us go back and put a hotel on that lot with the original parking. It’s very possible that a parking lot holds more value to us,” said council member Steve Morris, noting that the CBMR dirt parking lot could be developed in the future and the town may then need more parking options. “I have compassion for the residents and their concerns over there. The ideal scenario would be to go back to the 2018 original hotel plan that had the shared parking with 79 spaces for town. That would retain ROS-1 as recreational open space. I’m willing to sacrifice those four units on ROS-1.”

“I don’t want us to lose sight of where we are right now,” said council member Alec Lindeman. “We should almost always follow a planning commission recommendation because we empowered them to do this job. For me, I don’t have enough information to know whether or not I approve of this. I would require more elaboration from the planning commission.”

“I’m not loving the idea of developing on ROS-1 and scared of what the alternative looks like,” said Scribner, noting that going back to the original hotel only serves visitor/tourist needs. I would love some middle ground if at all possible to stop development on ROS-1. But the four units (in the hotel) are not sufficient for our housing needs.” 

The council ultimately voted to continue the public hearing to the council’s May 6 meeting and direct staff to work with the applicant to gather more information that responds to the council’s concerns.