Transcript

0:00:26Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, thanks. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Good morning. Today is August 20th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioner, supporter County Commissioners Locumand and Levy are present. And Commissioner Stolzman is excused. We are here this morning for public hearing on docket - LU - 26 - 005 and SPR - 26 - 0015. And this is an ADU and residential edition. So we will start with a presentation from Sam Walker, the planner. He'll have up to 20 minutes to explain these land use cases to us. We will also allow the applicant up to 20 minutes to tell us what they would like us to know about this application. The Commissioners may have some questions of the planner and the applicant. We will then open the floor for public testimony, both in the hearing room. For people joining us remotely after we have done that. We will close the public testimony. Sam will have some time to respond to anything that may need clarification. Commissioners may have some questions after public testimony and after the applicant, and we'll give the applicant the last word before Commissioner Luchumen, and I deliberate and reach a decision. Before we get started, I want to ask if there are any disclosures we need to make on the record. Thank you, no

0:02:06disclosures for me. And I have none either. So Sam, you have the floor. Thank you, Commissioners. Good morning. Sam Walker with the community planning and permitting department. I was the reviewing planar for LU - 265 and SPR - 2615. The Osterholm de Julian ADU and Residential Editions at 274 South Cedar Brook Road. So Scott Giles and Eric Osterholmer here with us today. Scott is the agent for the application and Eric is one of the property owners. The parcel is located in our Forestry zoning district, and it's about four acres in size. It is a plaid lot in the Pine Brook Hill subdivision. And there's an existing 4, 331 square foot residence and 552 square foot detached garage. I underline detached because the assessor lists it as attached. Part of the intention of this application will be to attach it. The proposal that we reviewed was a limited impact special review to permit the construction of a family care unit accessory dwelling unit and site planar view to permit a one - time 165 square foot residential edition. Here's our vicinity map. So the parcel is located due west of the city of Boulder, again in the Pinebrook Hills subdivision. And here we have our location map with the parcel outlined in red. So you can see it's on the west side of South Cedar Brook

0:03:23Road, just south of Linden Drive. Here's an aerial photo from 2024 of the parcel. So you can see the vast majority of the parcel is undeveloped and all of the existing development as concentrated at the far eastern end. Regional aerial photo just to show kind of the general character of other properties in the area. Next we have a comprehensive plan map. So we have identified archaeologically sensitive areas and very high biodiversity significance area across the entire parcel. Um, this contour map, I think kind of undersells the steepness of the site. So these, they're a little bit difficult to see on the slide. Um, but each alternating color line represents a 20 foot change in elevation. Um, so you can see between the residents and the road, and we'll see that illustrated in the site photos.

0:04:17Um, the geologic hazards map identifies debris foe susceptibility across quite a bit of the parcel. There's also some areas of rockfall susceptibility and landslide susceptibility. And there are some nearby OSMP owned lands. That's the city of Boulders Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. And finally, we have our zoning map indicating that this is in the Forestry zoning district. So here's the fact sheets that we're provided on the left, we see the square footage. And so the accessory dwelling unit is listed at a size of 696 square feet. There's also a 77 square foot covered deck. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes. And then I'll also note the hallway listed at 165 square feet. So the 165 square foot hallway will be the new connection that will connect the detached garage to the main residence. And then the ADU is supposed to be constructed on top of that existing detached garage. They're adding a second floor to an existing one story building. Um, this is the, this slide and the next slide are clips from the applicants project narrative. Just kind of describing the work that's proposed and the necessity of the family care unit. Which we can come back to if you'd like. On this slide, we have the detail site plan showing the area of existing development, the

0:05:32red circle is around that new hallway proposal. Um, that will connect the existing residents, which is at the top of the slide to the detached garage, which is in the blue circle, but underneath the ADU. So the blue circle is also intended to represent the new location of the accessory dwelling unit. Again, that's going to be a new second floor edition on top of the existing currently detached garage. And just a slightly different view of the same thing. So this is the first floor plan showing that there's proposed to be an internal staircase, which you can just see kind of faintly outlined right here. The blue circle again is the existing detached garage in the location of the accessory dwelling on top of it. The red circle is the location of that new first floor, uh, hallway edition. So now we'll take a look at a few elevations. This is the West elevation of the accessory dwelling unit, which will face kind of into the hillside or interior of the subject property. Um, this first level is existing. And then the second level, which is kind of this, um, I don't even know how to describe the staticky. Phil is the new accessory dwelling unit.

0:06:41We'll see a better view in a second, but on the left here is that proposed hallway that will connect the two structures on top, I do want to note that there is a DEX. So there will be kind of second floor access, but it's not covered. So we wouldn't count it as any kind of floor area. Now we're looking at a South elevation. So again, first level is existing detached garage and the staticy area is the new accessory dwelling unit. You can see the bulk of the existing residence is illustrated in the background. And this is the east facing elevation. So this will face kind of toward the view toward the planes, uh, and toward the road, uh, although at a pretty high elevation. This is also the best view of that proposed main level addition to the existing residence, which is the hallway here.

0:07:27And on top of that, is the uncovered deck with access to the accessory dwelling. And this is the North elevation, which will face toward the residents. So this is kind of an interior view, if that makes sense. We have a section view of the proposed hallway. And then the accessory dwelling unit. And this was the floor plan that was provided for the accessory dwelling, which just kind of shows a single, uh, one bedroom, one bath apartment essentially. So now we'll take a look at some site photos. So this is standing on the first switchback of the driveway looking toward the existing resonance. And you can just see the roof line of that detached garage off to the left. I'll note as usual, I've included the aerial photo on the left and the arrow on top of that aerial photo shows the rough location and direction the photo was taken from. So panning slightly to the left of that previous photo, we're now looking up to the second switchback on the driveway. And now we're looking at the existing detached garage. I keep calling it that because that's what the assessor does. It's been converted into kind of general living space, um, so it's not really used as a vehicle garage anymore, but that's what the assessor calls it. So that's what I'm referring to it

0:08:33as. We counted the same either way. Um, now we're standing on the driveway facing at the South Facade. So the existing or the new ADU would essentially just go directly on top of this. Panning slightly to the left, just showing the character of the slope and how steep it is as it goes further to the west into the interior of the parcel. This is a direct view looking at the back, uh, or excuse me, at the south side of the existing residence. And then panning around, this is one of the nearby properties just to kind of show the character of existing development in the area. Same thing with this picture where we're standing at that top switch back on the driveway facing pretty much due east. So you can just see the existing development in the, uh, immediate neighborhood surrounding. Then a view out to the plane. So it was pretty smoky that day, but you can see haystack mountain off in the distance. This is roughly the view from the accessory dwelling unit. Um, albeit in a little bit lower elevation. And then another slope just trying to show, or excuse me, another photo trying to show the character of the slope. So this is the slope directly in front of the residence between the first and second switchbacks on the driveway. Another view

0:09:46facing. Oh, that's probably fine, right? If the lights are flickering, um, this is another view of the existing residence from the driveway. And then now in this photo, we're standing on South Cederbrook Road looking due west into the parcel. Um, so what I'll point out here is that you can see the camper that was parked on that second switchback. You can't really see the residents behind the vegetation. Um, panning slightly to the right. You can see other residences on nearby parcels. And then walking a little bit further north on South Cederbrook Road facing due west into the parsley. You can't see the residences all. So this was discussed in the staff recommendation. There's a quote or a criteria that talks about being able to see only one entrance from the front property line included this to illustrate that you can't really see the existing front entrance. So we're not really concerned about that criteria. In terms of referral responses, we got mostly standard comments. The permitting team noted that the proposal would require sprinkler additions throughout the entirety of the existing residence as well as the new accessory dwelling unit. And then otherwise had relatively standard comments. The public health department noted that they would need to upgrade their septic system in order to support the additional bedrooms worth of capacity. Um, the natural resource

0:11:09planner noted that there were no major resource or visual impact concerns. Revegetation should be required. Um, and then noted that the spiral staircase was sort of an odd choice for an accessory dwelling unit for a family care unit. But we don't have any criteria. Related to that. Uh, the wildfire team noted that wildfire mitigation is required. Increased ignition resistant materials would be required for the new construction. They also strongly recommended that addition to the main residence as well, although it's not required. The access in engineering team kind of had their regular comments, but noted that the driveway doesn't currently meet our standards. However, we previously reviewed it through a different site planner view years ago and found that we would essentially be imposing too much work on the side of the hillside to bring the driveway up to standard. So we're still not requiring them to make improvements for this application. Um, there was also a note from Excel that the, um, there was a power line that may encroach or there was an easement for power line and part of the retaining wall that's proposed may encroach onto that. They didn't really make clear which one they were talking about, um, and again, it's not really related directly to one of the criteria. So there was a recommendation in the staff wreck that the

0:12:24applicants work with Excel to rectify that situation. The historic preservation team had no conflicts with the application and we received no response from everyone you see listed there. Now we'll get into the criteria. I'm going to try to move relatively quickly because we have a decent number of them for today. Um, so the first, and we'll go through the limited impact criteria first and then the site planner view criteria second. Uh, so the limited impact criteria are applied to the proposal for the accessory dwelling unit. The site planner view criteria are applied to the proposed residential edition the hallway. Um, so the first LU criteria requires that the use will comply with basically the minimum requirements of the land use code, uh, so we noted that family care unit accessory dwelling units are allowed in the forestry zoning district through this application process. Um, and then there are additional provisions for family care unit ADUs specifically, which I'll go through on the next few slides.

0:13:21So the first one requires that the ADU may be detached from the structure housing the principal dwelling as long as it's closely clustered. This proposal in particular will actually attach the ADU to the principal dwelling. Um, so we had no concerns there. The second criteria for ADU for family CARE ADUs is the size limitation, which limits them to 700 square feet. Um, I've cut off part of the criteria just to fit everything on the slide, but it does go on to say that the commissioners can approve additional covered porch area beyond the 700 square feet. Um, so I do want to note that the applicants are proposed to 76 square foot covered porch off of the accessory dwelling. Staff had no concerns about that. And so we're recommending that that be approved. However, I noted earlier that one of the floor plan shows that internal communication, the internal staircase that will go from the first floor garage area up to the accessory dwelling. The department is pretty consistently considered that to be, uh, an expansion of size when the internal communication between the ADU and some other building. And so we just have a condition recommending that the applicants, uh, revised their plans at building permit to show a lack of internal communication. There's a few different ways that we think they could accomplish that

0:14:41in discussion with them. It sounds like they have a few ideas as well. So we figured leaving it kind of open - ended like that would be best. And just to illustrate that internal staircase again, that is figure five, I think, from the staff recommendation. Um, this is the entrance criteria that I mentioned a minute ago, uh, for ADUs. So it says a separate entrance is allowed, but only one entrance can be visible from the front property line. In this case, the East Property line is the front. We were unable to see the existing residence entry. So we, and the proposed entries to the accessory dwelling or on the north and west side. So they would face away anyway. So we had no concerns. Uh, criteria D says that the property owner must live on the property. And that's the case here. Eric and Sasha both live on the property and will continue to do so if the ADU is approved. Uh, then we have the requirement for annual reports being submitted to the community planning and permitting department, which we have recommended as a condition of approval. And finally, another condition of approval recommended that will meet criteria G or additional provision G, which says that a notice of these provisions will be recorded in the property records. The other criteria that I've included

0:15:55for the LU specifically, uh, requires that the use, the accessory dwelling will not require a level of community facilities and services greater than what's available. We didn't receive any referral responses from the potential water suppliers to the parcel. Um, and so we don't know for sure that there is an appropriate water supply for the ADU. If it's served by a well, sometimes the state gets kind of, uh, finicky about how ADUs are approved and whether they're attached or detached. Um, and then they may have pine brick water supply as well. And we just didn't receive a response from them. So we have a recommended condition of approval that at building permit, they provide an adequate water supply before the issuance of the building permit. I've also included, I summarized this earlier, but number seven requires that the ADU won't support a will support the multimodal transportation system and won't have significant negative impacts to the transportation system. Um, the access in engineering team referral response basically said that we're not requiring them to make improvements to the driveway, uh, but we did have some recommended conditions in the staff recommendation regarding construction. Preventing traffic impacts during construction essentially. Now we'll move on to two of the site point review standards, if I remember correctly. So the first one I've included is number three, which requires

0:17:14that wildfire mitigation, uh, that the proposal will satisfactorily mitigate the risk of wildfire. So like I mentioned earlier, we're requiring wildfire mitigation on this parcel. Increased ignition resistant materials are required for the accessory dwelling unit and the proposed addition, but they're also recommended for the wider remodel of the entire residence. And then number 13 is, uh, basically where we address our new square footage limitations. And so the existing residential floor area on this parcel exceeds the neighborhood median, which is the maximum size. However, the size on this parcel has not been limited through a previous application review. The applicants are proposed to 165 square foot edition of residential floor area. And per that specific article in the Landy's Code a one time 200 square foot edition is allowed on parcels that meet all of those requirements. So we're recommending approval of that as proposed. So the community planning and permitting staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approve LU - 26 - 5 and SPR - 2615, the Osterholm de Julian ADU and Residential Editions, subject to the conditions that were described in the staff recommendation. I have the full text of those conditions on the next few slides if we need to take a look. Otherwise, I'm available for questions. Thank you very much, Samtions. Thank you Sam for the presentation. I

0:18:41do have a question. I'm just having some issues with my. Document. So, um, let's see here if I can get back to it. Thanks for the pack of things for the information and for being here for questions. I think one of the questions you just ended in kind of the piece around the square footage of the property, the residential floor area and that it already exceeds what would be approved today as an example. The, let me see if I can. I am on page 22 of the packet and I'm looking at. Let's see here. It's SPR review from article 486 and it's. Criteria number eight talking about development. We'll have a significant negative visual impact. And I'm looking at this, um, the diagrams that you showed. So one of my curiosities is around if an NSPR, we would actually approve the massing of this property if it just came to us as a, as a new property. And so to add to the height of the property. And I'm looking, I guess I'm trying to figure out why this isn't just considered an addition to the property versus an application for an ADU. Because once you add the hallway and connect all the space, it just becomes one big house. And thinking about this, that's the common in regards to assessors records that has a

0:20:25detached garage that's not currently detached garage. I'm just trying to understand the analysis of what is actually there. Sure. So I think there's probably two or three questions in there. So I'll do my best. Um, so the, uh. Well, first I'll talk about the square footage, I guess. So accessory dwelling units kind of as a whole in the Landy's code are treated as a different type of floor area from residential floor area because they're considered a separate use, if that makes sense. The use specifically is the accessory dwelling unit. And so the longstanding department policy has been that we don't count accessory dwelling unit floor area as part of the calculated residential floor area for the parcel. There is a little bit of discussion in the staff recommendation and a condition that clarifies that if the use of this accessory dwelling unit is discontinued, they have to come up with a way to justify it.

0:21:26Because accessory dwelling units in Boulder County are pretty restricted right now. Under the current code. And so it requires a continuous use. If it's approved as a family care unit ADU, it has to be continuously used that way, which is why we asked for the annual reporting. So as soon as they stop using it for a family care unit ADU, they either have to deconstruct it. Or convert it into residential floor area if they have a way to or convert it into some other flory area. And that would be done typically through site planar view. But for the purpose of this application, the only new residential floor area is the 165 square foot hallway edition. And that was reviewed according to the site planer view standards. Um, then we get into the visual impact and the massing. So I agree it does look like quite a bit of massing. Um, and that was a point of discussion internally at the staff level. Um, where we landed is that what's facing to the east toward that prominent view is quite a bit, um, but it's actually pretty well shielded both by existing vegetation and in that shot that I had of Haystack Mountain. That's actually a pretty narrow view. Um, and so for the most part, this house is shielded from the plains, uh, other hills

0:22:41between the one that it's on. And the actual planes themselves. Um, that in conjunction with the kind of character development in the area. So the two or three level houses on the hillside on either side of this residence as well as on the opposing hillside they're facing. We just didn't have a lot of visual impact concerns, particularly because they're proposing to essentially match the existing colors of the dwelling, which kind of make it blend in with the background. Um, so we just didn't have a lot of visual impact concerns. Does that answer your questions? Yeah. That helps. I appreciate that the way you described it right now. Maybe I didn't hear or I heard it differently in the presentation. I heard an emphasis on vegetation in regards to visual impact. And I, vegetation for me just isn't because of where we live and what we know and the comments around wildfire partners, et cetera, like all those trees could be gone. Um, unfortunately in a very short amount of time. And so, but the way you just described it was talking more about the hills and the, um, topography of where the parcels, et cetera.

0:23:44So that's, that's helpful. Um, the other question I had. I mean, it seems a little complicated of, and I was looking up the narrative at the same time just to understand the way that the packet talks about the ADU on the page two of, looks like a narrative. And there might be more than once, if that's true, sorry, it's listed as attachment A. The property is co - owned and the intent of the unit is to provide a separate living space for either of their aging parents where daily care can be offered with dignity and independence. Is there something else in here in the applicant? I'll have an opportunity to talk about it as well. But in some of these applications on family care, there's a little bit more information about what the needs might be if the current need versus in the future. And so I want to, you know, if attorneys have concerns about the questions, let me know. But I'm just thinking about some of the other packets that we've seen at docket level that have come to the dais. And so just trying to understand that. And then also if you have. You know, how that would be decommissioned if no longer needed. I'm also looking at what you showed and wondered if you could explain that entrance to the ADU.

0:25:09If the only entrance is this viral staircase, or if the way to get into that unit, so I do have a, those are another, the pair of questions. Okay. So I'll do my best again. Um, I'm going to run back through the slides just so we get to the floor plan first. So I'll talk about the entries. Um, so this floor plan was part of what was included in the application materials. And I'll just kind of say a blanket statement. You should ask the applicants as well because these plans did go through a few iterations before we sent them out. And so there may be some, that may be part of the reason that this staircase was shown on one floor plan, but not the other. Okay. But this floor plan was included in the application materials and shows internal communication that I mentioned earlier, which would give them access to that first Flora Garage.

0:26:00This is what we're recommending be removed from the proposal, but that would hypothetically be one entrance to the accessory dwelling unit. The other ones are shown on the elevations. So I'll go back a little further. Uh, this is probably the best way to see them. So this is again that North View of the accessory dwelling unit. So you can imagine we're standing essentially inside of the residence in this view. So we're facing south toward the accessory dwelling unit. This area that I'm circling with my cursor is the interior hallway that's going to be added to connect the two buildings. And then I mentioned earlier that there's that second floor deck. And so that's one of the entrances as there will be an open air deck that connects the second floor of the existing residence to the new second level accessory dwelling across the top of that hallway. And so that's what's shown here is that there is an entry door on top, but that's an exterior entrance. So it doesn't show any internal communication. So it meets our requirement for not expanding the floor area of the accessory dwelling unit, but it also doesn't add any floor area to the residence because it's not covered.

0:27:07So that's one of the entries to the accessory dwelling unit. And that's on the north side. So it faces toward the existing residence and is not visible from the front property line. And then on the right - hand side, this would be to the west. You can see that spiral staircase. And so that would be another exterior entrance to the accessory dwelling unit, which doesn't show any internal communication, but does give access to the accessory dwelling unit. This faces into that really steep hillside that's further to the west of the house. So this would also not be visible from the front. And then there was a question about the level of care. So I'll just defer to the applicants on that one. Staff felt that it was enough to meet the definition in the land use code, but I'll let the applicants speak more about that. Um, and then the decommissioning. So that was discussed a little bit in the staff recommendation. And I like to think staff do a good job of making that requirement very obvious to applicants, uh, before they apply. Um, but the LandUs code doesn't allow people to continue using ADUs other than how they're approved exactly currently. So that could change in the future with a code amendment. But right now we have to operate under the existing code,

0:28:24which says that you have to continuously use the ADU as proposed. So if this application is approved today, the applicants could use it as a family care unit for 10 years or something like that. And then if grandma is, it's getting too much for her to live in the accessory dwelling unit. She moves off the property into an assisted living facility. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to decommission it. It means they have to try to continue the use or decommission it. So they could have another family member move in and continue providing care to a child or maybe someone else in the family who's sick and living in the main residence. They just have to continuously use it in the, as a family care unit ADU. It's not necessarily approved specifically for one single person, if that makes sense. Correct. And, and then if there isn't somebody who needs that kind of care on site as the AD is being requested approval, then what happens? Then they would have to decommission the floor area as an accessory dwelling unit and have to convert it into some other type of floor area. So, um, right now they can't convert it to residential floor area under the current code because they already exceed their limitation. Um, they could hypothetically convert it to some other type of

0:29:39floor area. They would have to go through site planner view and justify it. Um, I'm not sure I see a direct path for that. But that could be two years from now or 20 years from now. And the code could be very different. Sure. No, no, that's, thank you. Um, okay. I think that's an applicant you heard some of those questions. I'll come back to you at another time here, but I think those are my questions for right now. Great. Um, I, well, I think my, my only question was about, so the, the 165 square feet of additional residential floor area is that lower walkway that goes from the main house to the, to the ground floor of this detached, not dry, not, uh, garage. That's correct because that hallway is enclosed. So it counts as RFA residential floor area. And the, the total residential floor area on the property does count what the assessor calls a garage. As residential floor area, is that correct?

0:30:46That's correct. Because that's been converted. Okay. Um, and, and sorry, um, that was, I kind of like made a very quick statement during my presentation about that. But we would count it the same as a garage or as like a living room. It's all residential. It doesn't matter. Yes. Yeah. Um. I didn't have any other questions. Thanks. So then I think we are ready to hear from the applicant. And Eric, whoever is going to speak and you're both welcome to speak to start by stating your name for the record. Um, you'll have a combined total of 20 minutes. Okay, great. Uh, thank you everyone for time. Eric Osterone. Yeah. Paul the microphone nice and close. Okay. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. Eric Ostrom. Thank you guys for for your time. Um, yeah, I can just give a brief context to the motivation. Um, so, um, my, uh, mother and my mother - in - law are both single women that live alone in their mid to late 70s. Um, my mother - in - law's husband father - in - law tragically passed away. Um, and she recently suffered broken leg to her tibia. Um, she lives alone, um, back east. My wife and I, our fingers crossed, uh, starting a family. And the anticipation of and motivation behind, you know, creating these spaces, both

0:32:15to, uh, have my mother - in - law live with us. I think, you know, candidly, I think her motivation is to help us. And I think she will. Uh, but, you know, can delete to this group. I also think, uh, we anticipate, uh, given her leg, uh, and her advancing age towards AD, uh, that scenario flipping quite quickly. Um, and transitioning to us caring for, uh, my mother - in - landry, uh, over the course of the next, you know, 10 plus years. Um, and then, uh, I guess the only thing I'd say is just, you know, uh, the, you know, the connection that, that level is all tied to that. Her capacity to, you know, move across that space. Vice versa, uh, the spiral staircase is, you know, original positioning was just that, you know, I think when we were talking, it's like, there's only one entrance and out, you know, maybe from a safety standpoint, there need to be another one. But yeah, that, you know, given the comments, I think we've got a few different ideas to address the internal staircase and all of that kind of stuff. But it's, um, yeah, it's all about movement and family care. I think, yeah. Yeah. I think that kind of covers it. But happy to answer any questions. And yeah, I get to

0:33:28answer any questions. Scott, you can go. Okay. Scott Giles, uh, design professional on the job. Um, hopefully the drawings make sense. So I won't waste your morning time going through those. My only comment, uh, Sam had mentioned, you're going to be rethinking some of the ADU language. And I would urge you to think of family care, um. In a more holistic fashion. This is a very, it's a very restrictive area of the code. And I was excited for Eric and his family because they obviously met it in, in my review of your language, um, but family care nowadays, um, for example, a good friend of mine. As a son whose special needs. So by definition, they now have a full - time au pair. And need a dedicated home education and physical therapy space. So I would hope that those kinds of scenarios start to be incorporated under the intent of the code. And also I'm seeing some home hospice type situations with families. And in my opinion, family tear could be a full - time nurse in the ADU. While the hospice is taken care and the primary house or vice versa. So that's really my only comment on the language of the code that we've worked through with SAM. And we've got some good ideas on that internal staircase. But the whole idea

0:35:28there is we wanted to have multi - point access. Just in case we have some kind of a medical or family emergency. And asking a seven - year - old woman to walk outside, even though it's 20 feet to get to the main residents seemed a little overbearing, in my opinion, which is why we decided to try to connect the two structures at a certain level. And the internal stair gives us the option in the future that if she does need some kind of a lift scenario that can easily be retrofitted into the project. So other than that, we're open to questions and concerns. And thank you for your time. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Lushimana. But you have some questions. Thank you. Um, I appreciate people being here and being able to respond to some of the questions. I wondered if I heard you say, um, Mr. Giles, that you wouldn't waste our morning time about the diagrams in regards to the elevations, but that's what we're here. So I didn't receive it as a standing time. Just, it was more of a curiosity on the stairwell staircase. And just trying to understand the need.

0:36:46I heard in the testimony current, um, a broken leg. And clearly a spiral stare for a seven year old woman is problematic. Um, if you look at the site layout, you could bring up or if we could, uh, happy to ask them and I know stuff's always here to support. If the diagram that you rather have them show the plan, I appreciate that. And it sounded like there was a couple like renditions of your parents. Go to the previous. So to the left, lower left area off the ADU where the spiral is. That's actually like a small sort of patio lawn feature that's a few feet below the main patio coming off the primary dwelling. And so I just added that as kind of a convenience stare that if there was like a family event out on the patio, you wouldn't have to go through these shoots and ladders all the way down around into a different level of the house and upstairs and then through the kitchen. It was just kind of a direct route. And a traditional stare with as narrow as that is, as salmon mentioned, I mean, the slope of this site and the bench that was originally carved out to set the house. It's fairly small. Um, so a traditional kind of down and over stair would eat up a

0:38:26considerable amount of that lower patio area. So that's really the only reason we went with a spiral in that location. And when Sam and I were talking about the internal stare versus that stare, I mean, we'd be happy to make that just go away if we had to lose one of the two staircases. Because again, it's not going to be used very often. I think I just have a curiosity more than anything for the applicants around understanding the detached garage has already been converted into livable space ADU family care. We have other types of ADUs and unancorportableder County that are permissible, but this one specifically an application for family care. So it's just curious. Around the choice to not use that ground level. Space for an ADU. Yeah, my wife and I are both business owners and entrepreneurs. My wife actually female founder of a company here in Boulder, send bars.

0:39:42And so that space is used for, like as her, frankly, the headquarters office. Okay, yeah, thank you. It was just a curiosity. Yeah, absolutely. Actually, the companies for energy bars. And their avid rock climbers. So the existing garage is this. It's an amazing internal climbing gym. And they're, right now the draw it up for this part of the application, but obviously I'm gonna have to capture it all for the building permit process. But there really is no interconnection at the different levels as you come across that hallway. To where those internal stairs hook up to the ADU. The garage, which has got this, I mean, it's crazy, this crazy climbing gym and rock walls. And it's pretty. Yeah, my wife is a professional rock climber and a Red Bull athlete. So she's one of Red Bulls for global Rock climbers in the world.

0:40:57So one of the challenges for my firm was to try to save as much of that. Gym and corporate headquarters for her as we could, and then try to incorporate the ADU above it. That makes sense. Thank you. And congratulations to her. That's amazing. Yeah, highly recommend sandbars. I heard the not so discreet message. They make cliff bars taste like sawdust. Okay, well, you know where we're at if you ever want us to try them. Thank you. Those are my questions for the applicant. I do have some questions about the access to this unit. And I mean, I don't, you know, a spiral staircase is kind of a nice compact way to accommodate an external access. I don't know whether it's possible to just have a straight or even a staircase with just one term that would link into the covered porch on the second level. I mean, I can understand wanting to have some external access. I'm more curious. Initially, I didn't have any concerns about this, but I guess as I'm hearing the need, I'm not hearing any current need. Neither the mother or the mother - in - law lives here now, as I understand it, they don't require care currently. And what we allow for an accessory dwelling union for a family care unit is that it is to be occupied

0:42:51by a family member who either requires some level of care or supervision from or provide some level of care or supervision to another family member inhabiting a principle residence. What is a care that you're almost 70 - year - old mother or mother - in - law needs. She's 77. Pardon? G - 77 years old. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I heard Mr. Giles talk about a - No, no, no. Yeah, both, yeah. My mother and mother - in - law are both 77. Oh, okay. Sorry. I didn't hear what I thought he said. Yeah, yeah. And yeah, I mean, the reality is there isn't really a place for her to be with us now. And frankly, I'm sure you guys have all dealt out with aging parents. It's a combination of conversations and motivations.

0:43:51I think with Andrea and my mother - in - law, you know, she knows that we're growing our family and is excited to help be a part of that and support that simultaneously and candidly, you know, yeah, both between her leg that she broke last year and just her general mental state, yeah, both my wife and I want her close and anticipate that degradation to kind of continue. Okay, and I mean, those are always sensitive things because we don't want to pry into your mother - in - law's mental state or her physical condition, but we do need to be sure that this use actually meets what Orlando's code requires. Absolutely. Although I suppose it could be read to allow your mother - in - law to live here so that she can provide care to your maybe growing family. That's, yeah, that, I mean, that is the immediate and the next, yeah, fingers crossed.

0:45:02Yeah, you know, nine plus months. But yeah. It's kind of, it cuts both ways, which is, again, I think we very much need and welcome the support given where to single business owners at the same time. Again, I think, you know, for us, and I don't know if my mother - in - law would be as open about her needs, but, you know, we, we need to help her out too. Okay, thanks. Let me think if I just have any other questions aside from... And I guess just to respond, yeah, I mean, the spiral staircase, again, I mean, this, you know, there's no marriage to that. You know, that was simply, it's like, okay, there's one entrance on that internal staircase that would be the entrance from there. That would be the way that my mother - in - law would get up to the space. And I was like, okay, there's not another way to get out, or somebody get in if there was some sort of issue or incident or something like that.

0:46:05You know, yeah, happy to adjust that and work with Sam to adjust that. There's no marriage to that being the solution, especially if, you know, given, as you guys all said, like if that, the internal entrance, the internal staircase went away. And as Scott was saying, there's actually no access to the actual garage. It's like unfinished, like zone finished plywood there coming in. Then obviously, we would, yeah, we would need to make that staircase, you know, like you said, like kind of extend down. So it was easier to walk up that, these barrel staircase is not realistic for her to get in and out of. Yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna design your house here. But I'm sure you can come up with some other ideas. I would like to take a recess and consult with our attorney on the ADO family care, giving requirements.

0:47:02Um, Natalie or Erika, can you give us the appropriate language? Sure. Um, you can move for an executive session under CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 - 4B for legal advice related to this docket. Okay. So if that's a meanable to you, will second. So we have a motion to go into executive session in a second, all in favor, say aye. So we will just take a brief recess and get some advice from our attorney. Commissioner, is he ready? Yes, thank you, John. Thank you so much. And we're recording. All right, we're back on the record after receiving legal advice from our attorneys about code interpretation. I think we are now ready to go to any public testimony on this application. The record can show that there is no one here with us in the hearing room. And it looks like we have one person who has joined us virtually. And maybe they have not joined us virtually. John, are they with us? The worst lineup for in person, but since the one in the ring room, we do not have anyone signed up for public comment. Okay, all right. So we do not have any public comment on this matter. Sam, is there anything else you'd like to share with us. Thank you, Commissioners Sam Walker CPMP. I don't have anything to add,

0:48:35but I'm happy to answer any follow - up questions if you have them. Okay, any follow - up questions? I don't have any additional, thank you. I don't either. So before Commissioner Lochiman and I deliberate and attempt to reach in a decision, we offer you the last chance to tell us anything you want to tell us at all about this. No, thank you guys for the time. And obviously, yeah, really, really appreciate the consideration here. And yeah. Great, okay, thank you. So we will then close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commissioners for a Decision on LU - 26 - 005 and SPR - 26 - 0015. Actually, I do have a question. I'm sorry. Sam, I'm not sure who answers this question. So these are two. We have a site plan review for the 165 foot edition. Are these independent, or are they dependent on one another. Sam Walker CPMP. So the applications, we run them at the same time because they're kind of, they're just related development. The Commissioners could approve one and disallow. You could approve the ADU and disallow the connection or vice versa. They're not, I don't think they're reliant on each other, if that makes sense in the applicant's minds, but I would defer to them on that. But from a code perspective, you

0:50:14could allow or disallow part or both them, both proposals. Because you did analyze both of them with respect to their respective criteria. You found both of them. Do comply. That's correct. All right, thank you for that additional clarification. Well, I was just thinking, I was just wondering if we need to go back to the applicant in regards to your question. I'm looking at attorneys. This is Eric Rogers. This is County Tranity. I think that would be a good idea. Okay, yeah. Yeah, question about if you had, do the projects depend on one another. I mean, I guess, again, I'm not architect or engineer. But you mean in terms of the closed hallway. I guess theoretically not. I mean, honestly, I mean, I think, again, the consideration is essentially infant child and senior citizen going back and forth. I guess another potential solution would be basically to not have that enclosed, but to have like essentially what would be like a rain or snoke, you know, like it's a snow cover. So then you could walk across it without being concerned about ice buildup or anything like that. I don't know if that changes that, yeah, addresses that. But yeah, it's more of that being enclosed is frankly just more pragmatic. You know, I guess an alternative would be again to keep it, I guess would

0:51:53be like a covered walkway rather than a enclosed space as a alternative solution. Yeah. So the ground floor hallway connection is fully enclosed and that's what residential floor area. The upper walkway, I believe has covered porch and not open. It's open. Yeah, it's open. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That was basically to avoid, yeah, to avoid having to use staircase. Basically, you could go, you know, over my mother - in - law could walk over without having to go up or downstairs. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Okay. All right. Good. Then I think, um, Commissioner Lord, for me, I think I might, if that's okay, I do, that raises a question I would like to ask the applicant just to be clear because there's two different dockets here. And so if we were to prove one and not the other, or one LU or the SPR, not the LU, my curiosity is if I'm reading this as both of these together is the goal of what your application is. And so I'm thinking if I was going to prove both, I would have proved both or I wouldn't approve either based on the way that the application was presented. Would you, if we did one versus the other, would you want, like I'm just trying to figure out, like I feel like it would not get

0:53:34you what you were wanting if we were to not do one of the items. Yeah. No, I guess maybe my comment was more to say like, like, you know, this, this ADU is motivated by a, you know, multi - generational need and multi - generational in both directions. You know, we can be flexible towards whatever needs to happen for approval. You know, hence the example of like the spiral staircase that was like a functionality thing of like, Oh, we need a second, you know, entrance. And same thing with this kind of the connection is purely pragmatic. So if, yeah, I mean, the ideal is that, uh, it's approved because, you know, being able to walk that space, you know, not, um, not hindered by weather snow or anything of that nature would be intrinsic to the ultimate goal. But if for some reason there was an issue with that or that was, you know, a problem from a square footage standpoint, you know, ultimately, it's about having that, that multi - generational space. Having the ADU versus having this. Yeah. Having that ADU. Yeah. Yeah.

0:54:41And so like, yeah, it would figure out different ways to accomplish that while also making sure that, you know, that space was, you know, safe for her to cross back and forth. Okay. Okay. Thank you. This is opening up more questions for me. I'm sorry. You're talking about multi - generational transit, you know, walking back and forth from the main house to the ADU and concerns about being exposed to the weather. But that upper, uh, walkway is, we just heard exposed to the weather. So I don't understand what you mean about being able to go back and forth and not have exposure. Uh, I thought the original question was a concern around the enclosed space. Below that. There's not a concern about it. Okay. No. No. Okay. Yeah. Well, there's two ways. Can you speak into the microphone, please? You know, an inclement weather, they can use the lower. But they can't get upstairs in the ADU from the lower level. They can with the internal staircase. But we are requiring that to be removed.

0:56:00Well, it hasn't been said it had to be removed. It just had to be isolated from communicating with the rest of the garage is the way I read the intent of the statute. Oh, okay. So. And that's been our discussions with Sam. Oh, so it would, okay. So the internal staircase, what looks internal that goes into the garage would not go into the garage. We would not communicate with the rest of the garage space, but it would communicate with that hallway. Oh, I got it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And currently there's no way to get into the garage base from that side. It's like a, there's like a crawl space. Um, so yeah, there would be no communication. Between that. But again, you know, happy to work through, um, and work with Sam on whatever scenario. Yeah. Works and, you know, makes sense. I thought that was to get to the garage from the main residence. So that's, okay, that, that when I was asking whether they function independently, I was thinking that there may have been a separate desire to have that connection between the house. That was always our intent that we'd have the sort of four season access, but would be required to have an internal stare. Um, but also, you know, with Colorado weather. Yes. Understand. With having that direct open

0:57:28access from name from Second Floor to Second Floor just makes it a lot easier. We're no stairs are required. No, I gotcha. I understand now. Okay. Um, any other questions? No additional questions. Now I'm okay. Thank you. Um, well we can get started here. Yeah. I mean, I'm happy to get a starter. If that works, um, and that was, that was helpful to just kind of frame both the LU versus the SPR, um, in the doc. I'm what I'm hearing is the application was presented as such because they're both connected hallway. I didn't hear and ask for a hallway without an ADU. And so that was helpful to me. Sam, thanks for the packet. Thanks for the information. Appreciate the presentation. And I appreciate the analysis and understanding some of the questions that I had this morning. And I am, I'm just coming to a different finding in regards to the ADU and that land use, um, the land use criteria and that interpretation. What I'm looking at on the code language of family care units to be occupied by family member who either requires some level of care supervision from or provide some level of care or supervision to another family member inhabiting the principal residence. And I am not finding that at this time. And so, um, some of my questions for Applicant

0:59:03and some of the questions that you had commissioner levy for me solidified what I was reading in the narrative and just in the packet. And so I'm just coming up with a different place. I did hear the applicant talk about, um, and asked to the Boarda County Commissioners here in Boulder County to consider in our additional ADU review with staff in the future to be more holistic. And so what I took away from this is there's an opportunity to really think about AD use an additional way. But if I'm looking at current code, unfortunately, I don't, I just don't see it. So that's, um, I wouldn't, um, be able to support the staff's recommendation at this time with the code that we have. Yeah. Thank you for starting the conversation. Um, I find myself in a similar place. And thinking about other, uh, family care, uh, ADs that we've considered, ones that we've both approved and not approved. And, um, I'm, you know, I think we both ask questions to try to get at. Is there, um, CARE supervision that is required by a family member. And, uh, and I did not hear, um, testimony or material or read material in the packet that indicated that that is mat. You know, maybe in the future.

1:00:43But at this time, it seems, you know, pretty indefinite. Uh, we do have to apply the code as it sits today. And because we don't know what we might do with that in the future, you know, these are good suggestions about how to think about multi - generational living or other kinds of needs that our code doesn't currently allow for, but we have to apply the code as written. Uh, the reason I asked about, you know, we have two different processes. A land use limited impact review and an SPR for the Residential Edition before the relationship between the two was explained further. I thought perhaps we might approve the SPR so that that hallway could connect the detached residential area to the, um, existing residents. But it sounds like it's crawl space and there really wasn't any plan to connection on that anyway. Um, but, but they do exist, you know, they are separate applications and separate projects. And I do think that the, um, the addition, the 165 square foot edition could, you know, it does, in my opinion, meet the SPR requirements, but, um, but it seems, sounds like it wouldn't serve any purpose if there isn't an ADO. So I think, um, we can, um, craft a motion. Yeah. Uh, let's see.

1:02:27Whoops. An item 2A community planning and permitting department docket LU - 26 - 275. And SPR - 26 - 00 - 15 move for denial on both of these applications. Yeah. And I guess I would second and I would incorporate it in that motion of finding that the need of that has been articulated in the application and here with us in the hearing room. Um, does not satisfy the definition of a family care unit in our code. So just with that further, um, certification on the record, uh, we have a motion and a second and all in favor say aye. So we, uh, Commissioner Stolzman's excused. Uh, so that, uh, application fails. And thank you for your time. Uh, this morning, uh, and for your application, uh, we will be in recess until one o'clock when we will reconvene for. Docket SU - 23 - 0013. Thank you. Am I allowed to ask a question?

1:03:49Yeah. Um, I'm just curious, um, you know, cause it sounds like essentially, you know, as the code is being interpreted that you have to wait for essentially, you know, disaster. Internally from a family member to then start the, what is obviously an understandably like a multi - month potentially like year long process. To then get approved. And I guess it's kind of, you know, it seems kind of confusing because you could put a family in a situation where you're kind of, you're kind of stuck. Yeah. It's definitely there's a, you know, the gradation of. You know, where are they. On some continuum. And that's a judgment. Call. For sure. Okay. Commissioner, are you ready? Yes. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, good afternoon. August 20th, 26. We took a recess from our morning agenda. We still have commissioners, Locumen and Levy in the hearing room and Commissioner Stolzman excused. And we are here for our afternoon docket, which is SU - 23 - 00013. Is that the Revocation number or was that the boundary line adjustment, et cetera?

1:05:52Is that the Redication number. Just runs Community Planning and Permitting. That was the original SU number. Okay, do we have a docket number for this? It is not. It's the part of the same docket. Oh, okay, part of the same docket. Okay, so for docket SU - 23 - 0013. And just all ask for any disclosures at this time. Thank you, not just closers. I have not, I think I may have said at the original hearing, and I'll just say it again, that I'm aware of the property, you know, all the thousands of times I've driven up that canyon. I've driven by the entrance to it. And access to button rock preserve. I've driven by there. I've never been on the property. The Commissioners were copied on numerous complaints by adjacent property owners. However, I did not communicate regarding those complaints. So I feel that I'm able to make a decision here this afternoon. So we're here to consider whether to revoke the special use permit. And Jesse Rounds are codecompliance specialists here. That's probably not your title. So, and I think this is the first revocation. That hearing we've had since I've been a commissioner, so we may need a little extra hand - holding along the way on how we do this, but we'll start with our staff. Maybe Sam and Jesse. And

1:07:31then we'll give the applicants an opportunity to tell us what they know. Their side of this issue just bring us up to speed. We will take public comment, I believe. Yeah. And, you know, and then we'll allow our staff to respond to anything, answer any additional questions that we may have, and then we'll give you the last word before Commissioner Ochman and I deliberate and make a decision. So I think with that, Jesse, I think the floor is yours. Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon. Jesse Round's Community Planning and Permitting. Planning Manager for code compliance and public information. Okay. It's a mouthful. So we're here to talk about proposed revocation of special review approval SU - 230013resort Lodgeuse at 16190 - 1620. Jesse, excuse me. I would move the microphone a little bit closer to you.

1:08:31It'll move on that desk, thank you. All right, thank you. 16202 - 16194 - 16188 and 16198 North St. Rain drives. This does not include the SE, which was SE - 24005. So just an overview. The property owners are Rockmon Investments and Flat Irons IRA and Micah Coles is here representing those two, the zoning of the properties of the properties is Forestry. And our request today is to revoke the special review approval, which established a resort lodge use. In the cabins located at the addresses already mentioned. The special use in accordance with Article 4 - 601B of the Land Use Code. The special use was approved by the Commissioners on January 13th, 2026 under Resolution 2026. - 010. And our reasoning is that continued rentals. Prior to completion of the conditions of approval and post - approval requirements. These multiple continuing and knowing violations of the conditions of approval demonstrated disregard for the safety of the public and guests. So the original proposal that was approved on January 13th was a special use review to establish a resort lodge use. And the subdivision exemption, which is again, not part of this discussion or the Revotion hearing today. And there were within Resolution 2026 - 010.

1:10:13There were 15 conditions to be met. So just a quick reminder, this is the larger vicinity. It's the properties are located northeast of the town of lions. On Saint Rain Drive. Here's the collection of properties. Um, closer in there, uh, surrounded by the North St. Frane Creek. So Article 4 - 601B. States that the violation of any condition, safeguard, or commitment of record shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of the special review by the board after a public hearing held in the courants with the provisions of Article 3 - 205C. And now I'd like to look at the conditions that we were concerned about. Condition two requires an approved executed and notarized and recorded development agreement, uh, before issuance of the building permits. And the text is below. Condition three requires building permits for applicable work and provides that prior to commencement of the lodging use all issued building permits must be completed and closed.

1:11:26And one important detail here is that the condition is written to cover any work, even work that we were not aware of that would have required a building permit. Finally, condition 10 requires that while far partner certification, uh, be obtained prior to any rental on the property. Uh, we received many complaints about ongoing rental after the conditional approval was, was issued in January. Um, just a couple of photographs of, uh, people using the parking lot, um, multiple times, we had lots and lots of photos sent to us, lots of lots and lots and lots of complaints. Um, we had an ongoing conversations with the property owners, uh, and I'll go over some of the communication we had with them over that time, but I do also want to state that the property owner disclosed to us, uh, in a meeting that there would be events occurring on the property prior to, uh, prior to obtaining all of the building permits in, in this case. So.

1:12:40We were aware of that. And we cautioned against that. Um. In the last, uh, violation, I am aware of and that we were made aware of was, uh, people staying on the property, the last weekend of July, which was coincided with The Rocky Grass Festival. So just a little history of the code compliance, um, we, we had had initial contact prior to the commencement of the special use review, uh, going back to 2022. And had made clear that rental was not appropriate until the special review was complete. After the hearing and the conditional approval, um, we again heard concern about ongoing rental. And so on February 3rd, we sent a letter. Explaining that there would be the general normal consequences for violation of the land use code, which include fines. Um, and then on June 11th, we sent another letter after subsequent concerns, uh, and complaints and included the text of Article 4601B and explain that that was a potential consequence. And a lot of our concerns came out of what we knew to be on the property as well as what we didn't know was on the property. So, uh, in this case, there were, we knew of six heating implements that they had applied for building permits. And those permits had not been issued. And therefore, we had not been able to inspect

1:14:24them or look at them to ensure that they were safe. Uh, so there were six heating implements in the cabins. Um, and there were no other permits sought or, or that we knew about, um, the property, though we were aware from the history of the property that there were significant upgrades made over time. Um, no County led safety inspections have occurred. Um, although we do know that lion's fire was able to get on the property, do an inspection and actually produce a report. And I wanted to include four items from that report, including propane ranges that may not have been installed per manufacturer directions, heating appliances and water heaters that did not appear properly vented. A basement bedroom in the lodge and portable electric heaters in the rooms. Uh, our recommendation is that based on continued operation of the lodging use before satisfaction of express conditions of approval and the repeated notice provided by the County staff, staff find that there have been multiple continuing and knowing violations of the conditions of approval demonstrating a disregard for the safety of public and guests. Therefore staff recommend that the board revoked the approval of SU - 230013. Alternatively, the board could choose to continue the public hearing to a date certain. In order to allow the owner more time to come into compliance with the conditions

1:15:53in Resolution 2026 - 010. If at any time additional violations occur, the Community Planning and Permitting Director can request the public hearing be held at an earlier date to determine whether the special review should be revoked. Stack recommends a continuance of no more than one year from today's date. That's all I got. Thank you, Jesse. Uh, anything additional to add, Sam? Thank you, Commissioner Salker CPMP. I'm just hearing case any questions come up about the special use review. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, Commissaire Literamine questions? Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thanks for the information. And I did receive the email just to clarify there was an email that was received later than the packet, um, the public. And I wasn't unable to open it, but staff provided it printed out. So, um, just to clarify that, it's a question of curiosity. It might be something that stuff could work on separately as we continue. But this hearing, um, and some similarly to what Commissioner Levy shared, this is the first hearing that I've been involved in that has a recommendation of a revocation of a docket. And so what it feels the most closely too in regards to the work that we do here at the diocese and article 14, um, potential, um, action. In those typical, we will see like a timeline.

1:17:22And that's one of the questions I have. I saw notated in here the different times that staff has talked to the applicants. But I don't want to make any assumptions about what that is. And so I'm just curious if that might be something that you could walk us through. I didn't see it in the memo. Um, and if it's further down in the memo, let me know. Cause I'm only on page 87. So one, I guess the question is, is there a timeline another would help me understand if it was like written notice if it was phone calls, if it was visits, um, I did hear say there wasn't access to go into the properties, um, I heard you talk about the lion's fire department and their findings. Is there such timeline in this packet.

1:18:02Thank you. Um, Jesse Rowns, Community Planning Permiting. I, we don't have it written out in the staff memo, but I can pull up the letters that there is based purely on the fact that we included the notices of violation. There's a list of all the times we sent letters. So I can, I can get to that. Okay. That would be helpful. And that, that is similar to, um, just to understand kind of the timeframe and the different types of communication that we're had. And then of course us applicants something similar. Y'all can respond as well when it's your opportunity to talk. Um. Let me see really quick. Because. I had. Highlighted one piece, but I want to make sure I don't have any questions on. Nope. That's the only question I have right now. Okay.

1:18:55I wanted to just walk through the elements in the notice of violation and the various conditions in our resolution of approval. To make sure I understand which things the applicant has and has not complied with. So let me get back to. The conditions of approval. Um, so I mean, well, we, we've already talked about the development agreement. So that has been submitted, but not finalized. It has been finalized as of, do you remember. I'm not sure the date, sorry, San Walker CPMP. Yes. The development agreement has been signed by the applicant and the commissioners has been recorded in the clerk and recorders records for the County. So that one's done. And then, uh, condition number three was billing permits required for all normally permitted work on the subject property. Et cetera, et cetera. Do we know that there is still unpermitted work that has been done. Without having done, uh, an inspection of our own, sorry, Jesse Round's Community Planning without having done an inspection of our own. I don't think we can confidently say that. However, we do have, uh, evidence from photographs as well as, uh, the lion's fire report that seems to indicate a significant amount of work. Okay. Have there, are there any building permits on record? Yes. There are six permits for heating elements in the cabins. And have they

1:20:42been completed and inspected? They've not been completed and inspected. Okay. So that's still open. Do we have a revegetation and landscape maintenance plan. I believe one has been submitted. I don't know if the work has been completed. Okay. There's a requirement of wildfire partners certificate. That work is ongoing, uh, the last time I talked to the wildfire partners representative who's been working with them, which was last Friday. It wasn't complete yet, but they were working towards certification. So that's still open. The work's ongoing. And we will give you a chance to respond to these as well. So lion's fire protection inspected for the purpose of an emergency water supply. And was that verified. I'm actually not sure that the communication I had with lions fire was about a report that they provided. Subsequent to their first inspection at the request of the property owner about safety. Okay. And then signage regarding fire restrictions, noise, ordinance, occupant, ser restrictions on the inside of the units. My understanding from lion's fire is that they have provided those, uh, and they are installed. Okay. Fire pits gas grills, other open flames prohibited, all existing fire pits must be decommissioned. They have been decommissioned in the root. Okay. And then I'm just wanting to make sure we're very clear what has and has not been done. So in the

1:22:27notice of violation, it refers to evidence of multiple and permitted changes to structures on each of the above parcels, including electrical work, interior remodel, okay possible installation of heating elements. So those are the things where we don't believe that those have been fully permitted, inspected or completed. That's correct. That's what we understand. And potential grading without a permit and the floodway. The grading, I believe, was related to work that was done prior to the SU. And I believe it's been resolved. Sam Walker CPMP, my, it's been a while, but my recollection is that our floodplain team looked at the, so the complaint about the grading and the floodplain came from one of the zoning complaints submitted by a neighbor. Our floodplain team looked at it and didn't find any evidence that that work had actually been done at all. That there was work that should have been permitted that was not in the floodplain. Okay.

1:23:27So that's not an issue. Cor. And that's why we didn't include it in the conditions of approval in this special use review. The notice of violation just knows we renewed complaints of work within the regulatory floodway. It would currently being investigated. You didn't find any evidence of work in the floodway. We did not. That is going to be. Okay. Did not. Uh, okay. Well, okay. So, and then, and then you tell them exactly what they have to do to resolve this in that notice of violation. All right. Thank you. Okay. So, um, we'd love to hear your side of this issue. And so go ahead and floor his. And just please, uh, state your name for the record before you speak. Okay. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. Um, my name is Micah Coles. Good afternoon commissioners. This is my wife, Carrie. So for context, the applicant on the docket is Rockmont and Flatirons. These are LLCs that, uh, are just my company or just Carry and I form to hold ownership of Riverside Cabins, um, it's not some private equity company or large developer.

1:24:48It's just my wife and I. So family matter for us. I wanted to speak for myself today without an attorney. I was here last time with a planner to present. And this time it's more personal. And what happened at the property is ultimately my responsibility. And I've been directly engaged on the conditions and all the compliance steps. Um, let me pull this. Let's see if it works. So. There's. So the pictures here. I don't. Yeah, we go. Okay. Um, we. We purchased Riverside Cabins in 2020. The property had been devastated by the 2013 flood that had happened in Santa neglected for seven years. It was overgrown with dead trees and not just weeds and river sand and covered the roadways and walks and all that. And so, um, there was debris across the entire site. I remember first going out there, we picked up long walking sticks. So we could poke the weeds ahead of us for our next footsteps to just be cautious of rattlesnakes because they were all over the property.

1:26:13We threw everything we had at the cleanup financially and personally. My wife and I spent weekends on the property doing the work ourselves. We cut trees, hull debris. We moved sand. We brought the, uh, the additional help along the way. But in total, we removed more than 25 of those 30 yard roll - offs. Uh, of debris from the property. And you can just kind of see a little bit in the pictures as to what it looked like before and after. That's the back shot of the grand lodge. Um, so you can just kind of. That's inside the ground lodge. What you see in the photographs is not a response to a compliance order. It is years of investment by our family and to a distressed property. And our desire to bring it back to its former glory as a lodging destination for the community.

1:27:12In late 2022, after we began hosting lodging guests at the cabins, the County informed us that a special use permit would be required due to a flood caused interruption and continued use. So a national emergency created that, uh, that disruption. We started working from there with a compliance officer named Diane Harden who took the position that we could continue operating while the SUP application was being processed. At some point Diane left the department and Jesse, uh, took over our file. There wasn't a formal transition on notice to us. And more importantly, Jessie didn't have the prior context of what had been communicated by Diane. And so that transition created some confusion on Rn about what was and was not permitted during the pending process. There is some financial context here that I want to submit are operating costs are unusually high because the property sits both in a floodplain and has a high fire score.

1:28:21The flood insurance alone is 12, 000 annually. The fire and hazard insurance is 24, 000 per year. Adding in all our other carrying costs, our monthly fixed cost or significant. When we were required to halt reservations, those costs did not stop accruing. We also had to determinate our cleaning staff which created hardship for local residents who had come to depend on that income. The financial pressure is relevant, especially to the timeline. The planning commission approved our application in September 17th. The BOCC hearing was then set for November 4th. The day before that hearing, the planning department rescheduled our hearing, identifying, noticing error. And that hearing was reset then for January 13th. That was an additional three months of vacancy and fixed costs running with no revenue, um, through no fault of ours. And. I'm going to back out of here. You were asking about the timeline. This is, um. Part of that. This is the case timeline. So the SUP was then approved. On January 13th and the conditions required execution of the development agreement. Before building permits could be processed. On the day of the hearing, staff said expectations with me that a development agreement would be produced in approximately four weeks time.

1:29:56I checked on a staff multiple times as that window elapsed. Um, and was told they were waiting on county attorneys. And then months later reported they were having difficulty gathering required signatures. As a result, the DA was not recorded until June 18th of 2026, more than five months after the Board approval. So what happened after the approval following the SUP approval IC stall short term, uh, lodging operations. Um, but there's something here that I, I want the board to understand about the permitting condition because it goes directly to what the county is presenting as a violation. A zoning hold was placed on all building permits until the development agreement was signed. And recorded. So I could not file for any building permits, let alone close them out until that hold was released on June 24th. So this means that any condition requiring building permits was impossible for me to advance until five and a half months after approval of special use. While the development agreement was on delay, I was completing the conditions within my control. The most significant of those is condition for the historic landmark designation. Our property is now formally designated by Boulder County as a historic landmark. It's been a resort lodge. Dating back to the mid - 1800s known first as Welch's resort. And

1:31:37then later renamed Shelly's Cottages until the flood in 2013. My wife and I are proud to be a part of this properties rich history and willingly participated in the designation process. This was not a minor check box, as you know. Um, this all demanded real engagement, professional time on our part. Regarding the period between approval in the June, uh, notice a violation condition one states, no guests may reside on the subject property for any period longer than 90 consecutive days. So the word there is guest. Boulder County's land use code states that dwellings rented on a month to month or longer basis shall not be considered as part of the resort lodge use. Um, they fall under a separate residential dwelling use category. This is important distinction because the notice of violation was for having a guest. It was actually a long - term tenant that performed some caretaker responsibilities for us and was actively serving to protect the property from squatting and hazards like fire vandalism that can occur when a property is left vacant. I believe that this was a categorically different situation than what was alleged in the notice of violation. I'm going to swap up here the booking calendar to show what that looks like. That's our calendar from January through, uh, well, to June 1st. Um, so Jesse then later provided the County's

1:33:17position that no rental activity of any kind was permitted. I'm not here to argue that to the last inch my actions during that period. We're based on a good faith reading of the Resolution and the code. The one long - term tenant I had, um, during this period, um, of waiting on the signatures for the development agreement. Um, so I want to give this board an account of what happened after June. Before I receive the June notice of violation, I was already in discussions with Jesse regarding the zoning hold on permits. And this, uh, Residential Tenant on site. Nonetheless, on June 15, I got an email formally transmitting the notice of violation, which stated that no rental could occur until all conditions were complete. We complide at that point by providing proof of our website being taken offline to Jesse. And just to be clear on that, our management software already had all our dates blocked. Um, but just yet specifically asked for the website to be taken down. So we did that. On Wednesday, June 17th, I met with Jesse in person at his office. I asked for relief related to the bookings that were already on the calendar, uh, a wedding, a family reunion. Just he had stated that he needed to speak with his superiors and would follow up before the weekend.

1:34:42And I didn't hear back from him. On June 20th, having heard nothing, I emailed Jesse, the full calendar documentation for June and July. And it showed our full schedule and the reservations that were on the books at that time. I'm going to throw up. Kind of the timeline on that. Part. And I'm not, I'm not going over the logs of, of emails. It's just a representation more or less of how I've been driving communication with staff over the last year on how to continue to keep records for all of our communications. Um. Staff. May characterize this as my admitting to three additional events. This is not what happened. I proactively disclose those events in person and in writing. And I sent the county of the calendar. So it could have full visibility. I asked for relief on the grounds that I was not expecting the five and a half month delay. In being able to start on the, on the building conditions, the County never replied. I allowed the events to proceed after full disclosure. And after hearing nothing indicating that we were prohibited. These were important life cycle events that could not easily be rescheduled in canceling on those families, uh, with little notice would have been unfair to them. But I believe it is for this situation and lack of clear

1:36:13communication that we moved from the June 15th notice of violation to this hearing today. Uh, those events have concluded. The calendar is clear. There's been no lodging activity since the event disclosed on the schedule that I provided, Jesse at that time, the website is offline. There are no active reservations. The only actions I'm taking now is working to compliant conditions. I have removed all the propane tanks, the fire pits were, and the fire pits that were cited as hazards. I engaged directly with lion's fire beginning in February. And through multiple inspections have addressed every item identified in their report. On August 15th, or August 5th, two weeks ago, lion's fire conducted a final inspection and passed the property. Um, Barry Epler's letter confirming that passing result was sent to Jesse directly. I've been working with CDOT on the required highway entry improvements engaged wildfire partners on the defensible space requirements completed the historic landmark designation and submitted contractor license for information. Needed to process the building permits for the gas appliances that those elements that came up. Uh, none of this was done reluctantly every step was taken because I take those obligations seriously. And because I wanted to, this project to be successful the right way. I have invested 179.

1:37:55This is two pages, unfortunately. I have invested 179, 002, the Compliance work on the conditions. Since the approval was granted. That money has already spent. In reliance on the approval, the board granted, and that I signed a development agreement to uphold. Each dollar in those invoices reflects real work done in good faith. Uh, this is not avoidance on my part. This is an abundance of complaints effort put on record. Revocation, um, is not the right remedy in my mind. The development agreement recorded June 18th as a binding bilateral contract between Rockmon investments and Boulder County under that agreement and under a basic contract law, the appropriate remedy for unmet conditions is specific performance. A deadline accountability completion. Recision is the most extreme revocationist, the most extreme remedy available. And it is reserved for situations where no less remedy will do. That is not the situation here. The conditions are being completed. I have invested that 179, 000 in reliance on this approval. And I have approximately another 45, 000 budgeted for the remaining conditions. Uh, Revocation would end a project that went through your full review process and receive the board's approval. I also want to address the practical consequence of the board chose to revoke today. I would have to reapply. And so I would go through the pre - application conference, the full

1:39:37special use review, the planning commission hearing, another BOCC hearing. All that staff time. All of the public process, all of the other resources spent again on the same property, the same use, the same applicant. And unless something has fundamentally changed about the property or the code, the outcome would likely be the same approval with the same conditions. So revoking does not really resolve much. Um, it delays everything. And it does so at the expense of all of our time and resources. Finally, the approval has not lapsed under the development agreement. My rights have vested until March of 2029. And I have until March of 2031 to begin the project. Additionally, the County may not terminate my vested rights unless it can show that I am not in good faith compliance with the agreement. I have both already begun and expended significant resources on the project.

1:40:33And I'm working in good faith to come into compliance with my approval. The conditions are being completed in real time. Uh, revocation, um, does not fix that. It threatens to destroy a significant investment in the community and punish a genuine effort to comply. So where things stand today, the lion's fire has passed inspection. The C. Highway Entry infrastructure has been completed. New drainage and retaining walls are in place. Boulder County also has an inspection requirement for this condition. I have, I have the asphalt patching scheduled and ready to go for the driveway to proceed that work was paused pending the outcome of this hearing. The contractor license information needed, um, to issue those building permits for the gas appliances been submitted to Boulder County. Wildfire, wildfire partners work as in progress in approximately 80 percent complete. I feel like I'm in within weeks of full compliance and not months. So. Uh, in closing, I need to submit there's, uh, you may hear from a neighbor, uh, specific property neighbor, uh, I want this board to know that I have made good faith efforts to find common ground with that neighbor. Including formal, uh, mediation, which I intend and paid for and an offer to install privacy fence at my own expense. Those efforts were not accepted. And I'll just leave that at that. Um. In

1:42:07closing, I'd come here personally accountable for what happened personally committed to finishing what we started. My wife and I bought a flood damage property, cleared it our cells. Went through years of approval process completed the historic landmark designation signed a development agreement and certainly some mistakes were made along the way. We communicated our part in the matter and corrected course. Resenting this approval does not fix anything. It negates the significance of our investment. It punishes all of our efforts to comply. And it is a project, the board already proved. And that is actively in compliance today. My family and I, we've done the work. I'm asking that you do not accept the staff's recommendation. And not revoke my prior approval. We look forward to completing all the remaining conditions of approval and operating this historic resort lodge in compliance with county requirements going into the future. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, presentation information, Commissioner. What do you mean do you have any questions. Thank you. Uh, I think I do. I, well, two things. And I did find in the packet in one of the violation letters at the end. It has a list of, um, violation letters that's pretty extensive from 22. I think there was two different sections, but anyway, I did find it in the packet from 22 through

1:43:402026. So I just wanted to note that. And then I think and I appreciate you all being here and sharing your perspective. Sounds like you live in a really very unique part of Boulder County. Um, and certainly a reminder of 2013 Flood and the extents of the damage that was done. I think for those of us who were in Boulder County at that time, um, and impacted in different ways that we can remember the amount of damage that was done, um, and also it sounds like this project movie was a bigger project than you were anticipating when you have to start doing all of the work and then all the opportunities to go through like a historic designation and things like that. So, um, can certainly imagine that it was a big project. So thanks for sharing that background. I, for me, I think the questions that I had is there was a list of conditions and you talked about the significant amount of process that you've already gone through at the County with this particular property that you all chose to endeavor with. The 15th conditions are all the 15 conditions met at this time. Um, let me. See here. If I have. Okay.

1:44:56My screen's not, I do have kind of bring up the screen if you'd like us to. That'd be good. Go ahead. I have something that kind of gives us summary of what that looks like. There we go. So this kind of shows. Um, what we've completed thus far. And then. This show, this next page here shows what's in the works. And. I hope that's helpful. Yeah. It is helpful because I heard you talking about the work that you're doing. And the process and one of those items is kind of like there has been a delay. And here's what I know about construction. And I have 25 years in the background in real estate. Um, working for a small builders and on land and commercial, but mostly residential. And even in a great, very simple compared to what y'all are doing, um, residential project, the amount of time coming out of COVID was significant, even here for this hearing room, what ended up being an 18 month project, literally for this, um, rehab renovation, that there's always the lace. Like that's just kind of a given in your margin, et cetera. But sometimes it gets even more extensive than, than what is happening. So what I heard you talking about was the way I received it was that like there's a part of the process took

1:46:25longer than you were hoping. And the way, and thank you for bringing up the document. There's items in here that I'm seeing as conditions as you described if it met, but there are some other ones that are in progress. And the way that I'm reading the packet, um, what that helps me understand is that the items that were conditions for you to start doing rental of the different scenarios is not yet done. And that's what I heard you saying. And that's what the slide shows. Is that correct? Yeah. There was a zoning hold on at the permit desk for us to be for, I guess, Boulder permits to even be willing to engage me. Um, that zoning hold had to be lifted first. So that was the development agreement was recorded on June 18. And then the zoning hold lift happened on June 24th. And so then I could get interaction from Boulder County's permitting department at that point. And I worked on the other ones that I could in the conditional, um, approval, uh, that, I mean, that's a significant setback. There's almost six months of time that I just didn't have a hundred or 230 some thousand dollars. Like burning a hole in my pocket to spend on these conditions. My goal was to get the approval and then try and be open

1:48:02for peak season to backfill that expense. And so I made moves accordingly not knowing, not, not expecting the development agreement to take that long for me to process permits. Yeah. Thank you. Um, there was something you talked about in regards to the ask from Boulder County staff to turn off their website or to, I think that's the language it used to turn off their website. And I interpreted that as like that's, that would be a way that you would let people know about the openings or bookings or opportunities. And I heard you describe a different software that you're using. And so I just want to understand what do we need to know as Boulder County about that language that will meet the need that I think the intent was of. No more bookings until you finish these conditions. But it sounded like you were maybe sharing a different way that we need to add into conditions or address. Yeah. We, we blocked the calendar inside of our management software, but we didn't take down the website. So our website was still up. You just couldn't book. And so when that last notice of violation came, uh, it specified that I should send proof that the website has been taken down. And so that's what I had sent. Was still working. It just was, it was

1:49:31just, you couldn't book. I mean, youbsiters are an active property just right now. It's booked. Kind of like my restaurant's still open, but I'm closed right now cause it's 10 p. m. Yeah, sure. Okay. Um. I think that's the questions that I have right now. Thank you. Um, I think I just wanted to explore two issues a little bit more. They could you could you walk through and I'll ask staff for their side of this issue as well, but the delay in getting the development agreement executed from your perspective, uh, what that sequence was? I don't understand the internal workings of what's happened in behind the scenes. I was trying to do my best to just stay proactive and communicate with Sam without annoying him because they have, they're busy doing a lot of things.

1:50:27And so I was just asking for updates along the way initially it was, we were waiting on attorneys to a like drafted or something. And then later on once it was drafted, I think it got drafted. And sent to me early April. And then I turned it around and then there was just an issue getting final signatures from on the, on the development agreement for. A couple months. Okay. Yeah. All right. And we'll, we'll hear a little bit more about that delay that sequence. Maybe from salmon, Jesse. And then the tenant, the person who was on the property that you're saying was not a guest per hour land use code. How many individuals were there that were living there. Oh, one, one person. And he comes every year. He works remotely. Yeah. I mean, he's just, he stays for two to three months at a time in, in the off season. Was he living in one of the cabins or in the main lod? In one of the cabins. Uh - huh. Some of the cabins we call cabins, but they're, they're really like side by side duplexes. And so he was in one of the side by sides in the back. Did it have unpermitted work in the cabin. You know, so the unpermitted work that, uh, was referenced is some, there's some gas

1:52:03fireplace inserts in a few of the cabins. And I don't know that that one has one. Has a gas fireplace insert. Okay. I couldn't say for sure. Well, I'm just wondering about the condition of the unit that somebody was living. And as far as safety fire hazards, the units are beautiful. I mean, they're very safe. But that's just my opinion. Okay. And so I think what you've said is you went ahead and held the bookings that you had and the website is down. And you have no further booking scheduled. Okay. Um, okay. I think that's all I wanted to know. John, do we have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. So it looks like three people online, I'll love what we do have one individual here in the hearing room with us. So, um, did you sign up to testify. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, we'll, we'll have you. I mean, it's fine. I just, um, we'll just have to get your name for the record. So come on forward. You'll have three minutes and just start by giving us your name for the record.

1:53:30My name is Russlandau. I am, uh, here from Golden. I've known Micah for 15 years or so. Um, he. How do I explain Micah. He's got ambition. He's got mission. He's got force. And, uh, I remember five years ago when he was looking at buying this property. And I looked up pictures of it with him. And I said, wow. That's another taking. But he's doing it. I don't think there's anybody else that's going to do what he's doing. Yeah. That's, um. Yeah. That's, that's, that's what I believe. And I think for me, if I was in a project like this, there's nobody else in the world that I would want with me. To do it. So. I would hope you give them the blessing to move forward. Okay. Thank you. That's what I got. Very kind of you to come support your friend.

1:54:40Uh, so we have three people who have joined us remotely. The first person is Kat Olmen. And I see that you've been promoted. Yeah. You'll have start by stating your name and then you'll have three minutes. Oh, hello. Can you hear me? Yes. We can. Good afternoon. And thank you so much for addressing this situation. Um, I have a few things I'd like to point out that I feel are erroneous. Um, number one, the book with the picture on the front of it that keeps getting presented is my home, my home was the crux of the Welt Resort. The property over there was land associated with the Welch Resort became cabin's back in the 50s when it was shell and Shellenbergers and Shelly's Cotton. Having said that, um, I love the fact that improvements are being made things have been done. I don't like the fact. That they have been done on permitted without regard for things that have been said before. I also would like to find out that.

1:56:10Self, I'm sorry. You just, you're just broke up there. To try to work together with them. I paid for two out of three mediations. Can you hear me now? Yeah. You broke up just a little bit back there. Shoot. Okay. I hope that doesn't take my time away. I'm for traveling. We're on vacation. So I'm in and out of cell. I apologize. Um, I just wanted to clarify that I tried and I do not care to be misrepresented as uncooperative. The contrary opinion. I have been over backwards to meet them. You know, and try to help. So having said all of that, um, sage capital is an investment firm that Micah is involved with that stick on the website in class investors to invest in this poverty period. Um, elevate BNB still has a website up advertising it with pictures of the fire pits still being there. That is elevate BNB. com. They own other properties. Um, LID landscaping, which was the former managers or current manager's husband did most of the work on the property and continues to maintain it. I believe it's absolutely beautiful. I appreciate it upgrades. I appreciate having that next door, but there have been three letters sent one by Diane Harden and the attorneys won by Martin laws who forgot to be menta, was forgotten to be mentioned. And

1:57:56also won by Jesse. And there were others in between all that. But those are the three ones that in my opinion were very clear saying stop. Do not rent. And they do. They've been nonstop and hosting weddings. Thank you very much. Okay. I feel better. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh, thank you for your testimony. Chris Lee, I think. Or LUF. All right. Chris, you've been promoted. You can unmute yourself. Please state your name. And you'll have three minutes. Hello? Yes. Looks like you've been on. You've. I'm sorry. This is, um, Sarah, Chris's wife. He just got called away. And so he's not here now. So he's not going to be able to speak. I'm so sorry. Um, he was just going to speak on behalf of. Could you say your name, please, before you proceed. Last name.

1:59:15Okay. Um. He was just going to speak, um, from a local lion's business owner's perspective. We owned the Riverband property. We host, um, The Weddings, which are the guests that stay at the Riverside Cabins. And we were just going to speak on behalf of the owner and just express our, um, we're just sorry that he's having to go through this. He's just trying to do his very, very best. He's invested a lot of money into this property. And he's really just trying to not let people down. He had bookings that he had taken. People that have come from all over the country to attend their weddings at our venue. And he just didn't want to let them down. And that's pretty much all we were wanting to say. His business is very important to us.

2:00:05His business is important to lions. I know he's in Boulder County, but, um, yeah, if you could give him some grace and understand a little bit from his perspective, what he's going through. That'd be much appreciated. Okay. Does that complete your testimony. Yes. Yes. I'm not quite sure if he was preparing to say something else or not. He just got called down to an emergency at our weddings. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, Steve Pischki. Good afternoon commissioners. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Uh, Steve Piske, uh, fire marshal lions fire. I've had the opportunity work with this property and the owners over the last couple of years. And, um, as you may or may not know, there were a number of fire code violations. And they have done an excellent job of, of mitigating all of the items that we have, um, pointed out to them as well as they've gone above and beyond it and done some other things that they really are not required by code, but, uh, in the, um, efficiency of, of wanting to be sure that, uh, their property was fire safe. They went ahead and did those lions fires have spent, um, a fair amount of time out there in terms of pre - printing the property and everything that we have asked them to do in

2:01:45order to make, uh, fire safe. Um, they have done. If we do, then we'll ask you to rejoin us. But thank you for that perspective. And thank you. Appreciate it. Sure. So that is everybody who had signed up to speak. Just see anything that you would like to add at this point. Thank you, Commissioner Levy. Jesse Rowns Community Planning and Permitting. I do want to take an opportunity to reference the notices of violation. I think that came up a couple times. And it also address a little bit of that communication confusion. The first notice of violation we have listed is actually a violation letter is what we call it in 2024. And that was actually related to short - term rental, which is why Diane said you could continue to rent because we generally, when we have a short - term rental violation, and someone says, okay, I'm willing to come into compliance. We put them in the process and we say, while you're doing this, unless we know of a safety violation, you can continue to rent. We recognize that value. Unfortunately, in the process of understanding better what was happening at Riverside Cabins, we realized it was a resort lodge use, where a use did not exist. So from a use perspective, land use code perspective, at this time. It's a use vacant

2:05:00property. I'm making up a term. But that's why any kind of rental 30 - day rental anything is a violation of the code. There is no use on the property. So we had notices of violations sent in September, August, June. And July of 2024, sorry, for getting away from the mic. And then we started with our notices of violation in March. Of 2024. These were related to the special use, the special review violation at that point, the resort lodge violation. So let me see here. Let me get back March of 2024, September. And then again, in July of 2025, there was a county attorney letter sent on July 8th outlining the issues. Then January 13th of this year, February 3rd, 11th. So quite a bit of communication. And in each of those, I want to make clear that our concern was that life safety issues.

2:06:07And I've got some photos if we want to look at them of one of the cabins when it was Shelly's Cottages. And now, and just the difference in interior and the indication that there are some items that should be permitted that haven't been permitted. If we want to look at those. But I think that's really what I wanted to note was the number of times we communicated as well as our overriding safety concern. That's why from our perspective, from codecompliance perspective, and I think the department's perspective, that's what we're concerned about is the safety of the residents. So you've put this up on the screen. Can you just explain for us? Yeah, sure. So this is the aspen cabin as it exists now on the elevate BNB website. Note the paneling, the roof, the fan, and the light. I'll switch over to this is using a reference to an old website doesn't exist anymore. So using the internet archive for this. This is that same space, different paneling, different roof. No evidence of a fan, and no wall - mounted lighting. Um, that would all require permits. Um, and so from our perspective, there is evidence. But again, we have not been in the property, so I can't say for sure. And I am also not a billing inspector. So I can't speak to exactly

2:07:40how that permitting would go. Questions, yeah. Thank you. I just had a question and thanks for going through the list of violation letters. And if I miss this, I apologize. I said 2022 because on the list I'm seeing, it says September 6, 2022. Is that the date you were talking about in the previous issues? Okay. That is correct. I apologize. The list is actually out of order. There is a 2022 violation mixed in with 2024 violations. Okay. But the 2022 was something separate is the way. That was the, that was a, um, short - term rental violation letter. Okay. That's correct. Um, and then I did have a question too. Let me see where's mine. The applicants conversation and their testimony were talking about. The caretaker, I think was it. And I apologize. That might be mixing up hearings. There was somebody living in the property that you're saying wasn't a tenant. But the way that I was looking at the violation letter, it says there won't be any rentals. And so my interpretation is nobody can live in the property if it's. I mean, one, if it's not you as the owner, then it would be, it doesn't matter to me. The way I interpret it is it's not about timing of 30 days, 60 day, 90 day. But I just wanted, that's the

2:09:17way I've read the letter. There's two different pieces of language in there that said that it's not rental. But I want to make sure that, um, that was one, the case, but then also I think what I heard you say a moment ago was there is no use currently on the property. So there isn't, I mean, nobody could be living on the property right now. Jesse Ron's Community Planning Impermitting. That's, that is our interpretation of the code that no use exists and therefore no rental can occur. Uh, no, no use at all can occur right now. Um, and I think the letters tried to make that clear that the reason that no rentals of any type could occur was that no use exists on the property. There are structures there. We recognize that, but they can't be used for anything until. They're recognized as this resort lodge use, which we were in the process of doing it the time. Which was the 15 conditions within once those were met, then it could be used for.

2:10:16That's correct. Yes. Okay. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you. Um, yeah, thank you. So I think I maybe I'll pick up where Commissioner Luchuman was on this. So there was no, no allowed you on the properties. Therefore, nobody could live there. Could the owners have legally lived there. In any of those cabins? My understanding is that they could not because no use existed. If they want to do establish. I mean, they would have to establish one of the structures as a single unit dwelling. And I mean, that's, that's what I'm wondering about is so people, you know, the lots of cabins on the property. There's a lot on the property. If they just wanted to say, okay, those are just there. They're going to stay there. We're just going to live here and we're not going to have this be a lodge or a rental of any sort. Would they be allowed to live there. My understanding of the code is at this stage.

2:11:22They would have to go through an SPR to create one of the units as a dwelling. Uh, and in addition, we'd have to have some discussions about all of the other units since they are designed to be dwelling like. The development review planners to figure that stuff. Okay. All right. I think that's, that's probably good for now. Um, on the development agreement and the delays and the development agreement, uh, that might be for you, Sam as to how those typically go. I don't know how long it usually takes to get a fully executed and recorded development agreement in place. Sure. Saint Walker CPMP. So I, uh, wrote down a timeline of the development agreement, um, the first thing I'll say is that I think Micah is conflating two different documents, which is like, fine, it's a misunderstanding. That's pretty common with applicants. It's not exactly something they deal with all the time. Um, so the initial wait time comes after the hearing takes place when the commissioners written resolution is being drafted. So that's the attorney drafting. And so the, the timeline that I wrote down was the county commissioners approved the special use for view on January 13th of 2026. The Resolution wasn't or the written resolution wasn't adopted until a business meeting on March 17th. And then that written resolution was provided to

2:12:47staff two days later. So March 19th. I sent the adopted resolution as well as a draft development agreement document to the applicants on April 2nd. Excuse me. April 2nd of 2026 and then confirmed that their draft that they had returned to me was acceptable on April 27th. So later that month. Um, the applicant signed and notarized. So they did their part with the development agreement on April 29th. Then the Board of County Commissioners didn't sign the development agreement until June 10th of 2026. So there was a couple of weeks there. Um, the development agreement was recorded on June 18th. And then I sent that to the applicants on June 22nd. So I don't know that that's really indicative of a typical timeline or not. I think I've only had a few development agreements recorded and they tend to vary pretty broadly based on the complexity of the application. So we do have a timeline. I think the reasonable understandable delays in there. Attribute that to malice or anything like that. Okay. Yeah. No, no suggestion of anything like that. Okay. Um. Okay. I think. Well, I guess one more question. So the applicant had a, one of their, um, slides that they put up had all the things that were completed. And then all the things that are in progress. Does, does that in progress

2:14:21list fully address all the outstanding work that needs to be done to meet the conditions of approval. I think again, our concern is that there's work that we don't know about that would need to be addressed. But that's, that list of outstanding work does generally address all of the, okay, everything that needs to be done. And the work that we don't know about would be, you know, what work was done in the cabins for which there is no building permit. And so you need to get into the cabins and inspect. And then, and, you know, then we have a record of building permits and you can see whether billing permits were issued for that. That's correct. That's our understanding, yes. Okay. And I, sorry to jump in here. I do want to correct. The crack squad behind me is telling me that they could occupy, uh, one unit. There was a code change recently that would allow them to occupy one unit without going through an SPR. Not addressing the building permit safety issues. But they could occupy that one. All right. They're cracked squad behind you. One member is coming up here. Yeah. I think what I would want to know is it, well, to some extent, this is sort of history, but I do want to make sure I understand the history. Yeah.

2:15:48Summer Frederick with CPNP. The other complexity that gets, um, folded into this is that there are multiple parcels involved in this approval. And so determining where a property owner could live at what time gets, depending on which unit they would move into. So if it were a parcel that had multiple units on it, they could not occupy one of those units until a unit was established as a primary residence. And what that would take is one unit becomes a residence and the other units are decommissioned. So they're bathing and cooking facilities are pulled out of the structure. And it's inspected. So if they wanted to live on a parcel with multiple units, that would have to happen if they wanted to live on a parcel with a single unit, which there is. They could live there and establish that as a residential parcel without a planning process. Okay. That helps. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for clarifying.

2:16:54Okay. I don't think I have any more questions. And controller tremendous, you look perplexed, nothing more right now. Okay. So then Micah or, you know, we're happy to let you have the last word here. You don't need to say anything. But we do always want you to have the last word. Because of the positioning on this and sort of being across the aisle from Jesse and the staff. And it has sort of, I don't know, created some conflict. And yet. We need to be able to work together from here. To process the rest of the conditions. And so. Again, and it's a bigger department. I've had great talks with Jesse. And I would like to believe that we'll be fine. And we can work together. I just, um, there's been a number of, uh, conditions and review for some time. And I don't know why or what's happening or what, uh, why, why it's taking so long, it could be because of some of this.

2:18:14I'm not sure. And so. I would love to be able to expedite and get through the conditions as quickly as possible so we can get operational. I just. Don't know that I always feel that way. Um, it's just more of a offhand comment that has arisen because of, of this hearing, um. I, you know, I'd love to be able to keep, you know, knocking them down quickly and moving forward. So, okay. Well, thank you. I want to just say before, before we see if Commissioner Chain has any questions, that just, I want to say on behalf of our staff that, you know, they're just, they're doing their job and they're doing it, um, professionally. And I, you know, they don't hold any animus. This is not personal. You know, the way we're set up, it seems very adversarial. But, um, they're just, they're following the code. And I am absolutely sure that you all have no trouble depending on which direction Commissioner Luchy man and I go, um, to work with Sam and Jessie their, you know, they're just, people worry about grudges and retaliation and stuff like that. And I can say with a hundred percent certainty, you will not experience that. Commissioner, what you mean, any additional questions for the applicant. I don't have additional questions for the applicant. Okay. Um, I don't

2:19:51either. Thank you. So, um, Commissioner Locomian and I will, um, talk about this. And make a decision. Yeah. That's a great. Thank you. And I, um, we'll reiterate, I don't believe, I'll just say from my perspective, I felt like there was maybe some insinuation that your process took a long time because of some other dynamic that you're feeling right now. And I just don't believe that to be true. And so it was helpful for me to hear Sam go through kind of the timeline of the process. And that actually sounds like very in line with the time that our resolution comes back to us at the dais from business meetings from 45 days ago or 60 days ago, um, and I've seen land use documents. Unfortunately the amount of time that the entire process takes, um, can be a very long amount of time. So, um, so, and I also don't believe that there'll be any issues of communication moving forward. And it sounds like you've got appropriate and unincorpretable accounting that you'll probably see the county about for some other thing in the future.

2:20:58I would guess as you continue, just the dream of living in such a special place. So I, um, let's see here. For me, I'm just trying to be very factual. And I appreciate public comment and folks coming in. And I just want to also say that my job here is not to evaluate a person because whatever land use decisions we make is really about the land and the parcel and the property and it stays that way forever. So, um, to appreciate that, but I really have to not, not bring in the personal, um, feelings or comments and really focus on the land use. And what I'm looking at here is and heard from staff was, um. An evaluation of a special use review that we had approved previously with really specific conditions that explain what the safety issues could be or concerns and understanding in some of the pictures of what has happened over that property is helpful just to understand the gravity of the situation for Mart was too, as was described a really beautiful, some beautiful units and I don't dot that at all. And all the pieces that happen, um, half these building permit processes. And so I, um, so it concerns me and what I heard today was just confirmation of, um, the conditions have not been met. Um, I heard

2:22:26that the in process and I heard staff's been in process doing work as well. And I don't doubt any of any of those pieces, but I, um, I'm leaning to support what staff is presenting here in regards to certification. Um, okay. Well, thank you for kicking off the discussion. I'm actually going in the other direction, which is to, um, make it very clear to the applicant, uh, which I think it's quite clear already that they cannot use this property until all those conditions are met. Um, and, and I feel that way for the following reasons, you know, the concerns that are identified on the property are very important. And, you know, I'm not minimizing any of that. These conditions were put in place for a reason because they have to do with the safety of the property. And, um, and they need to be addressed.

2:23:25And they were not addressed. The property has been utilized and occupied in absolutely clear violation of the conditions of approval. I don't think our job or my job is this process isn't about punishing. For, you know, a transgression. It's about, we have a situation with a property that, uh, was presented to us. For special o's. And we considered all the criteria. And we said yes, we think this would be great if the property were used in this, in this manner. And, um, and the applicant, I mean, there have been delays. And again, I don't want to, I didn't say any of this to either excuse the applicant or blame anybody. You know, the history. And I think what the applicant said that, um, resonated very strongly with me. However, was that the suitability of this property as a vacation rental hasn't changed. Um, it's, it was, we thought it was suitable when we had the hearing. I still think it's suitable as a vacation around all. I think it would be not a good resource use of anybody's time or resources to start all over again and present the question to us of should this property be used as a vacation rental. So that's kind of the where I'm coming from. I'll acknowledge what I said in our hearing, whatever date that was that, um,

2:25:21you know, this, that Shelly's Cottage sign has been there for the 45 years that I've been in Colorado. And I have driven by that sign. And I was really excited to see that somebody was going to bring that property back online. Cause to me, it reflects, you know, the Colorado that existed when I got here of small scale places that, you know, a family can rent for a family reunion for a wedding that's not fancy and glitzy, you know, all of that. And so I was excited to see the application. I think we did very, um, very important and responsible conditions of approval that clearly say that this property needs to be safe for it to be rented out to paying customers. And that did not happen. Um, I think I feel confident that the property will not be rented out to paying customers until these conditions are met. And I, and if we do move forward with the alternative recommendation, which is to, um, continue to require the applicant not to utilize it of hold the applicants to the conditions of approval, um, it does need to be clear that the conditions that were written reflect what we knew about the property and that all the work has to be permitted all the work has to be done. We need to make sure that

2:26:59a property that's in the wildlife and urban interface that's in on the edge of the floodway, or I don't know where it is with respect to the floodway or the floodplain, you know, that all of that has done. So that's, that's the direction that I'm leaning is, you know, they're in process. It's in the interest of everybody to actually see this completed. So I would ask, I don't remember what that language was that you said. I mean, you said something about an extension of time, but we're not in a situation where the development agreement or the approval is going to expire. Um, so, okay, well, we can get to whatever the language is later. So those are my thoughts. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the conversation. I agree that my position on the suitability for the use of the cabins hasn't changed. So I mean, that's true. And I also think we spent a lot of time going through the conditions. And I felt like it was very clear. And we had conversation and make sure that it was clear what the conditions were and the applicant has just chosen not to meet those. And if somebody can just check, we had that happen earlier today.

2:28:21And there was a fire in town. So staff could just, um, maybe check in on that. That'd be great. Um. The so, so I heard you feel like confident that the applicant is going to follow the conditions that I just, I don't at this point just based on the testimony and the documents and the notice of violations and all the different pieces. So, um. I'm wondering, and the two of us that we're going to have to come to some kind of agreement or we have to hold this over no matter what because our third commissioner is not here right now. I was thinking in the presentation, Jesse at the beginning, you had maybe some tableing as an option. And I don't, I don't deem a revocation as like a penalty. So much may be the way I heard you describe it as much as we have to make sure that people who are using these properties are safe. And so even same photos of electrical work that hasn't been done. And it's not anything about, I don't know, the lecture says it has nothing to do. It's not a personal commie. It's just a health and safety. The gas propane tanks that have been removed and those things that if the lane's fire department hadn't been aware of violations, et cetera, like would we even

2:29:37know? Um, so the pieces that are, um. That are concerning me. And so, but I, but that's not, that would not be my intent with accepting stuff recommendation or revocation just to clarify that. I think maybe tabling could be in. Option. Um, so that we could have, um, the applicants come back and while they're doing the completion, I think what concerns me about that it would be like in tableing to date uncertain because the process is a process. Yeah, I, I, I just would want to say, I don't expectation that. All of the conditions are met by any period of time, whether it's a good summer market or not, like I just want to really clear that that is not, that would not be my intent with tabling anything, unfortunately. I can't guarantee a time frame. Yeah. I'm not sure. I don't know that tabling would be what we, what would be on the table?

2:30:36Um, and it might have just been what I heard in the presentation at the beginning. So if it's continuance versus tabling. Well, I would be concerned that given the notice violation and things like that, that if we don't clear that up, there may be some impediment to actually, I don't know, processing building permit. So for me, for me, it would be, well, we'll see what maybe what if Jesse can review what he put up on the screen as the alternative. Again, I guess I just, I just don't see the point in revoking an approval. On property where they're kind of halfway, halfway done. It's like, you know, they're halfway across the river. And then we say, no, you got to go back and do it again. Um, you know, I just, that's, that's where I think I'm having a hard time is that we've got a property. I think we want it to be used.

2:31:38So Jesse, could you, if you had some suggested alternative language to revocation? Thank you, Commissioners. Jesse Rown's Community Planning and Permitting. I put it up here the second part, the board can choose to, and the language we use was continue the public hearing, keeping it open, um, for as long as we suggested no more than a year. Just based on the amount of work that may need to occur. Um, and then leaving that, uh, leaving 11 place for, um, the director to request an earlier hearing if violations restart. Okay. And so it is, so. This would not be anything about that action that would prevent building permits and other kinds of things like that from being processed and completed and closed out. No. Because you're hearing in January, uh, and the development agreement being signed, that's, that's the trigger that allowed the building permits to be processed. This would sort of sit next to it as my understanding sort of as a safety measure. Okay.

2:32:58I'm wondering and it's just given the history of the use of the property before there's use. If it would make sense to do instead of doing a full year that was just, I know that you were just throwing something out there as a suggestion. I appreciate that to do spring of 27. Um, just given what we've heard in regards to the timeline of starting to book and things like that, because that would give us an opportunity to come back here in the applicant to update that list. And hopefully everything would be completed. And then we don't have to worry about violations and hopefully the public's not as involved. It doesn't need to be as involved, et cetera. Um, I think I'd like to ask the applicant something. About how long they think they need. Although we recognize there are a lot of things outside your control. But also the implications, if we continue this, uh, and they get all the work done. Could you administratively rescind the notice of violence? What I don't want them to be dependent on, Coming back here with a hearing for you to say everything's done. Um, before they, you know, if that's the direction we go before they can go ahead and do business. So because our hearing time is scarce and who knows, we're so unpredictable. But yeah,

2:34:25so if we continue it to a date certain. Then what. I'm not actually sure. Uh, my, my, my thought is that because this is not an impediment to them completing the conditions that if they completed their conditions, uh, we could, and I don't know whether it could be done administratively, but it, they could start operating. Without this necessarily being resolved. I'm not sure if that's true. It wants all the conditions are men. We have an assistant council when he's sitting here who might be able to help. Hi, this is Liana Lara More Assistant County Attorney. I think the idea is if you continue it, I do think that we would need to close the hearing, but staff would also do what they always do with a zoning violation that has been resolved, which is close the zoning violation. And at that point they would be able to resume operation. Um, so, I mean. I do think that we'd probably need to just actually formally close out the hearing just technically, but there would be no administrative impediment on them resuming operation once all those conditions are met. Okay. So that could be done. The planet CPMP could send them a letter saying zoning violation resolved without having to come back here and have us formerly approved that. Okay. Yeah. And I think that you can

2:35:51make that clear in the motion as well that you're continuing this hearing in the event that there is a future violation. Um, we could continue the hearing to once again, consider whether or not the SU approval should be revoked. But if they meet all their post - approval conditions and the zoning violation is closed out, they can begin operation as a resort lodge use immediately. Okay. Then I think I would like to just invite the applicant here to the conversation about the remaining work and, you know, I mean, in your, your timeline, I think there were some people where a contractor were working with, went out of business. You were trying to find a new one. I mean, do you have some timeline on when you think you can get this work done. Um, yes.

2:36:45Condition to the development agreement is complete. Historic landmark designation is, that's condition four is complete. Propane tank. Removal from floodplain condition nine is complete. Fire and life safety. From lions fire inspection condition 11 is complete. Storm water quality permit. Is complete. Wildfire wildfire tree mitigation condition 10 is complete. The C dot access road and driveway retention is in progress. The hardboard siding and fire compliance exterior work, uh, with wildfire partners is about 80 percent done. The building permits. For the 7 fireplace units condition 3. The licensing information that the permitting desk had requested to have those inspections to spend submitted. So those inspections can happen. I think they've been on hold because of this hearing. The MMTS Road Design Exception condition 8. That's been submitted for some time. The revegetation and landscape maintenance plan condition 5. That's been submitted. For 3 months, over 3 months.

2:38:20And then. That's, I think, a good overview of most of the conditions. Yeah. And the question we had already gone through what's been done and what isn't done. But of the things that aren't done, you know, just an estimate of how long you might need. I'd like to have these done. In a couple weeks. Oh, okay. We were. I was thinking, we're just, I mean, so we can, I mean, therem continuing it for longer. As long as you keep, you know, you, you have a financial interest in expediting your work. So. Thanks. And it's not a question for that. We'll get so piece is done. Okay. Um. Oh, I was trying to remember which part of my correction was. Listened to you, then on the. Conditions that could be met and then staff could give an update to the notice of violation as resolve. But the way I'm understanding this is we have the docket of where this project was approved with those 15 conditions is still out there. And so in my mind, the applicants could finish those whenever. And they've met the conditions and that work and it just, then it becomes a use. So I heard you say we might have to come back to a hearing. To close that out. But I just was, I don't know what she said. I

2:39:57thought we said, no, they would not have to. Go. Is this the Annie assistant County attorney? Um, I am not currently clear whether or not we would need to formally close out a continued hearing. However, they could continue, they could start operation of the resort lodge use prior to that happening as long as they meet all of the post approval conditions of the previous SEO. Um, I can do a little bit of additional digging as to whether or not it would be a very quick thing potentially doesn't need to happen. Maybe what happened at a business meeting. It would just be a very administrative. We're closing out this hearing of my understanding of where we are is we have a, this is, as I said at the outset, this is, this is still the same case. This is the special use case. It's got the same case number. And the conditions were approved and we're just here. And we get, we've had this in other cases where they haven't completed the development agreement. We've given them, um, extensions of time. And the progress. And then we have, I think revoked that approval. But we're not at that point. They're not running out of time. So it seems like this would just, it's not a, it's not actually a zoning violation case. You didn't, is there

2:41:14a ZV number? Oh, okay. Sorry. There is. Okay. But it sounds like you're saying that, well, and we can do a resolution that would state that upon Dermot proof of compliance with all conditions of approval. The zona violation will be resolved. And applicants, you know, all the inspection and verification and everything that we need. And then, and then indicate that applicants, uh, that special use would be operational. But I do think we want the purpose of the continuance would be so that if there is continued rental of the property, we would not have to start all over. Yes. That is correct. I think that sounds good. Yeah. I think we've landed on something. Okay. How do you feel about making that motion? Oh. I can try. If you want to go. Okay. I'll give it a go. So item 3a in regards to the Community Planning and Permit docket SU - 23 - 0013. I would move that we. In the event of future violation, we would continue the hearing. I think it's not in the event of, because we're going to continue, the action we're going to take today is to continue it. Okay.

2:42:42So we're going to, and I just wrote down what I heard. So let me, that's the second time I've done that today. So, um, same docket number, um, I would move that we. Don't, that we don't do the revocation at this time, but that we would continue this hearing. In the event. There's a near future violation. With the acknowledgement that the applicant has conditioned approval. And so if they meet those conditions, they would notify staff and they would then have a use. Did I capture everything or do you want to give it to go? Let me try. And so I move that we not accept the recommendation of revocation of the special use. And instead we continue this hearing two. Commissioners, we would have the date of January 7th at 1 p. m. Okay. We continue the hearing to January 7th, 2027. At 1 p. m. For purposes of determining whether the applicant, whether to revoke the special use permit.

2:44:13In the meantime. The outplug, if the applicants are able to complete all of the work and satisfy all the conditions of approval. And submit satisfactory evidence of that. In receive written confirmation from Community Planning and Permitting. That the Special Use has been all the conditions. I've been met at the applicants. May relist the property on revive their website. And make use of the special use that we granted. Does that work? I think you captured it. I think it's clear what your intention is. Yes. She'll put it in words. Okay. That's the motion. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Um, all in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. So, um, thank you. That is our last matter for the day. So we're adjourned.