Planning commission backs conditional approval for Riverside Cabins lodge, sets limits on guests and operations

Boulder County planning commissioners on Sept. 17 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approve a special-use review for Riverside Cabins, a lodge and short-term lodging operation near North St. Vrain Creek northwest of Lyons.

Staff from the county’s Community Planning and Permitting department told the commission the property is largely in the Forestry Zoning District and that staff are recommending conditional approval of SU23-013 to allow a resort-lodge use across multiple parcels. "Community planning and permitting staff are recommending that the planning commission recommend conditional approval of SU23-13, the Riverside Cabins Lodge and Boundary Line Adjustment to the Board of County Commissioners," Sam Walker said during the staff presentation.

Why it matters: Neighbors raised safety, trespass, noise and environmental concerns and staff flagged multiple referral issues, including unpermitted construction, floodplain impacts and septic capacity. The Planning Commission’s recommendation packages several conditions the county says are intended to address those problems before the lodge may operate.

What the commission required and recommended: Among the requirements and clarified commitments contained in the motion the commission forwarded were: (1) building permits must be obtained and closed for all previously unpermitted work prior to commencement of the lodging use; (2) the property’s on-site wastewater system currently supports 28 overnight guests and the commission capped overnight occupancy at the septic-supported level until the on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) is upgraded — commissioners agreed the cap could be raised to the originally proposed 34 guests if the OWTS is expanded and permitted; (3) documentation of an adequate water supply for both indoor and outdoor uses must be submitted with building-permit records, and staff said augmentation, cisterns or trucked water are possible approaches where statutory limits apply; (4) access improvements to meet county multimodal access standards must be demonstrated and verified prior to final inspection; (5) removal of liquid-gas storage tanks from the floodplain and other floodplain measures as required by referral responses; (6) wildfire-partner certification and approval of an emergency water supply by the Lions Fire Protection District; and (7) a process for historic-preservation review must be completed prior to recordation of the development agreement, with staff to follow the standard Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) review process.

Public concerns and enforcement background: Nearby residents said the operation has repeatedly run without required approvals. "They are currently still renting short term rentals," neighbor Kathy Ullman told commissioners, summarizing her concerns about noise, trespass and long-standing permit violations. Another neighbor, Regina Cleveland, said the property’s expanded asphalt parking concentrates cars ("the lot can be full with as many as 14 cars") and pushes light and noise into adjacent homes and the creek area. County code-compliance staff described an enforcement record beginning in 2022 and explained their typical violation-remediation steps and timelines.

Applicant response: Tom Parko, agent for Rockmont Investments, said the owner has invested in repairs since the 2013 flood and welcomed many of the proposed conditions but objected to a mandatory, immediate landmarking requirement. "We'd rather keep that in there, especially the vegetation to the west that protects that property," Parko said when discussing balancing access improvements with preserving screening. The applicant also said they would explore augmentation records and other water strategies if needed.

How the commission voted and next steps: After discussing and amending staff’s recommended conditions (including language to require completion of the historic-review process prior to the development agreement, expanded water documentation language, and requirements for signage and screening), the Planning Commission made a motion recommending conditional approval to the Board of County Commissioners; the motion was seconded and carried by affirmative roll-call responses from the commissioners present. The Board of County Commissioners will have final authority and the docket will return to the BOCC for decision.

What remains unresolved: Several matters will be finalized in subsequent permit reviews or BOCC action: whether an augmentation plan can be used for outdoor water, the scope and timing of access improvements required by county standards (and any CDOT actions where state highway access permits are implicated), and any resulting adjustment to the allowed guest capacity if the OWTS is improved and permitted.

The county’s staff reports and referral responses remain the official record for precise condition wording; the case will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision.