Steamboat Springs City Council approves 24-unit Eddyline Townhomes proposal despite
The Steamboat Springs City Council has approved a development plan, conditional use and two major variances for Eddyline Townhomes, a 24-unit for-sale residential development along the Yampa River Core Trail, despite recommendations from both the city Planning Commission and planning staff to deny the project.
The 4-1 vote at council’s April 21 meeting, with councilors Bryan Swintek and Dave Barnes absent, came after a lengthy, in-the-weeds debate over whether the project’s design met city code, with the deciding majority concluding that it did — but only after adding a condition that front fencing along the Core Trail be no higher than 4 feet.
At issue was whether the project’s layout, fencing and pedestrian orientation created an active, welcoming frontage along the Core Trail or instead read like a “backyard” and a “walled-off” edge that fell short of city design expectations.
The project, proposed by Kruse Builders, would place four buildings on an irregular triangle-shaped parcel at 1940 Bridge Lane that had recently been rezoned from the industrial zone to the commercial services zone.
The plan includes 18 smaller townhomes in three trailside buildings and six larger riverfront units in a separate building, with single-car garages on the ground floor and residential space above.
City Planner Jeremy Brown told council at the meeting that the key issue was not whether the project could provide housing, but whether it met city standards for building placement and access orientation in the commercial services zone.
He said staff believed the proposal did not sufficiently define the edge of the Core Trail or prioritize pedestrian entries to the public side of the site, describing the design as feeling more like a private backyard than a front yard facing a major community corridor.
Part of staff’s concern, Brown explained, was whether the public-facing part of the project sufficiently complemented activity along the Core Trail.
“I want to be upfront that staff does generally support this project,” he explained. “Housing in this location is reasonable … We think the layout is smart, and otherwise, it’s good.”
“We have to make a real effort, maybe even go above and beyond the design standards in some cases, to make sure that this is an activated, lively place that feels like a front door with these semi-public, semi-private spaces that exist,” he continued. “What we’re getting is sort of a walled-off experience for our Core Trail users.”
Contributing to the “backyardish” feel, he added, were the proposed 6-foot fences parallel to the Core Trail, the top 2 feet of which would be more transparent, hogwire-like fencing.
“They don’t look like front yards because we don’t allow a front yard like that anywhere in Steamboat,” said Brown.
He noted that this is one of the first major developments happening along the Core Trail, raising the question of the “precedent being set” as to how much development locals are willing to tolerate along the town’s primary multi-modal corridor.
Kruse Builders also asked for a conditional use to label the units as workforce housing.
Brown explained that the workforce-housing request was more of a placeholder than a guarantee, as the approval before council would not actually deed-restrict any units as workforce housing.
Instead, the project was being considered as a multi-family development, and any future workforce designation would depend on a separate process or incentive program.
While no price point was provided for the units, the development proposal describes them as “affordably priced.”
Calais Kruse, presenting on behalf of Kruse Builders, pushed back hard on the staff interpretation of the proposal’s alignment with city code, arguing that the code requires objective standards — not subjective interpretations.
Kruse, herself a city planning commissioner, recused herself when the project went before that board prior to making it to the council’s agenda.
She said the development meets the applicable standards because each unit has a door facing the Core Trail, the buildings define the trail edge, and the project includes the required glazing and access points.
She said staff had drifted into judging the project on aesthetic or “experiential” terms rather than on the code’s actual language.
“We would love for you not to kill the project and to add conditions,” Kruse told council. “We have tried to parse out what staff and commissioners needed from us, what negative impact they felt like we should be mitigating. So far, we haven’t really gotten a straight answer.”
Councilor John Agosta asked Kruse whether the applicant would be amenable to dropping the Core Trail-facing fences from 6 feet to 4 feet to improve the pedestrian activation, to which she replied that they are “willing to do pretty much anything to give this project legs.”
“These are Steamboat locals,” she explained. “They have dogs and they have children and a 4-foot fence does not keep dogs in — and with the Core Trail 6 feet away, I think that that’s a safety issue.”
While Agosta — along with councilors Michael Buccino and Gail Garey, and Council President Steve Muntean — all expressed support for the project, Agosta pushed the hardest for dropping the front-facing fences by 2 feet as a compromise based on staff’s concerns regarding pedestrian activity.
Buccino stated bluntly that he disagreed with staff’s recommendation, noting that this is a “creative solution” to the local housing crisis that shouldn’t be dismissed over subjective, code-based technicalities.
Councilor Amy Dickson, however, said the issue was not just the fence. She said the project sits in a commercial services zone on the Core Trail, making it a different kind of test than a standard residential subdivision and requiring further scrutiny, underscoring that councilors “need to get this right.”
Public comment leaned in favor of the project.
Angela Ashby, a longtime housing advocate and former board chair of the Western Resilience Center (formerly known as the Yampa Valley Sustainability Council), testified to Kruse Builders’ commitment to creating “thoughtful, high-quality housing” in the “missing-middle segment,” noting that the proposal is “designed by longtime locals, for locals.”
“Many of you have emphasized the importance of delivering housing now and not years from now — this is in front of you,” said Ashby. “If approved, this project can move forward quickly and begin delivering homes as early as next year, and delays at this stage only add costs and uncertainty, not just for the applicant, but for the potential homeowner.”
“In today’s environment, where costs continue to rise and housing demand remains, strong timing matters,” she continued.
“What’s in front of you tonight is not a new idea. It’s the realization of what this community has been asking for and what you have identified as a City Council priority,” she added. “While leadership and priorities may evolve, one thing has remained constant — the need for housing and the desire to maintain our community character. This project supports both of them.”
In written public comment to council, local resident and business owner Kim Hornsby also wrote in support of the project.
“As I and others like me move toward retirement, staying in Steamboat means finding a way to downsize. That option, at a sustainable price point, hasn’t existed — until the Eddyline proposal,” she wrote.
“This is a rare opportunity. Brand new, well-designed product for the Steamboat lifestyle, at a free-market price point within reach of locals like me looking to stay — that combination simply does not exist elsewhere in this market,” Hornsby continued.
“The staff recommendation was triggered by an internal staff impasse — not a clear consensus against the project,” she added. “I would encourage the council to evaluate this project keeping in mind the level of priority it has given to infill attainable housing.”
The final motion passed 4-1 after council settled on approving the project with the reduced fence height on the Core Trail side. Dickson cast the lone “no” vote, saying she could not support the application as written and believed the project needed more examination.