During a meeting held on Tuesday, April 15, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) voted unanimously to table a rezone request, along with a general variance request, for a property located at 5503 U.S. 84 owned by the Troxtells.
The BoCC expressed concerns about making a decision on the matter without having advice from any legal counsel.
The Archuleta County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Troxtell rezone request during its meeting held on March 27, which was passed by split vote of 4-1.
The Troxtells have previously explained their plans to renovate the property and run a tiny home village (THV), which is allowed under the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations (LUR) with a use-by-right permit that is approved administratively.
A THV can only operate on properties zoned as a mobile home park, according to the current county LUR.
During the April 15 meeting, Planning Manager Owen O’Dell explained the Troxtell THV permit was approved on April 11.
Variance request
The first matter considered by the BoCC during the April 15 meeting was the general variance request for the Troxtells to not have to pave the driveways on the properties they are planning to develop.
O’Dell’s report presented during the April 15 meeting states, “Variances are, essentially, a grant of authority for a property owner to use property in a manner that deviates from the regulations.”
O’Dell explained the Troxtells summarized their variance request with six points about the property and their plans to run a THV, which were:
• Directly addresses the affordable housing crisis in Archuleta County.
• Aligns with previous expectations set regarding paving requirements.
• Has already been approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) with the existing 50-foot apron.
• May not fall under county jurisdiction due to access from a state highway.
• Ensures that the development remains financially feasible and accessible to those in need.
• Maintains the character and intent of the LUR “with compromising public safety or infrastructure integrity.”
O’Dell clarified that the applicant is not providing the housing units, only the space for a unit to be placed, noting the first point is “misleading.”
O’Dell’s report also notes the Planning Department does see this project as a “viable option” for the community to provide affordable housing.
As for the claim that this project aligns with previous expectations set in regard to paving requirements, O’Dell’s report states the Planning Department finds “no evidence to support this claim.”
It adds, “The applicant alluded to the fact that they are constructing their Single-Family Residence (SFR) on this parcel and they were not required to pave the driveway. The paving requirement comes from the multi-family development of this parcel, not an SFR. Further, according to Section 5.4.5.2 of the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations: Multi-family parking areas shall be paved, when required by the Archuleta County Road and Bridge Design Standards at the discretion of the County Engineer.”
The report notes the planned development will feature 40 units.
O’Dell’s report explains the applicant received an access permit from CDOT for the development with the condition they pave a 50-foot apron.
The report goes on to explain this property is within Archuleta County jurisdiction and that “CDOT did not request this development be paved, because they do not have the authority to make a request outside of their jurisdiction.”
According to O’Dell’s report, the Troxtells have claimed that the paving requirement will increase the project’s overall cost by 30 to 40 percent.
Citing Section 2 of the LUR, O’Dell’s report states, “Under no circumstance shall a variance be granted on the sole basis of personal convenience, profit or special privilege.”
The report goes on to state, “Allowing this variance would be considered personal convenience based on profit and special privilege.”
O’Dell’s report also adds, “This is a business venture for the applicants, while staff does find they are targeting a need, they are not facilitating, in the truest fashion, affordable housing units,” in response to the claim that the variance ensures that the development remains financially feasible and accessible to those in need.
In O’Dell’s conclusion of his report, he states, “While the Planning Staff does believe this will bring a more versatile housing option to Archuleta County residents, Staff does not find this to be within the standards for the granting of the Variance. In past requests for variances from engineering requirements, the Variance has only been granted to non-profit organizations or farming operations off of existing dirt roads. Staff could possibly recommend the approval if the applicant was to enlist a percentage of their units as Affordable Workforce Housing, but without that delineation, Staff would not recommend approval.”
Commissioner Warren Brown stated that he would be in favor of holding off on a decision that day due to not having legal counsel.
Commissioner John Ranson asked for clarification on the different requests and permits being associated with this property.
O’Dell explained that the THV permit was approved administratively as it is a use-by-right permit.
Commissioner Veronica Medina commented, “I would like to table this,” also citing the lack of legal counsel as her reasoning.
She added, “I find it disturbing, quite a few things, because based on what your report says, it’s all about the paving.”
She then commented that, according to the LUR, the property is currently zoned as agricultural ranching and that the property has been taxed as vacant land.
Medina also commented on the previous use of the property, which was also considered by the planning commission during its March 27 meeting.
Medina explained that, to her, the previous designation of what the property was more than 20 years ago “doesn’t play any relevance to what we’re doing today.”
The Planning Department has explained in previous meetings that the Troxtells’ property was used as a mobile home park prior to the county adopting its LUR in 2006, at which time the mobile home park was nonoperational and the parcel was zoned in accordance to surrounding properties — agricultural ranching.
Medina also expressed concerns of illegal spot zoning that would be created by the rezoning of the property from agricultural ranching to a mobile home park designation.
O’Dell explained that the concern of spot zoning is more related to the rezone request, and that there are “a lot of moving parts here.”
Medina also mentioned that it is important for the BoCC, acting as the Board of Adjustments, to have legal counsel on this matter, while expressing concern with the process in which these requests are being dealt with, noting it “just does not seem seamless.”
O’Dell mentioned that these requests are similar to the rezone request for the Sharp property that the BoCC approved in March, and that there is “no practice in the book” for staff to follow for these requests.
Medina mentioned that she also requested the BoCC table the Sharp request, “because we’re setting a precedent, and here we are again and we still haven’t figured out what we’re supposed to do or how we’re supposed to do it.”
She acknowledged that staff are following the book and regulations, “but there’s other details that need to be figured out.”
Development Director Pamela Flowers interjected, stating that the matter was technically a public hearing and that the commissioners needed to hear from the applicant and the public before making a decision.
Sarah Troxtell explained that her family recently moved to Pagosa Springs from suburban Dallas, Texas, after running a short-term rental here.
“We understood the housing crisis and wanted to be part of the solution,” she said, explaining that she and her husband, Travis Troxtell, sold their home in Dallas to invest in a property and the Pagosa Springs community.
“The reason that we’re doing this is not for our own profit. If we cared only about that we wouldn’t be doing it,” she added.
Sarah Troxtell also noted that the cost of paving would be passed on to the residents, and that the Troxtells “won’t be making a lot of money” from this project.
Travis Troxtell also noted there is another property being advertised as a “mulch factory,” as well as a wildlife park operating in the area.
“I appreciate your passion,” Brown stated, explaining the community needs “more of this in general.”
Ranson explained the county needs time to obtain legal counsel on the matter.
Medina echoed the comments of her fellow commissioners while adding that this project “definitely would benefit some of the residents, or people that live here.”
She also mentioned that there are “gonna be some struggles,” urging the Troxtells to take into consideration that the commissioners are not “trying to fight against you … we want to work with you.”
Medina also commented that the county needs to figure out where else the project could be allowed if it is not allowed in this area, and how that will affect the community.
“I’m not saying I don’t want this’,” Medina added, explaining that similar projects have worked successfully in nearby communities like Bayfield and South Fork.
Public comment both in support and against the Troxtells’ project was heard, with Bill Hudson pointing out the property was used as a mobile home park before, and since he has been in the community, “our governments have frowned upon affordable housing.”
Hudson also mentioned the Troxtells are not receiving any government subsidy for their project and are only asking for a variance to help keep the project affordable.
Hudson also noted that the Loma Linda subdivision is “right across the street from this development,” which does not have paved roads.
Another community member, Jared Wirth, spoke in opposition of the project with concerns of water availability in the area, along with the financial impacts the development would place on the community’s emergency response agencies.
The BoCC then unanimously voted to table its decision on the variance request, with no future date picked to reconsider the matter, noting legal counsel needs to be obtained first.
Land use hearing
Following the decision on the variance request, the BoCC convened a land use hearing for the Troxtells’ rezone request, ultimately voting unanimously to table the matter for the same reason cited for the variance request decision.
Medina inquired with staff as to how long ago the property in question was last used as a mobile home/RV park, with O’Dell indicating that it may have been more than 20 years since the park was last operational.
O’Dell also noted the county adopted its LUR in 2006.
Medina also asked if the former use of the property influences the matter.
O’Dell explained that “it doesn’t really” and that it was something to reference as the planned development would not be “a drastic change to landscape.”
He also explained the previous mobile home park was not permitted as it was established prior to the county adopting its LURs.
Flowers added that the park was nonoperational at the time of the LUR being adopted and was zoned based on the general activity and size of properties in the area at that time.
O’Dell added that La Plata Electric Association has been informed of the planned development and has no concerns with providing service.
Wirth offered additional public comment on the matter, expressing concerns that people wouldn’t be owning the property their tiny home is on.
He also expressed concerns about situations that might arise if a tenant needed to be evicted.
“We’ve seen what was left behind,” Wirth said, noting that until recently abandoned mobile homes were left on the Troxtells’ property.
Sarah Troxtell explained that once they purchased the property, they had the abandoned mobile homes cleared out.
O’Dell also explained that the units on the Troxtells’ property have to be residential dwellings, noting they would not be able to operate short-term rentals under this rezone.
Support for the project and opposition to the project were both shown when asked by the commissioners.
Brown noted that he was “torn here,” noting his concern for the county’s constituents and their housing options, while also weighing keeping the character of the community.
“I’m torn on this as well,” Ranson added, noting that the community needs housing, but that he is “just struggling with, is this the right place?”
Flowers informed the BoCC that under its commitment to the Proposition 123 grant, the county has to provide a certain number of housing units and the Troxtells’ units would count toward that as “naturally occurring affordable housing.”
“I am not against this project,” Medina added, echoing Ranson’s concern about the particular location of the planned project.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>