On Oct. 28, the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission approved a sketch subdivision application for the proposed multiuse development being called Pagosa West.
The major subdivision being proposed is on a 100-acre parcel within the municipal limits of the Town of Pagosa Springs, across the highway from City Market and near Pagosa Springs Medical Center, butting up against the Vista San Juan neighborhood.
The approval came with a condition that the town’s attorney review the legality of the application since the applicant, Arena Labs LLC, is not currently the owner of the land.
The question about the legality of the application was raised during public comment by Rachel Suh, who maintained that the application needed to have the notarized signature of the current owner, listed as KISCO LLC, attached to the original application.
In response, Development Director James Dickhoff presented a document with the owner’s notarized signature, showing the owner authorizes the application, passing it around the room for the audience to review and reassuring the commissioners of the application’s legality.
However, Suh maintained that the signed document was dated the same day as the meeting, Oct. 28, and it needed to be in the original application packet when it was submitted.
A resident of the Vista San Juan neighborhood asked Dickhoff, “Is the applicant the owner of the 100-acres? Yes or no?”
Dickhoff answered, “The owner is not the applicant, and the applicant is not the [current] owner. The applicant has, I guess, an option to purchase this property.”
Dickhoff added that the town has “a notarized authorization allowing the applicant to process the application with the Town of Pagosa Springs.”
He maintained that the notarized document did not need to be in the original application packet, with Suh suggesting, “Yes, it does.”
The legal question about the original application being submitted without the current owner’s notarized signature led the planning commission to add a legal review of the process to its conditions of approval.
Planning commissioner Chad Hodges said, “I’m not a lawyer, but Mrs. Suh has brought up the fact that potentially there is a legal issue,” asking his fellow commissioners and the town’s planning staff, “How confident are we that that is not a legal issue?”
Planning commissioner Brian Reid then asked, “Would it be appropriate to add another condition to request that the town’s legal council reviews this and is comfortable that we are not breaking any laws?”
Hodges responded, “It’s totally appropriate.”
Planning commissioner Julie Gurule indicated she wanted clarification on what the added condition would mean for the process, with the other commissioners stating that it would be a condition of approval.
This means that if the town’s attorney finds that the application required the current owner’s notarized authorization in the original application packet, then the decision of the planning commission to approve it would be null and void, and the applicants would then need to resubmit the application and come back for sketch subdivision approval, planning commissioner Pitcher explained.
“I think we can certainly ask for the town’s legal council to review what documents we have to ensure that they are legitimate for this decision to be valid, and if they are not, then the decision is not valid and we’re back to hearing it again,” he said.
Suh stated from the audience, “It’s not valid. The application has to be complete when it’s submitted. You can’t have the document post-submission.”
Reid then asked Suh, “Are you a lawyer, by the way?”
She responded, “I’m a legal researcher.”
“So, you’re not an attorney,” Reid clarified.
“We are not attorneys up here,” Pitcher replied, with Reid saying, “We’re looking for our attorney’s opinion on this.”
Suh retorted, again, “There is an attorney stating that this is illegal.”
Hodges noted that he thought “this is definitely something we should look into,” with the other commissioners agreeing to add it into the “verbiage” of the approval conditions.
Dickhoff added clarification, “It’s the statement of authority” document that “we need the attorney to review.”
When a motion was made to approve the sketch subdivision application, with the original 17 conditions made by town staff, in addition to the condition to have the town’s attorney review the statement of authority for the application, it was seconded and passed unanimously.
Most of the staff’s original 17 conditions for approval, including the requirements of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD), a drainage plan and the anticipated phasing of the development, among other things, would be addressed in the next phase of the development process (the preliminary plan review), Planning Manager Owen O’Dell explained.
The proposed Pagosa West subdivision, which would include both residential and mixed-use commercial development, has garnered public opposition, mostly from residents of the nearby Vista San Juan neighborhood.
Residents of the neighborhood attended the meeting on Tuesday night, expressing concerns and opposition that ranged from wanting to protect old-growth trees and wildlife, to preserving the rural charm of the area and upholding the intent language of the town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and other governing documents.
Town staff recommended the approval of the sketch subdivision application, with the 17 conditions, citing that the application is in line with the LUDC.
The parcel in question encompasses three different zoning districts — Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R), Mixed-Use Corridor (MU-C) and Mixed-Use Town-Center (MU-TC) — and any new development would need to adhere to the codes for those specific districts, unless certain sections of the subdivision were re-zoned.
The only concrete development plans, at this stage, include a 88-unit multifamily apartment complex that would be geared toward workforce housing for those in the so-called “missing middle” income brackets of the area’s workforce, Dickhoff noted.
At a previous meeting, Dickhoff explained that the workforce housing project, being called Pagosa Peaks Apartments, would be part of phase two of developing the proposed subdivision.
On this front, the town received a $1,989,000 Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) More Housing Now Grant award, with this grant aimed at helping with “the cost of public infrastructure associated with” the workforce housing apartments, an agenda document states.
Any other commercial developments, such as a developer-mentioned gas station that received negative comments from the public would have to go through the public process of getting a conditional use permit, per the LUDC.
Town staff has informed the public and the neighbors in opposition that the time to oppose or support specific business operations is during the conditional use permit process.
As far as the LUDC is concerned, the uses being proposed by the developer are allowable in the LUDC boundary zones within the parcel, town staff indicated.
The Montrose-based developers, Arena Labs LLC, represented by David Dragoo at previous meetings, tote the public improvements for the community that would include “trail development and open space, a multi-modal transit stop, upgrades to Pinon Causeway intersection and a new interior road,” being called Pagosa West Boulevard.
Town staff has stated that the project is compatible with many of the town’s goals, including the Access Control Plan’s goal to “create off-highway local road networks,” the Town-to-Lakes nonmotorized trail system and the increase of workforce housing supply.
The developers would need to contribute to these town goals as a condition of the approval of the subdivision.
O’Dell said that the application was “consistent with town adopted plans,” and that, in summary, the town staff believes it meets the code requirements and criteria for the sketch phase of the subdivision process and that it recommended approval.
Pitcher said at a previous meeting, “I think it’s important to clarify that, during the sketch process, we’re not approving a car wash or a day care or any of that. We’re approving the subdivision of this larger parcel, and so those details will come in a separate process.”
derek@pagosasun.com
>