On Oct. 22, the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission, acting in its role as the Design Review Board (DRB), approved a final major design application for Pagosa Peak Family Dentistry.
The applicant — Rock Properties Limited — plans to develop the vacant parcel located at 2737 Cornerstone Drive, proposing a two-story, 4,932-square-foot dental office/clinic facility.
The application states, “The building will be a new dental facility that will include ten treatment rooms and two surgical suites.”
The project is within the Aspen Village commercial subdivision, near Walmart, and also requires design review approval by the Aspen Village Design Review Committee.
But while the approval of the design plans for the office was mostly straightforward, during the discussion the DRB expressed lingering concern about the alleged “noncompliance” of the original developer of the subdivision with certain responsibilities related to lighting and landscaping in the subdivision.
Board member Mark Weiler used this discussion to point out that the developer has not lived up to the conditions laid out when the original development was approved by the DRB years ago, saying it “looks wretched.”
Weiler cited a “lack of maintenance” on the landscaping, stating his recollection of the “deal” was that “landscaping maintenance was the responsibility of the developer.”
He added, “That development is over 20 years old now, and it looks like crap at both entrances. Absolute crap. It’s an embarrassment.”
He asked the town’s development director, James Dickhoff, what could be done to “change the behavior of the developer of Aspen Village, for them to exercise the responsibility that they undertook when the town gave them the right to subdivide that property.”
Dickhoff replied that the formation of a new board, the Aspen Village Masters Association, “which incorporates property owners within that development,” presented a “new opportunity” to address the problems Weiler was talking about.
Dickhoff explained that he thinks that the new board “has a desire to make sure that everything gets up to speed, and I think that that’s our opportunity and it’s my intent, as well.”
He added that, based on his conversations with several of the board members, “they are eager to step up” on the landscaping issue.
“I do feel that we are going to be able to get some traction on that issue,” he said.
Dickhoff added, “We could give them a violation notice, but my preference is, in the end, to work with the new board, get some agreement to upkeeping what their responsibilities are.”
He mentioned that the town also had to “replace all the lighting in there a couple years ago. It cost us 80 grand, even though it really wasn’t our responsibility.”
Weiler noted that he appreciated Dickhoff’s perspective, but pointed out that “this is a problem that’s brewed for 20 years,” adding that this was the “first” he had heard that “the town had taken economic responsibility for lighting that was not installed properly.”
Weiler said, “You’ve got a developer that is noncompliant. You’ve got a developer who ignores you. And you have two entrances that are absolutely abysmally bad in maintenance, and I appreciate your desire to work with the new board, but here is my concern.
“We’re gonna be sitting here a year from now with no change whatsoever. None. Because we don’t have a history of change. We don’t have a history of the developer being responsible for their commitments to our community. We don’t have a history of that.”
Addressing Dickhoff, he added, “My recommendation is that you write a violation before the board is formed,” adding that the new board should not even be formed “until the developer takes responsibility for what the original development conditions were — that they must maintain the landscaping at both entrances and in the center.”
He further suggested, “We have a noncompliant developer who flips off the town and says, ‘I’m not gonna do anything.”
He suggested Dickhoff demand that the developer “reimburse” the town for the money it spent on fixing the lighting issue.
Weiler added that he didn’t “want to hijack the meeting,” adding that he thought the dentistry building being considered is a “beautiful development.”
He explained that the town gave the original developer of the subdivision “the right to develop the property and do business in this community, with specific requirements, and it’s our responsibility to hold them to those requirements. And we have not for 20 years.”
He added that the only way the town would get the original developer to comply is a violation letter from the town stating that “all sales should stop, all development should stop, until the developer gives the town “a timeline” of when it will honor its “commitments.”
Planning commission member Kristen McCollam interjected, stating that the issues that Weiler brought up were not directly related to the design plans of the dentistry building being considered.
She asked if “we can have a separate conversation” about Weiler’s concerns after the DRB made its decision on the design plans for the proposed building.
Weiler responded that he “brought this up” again, adding that it was the third or fourth time over the years that he’s tried to address the issue, because “nothing happens.”
McCollam noted that she agreed that the original developer should be held accountable, but “I’m wondering if we don’t want to have this as a separate conversation” after the DRB made its decision on the final design plans of the dentistry building.
Dickhoff chimed in, saying that he also thinks Weiler’s concerns “are important,” but that “a more in-depth conversation” on the matter should come after the DRB’s consideration of the particular development plans.
Earlier in the meeting, Dickhoff explained that the design plans for dentistry building are generally in compliance with the town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), adding that the DRB previously approved a sketch design plan, with certain conditions, at its Aug. 20 meeting, adding that “most all those” conditions were addressed in this final design plan.
Dickhoff explained that a few conditions would still need to be met before a building permit could be issued, with the main condition being a snow-storage plan.
McCollam remarked, “I think the building looks great. I think it’s a great design.”
A motion was made to approve the final design plan application, with the conditions of a snow-removal plan and review comments from the Pagosa Fire Protection District, which would both need to be met before a building permit could be issued.
The motion passed unanimously.
The board then went back into the discussion about Weiler’s concerns about the original developer of the subdivision being noncompliant with its responsibilities.
Dickhoff again noted that he has hope that the newly formed Aspen Village board could be the mechanism to get the original developer to comply with its responsibilities.
Dickhoff explained that he is working with the new board to give it all of the background information and specifics about the town’s original approval of the subdivision.
McCollam commented that she appreciated Dickhoff doing all of this, but wondered if telling the new board that the town plans to cite the developer for noncompliance, “without formally citing them,” could accelerate the process of getting the developer to comply with its responsibilities.
“My approach has always been, let’s meet and talk about this,” Dickhoff said, adding that if the Aspen Village board “does not give any pushback,” then it indicates that they are willing to work with the town on these outstanding issues.
He explained that the new board is “the master’s association of that subdivision, and it’s the master’s association that has the obligations for maintenance, so I do feel that now, with the board formed, we will have much more understanding about their obligations.”
He added that his conversations with certain board members also showed that they also want to “see those improvements.”
McCollam asked if the original developer “is liable” to contribute to a fund that sees to the maintenance of the lighting and landscaping of the subdivision.
Dickhoff responded he did not know about a fund, but that it was the developer’s “obligation to maintain those. However they want to fund that, their obligation was to maintain those.”
McCollam asked if the planning commission could get a report back from Dickhoff by a certain date to see if any progress has been made on these concerns, with Dickhoff saying that he’d be comfortable with reporting back before the end of the year.
“If we’ve made progress, great. If we haven’t, then we can consider further action,” McCollam said.
Weiler stated that he didn’t like any of this “at all,” adding that “the developer asked for the right to develop the property and we gave them the right to develop with specific contingencies of maintenance, … but we have a developer that has not met their responsibility.”
He continued, “Giving them another two months, one way or the other, accomplishes zero. We’re sitting here trying to encourage the developer to be a good person, and we’re not being successful.”
Dickhoff agreed that “the developer should have been stepping up,” but maintained that the formation of the master association board should be the avenue to achieve compliance.
“They want to be part of getting the development up to speed,” Dickhoff said, adding that “going into a lawsuit takes an immense amount of time and money” and that town staff is already maxed out with the work on its plate.
He said that having these conversations about the issues with the new board would be a better use of the town’s time, money and effort.
“That was my decision, to really focus on getting a board formed versus trying to cite someone in court … so, I accept full responsibility,” he said.
McCollam asked, “It’s been 20 years, so why don’t we see how the next couple of months go?”
She added that she realized Weiler would not be “happy about that.”
She suggested that Dickhoff report back by mid-December about the progress and the commission would decide then if it wants to take further action on the issue.
Weiler said, “We’ve been ignored for 20 years.”
Dickhoff explained that the process going forward, if the town chooses to take legal action, would begin with a violation letter that would give the master association time to fix the issues by a certain time frame, and then if it still doesn’t comply the town could cite it in court.
However, Dickhoff again noted that he prefers working with the new board, rather than taking the legal route, with planning commissioner Chad Hodges stating he would prefer that the town get its grievances with the development in writing with a timeline attached.
“If we don’t hold them accountable for their responsibilities to what they agreed to, then … it’s our fault as a community,” Weiler added.
derek@pagosasun.com
>