As I looked out the kitchen window early Wednesday morning, a thick haze of reddish smoke obscured my usual view of the San Juan Mountains. Wildfire season is upon us.
On top of a pandemic, and an economic meltdown. On top of worldwide protests over racial inequality. In the midst of an election season.
When social distancing and social division are everywhere we look.
I have viewed part of my job on the Town Planning Commission to be the guy willing to ask the hard questions — a job I know most people prefer to avoid. It’s not the best way to win friends… but then, I don’t necessarily view life as a popularity contest.
Recently, some of my hard questions have concerned the proposed River Rock Estates subdivision. I am hopeful that the Town Council, as a whole, can listen without prejudice to all sides of the River Rock Estates issue, at their regular meeting tonight at 5pm. The meeting will be conducted via ZOOM.
When the Town Planning Commission heard the proposed River Rock Estates subdivision proposal last month, the developer wanted the Town Council to allow them to form the subdivision with zero public streets.
I had written to the Town Council and other members of the community who I thought might be concerned — as I am — that allowing one developer to close off his streets to the public might lead other developers to do the same thing in the near future… and we would begin building a divided community, with the ordinary folks living along public streets where everyone was free to walk, bicycle and drive, surrounded by gated enclaves full of rich people, living on private streets where ordinary people were forbidden to tread.
Back in early April, I had asked — as a member of the Planning Commission — for a legal opinion from the Town attorney, regarding LUDC sections 6.6.3; 7.2.1; 7.3.3; 7.3.4; 7.3.5 and 7.4.1, and Town Manger Andrea Phillips and Director Dickhoff promised to provide that legal opinion. The opinion was never provided to me, nor did they provide it to the Planning Commission as a whole. On May 26, the Town Planning Commission voted on this important subdivision recommendation without the benefit of a legal opinion, and without having a vigorous debate — or any debate whatsoever — about what I thought to be valid and applicable LUDC regulations. The vote was 4-to-1 to recommend the application.
6.6.3 ROADWAYS SECTION B.3
d. Access. There shall be no less than two (2) street rights-of-way accessing any subdivision to minimize traffic congestion and/or blockage in times of emergency. Additional access points are required for larger developments pursuant to Section 6.6.2.B.
The developer had proposed a subdivision that includes only one street right-of-way, and it was proposed to be a private street. As far as I could tell from the plat maps, the subdivision could easily have two street rights-of-way as required by the LUDC, because it was adjacent to a South 3rd Street right-of-way… and a second street is already in the plans connecting with Light Plant Road. Voila, two streets. Just make them connect?
Or so it seemed to me. See my Daily Post map below.
7.4.1. STREETS
All street rights-of-way shall be dedicated to the public.
If a new subdivision must include at least two street rights-of-way, and if all street rights-of-way must be dedicated to the public, then it might seem, to a reasonable person, that the proposed subdivision — which included only one private street — did not meet all the applicable regulations of the LUDC. Town attorney Clay Buchner wrote an analysis of the aforementioned sections and delivered it to the Town Council on June 16 — two and a half months after I had requested his analysis. He defended the idea of a private street. You can download his report here.
In preparation for tonight’s meeting, I wrote a 1,500 word “Part Six” for this editorial series, laying out my concerns about apparent LUDC violations. I also sent a draft of my article to several friends, hoping to encourage them to engage in tonight’s ZOOM Council meeting.
One friend wrote back, expressing some confusion.
She had looked over the 317-page Town Council packet more carefully than I had, and had found the following information regarding the proposed subdivision:
1. Gated Communities:
a. The applicant would like to propose that the subdivision [street] is dedicated to the Town. This eliminates any concerns regarding a gated community.
i. The Town’s Public Works Director has estimated the cost associated with accepting and maintaining the 1500 lineal foot [street] will be: $3,191.00 (surface maintenance and plowing) annually plus after the useful life of the asphalt surface a $94,444 cost to resurface the roadway (totaling $132,736.00 over a 20 year period).
ii. The County’s Public Works Director has suggested the Town should annex Light Plant Road to the southern RRE access point if the Town is going to accept the RRE Road. The additional cost of maintaining 1500 lineal feet of light plant road would be at least equal to the above maintenance costs, except that the useful life of the Light Plant Road asphalt is near its end, requiring resurfacing in approximately 5 years.
iii. There maybe a potential to provide connectivity to the platted and rustically improved Town Alley north of RRE, however, due to the limited 20 foot width, that is not suggested by staff as an access to RRE.
This change, offered by the developer in a June 12 letter to the Town, addresses almost all of my concerns about the proposed subdivision… and made my 1,500 word essay mostly unnecessary… and mostly inaccurate.
I wonder if I really need to write Part Seven?
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.