Since the Town Council did not agree, at their Tuesday meeting, to use a portion of South Pagosa Park for a 28-unit Servitas housing development, the next step will be to find an alternative site that can accommodate at least that number of units.
Preferably, more than 28 units. Meaning, preferably, a parcel larger than 1/2 acre. Preferably flat and buildable, with existing streets and infrastructure, priced less than $500,000. Not located within Pagosa Lakes, due to PLPOA restrictions and fees.
The Town already owns a 6-acre parcel along Trujillo Road, but an engineering report from 2019 estimated the cost of preparing the topographically-challenged site at between $1 million and $1.4 million. At their Tuesday meeting, the Council rejected this site as a place for the Servitas development.
The Council also rejected the idea of purchasing the east side of a shale hill near S. 9th Street, located just east of Pagosa Springs Elementary School and priced at $289,000. THat parcel had been brought to the Town staff by a local realtor.
They likewise rejected a 5-acre parcel located within PLPOA, suggested by the same realtor.
However, a local citizen — not a realtor — had brought to the Tuesday meeting, some maps and photographs of two possible sites that could feasibly replace the South Pagosa Park site. The local citizen also happens to be the volunteer president of local non-profit, Pagosa Housing Partners.
He also happens to be editor of the Pagosa Daily Post.
Here’s one of the suggested sites — about 12 acres located directly behind the Tractor Supply store, near the County Fairgrounds on Highway 84. The property is owned by Bob Goodman, who ran Goodman’s Department Store until his retirement several years ago.
Looking at the Daily Post map of the subject property, below, and a photo of the upper level, looking northeast… we can see, the property is mostly relatively flat and buildable, and features some spectacular views.
Drawbacks include a lack of paved streets and infrastructure and, potentially, an expensive roundabout that CDOT would likely require on Highway 84 to allow traffic-friendly access to the property. But lots of potential for housing?
The Council expressed mild interest in the property, but didn’t see it as immediately developable. Maybe as a future housing site? After Servitas is done with this first ‘P3’ project? (‘P3’ = Public Private Partnership)
The other map and photos I presented to the Council on Tuesday generated considerably more interest.
The map below shows four one-acre parcels, located in Aspen Village, with streets and infrastructure already in place, adjacent to the planned Sunridge Villas housing development. The photo shows the flat, buildable nature of the parcels.
Any one of these four parcels could probably accommodate twice the number of units proposed by Servitas for South Pagosa Park.
A sensible alternative to ruining an existing public park?
The asking price quoted to me by the owner, Pagosa resident Dan Sanders — one of the developers of Aspen Village — was $9 per square foot. That would put a one-acre parcel at around $400,000. For comparison purposes, you can entertain a small vacant lot along the San Juan River, downtown, for about $60 per square foot, according to a Zillow search yesterday.
The parcels in Aspen Village appear to be ready for immediate development. The Town staff was directed to consider the Aspen Village parcels, but also to research other, similar properties with existing streets and infrastructure.
A motion by Council member Jeff Posey to proceed with building 28 units within South Pagosa Park failed to pass.
The Town Council and staff have recently taken at least three approaches to encouraging workforce housing. One approach has been to modify the Town’s Land Use and Development Code to permit more units than previously allowed on most any privately-owned parcel… hoping that this will entice private developers to step up and help solve the crisis. The only significant result from this approach seems to have been a decision by the new owners of the Pagosa Inn & Suites to convert the motel into tiny apartments.
A second approach is to waive building fees and utility hookup fees. I haven’t noticed these waivers significantly benefiting our housing situation.
The third approach is to buy vacant property and offer the land, for free, to private developers willing to build and manage rental apartments — the type of housing most seriously lacking in Archuleta County. If this approach actually generates 64 units of workforce housing… or more… it will be far and away the most effective tool in the toolbox.
Mayor Shari Pierce also wanted some feedback from the Council on an existing contract with real estate firm CBRE — an international commercial real estate firm that the Council thought would be able to assist them with smart real estate investments for housing, parks, etc. Although CBRE had revenues of over $20 billion in 2018, and although they employ over 100,000 agents in 100 countries, they have been — in my humble opinion — pretty worthless in terms of helping the Town find the type of properties needed to facilitate community goals.
CBRE has offices in Boulder and Denver.
Mayor Pierce:
“CBRE. They’re not here. They’re not familiar with the area. I think we might be better off to end our contract with them, and maybe seek a local realtor, who might be more familiar with the area? Any thoughts on that?”
The Council seemed to be in general agreement with the Mayor’s suggestion… suggesting that maybe local realtors who have vacant land listings that meet the following criteria… should contact Town Manager Andrea Phillips at 970-264-4151.
Here’s my interpretation of the criteria, as expressed by Council on Tuesday:
- It’s preferable that housing projects be spread across the community, including downtown, mid-town and uptown, rather than all located on one neighborhood.
- Projects will preferably be located within the Town limits, and will not be located in PLPOA (Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association) due to association fees and restrictions.
- Walkability is nice, but not crucial.
- Proximity to existing infrastructure is highly preferred.
- Buildability of the site (slope, soils, geology, access, etc.) is crucial, to keep construction costs down — and thus, to keep rents reasonable.
- Best to put housing within areas already zoned for housing.
- If the Town is going to purchase property to facilitate the Servitas project, then $500,000 is a reasonable limit for property acquisition.
- Proximity to employment centers and amenities is preferred.
- A parcel should accommodate at least 28 units. More would be even better.
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.