The Town Council hereby adopts the following Order of Proceedings for the above-captioned Appeal, pursuant to Land Use Development Code Section 2.4.14.G.5.:
ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS:
1. Director Overview: 15 minutes.
2. Appellant Presentation (Nemeth): 30 minutes
3. Appellant Presentation (Keyes): 30 minutes
4. Staff Report Presentation: 60 minutes
5. Applicant Presentation: 30 minutes
6. Appellant Response (Nemeth): 15 minutes
7. Appellant Response (Keyes): 15 minutes
8. Questions: No limitation on time regarding questions of Town staff, Appellants, and any parties-in-interest, including the Applicant.
The above ‘order of proceedings’ is quoted from the Pagosa Springs Town Council agenda packet for tomorrow, Thursday, December 15… a special meeting of the Council that will consist mainly of an appeal hearing, on the topic of 232 Pagosa Street. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 5pm.
The property in question, 232 Pagosa Street, currently looks like this, as of December 13, 2022.
It has looked basically like this since about 2006. (Although not necessarily with a dusting of snow.) Before 2006, the property accommodated an apartment building and a single family home. Both were purchased by developer David Brown in 2004 and demolished in approximately 2006. Mr. Brown subsequently passed away.
If we look carefully at the photo, we notice, beyond the vacant parcels, the generally ‘residential’ character of the surrounding neighborhood. One- and two-story single family homes. What would new development look like, if it were attempting to meet the requirements listed in section 6.7.7 of the Town’s Land Use and Development Code, such as this requirement?
C. Building height, bulk, scale. Buildings should be visually harmonious with their surroundings, by considering the scale, proportions and character of adjacent structures and landforms. The design of a new building or addition should incorporate architectural features, elements and details to achieve human scale, if appropriate. Building elements that should be enlisted to achieve a better human scale include:
1. Pedestrian-oriented open space, such as courtyards or other unified landscaped areas, upper story setbacks, a porch or cover entry, awnings, limited signage, and street furniture…
Two local businesses — Reynolds Ash & Associates, and Dirty Rose LLC — would like the development to look like this:
This design was unanimously approved by the Town Planning Commission on September 13, 2022. Planning Commissioner Mark Weiler made the motion to approve the plan, with Commissioner Chris Pitcher seconding the motion. The approval included several requisite conditions, including that at least one “workforce housing unit” be included, in perpetuity.
Some of the adjacent neighbors, however, feel that this proposed building does not meet the intentions of the Town’s East Village Overlay District, the Downtown Master Plan, and/or the Town Comprehensive Plan… and accordingly, have filed an appeal. The Pagosa Springs Town Council is the body responsible for hearing the appeal, and they will consider the appeal tomorrow, Thursday, December 15 at 5pm at Town Hall. The documentation that the Council will consider is lengthy and rather complex. You can download the entire meeting packet here. The 232 Pagosa Street appeal arguments, pro and con, run from pages 71 through 211 of the Council agenda packet.
Before we consider the appellants’ arguments, we might consider the conclusion of the arguments presented by architect Lauren Davis, on behalf of Reynolds Ash & Associates.
Conclusion
It is important in design, to not attempt to replicate the past or recreate something artificial. Each era of construction and building style was built for a community at a certain point in time. Every building has a useful life. Our design responds to our current needs, adopted codes and conditions while respecting and responding to the existing surrounding development. There is a wonderful opportunity for infill in the downtown area. We have the ability to build smarter, to build to higher standards, to use new materials and methods that allow for new development to do more for a growing community. More residential development, more activated uses and social connections for people downtown is a benefit for Pagosa Springs.
The two primary tenants and the developers of this project are both long term occupants of Pagosa Springs and Main St. Neither tenants would do anything to impair the value or appeal of the project since it would directly impact their own business and interests. Our design and development team believes the proposed project greatly enhances the neighborhood. This local team is dedicated to making this a beautiful destination and quality development in the downtown corridor. The owners of the Alley House have owned the vacant land for 11 years, paid tax and assessments and will own and occupy the proposed commercial space. It is not appropriate for other adjacent land owners to impose their tastes or design preferences on the land of another, particularly where they had prior opportunities to purchase the vacant land and declined to do so.
Our proposed mixed-use project is the type of project that is most desirable in a mixed-use zone and in the heart of downtown Pagosa Springs. The project brings vitality, a mix of vibrant uses, residential units and off-street parking to the East Village portion of the downtown. Density, activation and housing is what all communities are trying to attract to their downtowns. In this incredibly volatile and challenging market to develop and build, our local team is committed to making this a successful project. We are utilizing existing infrastructure, keeping development where it is most beneficial to the community, encouraging synergy with the mixed uses, supporting other local businesses and avoiding sprawl with infill development.
Thank you,
Lauren Davis, AIA, AICP
It’s my understanding that only certain people will be allowed to testify during this hearing: The Appellants — Kathy Keyes and Kirsten Sheehan; and Sarah and Robert Nemeth, arguing that the building design fails to meet the Town’s land use regulations — and the Applicants, Dirty Rose LLC and Reynolds Ash & Associates, arguing that the proposed building is in alignment with Town laws.
Also testifying will be the Town Planning Department staff, who are charged with (we might assume) explaining to the Council how the project does or does not meet the Town Land Use and Development Code.
The general public will not be allowed to testify.
The documentation that the Town Council was provided, prior to the hearing, includes a ‘transcript’ of the September 13, 2022 Planning Commission approval process. You can download the transcript here.
Here’s a brief quote from that transcript. We are listening here to appellant Robert Nemeth, who lives at 245 Lewis St, with a view of the proposed building…
…so we’re almost in back of this building and I don’t doubt that these people are very good people and the architects have done a great job on the south side… it’s the those of us who live in back of the building are concerned about the mass and scale. It is just an enormous building. It’s 140 foot long on grade and almost… well it’s maxing out the height of the building. So from the backside which very little has been talked about, it’s just an enormous building and it sets a precedent. So the massive scale, it’s not a 4-sided design. That’s what the land-use development code does address. If the back of the building look like the south side of the building we probably wouldn’t be at this meeting. So there’s very little modulation on that north side and there are many of us that live back that they’re who are going to be looking at this and that’s the biggest problem we have with this is really that north side, and it’s just enormous…
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.