The Town staff had set up overflow seating, facing a large TV screen, in the downstairs lobby at Pagosa Springs’ Town Hall, and when I walked in at about 4:50pm — ten minutes before the scheduled start of last night’s Town Council meeting — the overflow chairs were already starting to fill up.
Typically, a Town Council meeting has maybe two or three people in the audience. Obviously, an unusually large number of people were expected for this event.
The event being, an appeal filed by four downtown property owners — two couples — challenging the Town Planning Commission approval of a ‘sketch plan’ for a three-story mixed-use building proposed for 232 Pagosa Street.
In approving the sketch plan, the Planning Commission had acted as the Town’s ‘Design Review Board’. The Town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) specifically allows citizens to appeal a Design Review Board decision to the seven-member Town Council.
I headed upstairs to see if seating was still available in the Council Chambers, and lo and behold, only a few of the chairs were occupied.
I wondered why the staff was encouraging audience members to sit downstairs when so many empty chairs were available upstairs. Upstairs, where the action was going to happen.
I settled in the chair next to my friend Peter Adams, one of the Town Planning Commission members who had voted to approve the 232 Pagosa Street sketch plan. He was reading the Letters to the Editor in a copy of the Pagosa Springs SUN.
A few years back, a required ‘Sketch Plan Approval’ had been added to the collection of hoops through which a developer must jump, in order to qualify for a building permit within the Pagosa Springs town limits. Previous to the addition of a ‘Sketch Plan Approval’ to the overall Town process, a developer was required to present fully-designed, fully-engineered plans to the Design Review Board.
That is to say, very expensive plans.
If the Planning Commission subsequently determined that the proposed building didn’t meet the Land Use and Development Code’s requirements, based on its location or design elements, the developer had essentially wasted money on architectural and engineering fees. The ‘Sketch Plan Approval’ allows the Design Review Board and the developer to have a give-and-take conversation around some preliminary ‘sketch plans’ — presumably, less expensive, conceptual drawings — to clarify any LUDC violations or other design issues, before the developer creates the final architectural drawings.
The conceptual sketch drawings that the Planning Commission had approved on September 13 looked like this:
Because the proposed building would be located within the two-block-long district known as the ‘East Village Overlay District’, the developer and architect were expected to abide by some special limitations… such as these guidelines, below, listed in the Town’s 135-page Downtown Master Plan, adopted in 2007:
East Village Development Principles
Adaptive reuse in the East Village should integrate commercial and mixed uses consisting of retail, dining, specialty shops, professional offices and residential. Numerous buildings have potential historic significance and should identified and preserved to the extent feasible. Alterations to existing building are anticipated and should reflect the buildings’ original character. Constructing an addition to an existing historic building, rather than replacing it, is preferred.
New development should include building configurations and architectural styles that reflect the traditional residential character of the neighborhood: perceived massing and scale of freestanding buildings with open space and yards between them, some of which may be courtyards and patios for outdoor uses…
Plazas and front yards should include sidewalk connections to the highway right-of-way…
Maintain traditional residential building setbacks along the highway right-of-way. However, setbacks for consecutive buildings should be encouraged to be variable to avoid a uniformly linear appearance to the buildings…
Articulate all sides of new infill and redevelopment projects. Buildings should be visually interesting in detail and character.
Minimize private on-site parking lots by cooperatively pursuing shared parking as a district and/or between property owners. Some reductions in parking ratios should be considered where shared parking by complementary uses can be demonstrated…
One can easily get the impression that these principles are aimed at preserving a particular architectural character in the East Village. A ‘quaint’ character? A ‘traditional residential character’? Open space between buildings?
While downtown’s main commercial block — the 400 Block — consists of buildings that fully occupy their parcels, to the point of sharing walls on either side with the neighboring buildings…
… the East Village exhibits a very different ‘character’ with (typically) plenty of breathing room between neighboring homes. Homes that, in 2022, have almost all been converted to commercial uses, but which have nevertheless maintained a ‘residential’ character.
To some of us, the drawings approved by the Design Review Board lacked the kind of ‘residential’ character found in the East Village, and suggested by the Downtown Master Plan as worthy of preservation.
As the chairs filled in prior to the Pledge of Allegiance, the neighbors who were appealing the Planning Commission approval — Robert Nemeth, Kathy Keyes and Kirsten Sheehan — seated themselves at the table on the ‘groom’s’ side of the room (the right side, as viewed from the audience)…
… and the developers — property owner Martin Rose and architects Lauren Davis and Brad Ash — occupied the ‘bride’s’ side of the room (the left side).
I had the impression that the audience members were also picking a side, with those would supported the bride (the developers) seating themselves appropriately on the left, and those who supported the groom (the appellants) choosing chairs on the right.
As architect Brad Ash pointed out during one of his speeches to the Council members, an appeal of a Design Review Board decision is a rare occurrence in Pagosa Springs. In fact, I believe last night’s hearing marked the first time any downtown property owners have appealed a ‘Sketch Plan Approval’ since that new step in the approval process was created, several years ago.
The issue facing the Town Council was pretty straightforward.
Did the Planning Commission properly interpret and apply the Town LUDC and the various plans that should guide development of the East Village, when approving the sketch for 232 Pagosa Street?
At the end of a very long hearing, during which interesting and compelling arguments were offered by both sides, Council member Jeff Posey moved to affirm the decision of the Design Review Board, and Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
But I think there is more to the story, so I will offer some additional thoughts on Monday.