In Part One, we noted an vote by the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners last week, approving Resolution 2023-08, regarding a requirement imposed by the Town of Pagosa Springs Planning Commission that ‘screening’ be installed on the roof of the new County Courthouse… to hide certain mechanical equipment from view.
The BOCC’s resolution states that the Archuleta County government is not subject to the requirements in the Town of Pagosa Springs’ Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), except as those regulations apply to “location” and “extent”.
From the resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-23-209 and applicable Colorado case law, the County is only subject to “location and extent” review by the Town on the projects the County undertakes within the Town’s municipal limits…
…NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ARCHULETA COUNTY, COLORADO THAT:
1. The County has the sole authority to construct and finance the Archuleta County Justice Center, pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-11-104(1)(a).
2. It is not within the Town’s province or authority to construct the Archuleta County Justice Center.
3. As a result, any application regarding the Archuleta County Justice Center by the County to the Town, under the Town’s land use development code, is only subject to “location and extent” review, and any disapproval of any such application by the Town’s planning commission may be overruled by the Board by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board’s membership, all pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-23-209.
4. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-23-209 and by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board’s membership, the Board HEREBY OVERRULES the decision of the Town’s planning commission to not approve the County’s variance application for a waiver from the requirements of the Town’s Land Use Development Code Section 6.10.4.D, which requires “rooftop appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment and antennas shall be screened from view.”
A difference of opinion, apparently.
The Town Planning Department staff presented a thorough argument to its Planning Commission, earlier this month, that included some photographs of the offending mechanical equipment that must — in the opinion of the Town government — be screened from public view.
Here’s one of the photos offered in evidence.
Indeed, if you stand in a certain location, the mechanical equipment atop the Justice Center is clearly visible to the naked eye. I believe these are the modern HVAC units that keep the building’s interior at a comfortable temperature. A function similar, in a way, to traditional fireplace chimneys?
But the County did not screen the equipment from view, as the Town government hoped they would.
The County’s excuse? They have not budgeted the money to pay for the screening, which the County estimates at $100,000. That would be, taxpayer money.
Looking at the photo above, of the Justice Center roof, do we — the taxpayers — find the mechanical equipment that appears on the rooftop to be… unbearably ugly?
Do we even notice ‘mechanical equipment’?
Is anyone bothered, for example, by the small but useful mechanical objects that sit atop the Town Hall roof… unscreened? The same Town Hall where the Planning Department is housed?
As I noted yesterday in Part One, I drove around the Town of Pagosa Springs and paid some attention to something I had never before paid any attention to. The things on the roofs.
I brought along my camera.
Most of the rooftops in town sported nothing any more unsightly than a chimney and maybe a few vent pipes. But I found some roofs that might offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the Town Planning Department staff.
That’s a small selection of the numerous offensive rooftops in our community.
It’s also a small selection of the community’s rooftops I have never, myself, felt offended by.
During the January 10 hearing before the Town Planning Commission, County Manager Derek Woodman explained the County’s reasons for seeking a variance, considering that the ‘screening’ demanded by the Town would cost the taxpayers $100,000.
“The financial burden really comes back to, with any government organization, obviously we’re limited to our funding sources, and so the budget was laid out for the building and just as we experienced with COVID in 2020-2021, construction costs continued to rise… so we still had to get a project, so we were doing whatever mitigating efforts we could to reduce the overall expense of the project… we were absolutely aware that is was a requirement, a condition of the issuance of the original permit, the screening.”
After the discussion, Planning Commissioner Mark Weiler made a motion to deny the County’s variance request for the roof screening, saying, “It does not meet the variance criteria.” This was a true statement.
Commissioner Julie Gurule seconded the motion, and the Commission unanimously voted to deny the variance request, giving the County until the end of 2023 to meet the roofing conditions of the Land Use and Development Code.
I do not fault the Town Planning Commission for denying the variance request. If you read the LUDC, it’s obvious that the County’s request does not meet the ten requirements for a ‘variance’.
The problem, in my humble opinion, is much larger than a simple variance request. One part of the problem is a Town government that feels it has the duty, and the wisdom, to enforce aesthetic limitations on its citizens.
And the other part of the problem: enforcing the rules for Jack, but not enforcing the rules for Jill.
As illustrated in the photos above, there are numerous building within the town limits that display unscreened equipment on their rooftops, including the Town Hall itself.
Why do we allow our Town government to act capriciously, to enforce aesthetic limitations, when the rules have nothing whatsoever to do with public health and safety?