The architectural rendering shown above, by Reynolds Ash & Associates, shows a person standing in front of an architects’ office, next to a bicycle rack, at 232 Pagosa Street… a proposed 43,500 mixed-use development that has not yet received final approval from the Town of Pagosa Springs.
Beyond the bike rack we see a planter box, and then an automobile exiting the proposed underground parking lot. The development has proposed about 18,000 square feet of parking garages.
We can also see the front of a proposed restaurant, and a majestic (if partly transparent) spruce tree, which already exists on the site. Whether that tree would be saved, is not immediately clear.
The building would be served by a public sidewalk.
This editorial series has touched on a few interesting aspects of the ‘development’ landscape in downtown Pagosa Springs, and on the different ideas people have for Pagosa’s future.
I admitted, in Part Five, that — even though the consultants from Smart Growth America recommended Pagosa develop “a more cohesive sense of place” — I have no idea what a “more cohesive sense of place” actually means to any particular consultant or planning professional. It might mean, “a feeling that this town is somehow unique… not the same as other places… in a cohesive manner.”
I hope the Smart Growth America consultants noticed the unique features about Pagosa Springs when they visited… features which may or may not be cohesive. Our geothermal hot springs facilities, for example. The climbing structure in Town Park that looks like a pirate ship. The numerous second-hand stores. The gorgeous mountains. Clean air, untainted by coal generating plants, or paper mills, or CAFOs. (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Factory farms.) The quaint lack of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods.
Many things give Pagosa Springs its unique character. Even our Walmart store has a somewhat attractive ‘mountain resort’ exterior, although the interior is standard Walmart fare.
But in some ways, Pagosa Springs is just like Anyplace USA. For example, nearly all of us drive our cars or trucks to get anywhere we want to go.
The Town government has, over the past two decades, made an effort to improve the ‘walkability’ of the town, with pedestrian bridges and riverfront walking paths in the more ‘touristy’ parts of town.
But only a few downtown streets have actual sidewalks.
One of those sidewalks runs in front of the vacant property at 232 Pagosa Street. Currently, much of the foot traffic consists of people walking from their parked vehicles to the Pagosa Baking Company (in the morning) and to the Alley House Grille (in the evening.)
How do we create a town where people walk more and drive less?
More sidewalks might help. But there’s something else that might create more pedestrian activity.
Stop building more parking lots, and parking garages. Make the decision that you want people to walk.
This is a painful thought, I know. We all enjoy using our automobiles, and we give hardly a thought to driving one or two blocks to our next errand, instead of walking one or two blocks. Plus, we have 30 square miles of suburban subdivisions, entirely dependent upon automobile transportation.
We also have a generally older population — averaging 50 years old — than the rest of Colorado, with an average of 38 years. We know that walking is a healthful activity for older people, but not always feasible.
But let’s ask ourselves… do we want to create a cohesive sense of place? Would getting people out of their cars and into the fresh air, contribute to such a goal?
Following the vote on February 7 to deny the 232 Pagosa Street project a density bonus of one additional 1,850 square-foot dwelling unit, the project architect and partner Brad Ash left the meeting without giving any indication about whether this was a ‘make or break’ decision for the partners. It’s possible that a 43,500 square-foot project with 18,000 square feet of covered parking will not ‘pencil’, with only seven dwelling units allowed.
It’s possible that the Town Council has killed the project.
I doubt this is the case. Mr. Ash and his partners seem, to me, creative enough and clever enough to figure out a way to deal with this setback. But they will still have to get their new design past the Town Planning Commission. The Commission gave preliminary approval to the ‘sketch plan’ in September, but with contingencies.
1. A detailed landscape plan demonstrating compliance with the 15% landscaping treatments and incorporating other suggestions regarding replacement of existing street trees;
2. Compliance with the permitted density allowance for the zoning district, or a density bonus application to consider more than 7 dwelling units;
3. A written statement with rationale to be considered for a waiver from the drainage requirements under 6.3.2.A.5 as needed;
4. A master utility plan and written verification from all utility providers regarding availability of service;
5. Detailed lighting plan with details on fixtures and placement;
6. Draft signage plans;
7. Clarification on the proposed front setbacks;
8. One workforce housing unit in perpetuity to comply with the density bonus.
At the February 7 density bonus hearing, Community Development Director James Dickhoff gave a vague indication that his department believes the mass and scale of the proposed building does not meet the requirements in the Downtown Master Plan or the Land Use and Development Code.
Even if the Planning Commission approves the new building design, the neighbors — who have, all along, objected to the building’s mass and scale — have the option to appeal that decision to the Town Council.
We already know that certain members of the Town Council are not perfectly happy with the design. Perhaps they feel this building, as currently designed, would fail to contribute to a “more cohesive sense of place.” (However that might be defined.)
Which is to say, it seems like things are still up in the air.