The Pagosa Springs Planning Commission tabled an application for “Sketch Plan” approval last week… hoping to get additional information…
…something that rarely happens at Town Planning Commission hearings, in my experience.
The audience was packed, with a couple of people standing in the back. Also something that rarely happens at these commission meetings.
The proposal on the agenda concerned a planned mixed-use development on a vacant 100-acre parcel facing Highway 160, at the west end of town near the Pagosa Springs Medical Center. The slide show suggested that the project might be named “Pagosa West”.
The development has been proposed by the Dragoo family — David, Heidi and Doug — who have been building out housing and attracting businesses to a 150-acre mixed use development in Montrose, Colorado since 2018.
The ‘Colorado Outdoors’ project.
Here’s a two-minute video, narrated by a guy with a wonderfully smooth voice.
Here’s an excerpt from a business-friendly promotional article by Justin Tubbs published in the Montrose Business Times, April 2023, quoting developer David Dragoo:
…“We could do it right, or we could do it fast,” he said.
The project has moved along steadily, never fast, and Dragoo and co. have done their best to make sure it’s been done right…
…Growing the right way
It’s not uncommon Dragoo and the Colorado Outdoors tell businesses and entrepreneurs they might not be the right fit for the area.
“How do you know a business is a good business?” Dragoo asked. “That’s a hard question to answer. Is it willing to engage civically, are they going to get involved in the community?”
If not, Dragoo says they’re probably not the right fit, especially for a community the size of Montrose.
He compares it to a barnraising. You need a community to come together to raise a barn, and he believes Montrose has the right type of people — the kind who would show up for the barn raising.
I’ve never actually been present at a barn raising in Pagosa Springs. Perhaps we don’t have the right type of people here?
But a large crowd did show up for the Sketch Plan consideration at Town Hall, and nearly every audience member who spoke during the hearing raised questions about the development, or outright urged the Planning Commission to reject the plan as presented by David Dragoo and by the Town’s Community Development Director James Dickhoff.
The Dragoo family does not currently own the property. It is listed for sale by EXIT Realty.
The agenda packet had summarized some of the questions and concerns coming from written comments submitted prior to the public hearing.
Here’s a sampling of citizen concerns.excerpted from the meeting packet:
I believe that City Code describes a required transition from low to high density – where is that in this plan? It shows 4 or more building lots adjacent to existing lots that are 2 or more acres! And what about the stated County ‘Vison’ that says “TO SUSTAIN A COMMUNITY RICH IN NATURAL BEAUTY WHERE FAMILIES, INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES CAN THRIVE” — not seeing that here! They would be cutting down an old-growth forest that has some trees that are 150 or 200 or more years old!
Currently there are over a dozen businesses for sale in Pagosa. The population growth rate in Archuleta County is less than 2%. How is the local population going to be able to support these new businesses during the non-peak season?
Lots O, P, and Q are currently zoned as Mixed Use Residential. How does a car wash comply with the description of Mixed Use Residential?
The current plan clearly would impede views the subdivision to the south. Neighbors have suggested ways to prevent this from happening. What responsibility does the planning commission have to protect the rights of existing property owners?
A study, if not submitted already, should be done on the impact on the enormous amount of wildlife through their entire development site. Including what we have seen on our property: bald eagles, osprey, geese, ducks, Blue Herrins, deer, porcupine, racoons, bears, foxes, coyotes. Attached are pictures of the 100+-Elk herd (and deer) that have migrated for many, many years; through our pond onto/ through all areas of their development.
How does this plan meet the Town’s Land Use Code Sections 6.7.3, 6.10.1, and 6.10.4 with regard to it being adjacent to Pagosa Lakes Ranch Subdivision?
Original development of PLR [Pagosa Lakes Ranch], circa 1980s, has not been removed from records. What action will Planning Board take about the original plat development and this new proposal on the same 100 acres that has yet to be sold to the “alleged developer”?
This proposal appears to have a significant impact on vehicle traffic, foot traffic, increased use of our already limited water resources, and bigger impact on sewage and drainage. Where and when do PAWSD, LPEA get involved, informed and costed?
After meeting with the developer last year, the neighborhood expressed concerns about density, buffering, building heights, lack of buffer zones, wildlife corridors, old forest growth, and noise and light abatement. The developer indicated that they were committed to working with the neighborhood. The current plan did not incorporate any of these neighborhood requests. What responsibility do the developer and the planning commission have to incorporate citizen feedback?
The above comments are excerpts from five pages of written comments summarized by the Town Planning Department. Obviously, we have some local citizens concerned about the proposed development.
Many of these same concerns were expressed verbally at the March 25 public hearing.
I also shared a couple of concerns at the meeting…