Photo: The audience at the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission meeting on October 28 makes small talk while waiting for the public hearing to commence.
I should have known the evening was going to be slightly weird when Town Planning Commissioner Mark Weiler walked from the audience, up to the dais at Town Hall, and addressed the four other commissioners seated in their chairs, waiting for the meeting to begin.
“I recuse myself from this meeting,” he announced, and departed the packed room.
I use the word “packed” because the Town staff had set up three rows of chairs for the audience — instead of the normal two rows — and they’d all been filled by the time Commissioner Chris Pitcher called the meeting to order. Plus some extra chairs to the left and right.
I have no idea why Mr. Weiler felt he had to recuse himself from the meeting. Recusal usually indicates a conflict of interest. on the part of the individual commissioner or board member or council member, and typically the member will explain their reasons for the recusal. But Mr. Weiler just made a simple statement and left.
That left Mr. Pitcher, and his fellow commissioners Julie Gurule, Chad Hodges, and Brian Reid, seated on the dais, presumably prepared to hear public comment “for” and “against” the Major Subdivision Sketch Plan approval for the proposed ‘Pagosa West’ subdivision.
‘Sketch Plan’ is the first required step in a rather lengthy approval process for new subdivisions that can sometimes include variances, conditional use permits, and various other types of land use approvals. In this case, Pagosa West had previously brought a ‘Sketch Plan’ to the Planning Commission, back in April, and the approval had been ‘continued’ with requests that the developer bring additional information.
Instead of bringing additional information, however, the developers — Arena Labs LLC — brought forward a proposal with much less information than they’d presented in April.
A couple of days ago, a friend has asked me if I thought the Planning Commission would approve the Pagosa West Sketch Plan in the form it appeared in the meeting agenda packet, and I laughed. How could they approve a conceptual plan that illustrates almost nothing about the concept? No, I was pretty sure it wouldn’t be approved.
I shouldn’t have laughed, because in the end — after three hours of staff presentations, developer presentations, public testimony, and commissioner discussion and questions — the four commissioners voted unanimously to approve a ‘Sketch Plan’ that was nothing like a actual ‘Sketch Plan.’
As noted previously in this editorial series, the proposed ‘Pagosa West’ subdivision is proposed for a 100-acre parcel facing the City Market shopping center across Highway 160, and facing the Pagosa Springs Medical Center across South Pagosa Boulevard. But no one knows what is actually being proposed.
The 100-acre parcel is within the incorporated municipal limits of the Town of Pagosa Springs — as is the Medical Center and the City Market shopping center, as well as the Vista San Juan neighborhood immediately to the south of the proposed development — so the Town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) ought to inform the approval process.
“Ought to inform the approval process.”
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission allowed Town Planner Owen O’Dell and Community Development Director James Dickhoff to misinform the approval process by twisting the clear language in the LUDC, thereby confusing four very intelligent commissioners as to their duty and responsibility.
But before we get to deeply into the unfortunate decision, we can note that not a single person in the audience of about 35 people spoke in favor of the “Sketch Plan’ approval. Additionally, a couple of people who attended the public hearing via Zoom also spoke in opposition.
In other words, the four commissioners were facing three people in favor of approval — Mr. O’Dell, Mr. Dickhoff, and developers’ representative architect Brad Ash…
…and an entire roomful of citizens apparently opposed to approval.
Of course, land use decisions are not properly popularity contests. Approving a subdivision (or not) based on a democratic vote would violate the sacred principal of ‘private property’. Commissioners have a code book to allow them to make unpopular decisions and still be able to sleep at night.
Unless they realize they ignored important passages in code book. Then they might have trouble sleeping.
Here are the passages in the LUDC, describing what is required in a Sketch Plan application, that were treated — by the staff, Mr. Ash, and the four commissioners — as if they didn’t exist:
(ii) An analysis of the traffic count that may be generated by the subdivision and the proposed methods of mitigation of any impacts on the existing transportation infrastructure;
(iii) An estimate of the impacts on services and amenities including; fire protection, recreational facilities, schools and police protection;
(iv) Water supply information including the number of water taps and the estimated amount of water needed to serve the development;
(v) Sewage disposal information including the type of collection system and the estimated amount of waste generated; and
(iv) Lots and blocks with approximate acreage or square footage for each lot;
(vi) Proposed gross residential density or intensity of commercial uses on the property;
(vii) Location of public and private open space, including acreage or square footage calculations;
(viii) Location of footprints or building envelopes for all structures, excluding single family residential units, if applicable;
(ix) Proposed road, street and pedestrian networks (as applicable to the 2003 Trails Plan & 2007 Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan), to include existing right‐of‐way adjacent to the subject project. All proposed and existing roadways/right‐of‐ways shall be dimensioned and labeled.
(x) Proposed phasing for the development;
None of the above requirements were met by the Pagosa West Sketch Plan application.
But that wasn’t necessarily the worst of it.
The application itself, by Arena Labs LLC, may have been illegal.