planning commission, board of adjustments design review ...175f1d4c... · aspen village. public...

Planning Commission, Board of Adjustments & Design Review Board Regular Scheduled Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. Town Hall, Council Chambers, 551 Hot Springs Boulevard, Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147

_____________________________________________________________________________

I. Call to order / Roll Call

II. Announcements

III. Approval of Minutes

A. Approval of the February 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes

IV. Public Comment A. Opportunity for the public to provide comments and to address the Planning Commission on items not on the Agenda

V. Design Review Board NONE VI. Planning Commission

A. Re‐Zoning Application for the Enclave Townhome Development located on Timberline Drive in Aspen Village. Public Hearing / Quasi‐Judicial Matter

VII. Public Comment

A. Opportunity for the public to provide comments and to address the Planning Commission on items not on the Agenda. VIII. Reports and Comments

A. Staff Report_ Projects, Updates and Upcoming Development Applications B. Planning Commission – Comments, Ideas and Discussion.

C. Upcoming Town Meetings Schedule X. Adjournment ___________________________ James Dickhoff, Planning Director

Staff Report Board of Adjustments, Design Review Board & Planning Commission Page 1 of 11

Planning Commission, Board of Adjustments, & Design Review Board

Staff Report – Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Regular Scheduled Meeting

I. Call to Order / Roll Call:

II. Announcements:

III. Approval of Minutes:

A. February 14, 2017 Planning Commission minutes.

Approval of

Minutes:

Staff recommends approving Minutes from the February 14, 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing and/or Meeting, upon finding they are accurate.

IV. Public Comment:

A. Opportunity for the public to provide comments and to address the Planning Commission on items not on the Agenda.

a. At this time, Public Comment will be accepted for items not included as an agenda item. Interested persons have the opportunity to address the Planning Commission and express your opinions on matters that are not on the agenda or not listed as a public hearing item on the agenda. Public comments on any pending application that is the subject of a public hearing at the current or a future meeting may only be made during such hearing. The total time reserved for Public Comment at each meeting is 20 minutes, unless extended by a majority vote of the Planning Commission and each comment is limited to 2 minutes.

Planning Commission, Board of Adjustments & Design Review Board Regular Scheduled Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:30 p.m.

Town Hall, Council Chambers, 551 Hot Springs Boulevard, Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147

_____________________________________________________________________________

I. Call to order / Roll Call: Commission Vice-Chair Adams calls the meeting to order at 5:30PM. Present were Commissioner Giles and Commissioner Parker. Also present were Planning Director James Dickhoff and Associate Planner Rachel Novak.

II. Announcements: NONE

III. Approval of Minutes

A. Approval of the December 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes: At the bottom of decision item A, include, “between S. 6th Street and S. 8th Street.” Also, on the top of page 2 include, “if this were to be adopted, this will still need to be evaluated.” Commissioner Parker motions to approve the minutes with changes as discussed. Commissioner Giles seconds. Unanimously approved.

IV. Public Comment

A. Opportunity for the public to provide comments and to address the Planning Commission on items not on the Agenda: NONE

V. Design Review Board NONE VI. Planning Commission

A. 135 Eaton Drive, Unit 1023 Vacation Rental Conditional Use Permit Application, Public Hearing/ Quasi-Judicial Matter: Planning Director James Dickhoff introduces the application. Vacation rentals are not a use by right in a residential district and a conditional use permit is required. This allows staff to publicly notify neighbors about the property owner’s intentions to operate a business within a residential area. 135 Eaton Drive, Unit 1023 is zoned R-12, residential-medium density. The applicant, Brad C. Martin, MUST meet all 6 criteria from LUDC 2.4.4.C.4. Mr. Martin has demonstrated that he has met all of these criteria for his application. Steve Carney lives in the area and parking is an issue. There is no on street parking and the home has only one parking spot in the driveway and a single garage. Mr. Carney would like the trash to be picked up more regularly. The area has concerns over the appeal and quietness of the neighborhood. He also wants to ensure there is no liability to the HOA for people potentially getting hurt in the common areas. Commissioner Adams asks about the supervision of the property. Mr. Martin uses a cleaning company that will arrive within 2-hours of the renters leaving. They remove any trash and tend to issues. Dan McPherson from Sunetha Rentals discusses the compliance of rentals with the contingencies of the Town. He feels that the CUP process can’t work within the property management company. Mr. McPherson is concerned that this process could hinder client’s ability to rent their property, which is allowed within this neighborhood. He has offered assistance for the Town in better understanding these requirements. A CUP has been requirement since 2009, but have been administratively approved prior to 2016. All vacation rentals within residential districts

need to be handled exactly the same and neighbors have the right to know a business is going to be operated in their neighborhood. Dores Gomino is part of the Whispering Pines Association, but not the section where this property is located. She asks where the applicant is currently located. Mr. Martin is currently located in Oklahoma. He did have some renters prior to this application and any past back taxes will be due. Mr. Martin purchased this condo with intentions to retire in Pagosa, but currently the vacation rental operation does offset the costs. Ms. Gomino asks about potential discrimination when renters are selected to rent the condo and who would be responsible if a legality issue does arrive. Mr. Martin says that VRBO sent all property owners a letter saying that owners will not discriminate against renters, which they have to sign or they cannot rent through their site. Ms. Gomino states that the trashcan is still outside of the garage for over a week. Mr. Martin will need to bring the can inside the garage weekly. Sunetha Property Management only takes care of the common grounds for the area, not the interior of the property. Mr. Martin has local contacts in case of emergencies for the property. The CUP is revocable if conditions are not kept in good standing and are primarily brought to the Planning Department’s attention through complaints from neighbors. Janis Davis is concerned about all of the violations she sees from this area on a regular basis. She will need to contact the HOA for private property issues, the police department for emergencies and public issues, or the planning department for other public issues. Mr. Martin does have his property listed as a single parking space rental. He also says that the house cleaners are supposed to be placing the trashcan back into the garage after the trash is picked up. He will ensure this is corrected immediately. Commissioner Parker motions to approve the CUP for Brad C. Martin to operate a vacation rental at 135 Eaton Drive, Unit 1023 with the following contingencies: A) Ample onsite parking shall be maintained to accommodate occupant vehicles, and on site snow removal/plowing shall be maintained to ensure availability of parking areas. B) Sidewalk snow removal shall be conducted in accordance with TOPS Municipal Code. C) Trash shall not be accumulated on site. Regular trash collection is required. All exterior trash containers shall be in compliance with the current Town’s municipal code requirements. D) Any signs displayed on the property shall comply with the Town’s sign code requirements and require a sign permit application to be submitted. E) Renewal of your annual Town Business License is required. F) A Town Lodgers Tax application is required to be issued by the Town, and monthly Town Lodging tax reporting is required. G) All exterior lighting shall comply with the Town Exterior Lighting regulations. H) Occupancy numbers shall not exceed building code limitations. I) The Conditional Use Permit is not transferable. J) The Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed invalid upon discontinued use for 180 consecutive days as defined in section 2.4.4.C.5.c of the land use code. K) The Conditional Use Permit is revocable if conditions of approval are not kept in good standing. L) Provide and maintain all required CO2 / Smoke Detectors and fire extinguishers in good working order. Commissioner Giles seconds. Unanimously approved.

B. Planning Commissioner Member Appointment Recommendations: This item was moved before the

CUP hearing. Planning Director James Dickhoff introduces the members of the public interested in joining the Planning Commission. Bill Hudson, one of the applicants is the first to discuss his interest in joining the Planning Commission. He has been working with the Affordable Housing Group for some time and this sparked his interest in joining the Planning Commission in a more activist role. Mr. Hudson is part of the Charter School Board to help plan for these types of schools for Pagosa. He would like to look at how the community can be planned better through site visits. Commissioner Parker asks what Mr. Hudson will bring to the Commission. Mr. Hudson will bring 10 years of land use writing experience and an enthusiasm for visiting issues in person. Commissioner Parker asks Mr. Hudson if he understands the rules and limitations of the Commission. Mr. Hudson is aware of the rules and limitations, but feels that the Commission could take a more activist role

in the community and really digging into issues. Commissioner Giles asks Mr. Hudson if his online newspapers would be considered a conflict of interest with his readers. Mr. Hudson has written extensively on the Charter School Board, but decisions are made solely at the Board level and his writing is something separate from that role and his potential role on the Planning Commission. He would like his role to be research based for the Commission. Commissioner Adams has worked with Mr. Hudson on the Affordable Housing Group and he appreciates his contribution to the community. Michael Fredrick is the second applicant for consideration. Mr. Frederick has applied for an alternate position on the Town Planning Commission. Commissioner Adams has worked with Mr. Frederick on the County Planning Commission, which he is the current Chair. The Town Ordinance does allow the Chair of the County Planning Commission to serve on the Town Planning Commission. Mr. Frederick has observed a lack of information flow between the Town and the County and feels that this might benefit both parties. He hopes to increase the amount of information flow between the Town and the County to ensure no major issues arise in the future. Commission Giles asks about his eligibility. Planning Director James Dickhoff says he is eligible, but not limited to just an alternate member. Commissioner Parker asks about Mr. Frederick about his meeting schedule. Mr. Frederick says the County Planning Commission meets every 4th Wednesday of the month and regular meetings on alternate months on the 2nd Wednesday of the month. Commissioner Adams asks Mr. Frederick if he would continue as the County Planning Commission Chair after his term is up at the end of this year. Mr. Frederick anticipates asking the County Commissioners to reappoint him. Peter Hurley is the third and last candidate for consideration. Mr. Hurley has been in Pagosa since 2000 and full time since 2010. He has an immense interest in Pagosa and would like to be involved in many planning aspects of the Town. Commissioner Parker asks what Mr. Hurley could bring to the Commission. Mr. Hurley was a director of a global consulting firm and is very familiar with the planning aspect of that and he has been heavily involved with real estate and construction throughout his career. He has many years of management and experience in many cities and towns across the country. Commissioner Adams asks about Mr. Hurley schedule. Mr. Hurley is available for the regular meeting times of the commission. Commissioner Parker feels that Mr. Frederick would be an excellent addition to the Town Planning Commission as an alternate position. He does have concerns over Mr. Hudson’s consideration as taking an activist role, while the role of the Planning Commission is to follow the Land Use Development Code. Commissioner Parker would support Mr. Hurley for the regular member position. Commissioner Adams says that he is very pleased for Mr. Frederick to possibly be joining the Planning Commission. He would support Mr. Frederick as an alternate member. Commissioner Giles motions to make a recommendation to Town Council to approve the appointment of Peter Hurley as a regular Planning Commissioner for a 4-year term beginning on February 28, 2017 and ending on February 27, 2021. Commissioner Parker seconds. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Giles motions to make a recommendation to Town Council to approve the appointment of Michael Frederick as an alternate Planning Commissioner for a 4-year term beginning on February 28, 2017 and ending on February 27, 2021. Commissioner Parker seconds. Unanimously approved.

VII. Public Comment

A. Opportunity for the public to provide comments and to address the Planning Commission on items not on the Agenda: Dores Gomino also works at the PLPOA front desk and she hears many complaints from renters daily. She would like to know what types of enforcement policies there will be in the future. Janis Davis is concerned about the trashcans not being taken in everyday and she is also

concerned about the types of people these rentals are attracting. Whispering Pines HOA says that they are paid to manage the property and it is critical to ensure trashcans and parking issues are addressed.

VIII. Reports and Comments

A. Staff Report - Projects, Updates and Upcoming Development Applications: Staff conducted an R-12 and R-18 lot size public meeting last week and almost 50 members of the public attended. Staff sent out 820 public notifications for this meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission start working on residential design guideline immediately to supplement this ordinance. The Town will be potentially awarded a Fiscal Impact Analysis in addition to the already awarded Smart Growth 101. Staff is still working out those details. The Housing Needs Assessment has started with a kickoff meeting last week. The Comprehensive Plan update has an extensive public involvement effort and the next meeting is next Tuesday for a San Juan River Master Plan discussion. The Waterworks SHF grant will be presented at the Town Council’s next meeting for official acceptance by the Town.

B. Planning Commission - Comments, Ideas and Discussion: Commissioner Giles says that Bob Hart with the Pagosa Fun Zone has possibly pulled the plug on his investment for the site and so has Cody Ross with his potential auto parts store. There will be a Town Council agenda item on impact fees to address the large startup costs of building in Town at their next meeting.

C. Upcoming Town Meetings Schedule

X. Adjournment: Commissioner Giles motions to adjourn. Commissioner Adams seconds. The meeting adjourned at 8:16PM.

___________________________ Vice-Chair, Peter Adams




VI. Planning Commission:

A. Re‐Zoning Application for the Enclave Townhome Development located on Timberline Drive in Aspen Village.

Project Locations:

Current Property Zoning:

Proposed Property Zoning:

Nearby Zoning / Land Use:

Property Owner:

Applicant:

Relative LUDC section:

Planning Commission Action:

Additional Applications:

Timberline Drive in Aspen Village. Residential Medium Density (R‐12), with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Residential High Density (R‐18), to accommodate the proposed 16.5 dwelling units per acre. East: Medium Density Residential district, R‐12, single family homes. West: Mixed Use‐Corridor district, Vacant land. South: County, “Agricultural Estate” district, Alpha Rock Ridge subdivision. Low density residential. North: Mixed Use‐Corridor district, Walmart. Aspen Village Ventures, LLC. Emil Wanatka, Manager Aspen Village Ventures, LLC. LUDC section 2.4.2. Amendments to the Official Zoning Map. Consider application for re‐zoning and provide Town Council a recommendation for their consideration. TC will consider the matter during two readings of an ordinance. The applicant will also need to submit a Major Design Review Application and building permit applications prior to any construction.




BACKGROUND

The Enclave Townhome development had received original approval for the development under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement on November 1, 2005. This agreement allowed 12 dwelling units per acre as an overlay in the originally zoned D‐4 West Corridor Business District. The entire site is 4.03 acres with the original plan to build 48 dwelling units. Prior to the economic downturn, two buildings with 5 dwelling units each (10 units total) were constructed, and all underground infrastructure was installed on the entire 4 + acre site to accommodate build out. The completed portions of the development were constructed in compliance with the PUD.

On February 2, 2017, the Planning Department received a completed application requesting the re‐zoning of the Enclave Townhomes Development property from residential medium density (R‐12) to residential high density (either R‐18 or R‐22 based on the outcome of Town Council approving Ordinance 853, increasing density in the R‐18 district to 22 dwelling units per acre).

The applicant is proposing a density of 16.25 per acre, in essence adding an additional 17 dwelling units to the previously approved 48 dwelling units for a total of 65 dwelling units, all generally within same building foot prints (with a few exceptions) and similar building heights as previously approved. The maximum building height in the R‐12 and R‐18 districts are both 35 feet to the mid span. The applicant has stated the approximate dwelling unit sizes will range between 1250 sqft and 1350 sqft in size, plus a two car, 640 sqft garage per dwelling unit. Sale prices will be consistent with the market. An additional ½ space per dwelling unit will be provided for visitor parking. This is considered at Design Review application.

Current Definitions for zoning districts:

3.2.5. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ‐ MEDIUM DENSITY (R‐12) The R‐12 district is intended primarily for single‐family residences, duplexes, and patio homes. The district is intended for locations closer to commercial centers and near downtown, and may serve as a transition between higher‐density residential areas and lower‐density, single‐family neighborhoods. The district should have pedestrian‐oriented, connected local streets and sidewalks, as well as accessibility to parks, open space, schools, and other civic activities. The maximum density is twelve (12) units per acre.

3.2.6. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ‐ HIGH DENSITY (R‐18) The R‐18 district allows the broadest range of residential types, including single‐family residences, duplexes, patio homes, and apartments. The district is intended for locations closer to commercial centers and near downtown, and may serve as a transition between commercial centers and lower‐density residential neighborhoods. The district should have pedestrian‐oriented, connected local streets and sidewalks, as well as accessibility to parks, open space, schools, and other civic activities. Additional private recreational amenities, such as tot lots or garden/courtyards, should be provided in apartment or townhome complexes. The maximum density is eighteen (18) units per acre.




LUDC SEC

TION 2.4.2

Below is LUDC SECTION 2.4.2, outlining requirements for proposed re‐zonings. The Panning Commissions Consideration of the application should be based on complying with step 8 below, approval criteria, all of which are required to be met. Staff has provided comments regarding this application after each approval criteria. LUDC section 2.4.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP 2.4.2. A. Purpose The boundaries of any zone district may be changed, or the zone classification of any parcel of land may be changed, pursuant to this Section. The purpose is not to relieve particular hardships, nor to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make adjustments to the Official Zoning Map that are necessary in light of changed conditions or changes in public policy, or that are necessary to advance the general welfare of the Town. B. Applicability Amendments to the Official Zoning Map may be approved by the Town Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Revisions shall be accomplished through the procedure in subsection C. below (or subsection D. below for re‐zonings to the Planned Development Overlay District). C. Procedure for General Re‐zonings This subsection includes the procedure for the review of all rezoning applications, except those to the Planned Development Overlay District. Figure 2.4‐2 shows the steps of the common development review procedures that apply. The common procedures are described in Section 2.3. Specific additions and modifications to the common review procedures are identified below. 1. Step 7: Town Holds Public Hearing(s) a. Planning Commission Hearing, Review, and Recommendation Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall review the Staff Report, consider the comments and evidence presented at the hearing and the recommendation of the Director and make a recommendation to the Town Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the rezoning application, based on the criteria in Step 8 below. b. Town Council Hearing, Review, and Decision Following a public hearing, the Town Council shall consider the comments and evidence presented at the hearing and the Staff Report and recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Director, and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based on the criteria in Step 8 below.




2. Step 8: Town Issues Decision/Findings a. Approval Criteria (Staff's comments in italics below) The Town Council may approve re‐zonings, and the Planning Commission may recommend approval, if the rezoning meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

Staff: No negative impacts are anticipated on public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed additional 4.25 dwelling units per acre will help provide relief to our community’s available housing shortage, promoting public health, safety and general welfare by providing needed housing options, in close proximity to commercial services. Staff believes the re‐zoning application complies with this approval criteria.

(2) The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Land Use Development Code (LUDC);

Staff: There are currently no high density residential districts in the uptown area within Town Limits. Though the Comprehensive plan conceptually contemplated this property zoned R‐12, with the development of Walmart and the interest of further commercial development in the Aspen Village, the Enclave development is a good candidate for a higher density development, based on the definition for the high density residential district.

Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and LUDC, the proposed development will have very little – no additional visual impacts versus the originally approved development. The development will provide a transition buffer between the Alpha Rock Ridge single family home development and the commercial aspects of Walmart and the commercial portions of Aspen Village. The development is in close proximity to commercial services, pedestrian connectivity, completed road networks and transit routes.

Staff believes the re‐zoning application complies with this approval criteria.

(3) The rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed zoning district(s); Staff: Consistent with the R‐18 zoning definition, the subject property is adjacent to Walmart, and the other commercial services available in Aspen Village (commercial center). In addition, the development will serve as a transition buffer between the adjacent lower‐density Alpha Rock Ridge residential subdivision. Aspen Village subdivision has connected local streets, sidewalks and bike lanes which will also connect with the West Phase TTPL trail to be constructed in 2017, providing connectivity to Central Core commercial area (City Market). Staff believes the re‐zoning application complies with this approval criteria.

(4) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electricity, police and fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;

Staff: All underground utility services have been installed on the Enclave Development Site, including; Sewer, water, electric, phone and natural gas. The development is accessed from Timberline Drive, A private access drive for the Enclaves Townhome Development. Timberline Drive is accessed from Alpha Drive, a Town owned and maintained roadway. Alpha Drive is accessed from Hwy 160 and Aspen Village Drive. The additional increase in density will have little overall impact on the roadways.




The development is within the Pagosa Fire Prevention District and within the current area serviced by the Town of Pagosa Springs police department. Adequate levels of service for existing developments will see little to no impact. Staff believes the re‐zoning application complies with this approval criteria.

(5) The rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment,

including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated; and Staff: Since the overall building foot print sizes are not increasing, The rezoning will have little to no additional impacts upon the natural environment, air quality, noise, water, storm water management, wildlife and vegetation versus the previously approved development plan. The original development plan has addressed storm water management and landscaping for the development. The amount of open space in the development will in essence remain the same size. Staff believes the re‐zoning application complies with this approval criteria.

(6) The rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract.

Staff: The nature of the current proposed development with this re‐zoning versus the originally approved development will not change in regards to height of buildings, access, drainage, size of landscaped common areas, ect. Though the rezoning will increase the density, the overall impact is generally limited to the previously approved building envelopes with more smaller dwelling unit sizes, and the visual impacts are minimum compared with the originally approved development, thus significant adverse impacts are not expected. Staff believes the re‐zoning application complies with this approval criteria.

b. Protests Any owner of property affected by a proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map may protest the amendment pursuant to the statutory requirements of C.R.S. Section 31‐23‐305. “Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against changes in regulations or restrictions, or changes in the zone district applicable to particular land, which protest is filed with the municipal clerk at least twenty‐four hours prior to the governing body's vote on the change and is signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land which is subject to the proposed change or twenty percent or more of the area of land extending a radius of one hundred feet from the land which is subject to the proposed change, disregarding intervening public streets and alleys, such changes shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of two‐thirds of all the members of the governing body of the municipality. The provisions of section 31‐23‐304 relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply equally to all changes or amendments.”

c. Post‐Approval Actions (i) Upon approval by the Town Council of a rezoning, the Town Clerk shall cause an appropriate revision of the Official Zoning Map to be prepared.

(ii) Within 15 days of receipt of the zoning amendment map, the Director shall review the documents for compliance with the Town Council’s approval, obtain the Town Officials’ signatures, and submit the approved zoning amendment map and the ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map, to the Archuleta County Clerk and Recorder’s Office for recording.




ANALYSIS

Based on the above approval criteria staff has provided comments for, staff has determined the proposed re‐zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and LUDC.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS

The following required public notifications were provided at least 15 days prior to the PC and TC public hearings: ~ Published in the Sun Newspaper on February 09, 2017. ~ Sign posted on the property on February 06, 2017. ~ Notification to properties within 300 feet mailed on February 06, 2017. ~ Notification Posted at Town Hall on February 02, 2017. Staff has received inquiries regarding the applicants rezoning request.

ATTACHMEN

TS

~ Property Vicinity Map. ~ Letter of explanation from the Applicant. ~ Original Planned Unit Development Agreement, Dated November 1, 2015. ~ Original Approved Site plan dated 04.24.05. ~ Proposed Site Illustration dated January 20, 2017. ~ Public Comments Received as of 02.23.17.

REC

COMEN

DATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the re‐zoning application and consider a recommendation to Town Council for their consideration. Possible considerations may include, but are not limited to: 1) Approve a recommendation to Town Council to APPROVE the Re‐zoning of

the Enclave Townhome Development from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density. 2) Approve a recommendation to Town Council to APPROVE the Re‐zoning of

the Enclave Townhome Development from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density, with the following Contingencies (to be determined at the PC meeting).

3) Approve a recommendation to Town Council to DENY the Re‐zoning of

the Enclave Townhome Development from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density.

Enclave Townhome

Development

Wal-Mart

1

ENCLAVE TOWNHOMES

Rezone Request Narrative

PROJECT DATA Project: The Enclave at Aspen Village Owner/Applicant: Aspen Village Ventures, LLC PO BOX 1860 Bentonville, AR 72712-1860 Agent: Emil Wanatka 555 Rivergate Lane, B2-135 Durango, CO 81301 Project Location: The subject property is located within Aspen Village, directly behind WalMart It is bordered by the Cottages HOA to the East, Aspen Village Drive on the North, Alpha Drive to the West, and a vacant parcel to the South. Property Size: 4.03 Acres Existing Land Use: Multi-family residential. Existing Zoning: D-4 West Corridor Business District with PUD overlay. 12 units to the acre. Proposed Density: 22 units to the acre. Setbacks: Front - 10 ft. Rear – 10 ft. Side – 5 ft. Water Service Provider: Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District Sewer Service Provider: Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District PROPOSAL Aspen Village Ventures, LLC, is requesting a Rezoning of the Enclave property to increase the project density from the current 12 units to the acre, to 22 units to the acre. BACKGROUND Aspen Village Investments, LLC entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with the Town of Pagosa Springs for The Enclave multifamily project on November 1, 2005. The PUD established the project density at 12 units to the acre (48 units, 4.03 acres). The principals of Aspen Village Investments, LLC are Emil Wanatka and Gerald U. Pope. On May 18, 2009, Emil and Jerry brought in a new investment partner and ownership of the subject property was transferred to a new Limited Liability Corporation called Aspen Village Ventures, LLC, of which both Emil and Jerry are partners and act as Managers.

2

Site grading and infrastructure installation for the project began in late fall of 2005, with vertical construction of the first ten townhomes beginning in late Spring of 2006. By the time the first ten units were complete, the Great Recession of 2007 had begun, hence, of the original ten townhomes, only one home sold at its initial offering. In an effort to recoup some of the original investment into the Enclave, between 2009 to 2010, the remaining nine townhomes were sold at significant discounts to the original offering prices. An overabundant supply of homes built prior to the recession resulted in a lowering of home prices throughout the Pagosa Springs market for years after. Combined with reduced demand for new housing, no new townhomes have been constructed on the property beyond the original ten. Beginning in September of 2016, based on anecdotal evidence that a housing shortage now exists in Pagosa Springs, the applicant began to investigate the feasibility of constructing new townhomes on the property with the intent of offering them for sale, or as rentals. The applicant’s research does seem to indicate that there is demand for both new homes for sale, as well as for rental units. Due to the relative small size of Pagosa’s market however, the challenge is to quantify the existing supply and demand for new homes so as to not overbuild the market as was done in the past. At this time, assessing market inventory and demand of “for sale” homes is easier to quantify than that of the “for rent” market. This is due to the availability of well-kept, historical data of home sales from sources such as the National Association of Realtor’s MLS, and the County Assessor’s office. Unfortunately, there is almost no recently published data available allowing one to analyze the current rental market supply and demand. Pagosa Spring’s recent commissioning of a housing needs assessment should provide a useful tool in analyzing the current, and future housing market needs. In working through a feasibility analysis for the construction of new homes in The Enclave, it became evident that due to the relative high cost of construction, coupled with the relative low selling prices for new homes or rental rates, the margins were too thin to warrant the risk of building more units. The cost of constructing a home in Pagosa Springs is higher than in many other markets due to its’ distance from supply centers such as the Front Range, the increased costs associated with code requirements such as high snow loads and deep frost depths, and the relative lack of tradesmen and building material suppliers. So, while construction costs have increased since 2007, at the same time, home sale prices and rental rates have not kept pace. To reduce construction costs and be able to offer new townhomes within current market limitations, we analyzed building a more efficient, smaller townhome than the original design. During this analysis, we realized that building a townhome product that we’d built successfully in Durango, CO numerous times would work well on this site. This townhome utilizes a tandem parked garage with the home’s public and private space stacked on top of the garage. This design is advantageous over the previous Enclave design in the following ways:

1. The garage effectively functions as the building’s foundation, eliminating redundant foundations for the home and an attached garage.

2. Due to the oftentimes high water tables on this site, the slab on grade construction reduces the threat of water infiltration into a crawlspace.

3

3. The building dimensions at 16’ wide by 40’ deep utilizes construction materials

efficiently. 4. The building footprint allows us to use the existing water and sewer infrastructure. 5. The building design allows more homes to fit on the property without reducing the

originally designated open space. While we can create a more efficient building design, construction costs can only be contained to a certain point. Given current housing prices and rental rates in Pagosa Springs, our pro-forma is not feasible without finding further reductions in costs. The only other variable in the formula is the cost of land. If more homes can be built on the same property, it reduces the land cost basis in each home. Therefore, we’re asking to increase the project density from medium, to high density.

Bruce Baillie: (970) 903‐4869

o 48 Little Pine Lane, Aspen Village

o This project is located right behind my house and I am rejecting to this rezoning. If this

rezoning gets approved, it will only further devalue my home. Wal‐Mart has already

devalued my property and I am concerned about my property’s value after these get

built. Also, this will be an eyesore from my property and will take away my views. Wal‐

Mart has already taken most of my views and I am concerned that my retirement

property that I have invested in will be ruined. This area is being taken over by parking

lots, people, and noise.

12/12/2016 Town of Pagosa Springs Mail Increased R12 Densities

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ui=2&ik=e3d726fa30&view=pt&search=inbox&th=158f00c7ee9cf966&siml=158f00c7ee9cf966 1/1

James Dickhoff <[email protected]>

Increased R12 Densities 1 message

Bruce Baillie <[email protected]> Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:41 PMTo: James Dickhoff <[email protected]>

Mr. Dickhoff,

I am sure you already know about an interest to increase the density from R12 to R18 in Aspen Village. As one of the 5 homeowners there I feel that ourproperty values and our privacy has suffered enough with the intrusion of Walmart without adding apartments to our environment.

Please consider our plight in this matter.

Bruce & Lucille Baillie48 Little Pine Lane (Aspen Village)

9709034869

tel:970-903-4869

12/12/2016 Town of Pagosa Springs Mail Fwd: Ideas for further development of the cottages and enclave in conjunction with Walmart

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ui=2&ik=e3d726fa30&view=pt&search=inbox&th=158ea660be6e6b28&siml=158ea660be6e6b28&siml=158eaf53ccc80311 1/4


Fwd: Ideas for further development of the cottages and enclave in conjunction with Walmart 2 messages

Jerry Joan Jessen <[email protected]> Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 1:21 PMReplyTo: [email protected]: cameron parker <[email protected]>, James Dickhoff <[email protected]>

Hi Cameron and James, I am writing this to voice my concerns about possible increased density in the Enclaves and increased density elsewhere in Pagosato allow for additional reasonably priced housing which is on the agenda for discussion at the Commissioner Meeting on December13. Attached is an email I sent some time ago to Timberline Builders. Philosophically I believe in dense development if managed tominimize adverse impacts. Although I recognize the need for additional reasonably priced housing, I am concerned about increasing density in ourneighborhood and in the town because the Town has been so unresponsive to my concerns about the adverse impacts of Walmarton safety, quality of life, and property values in our neighborhood. I believe the town has abdicated responsibility for ensuring thatadverse impacts of new development (i.e. noise, crime, trash, overnight parking, overflow parking, impact of hours of operation, anduses that don’t comply with the municipal code, i.e. camping) on existing properties especially businesses on neighboring residencesare identified and resolved as a result of Walmart. There is also the huge loss of Property value when a business who hastraditionally been disrespectful of towns moves in. The town has done a good job in addressing some issues such as lighting, trafficflow, and the appearance of the building. By allowing increased density, the Town has a responsibility to recognize and mitigate the adverse impacts of density. Dealing withdensity is an essential part of urban planning. The town needs to ensure the Municipal Code protects people in densely populatedareas and enforces existing laws and regulations developed in the past to address adverse impacts of development on adjacentproperties. Philosophically I agree with a model of people living close to stores and businesses with small lot sizes but based on my experienceliving across from Walmart I realized if not managed by the Town the people living in dense urban areas close to businesses will beadversely impacted to the point that no one will buy property in these areas. I heard the pain in an neighbors voice when people will not even look at his house that he is trying to sell across from Walmart. Ourhouse is probably worth only 1/2 of the amount we paid for it and I’m not sure we could even sell it if we wanted to move. I knowCameron is one of the most significantly impacted.



I don’t know how to get anyone to listen to and understand our concerns. I am sure people want to have distance between theirneighbors because they do not want to go through what we are going through, the loss of property value, fear of people breakinginto their houses, the noise, trash, traffic, impact of lights from businesses. About the issue of housing for disabled people, I am in favor for providing housing for disabled people in our area. I’m sorry I sentan email to an acquaintance in Alpha because people on dispersed properties do not share our issues and are only minimallyimpacted. She is the person who indicated concern about a potential residence for disabled people.

Sincerely, Joan Jessen

Forwarded message From: Jerry Joan Jessen <[email protected]>Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:07 PMSubject: Ideas for further development of the cottages and enclave in conjunction with Walmart To: Emil Wanatka <emil@timberlinebuilders.com>, Jerry Pope <jerry@timberlinebuilders.com> Cc: Bob and Bonnie Parks <[email protected]>, cameron parker <[email protected]>

Hi Emil and Jerry

I have ideas for the further development of our community. If you proceed with my ideas, I ask in return is that you provide us with acommunity gathering building with a kitchen, community garden, and a solu⏌�on to parking issues when people in the neighborhood entertainsmall groups. We also hope that you keep in mind the interests of and minimizing costs an impact of further development to exis⏌�ng residents.

My vision of an ideal Co�ages and Enclave community is to have sustainable architecture and a community center. It would be wonderful tohave some type of common building with a kitchen where people from the community could gather and also use to host visitors and largergroups. We would also like a community garden. Hopefully Walmart could help fund the common building, kitchen, and garden, to helpmi⏌�gate some of the adverse impacts to our community of building of addi⏌�onal traffic and noise.

Small lots require that the footprint of houses be kept small. Many people want to live on one level. In rural areas it takes a huge amount ofeffort to furnish a house. If the house and furnishings are well designed, small houses are comfortable and appealing. Most people only live in asmall por⏌�on of their house. IKEA is one of the most popular household furnishing companies in the world. People love IKEA furniture becauseit is beau⏌�ful, comfortable, and well designed. Walmart has one of the best distribu⏌�on systems. A partnership between Walmart and IKEAmakes so much sense for providing furniture to more rural areas that I can’t believe that it hasn’t occurred already. With Walmart loca⏌�ngadjacent to the co�ages, with their distribu⏌�on system, Walmart could use our area as a Walmart/IKEA demonstra⏌�on project which could beused as a model elsewhere in the United States. Last year we visited a Lennar Home furnished with IKEA furniture temporarily located adjacent

mailto:[email protected]







to Ikea in Tempe, Arizona. We fell in love with the space. IKEA furnishings are wonderful because minimal space is needed for comfort andu⏌�lity. The furnishings are comfortable and ar⏌�s⏌�cally appealing.

Infrastructure (i.e roads, water, power) for densely populated communi⏌�es is much less expensive than houses on large lots distances apart. Hopefully the Town of Pagosa Springs, Archuleta County, and Aspen Village would recognize this and help fund the infrastructure for furtherdevelopment of the Co�ages, Enclave, and Aspen Village. The town of Pagosa Springs and Archuleta County may be able to obtain grant moneyto help fund this. Hopefully Pagosa Springs and Archuleta County will provide a be�er walking connec⏌�on and trail system to Pagosa Lakes andthe Town of Pagosa.

Many people are realizing that the right amount of well‐designed and efficiently furnished space is more comfortable, economical, and requiresless maintenance than too much space. Also many people are a�racted to a community where they can walk to restaurants and shopping.

Many people buy second homes in Pagosa Springs. Many people relocate to Pagosa Springs because it is so beau⏌�ful. Some people as they getolder are no longer able to maintain large proper⏌�es and would be more comfortable in a well designed smaller house conveniently locatedclose to shopping and ac⏌�vi⏌�es. I believe that comfortable one story houses can be built on the exis⏌�ng lots if they are op⏌�mally designed andfurnished for efficiency, design, and comfort. It isn’t necessary to be located in the wilderness to appreciate the beauty of this area. We are ashort distance from the wilderness. Our house doesn’t need to be built in the wilderness for us to enjoy the wilderness. In fact, by not having somuch maintenance and ⏌�me spent driving to and from town for purchases and ac⏌�vi⏌�es, we have more ⏌�me to hike and enjoy the beauty thatwe are surrounded by.

Thanks for considering my ideas.

Joan Jessen

Jerry Joan Jessen <[email protected]> Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:58 PMReplyTo: [email protected]: cameron parker <[email protected]>, James Dickhoff <[email protected]>

James and Cameron,

Please forgive my wording. Should be persons with disabilities. Just because someone has a disability doesn't mean they are disabled. They just need to becreative in finding another way to do what they need to do.



Joan Jessen[Quoted text hidden]

2/23/2017 Town of Pagosa Springs Mail Enclave Townhome Rezoning Proposal

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=e3d726fa30&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15a684a418139cbb&siml=15a684a418139cbb&siml=15a6b60fea7ad7f5 1/2


Enclave Townhome Rezoning Proposal 2 messages

Debra Newman <[email protected]> Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:06 PMTo: James Dickhoff <[email protected]>

James,I have had a chance to read the entire application and look at the projected CAD redesign for the Enclave project. Afterdoing some internet research into the Canyon Terrace Town home project of Timberline Builders in Durango (and basedon the assumption that this is the represented product) for the rezoning request, I have revised my somewhat "kneejerk" reaction to the notification and believe that this product is a very good solution to a complicated economy!My only hesitation toward feeling 100% confident is the fact that the Town's Comprehensive Plan study has notdetermined yet whether the R22 density is appropriate for this area. Also of some concern is that in the event thatTimberline Builders receives approval for the rezoning and is unable to timely proceed as the application indicates, thatthe acreage might be sold to another developer with the rezoning already approved and become a totally differentproduct... Question Is the rezoning approval conditional to only this application, or will it continue in the event of apossible default?Apologies for the length of this communication and begging your indulgence for a few more observations and questions.1. Will the design review for the plan submission be open to the public for comments?2. There is an assumption that the cluster boxes on Alpha are part of The Enclave. They are not. There is no postalservice currently available for the Town homes at the Enclave. 3. The current dumpster is the only one that is servicing the 10 existing homes and is emptied 1x per week. Alreadycommonly filled to capacity during the summer months.4. Although the 4 end units were represented as 2 car garage units, they are in fact 1 3/4 garages because of themechanicals. Visitor parking is always at a premium and is not allocated to individual owners. In the event of a higherdensity would it be possible to allocate more spaces (perhaps a variance to the common area represented on therendering at the green space located in the southeast corner) to provide adequate owner/visitor parking for each unit?Looking forward to attending the February 28th meeting.Thank you,Debra Newman20 Timberline Unit E

Sent from my iPad

James Dickhoff <[email protected]> Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:30 AMTo: Debra Newman <[email protected]>

Good Morning Debra,

Thank you for your insight o this rezoning application.

To answer your questions:

Yes, the rezoning would apply to a new property owner as well, however, unless they proceed with the exact layout, theywould be required to go through a subdivision application process which is considered at three public hearings and publicnotification as you received for this rezoning.

1) A Major Design Review application is required for any further development of the property to review building elevationsand confirm all other exterior site improvements are in compliance with teh Town's Land Use Code. This is alsoconsidered at a public hearing with the Planning Commission.

2) The Enclave could work with the Post Office for possible additional cluster boxes. Is there a concern with the currentcluster boxes ?

2/23/2017 Town of Pagosa Springs Mail Enclave Townhome Rezoning Proposal

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=e3d726fa30&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15a684a418139cbb&siml=15a684a418139cbb&siml=15a6b60fea7ad7f5 2/2

3) The association will need to provide additional dumpsters for the additional development. The Association alsooversees current trash collection services. If there are violation issues (over flowing for example) that should be calledinto dispatch or the Town Building Department for a violation notification.

4) Parking will need to be accommodated. Two spaces per unit are required. That is good to know the garages are notaccommodating two vehicle lengths. Parking is addressed at the required Major Design Review application process.

Hope that answers some of your questions.Look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Thank You, Respectfully, James Dickhoff

Town of Pagosa Springs

Planning Department Director

Po Box 1859

551 Hot Springs Blvd.

Pagosa Springs, Co. 81147

9702644151 [email protected][Quoted text hidden]

tel:(970)%20264-4151


planning commission, board of adjustments design review ...175f1d4c... · aspen village. public...

Documents