The Archuleta County Planning Commission and the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission held a joint meeting on July 9, with a range of topics discussed.
Topics of discussion included an adopted access control plan, a secondary road network and the Town-to-Lakes Trail master plan. Other topics that came up included housing, water and development, short-term rentals and joint planning areas known as the 3 Mile Plan.
Pagosa Springs Community Development Director James Dickhoff led the discussion beginning by explaining the access control plan was adopted by the town, county and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in 2010. The scope of the plan looks at the areas along U.S. 160 between Trails Boulevard and 8th Street.
The adopted access control plan focuses on limiting the number of access points to the highway, which helps the flow of traffic, Dickhoff explained.
He used the example of the development of county buildings at Harman Park Drive, which has developable property between the highway and a local road network, compared to the “less preferable” Eagle Drive frontage road.
Dickhoff noted that frontage roads are needed in some scenarios.
He went on to talk more about a local road network plan that is separate from the highway.
“We are currently working on a number of connectivity considerations that are compliant with this plan,” he said, noting there are two developers interested in properties between Alpha Drive and South Pagosa Boulevard.
“Generally this is a conceptual plan,” Dickhoff added, explaining that this is done on purpose to give developers flexibility with their designs and incorporate a local road network.
Dickhoff explained that a recently approved development project near Walmart is designed to extend Aspen Village Drive and connect to Pinon Causeway.
“A lot of this could happen past our lifetime, but if we’re not doing that planning today, we’re really hamstringing the future generations,” Dickhoff said in regard to planning a local road network that is separate from the highway.
Dickhoff noted that developments are what really trigger road improvements, stressing the importance of working with developers collaboratively to ensure the needs of the development are met along with improving the community as a whole.
Dickhoff also spoke about the use of traffic circles in future road planning, noting “There’s a lot of benefits to traffic circles,” mostly pertaining to safety.
Dickhoff mentioned that, according to CDOT, there is a “pretty mind-blowing” statistic that shows traffic circles reduce the number of fatal crashes at intersections by 90 percent due to eliminating the risk of a T-bone style collision.
He also mentioned there are environmental benefits from traffic circles and that less pollution occurs by keeping vehicles moving rather than idling at a traffic light for an extended period of time.
In response to a question, Dickhoff indicated there are no current plans to widen U.S. 160, but that it would have been “ideal” to do when CDOT restriped Put Hill, though it was not in the budget at the time.
Dickhoff went on to mention the town has taken initiatives on its own to create more connectivity, like the connection of the east end of Eagle Drive to Pike Drive that occurred a couple years ago.
Another connectivity option being explored by the town is connecting 14th street to Rosita Street, Dickhoff noted, explaining the town is working with a developer to coordinate that effort.
Town-to-Lakes Trail
Dickhoff provided insight on the Town-to-Lakes Trail master plan that was originally adopted in 2012, explaining that a third-party contractor developed a plan for trail connectivity between uptown and downtown.
He explained that the town has been prioritizing the commuter trail along the south side of U.S. 160 and chose the south side due to there being fewer properties that would interface with the trail.
The standard width of trails in communities was previously 10 feet, but with recent studies, more communities are shifting toward a 14-foot-wide standard to allow enough room for people walking, electric bicycles and skateboards.
Dickhoff noted that the town has been successful in completing two portions of the trail, one uptown from Pinion Causeway to Aspen Village and one downtown from the elementary school to 8th street.
Dickhoff explained that the commuter trail needs to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that it can follow the road to use as a “waiver” for ADA compliance.
He noted that funds for the project are the main reason there has been slow progress on the design and construction of the computer trail.
“We don’t have dedicated revenue streams,” he said, noting that every project the town chooses to fund typically requires dipping into reserves.
Dickhoff mentioned Durango as an example of a community with a 1 percent sales tax that is dedicated toward funding parks and recreation projects.
“I think it is important to have a dedicated revenue stream,” he added.
Dickhoff explained that the town previously collected impact fees on buildings, but that the county did not, which led to issues with developers and caused the town to do away with collecting impact fees.
Additionally, Dickhoff noted that the town has been funded for the design and construction of another phase of the computer trail going from 10th street to Great West Avenue.
He explained the trail will go through the planned Pagosa Views development and the developer is obligated to accommodate a local road network and pay for the commuter trail going through the development.
He explained that the CDOT design phase will take at least a year before the project can go out to bid.
Construction on this portion of the commuter trail is expected to begin in 2026, Dickhoff mentioned.
Archuleta County Planning Commission chair Matt Nobles voiced opinions on the matter, saying, “Pagosa needs this,” explaining that the discussion of connecting uptown and downtown has been going on for years.
“I certainly don’t want to wait another 10 years to see this happen,” he said.
Archuleta County Planning Director Pamela Flowers mentioned the possibility of proposing a joint incentive to voters that would help fund both trail projects and road improvement projects.
“I think there are a lot of communities that are using their tourism funds for general infrastructure improvements,” Dickhoff said.
Other topics
Workforce housing projects and needs were also discussed during the meeting, with Dickhoff explaining the town and county are currently working on getting a housing needs assessment completed for the community.
He explained that the housing needs assessment should be updated every three to five years as it “helps developers understand what the need in the community is.”
Developers will also need to conduct their own market housing study as well, Dickhoff explained.
He explained that $68,000 in grant funding has been received to conduct a countywide housing needs assessment.
Dickhoff also mentioned the town has been awarded funds to hire a multijurisdictional housing coordinator that will assist with “all things housing” throughout the county and that the town and county do not need separate coordinators due to the community being a relatively small one in the state.
There have been multiple projects that have been funded to address lower-income housing needs, but the community has been struggling with providing housing for the “missing middle,” Dickhoff explained.
To be eligible for traditional funding for a home loan for a market-rate house in Pagosa Springs, residents would need to be making at least 170 percent of the area median income (AMI), Dickhoff explained.
According to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority, 160 percent AMI in Archuleta County for one person is $105,600 for 2024 (the organization does not list AMI information above 160 percent).
He went on to explain that the Proposition 123 affordable housing program through the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) has designated Archuleta County and Pagosa Springs as a rural resort community, which will allow for the entities to apply for grant funding with a “broader range of AMI levels.”
Flowers noted that the housing needs assessment is crucial to be able to justify petitioning for grants for higher AMI levels.
Dickhoff went on to discuss the 3 Mile Plan, which is a means for the county and town to work together to create a plan that is “justified and reasonable to achieve” to provide utility service to properties annexed into the town.
Dickhoff explained that annexing is not a town-driven process and that property owners must want to be annexed into the town.
“We’ve kind of done ourselves a disservice by letting our water district go to a special district,” Dickhoff said, “because we lose total control of the reason to annex into the town.”
He noted that those are the “big cookies” developers need to develop property — if they need that service, they need to annex into town, he explained.
Dickhoff noted there was “good reason” in the past as to why the town let its utilities go to special districts, noting it can be a “pain in the butt” and also very expensive, but that the town “loses so much of their negotiation power.”
Dickhoff also spoke about two of the water districts in the county, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District and the San Juan Water Conservancy District.
He went on to mention that in the past, there have been times when “we’ve gotten pretty close to wondering if we’re going to have enough water to treat to serve our residents,” which is a concern across many communities in the western states.
However, Dickhoff noted, “We live in a pretty cool place,” being at the headwaters in a region that does not have extensive mining history contributing to water pollution.
One of the last topics the group discussed was short-term rentals (STRs), with members of the Archuleta County Planning Commission inquiring about what kind of guidelines and restrictions the town follows in regard to STRs.
Dickhoff explained the town had approximately 140 STRs in 2022, when it decided to place restrictions such as a 10 percent cap in neighborhoods on the amount of homes allowed to run as an STR.
He noted that before the town put restrictions in place, some neighborhoods were 16 to 18 percent STR properties.
Other restrictions include being required to own the property for two years with a certificate of occupancy, Dickhoff explained, noting that STR permits do not transfer with the sale of a property.
He mentioned these restrictions “helped with the speculative purchases” and that investors have to show a genuine interest in investing in the community.
Additionally, STRs operating within town limits are not allowed to be within a 250 -foot radius from another STR property.
Dickhoff also spoke about the town’s bedroom tax that is applied to STRs, noting a $150 fee per bedroom that goes toward the town’s housing fund.
In response to a question, Flowers mentioned that the appetite from the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners to consider similar restrictions is “extremely low” right now.
Flowers indicated there are around 550 permitted STRs in unincorporated Archuleta County.
“There’s probably another 150 that aren’t permitted,” she added, noting that makes up approximately 12 percent of homes in unincorporated parts of the county.
The meeting concluded with members from the town and county planning commissions and staff agreeing to hold collaborative meetings twice a year moving forward.
