At a July 23 meeting, the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission started a conversation about restricting development within existing town parks and open spaces.
This idea comes in the wake of public opposition to a plan to install a parking lot in a mostly unused portion of the Town Park athletic field.
The Pagosa Springs Town Council unanimously voted down the parking lot at its July 18 meeting.
Community Development Director James Dickhoff explained the idea to restrict development in the town’s parklands “has matured a little bit” after the recent conversations “about building in parks — an apartment complex and the practice field for some parking,” he said.
Dickhoff said, “town council, at their last meeting, did deny moving forward with any parking at the practice field … and also decided” that the South Pagosa Park location was not “the best location for apartments,” adding that the council’s vote on both of these reflected “public sentiment” on the issue.
He said that the public was saying, “Don’t pave our parks,” and that “once you do that … you are not getting it back as park space.”
He added that in his experience with gauging what residents want the most, preserving and creating new park space is one of the most popular ideas amongst constituents.
If the town ultimately decides to go in the direction of restricting development in parks and open spaces, it would likely require passage through a ballot measure vote to amend the town charter, Dickhoff explained.
A ballot measure on the issue could be initiated by the town council or by gaining enough signatures from eligible town voters, he said.
He added that the purpose of bringing the issue up at this meeting was to gauge if the commission wanted to give a recommendation one way or the other to the council.
He noted that other land designations, such as wetland easements, have restrictions on development within the town charter, and that parks and open spaces could have similar designations within the charter if the voters decide to make that change.
A charter amendment would be the best route, Dickhoff suggested, because it would be a higher threshold to undo the restriction in the future since it would take another public vote to amend the charter again.
If it was merely a decision of the council, it would be left to the “whims” of a future council to undo the restriction, he explained.
“Should we consider something formally incorporated into the town charter that would require, essentially, a town vote to include it into the charter?” he asked the commission.
When opened up to questions and comments, planning commissioner Chris Pitcher suggested that he thinks the best way forward on this issue is a voter-initiated ballot measure that originates with “the people” through voter signatures.
Planning commissioner Mark Weiler said, “I do not like the idea of limiting the use, long-term use, of our parks. I would like voters to be able to have a voice in changes to current parkland.”
Weiler mentioned his experience with historic buildings, saying that once you commit to such restrictions, “ you’ve locked yourself up to a series of things that you can’t unlock.”
He added, “I don’t want to give up the potential of somebody coming to the town and saying that this is the perfect place for X, and then let the town voters decide.”
Pitcher asked Dickhoff his opinion on the best way to get this on the ballot, with Dickhoff saying that he thought the ballot language should be initiated by the town council.
Dickhoff reminded the commission of previous voter-driven ballot measures that passed with popular approval in the election, but were later struck down by the courts.
He noted that the council, aided by the town attorney, would be best suited to draft ballot measure language that could pass legal muster.
“I think it’s important to craft that language correctly so that it’s clear, understandable … and that it’s something that won’t get challenged later on, so I think there may be a benefit in a joint effort, with the town working with the citizens to bring that language forward,” he said.
Pitcher suggested that the issue be revisited at the next meeting, “and then maybe we could have some language that we could be prepared to make a recommendation to town council,” adding that the conversation “was a good fresh start.”
derek@pagosasun.com
