On May 14, the Pagosa Springs Planning Commission, sitting as the Design Review Board (DRB), approved a final major design application for an apartment complex geared toward workforce housing slated to be built at 116 Alpha Drive.
The multifamily development, being called The Trails at Pagosa Springs, proposes to build “a couple two-story buildings with 22 one-bedroom apartments, 12 two-bedroom apartments, and 16 three-bedroom apartments, for a total of 50 units.”
The project’s two-building footprint, near Walmart, would be on 3.5 acres of a larger 22-acre parcel — the owner of which is listed as FCBMD CO LLC.
The development is part of the state’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and would serve families with household incomes from 30 percent to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), with the average rent landing near the 60 percent AMI range, according to the application.
Texas-based developer Generation Housing Partners states in the application that “the housing crisis in Pagosa Springs is currently one of the town’s most pressing issues,” claiming that the development’s 50-units would help to “meet existing demand” for affordable workforce housing in the area.
The application also cites a Root Policy Research housing study, commissioned by the Town of Pagosa Springs, which concludes that “the region requires 152 deeply affordable rental units and over 400 moderately priced affordable units in order to meet the existing demand” for workforce housing in the area.
To make the development “pencil” for the builder, “financing for the project will consist of 9% housing tax credits, which will provide approximately $12,760,000 equity for the development,” the application states.
It further states, “The Trails [at Pagosa Springs] will promote economic mobility by providing more affordable housing options in Pagosa Springs, which is where the higher paying jobs in the region are located.”
The apartments would be part of “a master planned community in Pagosa Springs … anchored by an existing, adjacent Walmart and is planned to include restaurants, retail stores, a hotel, walking trails, a small community lake, and a pocket park,” the application states.
The full 22-acre parcel, which would fill out the remainder of the master planned community, would still be subject to the town’s major subdivision application process, explains an agenda document on the matter.
The property owner, FCBMD CO LLC, who will develop the remaining acreage in the master planned community, is different from the developer of the 50-unit LIHTC multifamily housing development, Generation Housing Partners, according to the application.
On Feb. 13, the planning commission approved two applications, one for the sketch major subdivision for the larger master-planned community and one for the sketch major design for the apartment complex, which would be Phase 1 of the larger, future development.
Community Development Director James Dickhoff explained that since the time of the sketch design, the builder has decided to pursue two-story buildings, instead of the three-story buildings previously approved, which also triggered changes to the site plans.
Dickhoff explained that “the totality of the project generally complies” with the town’s Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and therefore staff recommended approval of the application, but with some conditions that would need to be met.
When opened to public comment, some property owners and residents of the area expressed concerns about the project.
John Ranson voiced that he was worried about the increased traffic to the area, adding that a traffic study conducted back when the Aspen Village area was initially developed did not count these future proposed developments.
“As a resident, I’m concerned if we start pulling traffic through Aspen Village that wasn’t originally counted,” he said.
He mentioned the original developers of Aspen Village paid for the lighted intersection and that “each of the landowners there, including the residential, have paid for that light.”
He added, “The developers originally paid for it, but we’re all paying for it based on the price of those lots and, so, to have another development come in and utilize that same traffic study count that CDOT told us we couldn’t go over just seems like the cart-before-the-horse.”
He continued, “People shouldn’t be able to utilize another development to come through” the lighted intersection.
“It is traffic. It’s already backing up and we’re not even half full in Aspen Village at this point,” he said.
Dan Sanders, who was one of the developers of Aspen Village, said, “What we did is we put an engineered, full build-out plan before CDOT and the town so that as long we stay within the confines of that concept, then we were OK with what we were building out there.”
He added that the original concept plan for Aspen Village included a hotel, restaurants and other commercial and residential lots and that the mixed-use development is only about halfway built out.
“Our understanding is as long as we stick to that concept, then we’re OK, but what we don’t want to happen is someone coming in around us that quadruples or doubles the traffic flow, and then we sell a lot to a buyer, who wants to, say, put a restaurant in there, and then the town and CDOT says, ‘No, the traffic flow has already been exceeded, so that’s gonna be vacant land from now on.’”
He stated that he wants a guarantee from CDOT and the board that “as long as we stay to our concept plan, we get to put in the businesses that want to go there and that traffic is not going to be a problem for us to do that.”
Board member Chris Pitcher expressed wonder about if there is some sort of “safeguard” for Aspen Village that would protect the developers from being liable if the proposed development reaches the traffic capacity of the area.
Mike Davis, of Davis Engineering Services, assured the board that the 50 apartment units being proposed would “not be the thing” that triggers the need for more roadways, but that the future build-out of the remainder of the 22 acre property could be the trigger at some future date.
“Historically, the way it’s worked on existing intersections is that if you don’t impact it by more than 10 percent, then CDOT isn’t gonna pin those improvements on any given project … I would feel very confident that this particular project is not gonna exceed the 10 percent,” he said.
There was then discussion amongst the board on if a new traffic study for the area should be conducted.
Davis explained how expensive a traffic study would be, “adding that I don’t think it’s necessary here ... I would hate to derail the project for this reason.”
Dickhoff suggested that some of the concern about traffic exceeding the capacity for the area might be a little “premature,” citing that Aspen Village was originally laid out and developed about 20 years ago and it has only been about halfway built out.
He also mentioned that the town already has a heavy investment in a “secondary road network” that would, one-day, offer an alternative to U.S 160, connecting uptown to downtown.
He added that this road network would alleviate some of the traffic concentration.
There was a general agreement among the board that a new traffic study for the Alpha Drive area should be conducted at some point in the near future.
Board member Chad Hodges stated that the town needs a “better understanding of where we are” regarding traffic in the area.
He also expressed wonder about if there was a way for the developers and future developers to “share the costs” of a traffic study “to spread out costs between these things.”
“How do we do that and let everybody pay? Not one particular subdivision being built has to pay for the traffic study. How do we share that cost between multiple developers?” he asked.
Dickhoff said, “It’s certainly gonna be important to look at the traffic generation” in the area, but added that he doesn’t think it is something that needed to be done before the building of the proposed apartment complex begins.
He said that the larger “major subdivision project that would come forward to you would have to contemplate the impacts of this [apartment complex] development within their traffic study. That would be my answer for this particular development.”
Pitcher noted that the town needs to “start thinking” about the traffic impacts in the area as it’s being built out.
He added that he is not against the development being proposed, but “we need to get a handle on” weighing how the traffic flow would be impacted by these new developments.
“We don’t really know where we are … we don’t really have any numbers,” he said, adding, “I don’t think this project should bear the brunt of that, but we should be aware as other projects come in, so I think that should be our recommendation.”
When a motion was made to approve the final major design review application for the 116 Alpha Drive multifamily development, it was approved unanimously by the board.
The approval comes with certain conditions that the developer update its stormwater management plan, include proper screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, and that a final road design is filed before a building permit can be issued.
derek@pagosasun.com
