Planning commission declines to recommend approval of mixed‑use project at 145 West Pearl, 3–2

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3–2 on Jan. 7 not to recommend approval of development plan P25205, a proposed 42‑foot, mixed‑use building at 145 West Pearl Avenue and 65 South Glenwood Avenue that would add roughly 46,096 square feet and 15 residential units above ground.

Commissioners and staff heard a detailed presentation from Andrew, a planning staff member, who outlined the staff recommendation of approval with five conditions, including the requirement that the applicant secure a written agreement from neighboring property owner Ted Stark about removal and replacement of trees and that all comments from the town’s engineering and housing departments be addressed before town council consideration. "The planning director recommends approval, the development plan P25205 for the 46,096 square foot mixed‑use development," Andrew told the commission, and he flagged inconsistencies between narrative, drawings and tabulation that staff and the applicant were still working to resolve.

The applicant’s architect, Jeff, said the design seeks a strong two‑story pedestrian base with ground‑floor retail and stepped‑back upper floors. "We worked closely with the city and the DRC to make some improvements to the project, and I think we ended up with a good result," Jeff said.

Public comment from Jessica Jobert, representing neighbors Ted and Noah Stark, said the parties were coordinating with an arborist and expected a written agreement on tree species and replacement prior to council. "We're working with our own arborist, and the town planning department as well as our neighbor, to finalize that letter," Jobert said.

The commission’s debate focused on three core concerns: whether to grant the town’s discretionary 2‑for‑1 density bonus for deed‑restricted units, whether several interior "den" spaces in plans are effectively bedrooms (raising livability and life‑safety concerns), and whether the alley that provides vehicle access can safely handle garage traffic.

One commissioner who opposed the recommendation said the housing department had included a memo late in the packet describing alleged violations at a different property by the same owner and questioned whether the developer merited the density bonus. "I can't make the finding that the 2 for 1 bonus here is an appropriate tool," the commissioner said, arguing the bonus is discretionary and that deed‑restricted units are a finite community resource.

Several members pressed whether the labeled 'dens' would in practice be used as bedrooms—units without windows or rated corridors could be misused, they said. As one commissioner put it, "I just don't think we're doing our job, morally or otherwise, to permit stuff like this." Staff replied that building‑permit and building‑code review would address some of those issues but acknowledged the limits of enforcement over day‑to‑day use.

Alley and parking concerns also factored into the split. Commissioners described frequent blockages and delivery traffic in downtown alleys; staff said engineering had not identified a red flag but recommended that future projects consider traffic studies where appropriate.

After discussion, a motion to recommend approval, subject to departmental review comments and cleaned plans (mover: speaker 3; second: speaker 2), failed on a 3–2 voice vote. "The recommendation to approve was not approved. It fell 3 to 2," the chair said. Because the commission did not recommend approval, the application will proceed to town council for final action; staff noted that council consideration is scheduled for March 2 and that the applicant must address engineering and housing comments before that hearing.

Key procedural and factual points from the meeting: - Project: Development plan P25205 for a 3‑story (42‑foot) mixed‑use building at 145 West Pearl Ave and 65 S. Glenwood Ave; staff cited roughly 46,096 sf overall and proposed 15 residential units (staff and applicant materials contained some inconsistent unit/tabulation entries that staff asked be corrected before council). - Conditions flagged by staff: combined lots per LDR Section a.2.13.c.5 (partial vacation process), written agreement from neighboring owner Ted Stark before building permits, addressing engineering and housing comments prior to town council consideration (noted for March 2), one kitchen per residential unit per LDR section 6.1.4.2, and recorded affidavits to prevent short‑term rental of restricted units. - Vote: motion to recommend approval failed 3–2; mover: speaker 3; second: speaker 2.

Next steps: The planning commission’s non‑approval will be forwarded to the town council. Staff said council will consider the application on March 2 and that the applicant and staff will need to resolve outstanding plan inconsistencies and departmental comments beforehand.