Dillon voters will have the final say on the approval of a waterfront development after the Dillon Town Council voted 6-1 at its meeting Tuesday, June 25, to approve the project for a second time.

A referendum petition filed by Dillon residents forced the Town Council to reconsider its March 19 approval of a five-story structure pitched by developer Jake Porritt that includes 200 condos, restaurants, retail spaces and a park at 626 Lake Dillon Drive, where the Best Western Ptarmigan Lodge and defunct Arapahoe Cafe now stand.

Mayor Carolyn Skowyra, who originally voted against the project, reversed her vote Tuesday, saying she only did so because under state law reapproval of the project queues up a town-wide vote on the development’s approval.

“I voted against every single stage of this, (including) the metro district. Every single part of it I voted, ‘no'” Skowyra said. “And it grieves me a little here that I will have to vote ‘yes’ so that the people can tell us what they want.”

With the Town Council again approving the project Tuesday, the ultimate fate of the project now rests in the hands of the voters, with state law requiring a referendum election that has been scheduled for Oct. 1.

During public comment Tuesday, local residents shared mixed opinions of Porritt’s project. Several residents raised concerns about the height and scale of the building, the lack of workforce housing associated with it or the function of the public financing mechanisms associated with it. They called for a “pause.”

Summit County resident Mary Ellen Gilliland, one of the locals who helped organize the petition, said that Dillon needs “revitalization” but that citizens should have more say in that process.

“Let us go back to the drawing boards,” Gilliland said. “Let us keep the good parts of this plan. Let us solidify the things people are asking for such as workforce housing.”

But Porritt, repeating what he said to local residents at a meeting last Saturday, June 15, told the Town Council on Tuesday that there are “binary” options for what will be developed at the property in question.

“We’ve got money that’s spent, and we can’t go through this process again — like we’re not going to do that,” Porritt said. “We can’t re-run another millions of dollars that we have already invested. We can’t do that again with the chance that we’re going to go through another referendum at the end of that cycle.”

If the referendum overturns the planned unit development the Town Council approved for the project, Porritt said he will instead construct a fully private residential structure that would be allowed “by right” under the underlying zoning for the site.

Porritt said the planned unit development allows for flexibility from the underlying zoning so that restaurants, retail spaces, a public observation tower and a 70-foot setback for a park along Lake Dillon Drive can be included. A “by right” project, though, would contain none of those features and would be more obstructive, he said.

The metro districts established to help fund public infrastructure — such as workforce housing, a roundabout or water and sewer lines — associated with the redevelopment also would not be able to benefit the town if the planned unit development were scrapped, Porritt said.

“We either go forward with (the planned unit development) or we just build what we’re allowed to build ‘by right,'” Porritt said. “And what we’re allowed to build already, I think is not as advantageous to the town. … The building would be larger and less attractive.”

Council member Oliver Luck, who joined Town Council after its initial vote on Porritt’s project, voted in favor of approving the planned unit development on Tuesday. Luck said that he believes that town staff spent a long time vetting the project and that it would be a benefit to the town.

“It’s a beautiful piece of property, and I think it needs a first-class building to help bring people into town and support the sales tax,” Luck said. 

Council member Renee Imamura voted in favor of Porritt’s project for a second time on Tuesday night. Imamura said that the waterfront development is “a great opportunity for Dillon” and has been discussed by the Town Council for two years.

Council member John Woods agreed, saying that both the planned unit development and the “by right” project proposed by Porritt would meet his goals of revitalizing the town center, but he said the planned unit development would be better.

“I think either building is going to bring in people with money in their pockets to allow businesses to thrive here,” Woods said. “If I believe that, my next step is I have to say which building is better. And I have to say the building we worked really hard on over a year and a half to mold and shape is the better of the two.”

But council member Kyle Hendricks, the lone ‘no’ vote on the reconsideration of Porritt’s project, disagreed.

Hendricks was joined by Skowyra in raising concern that while Porritt has discussed plans for workforce housing in town, Porritt has not obligated himself in writing to provide any workforce housing associated with the waterfront development.

“I’m so irritated,” Hendricks told his fellow council members. “You all are talking like this has been in front of us for a long time — like what you approved, what we approved at the last go-around has been in front of us for a long time. It hasn’t.”

While Porritt said that his team is not interested in restarting its plans for 626 Lake Dillon Drive, he said there is room for negotiations within the existing bounds of the planned unit development approved for the project. He said he will continue to hold meetings like the one he held last weekend at Pug Ryan’s to continue discussing his redevelopment plans ahead of the referendum vote.

Skowyra called on Porritt to engage with residents between now and the referendum vote, suggesting that he might even want to submit formal plans for workforce housing to satisfy some residents’ concerns.

“I hope by referring this item to the public that it gives them the opportunity you promised here tonight,” Skowyra said. “That they will have a platform to give feedback and see changes substantially recorded so that when they vote on it it’s not a promise they’re voting on, it’s actually facts.”