A special meeting of the Dillon Town Council was upended Monday, Sept. 16, by concerns from town residents.

Dillon Town Council members Renee Imamura and Oliver Luck called for the special meeting late last week to discuss drafting a “factual statement” about the upcoming referendum vote regarding a controversial proposed development.

During the meeting, Town Council members debated whether or not to allow members of the public to talk. But members of the public spoke up anyways, one of them raising questions about a section of the town’s zoning code that led Town Council members to end the meeting due to a lack of answers.

---

---

The Oct. 1 referendum vote will determine the fate of a 485,000-square-foot structure the Town Council approved earlier this year through a planned unit development, which allows for deviations from the underlying zoning. 

Known as the “branded residence” project, the proposed development at 626 Lake Dillon Drive would include 200 condominium units, three restaurants, retail space, a private pool, a public park along Lake Dillon Drive and a public observation tower. The condo units would be owned by individuals but be short-term rented through a management company.

---

---

The referendum vote was scheduled after a group of Dillon residents with a host of concerns circulated a petition. Residents’ concerns included the height variance the structure received, from the 43 feet allowed in the underlying zoning to 55 feet, as well as the size of the building, the speed of the Town Council’s approval of the project and the traffic it could generate, among other issues.

Developer Jake Porritt has said that if Dillon residents vote down the branded residence project at the referendum, he would instead construct a 240-unit condominium development that would be allowed under the existing zoning for the site or “by right.”

Porritt has said that this development would be “more obstructive and much less attractive” than the branded residence structure, would not include public amenities like the park or observation deck and would not generate as much revenue through metro districts to go toward workforce housing, a parking garage or other public infrastructure.

Despite Porritt’s insistence that he would build a “by right” project, some residents have questioned whether he might walk away from 626 Lake Dillon Drive if the planned unit development is voted down since he doesn’t own the lots yet and only has a purchasing agreement with the current owners. Others have questioned whether Porritt could fit a 240-unit condo structure within the constraints of underlying zoning.

“I will confirm we had town staff review our plan for an ‘as-of-right’ building,” Porritt said in an email Monday. “We can be compliant with a 240-unit residential building on the site. The building is 43 feet tall to the top of the mechanical space, which is only 12 feet shorter than the (planned unit development). It extends within 20 feet of the right of ways and the residential neighbors. It is larger in square footage than the (planned unit development) building.”

The referendum election is taking place by mail and voting is already underway.

The special meeting

Members of the public filled the meeting room at Dillon Town Hall for the special meeting Monday.

Mayor Carolyn Skowyra said at the start of the meeting that she had consulted the town attorney earlier in the day with questions about whether the special meeting was a formal meeting or a work session. Skowyra said the attorney told her that it was “more of a work session” and that it was up to the Town Council whether public comment would be held.

“So, I thought we’d start by letting the council tell you all whether or not they want to hear from you because I know many of you are here to speak tonight,” Skowyra said. “I would like to hear from you all.”

But other Town Council members disagreed that members of the public should be allowed to speak.

Imamura said she had called the meeting to discuss drafting a resolution “on why we – a majority of the Council – has approved this (branded residence) development, because there has been a lot of misinformation out there.” She said the purpose of the special meeting was not to hear from members of the public.

Geoff Wilson, an attorney advising the town on issues related to the referendum election, stated that it is the Town Council’s “prerogative” whether or not to have public comment. Wilson said that if a resolution were drafted for possible adoption at the Town Council’s next meeting that public comment would be required at that time, when “there is actually something for the testimony to address. At this point there is not.”

Some members of the public spoke up throughout the meeting despite the Town Council never agreeing to allow public comment. At times, Town Council members and members of the public talked over each other.

At one point, Skowyra allowed Dillon resident Josh Samuel to approach a microphone to share his thoughts.

“My concern is that the facts are not all known and that the facts are as certain people see it,” Samuel said. “If you’re looking to prepare a factual letter addressing the ballot initiative you need to present all the facts.”

Dillon resident Mary Ellen Gilliland also raised concern about the language of the ballot title that voters in the referendum are being presented with.

Council member Luck discussed a possible “framework” for the resolution that would outline for voters what would happen in the case of a ‘no’ vote in the referendum and what would happen in the case of a ‘yes’ vote.

But Wilson advised the Town Council that under the Fair Campaign Practices Act that that “framework” wouldn’t be legal. He described the resolution as an “advocacy piece” that would have to take a position for or against the referendum facing voters.

Wilson said the resolution format would involve a factual “whereas statement” followed by the “opinion statement” reflecting the majority of the council. It is not uncommon for these types of resolutions to have a split vote, he said.

The Town Council began drafting a “whereas statement” but didn’t get much further before Dillon resident Laura Johnson jumped in.

Sometimes shouting at the Town Council members from the back of the room, Johnson raised concern that Dillon town staff had not fully informed the Town Council and public about the zoning laws that would apply to the “by right” construction at 626 Lake Dillon Drive.

Johnson claimed that section 17-3-150 of the town code would require Porritt to dedicate 10% of the property to open space in order to consolidate the four lots that make up the property into a single lot. 

With this provision of the town code, Johnson said it would not be “physically possible” for Porritt to construct a 240-unit condominium complex “by right” at the site because he would be required to dedicate a public park on the property, similar to the one promised in the planned unit development.

Dillon Town Planner Ned West on Tuesday, Sept. 17, told the Summit Daily News that this was not a correct interpretation of the town’s zoning code. However, West was not at the special meeting Monday to answer questions.

Stumped by the zoning code, and without town staff available at the meeting to answer questions, the Town Council members agreed to end the meeting.

“We need our staff to respond to this first, before we go too far down this road,” Council member Dana Christiansen said. “Because it may or not be a valid point. I don’t know. I’m not the town planner.”

Dillon town planner’s response

West told Summit Daily News Tuesday that he does not believe that the land dedication section of the Dillon town code would be triggered by the consolidation of the four lots at 626 Lake Dillon Drive into a single lot.

“Based on my review of the code, I believe it would not,” West said. “Basically what the provision is speaking to is when you create a whole new subdivision, say if land is annexed into the town.”

When the town was platted in 1963, the same year those lots were established, there was park space dedicated to the public at that time, in line with the “spirit of those requirements,” West said. The section of the code also states, “this requirement shall not apply to a subdivider who undertakes to re-subdivide a parcel for which an open space dedication has previously been made.”

West added that while boundary line elimination is a “subdivision process” under the town code, it does not qualify as subdividing for the purpose of that section of the code because it is not creating new lots but is instead consolidating them.

At one point in time, the four lots at 626 Lake Dillon Drive had actually been five lots, so one of the lots there had at some point already been consolidated from two lots, West said. He added that he wasn’t sure why the property hadn’t already been consolidated into a single lot since “it’s been a single entity all along under one ownership.”

West estimated he could dig up 20 examples of lots being consolidated in Dillon in the past without triggering the land dedication provision of the town code.

West said that in a meeting with Porritt, he informally reviewed a plan of the “by right” condominium structure but that the town has not received any formal submittal. 

West said that it seems “potentially possible” that a 240-unit condominium complex could be built “by right” under the existing residential high zoning for the property, which allows a density of up to 65 units per acre. 

“To me, it doesn’t seem impossible,” he said, adding that planning staff would have to take a deeper look at any application that came before them to determine whether it met the zoning code.

With any development that came forward, West said, “We would painstakingly apply the code and not in any way bend the code for any developer.”

Battling conflict of interest claims

With voting in the referendum ending in less than two weeks, there have been claims of conflicts of interest floated against members of the Dillon Town Council who represent different sides of the debate.

Some members of the public have raised concerns that Imamura is a real estate agent for Slifer Smith & Frampton. Slifer Smith & Frampton announced recently that it will be the real estate company selling apartments at 240 Lake Dillon Drive, which was previously known as Uptown 240. That project is owned by Porritt.

Imamura said Tuesday that she consulted the town attorney about whether a conflict of interest exists and has been told there is no conflict. She said she does not stand to gain financially from the Porritt project and that Dillon voters knew she was a real estate agent when she was elected.

“This is my job,” Imamura said. “I have no involvement in the development team. Slifer Smith & Frampton, if you look at our website we have a development sales team and because they know I am a councilwoman they have kept me completely out of the loop.”

After the special meeting, Caroline Kwak, a lawyer representing Porritt, raised concerns in an email Tuesday to Summit Daily that Mayor Carolyn Skowyra is married to one of the proponents of the petition, Louis Skowyra.

Kwak said that Carolyn Skowyra should have recused herself from the special meeting Monday night. Other members on the Town Council also have referenced the mayor’s relation to Louis Skowyra in the past.

Carolyn Skowyra said she consulted the now-former town attorney and was told that no conflict exists. She said she has not felt the need to consult the attorney since then because someone would have brought it to her attention if there was a conflict.

“I did ask the town attorney at the time whether that is a conflict or not,” Carolyn Skowyra said. “She told me he does not give up his rights as a private citizen just because his wife is a public official. So I don’t think there is a conflict.”