By Josh Pike
Staff Writer
At its Dec. 5, 2023, meeting, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved changes to the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations (LUR) concerning conceptual development plan reviews, general plan reviews and vested property rights by a 2-1 decision.
Development Director Pamela Flowers explained that the language being discussed had not been used since she started at the county, but that she recently had an applicant who wished to present their project to the board for conceptual review prior to committing the funds for a full conditional use permit application.
She stated that the sections being altered provide an opportunity for an applicant to request the commissioners to vote on their general opinion of a project.
However, Flowers explained that, upon looking through the LUR sections more thoroughly, she found that the regulations include a variety of inconsistencies, and that she and County Attorney Todd Weaver decided to attempt to clarify the sections and make them more usable.
“That’s what this change is all about, getting clarity and consistency and a thorough, clean outline that we can actually execute consistently and be sure that we’re complying with all the requirements,” Flowers said, adding that the language would allow an applicant to acquire a formal opinion on a project from the BoCC prior to formal approval.
In response to a question from Commissioner Ronnie Maez, Flowers explained that these changes are being implemented before the potential applicant submits an application for conceptual review.
She also explained that, without the review process, an applicant would have to submit a fully completed conditional use permit application and have the Archuleta County Planning Commission and the BoCC approve or deny the application with no prior review.
Maez commented that, with the changes and growth in the community, the review process is “not a bad idea.”
Flowers reiterated that the primary goal of the changes is to make the conceptual review process clearer and remove the currently existing inconsistencies.
She then began reviewing the language, starting by noting changes to the review process and public notice tables to clarify the requirements for various types of reviews.
Flowers explained that the amendment also included clarifying changes to the language describing the conceptual plan review processes and the associated vested rights review processes.
Following a conceptual plan review and an affirmative vote by the board, she stated that a project could be referred for a general plan review by the Planning Department and the planning commission.
That would involve additional detail, and the planning commission voting on the project and providing comments, she added.
Flowers stated that, unlike a conceptual plan review, which occurs at a public meeting and where public comments may or may not be taken, a general plan review hearing is required to include public comments.
She explained that the planning commission’s vote and comments will then be relayed to the BoCC, which will then review and vote on the project.
She indicated that the BoCC can refer the project to the Planning Department so that the application can move forward through the approval process or can refuse to endorse the project, although in this case the applicant can still seek approval of the project through the traditional planning approval process.
Flowers then reviewed the procedures involving vested property rights, much of which she noted are taken from state statute and include minor clarifications.
She also presented the commissioners with a flow chart of the plan review process that she intended to add to the LUR.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked County Attorney Todd Weaver if he reviewed the changes for legal compliance.
Weaver stated that he did and that, despite some minor changes he wished to propose in one paragraph, he believes that the changes clarifying the review process would be valuable.
In response to a question from Maez, Weaver and Flowers added that these LUR changes are not related to changes in zoning, but do allow an applicant to gain some assurances on the likely success of their project and learn of potential changes they might need to make to their project to address county or neighbor concerns.
Maez pointed out that the BoCC heard a presentation at a work session from the Forest Park project on County Road 500 that was similar to a conceptual plan review.
Flowers stated that Forest Park is also the applicant that desires to undertake the conceptual and general plan review process with the county.
She explained that the Forest Park project’s investors want additional feedback from the BoCC and the public on the project before moving forward with purchasing the land and investing in the engineering necessary to apply for a conditional use permit.
Maez commented that his “biggest hang up” on the LUR changes was that “one person is causing this change.”
Flowers stated that Forest Park asked to use the process, but that when she reviewed the associated regulations, she was unclear how to proceed, thus necessitating the clarifying changes.
Weaver added that the language is infrequently used and needs to be clarified to make it usable for future applicants.
Maez questioned how older subdivisions such as the Crowley Ranch Reserve near Chromo or Aspen Springs were established.
Flowers explained that she was unsure, although the county did not have a LUR in place at the time and that these changes were intended to clarify how applicants can seek another opportunity for review.
In response to a comment from Maez about the changes adding bureaucracy, Flowers stated that the changes are intended to clarify currently existing bureaucracy.
Weaver commented that the conceptual review process gives a lower-cost option for review by the BoCC than having to complete the entire subdivision or conditional use permit process prior to the project going before the BoCC.
Flowers echoed Weaver’s comments about the plan review process providing a lower-cost and lower-risk approach to having a project reviewed.
Brown commented that he feels it is useful to clarify this process and make it a “useful tool” no matter who is driving the clarifications.
Maez countered, commenting that he sees the issue differently because one entity is driving it, although he indicated that he would support the changes if they came from Flowers reviewing county regulations independent of planned projects.
Commissioner Veronica Medina commented that she sees the situation as being similar to the issues with flag regulations in the LUR where one business made the county aware of the issue, but they have a broader impact.
Flowers added that clarifying the process and having it used might encourage others to use the process as well.
Weaver then presented his proposed changes to the board, primarily involving clarifying language to state which steps of review involve public hearings or meetings.
Flowers added that the changes were reviewed and unanimously approved by the planning commission at its Oct. 25, 2023, meeting.
She also clarified that she brought forward the revisions due to her concerns about the current review process being unclear and not on the behalf of a specific applicant.
Maez commented that he supported the changes to the LUR, but reiterated that he objects to the way the changes came about and were presented.
The board then heard public comment from Bill Hudson supporting the changes, who noted that the process was used in 2010 and 2011 and that he felt it was “effective” at that time.
Maez then commented that the regulations do need to be changed, but that he believes that the changes were driven by one developer bringing the problems to the county’s attention.
Flowers replied that the developer asked for a conceptual plan review and that the change was triggered by her and Weaver being unable to determine how to enforce the currently existing language.
“It shouldn’t matter who brought it to my attention, but when I looked through it and was asked to execute it, it wasn’t executable and so I wanted to make it executable, and that’s truly all it is,” Flowers said, adding that she would do the same for any other process that she discovered she could not execute.
Maez commented that the county needs to be constantly reviewing the LUR, which Flowers expressed agreement with and noted that she frequently brings LUR changes to the BoCC.
Brown then made a motion to adopt the changes with the amendments Weaver suggested, which Medina seconded.
Before the vote, Maez noted that he has his “principles,” adding, “I do believe in this change, but I can’t support it for the reasons of how or what triggered this change.”
The board then voted 2-1 to approve the changes, with Brown and Medina voting for and Maez against.
josh@pagosasun.com
