Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2018-04-10Prepared: April 5, 2018 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 10, 2018 11:30 a.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING a. Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT a. The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA a. Minutes: March 20, 2018 b. Large Vacation Home Review: 1881 Homestead Lane CCO Hardin 5. EVDC AMENDMENT: ADDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, MODIFYING “SCHOOL” DEFINITIONS, AND ADJUSTING PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL REVIEWS Director Hunt 6. EVDC AMENDMENT: TO ADD “EXTENSION, EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE” Senior Planner Woeber 7. REPORTS A. Staff-Level Reviews B. Pre Application Reviews C. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment D. Estes Park Town Board/Annexations E. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners F. Community Development Update G. Vacation Home Update H. Downtown Plan Update I. Other 8. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 1 Commission: Chair Bob Leavitt, Vice-Chair Sharry White, Commissioners Betty Hull, Russ Schneider, Robert Foster, Doyle Baker, Steve Murphree Attending: Chair Leavitt, Vice-Chair White, Commissioners Hull, Schneider, Foster, and Baker Also Attending: Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin, Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Staff Liaison Michael Whitley, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Steve Murphree Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 10 people in attendance. 1. OPEN MEETING Planning Commissioner Introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Dick Speilman/ Town Citizen, questioned why the town can’t find money to redo the comprehensive plan. Pat Newsom/Town Citizen, shared thoughts and concerns about town and revision of the comprehensive plan taking into account single family housing. Johanna Darden/Town Citizen, spoke in regard to the EVCP and questioned how it may relate to the Larimer County plan. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Approval of February 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes. C. Large Vacation Home Review: 2745 Eaglecliff Drive, 6-bedroom, 14-person occupancy; Owner: Talsma It was moved and seconded (Hull/Baker) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 6-0. 5. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW – 1060 Otis Lane. 6-bedroom, 14-person occupancy. Owners: Leslie Peng/Eric Neeb, Lotis LLC RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2 Code Compliance Office Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .96-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size. There have been no public comments received. It was moved and seconded (White/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 1060 Otis Lane and to allow a maximum of fourteen (14) occupants. The motion passed 6-0. 6. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 1004 Rambling Drive. 4-bedroom, 10-person occupancy. Owner: Gordon Coakley CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .45-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size. Setback on one side is 9 feet, which is less than the 25-foot requirement. There have been no public comments received. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/town citizen, stated that the property should not be allowed to be a Large Vacation Home and should adhere to the codes that are in place. Commission Discussion: Commission asked if the neighbors were notified, and if new property owners would be able to object to the Large Vacation Home. CCO Hardin answered in the negative to both questions. It was moved and seconded (Hull/White) to approve the vacation home at 1004 Rambling Drive and to allow a maximum of ten (10) occupants. The motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Baker voting against and Commissioner Leavitt recusing himself. 7. LARGE VACATION HOME REVIEW - 1901 Silversage Court. 5-bedroom, 12-person occupancy. Owner: Jim Rasmuson CCO Hardin stated that the home sits on a lot size of .34-acre, Large Vacation Home use requires 1-acre lot size; setback on three sides is 15 feet, which is less than the 25-foot requirement. There have been no public comments received. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to approve the vacation home at 1901 Silversage Court and to allow a maximum of twelve (12) occupants. The motion passed 6-0. 8. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD “PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AND “NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS” AS USES ALLOWABLE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AND REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF SCHOOLS. Continued from 2/20/18 meeting Senior Planner Woeber discussed that due to Colorado liquor licensing laws there were potential issues regarding allowing schools in certain areas. Staff is now not proposing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 allowing any non-public school use in the CD, Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The Town is also exploring eliminating the 500-foot separation distance requirement partially or entirely, within the Estes Park Town limits. Staff is also adding “Parochial Schools” to be included within the “Non-Public Schools” use. Staff recommended approval of this Amendment. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Foster questioned the definition of public schools in this amendment compared to the Colorado Revised Statute definition; what standards would be used if a S2 Special Review would come before the Planning Commission, since the EVDC, Section 5 doesn’t reflect standards for schools, making this premature; what attempt has staff made to tailor this amendment to Eagle Rock, rather than applying to all schools; and what evidence is there for a need of this amendment. Planner Woeber answered that the standards are more general in nature and it was staff’s decision to broaden the amendment. Director Hunt explained the history of pedagogical school sites and noted that we are rectifying a mistake made years ago by passing this amendment. Attorney White stated that there is no effect on existing public schools in the Estes Valley. Commissioner Baker questioned the necessity of the amendment, relating to changes and conditions, noting that owners in all Residential Zoning areas are potentially affected, taking away some people’s rights while giving rights to others. Hunt stated that the changing condition is that there was a poorly written Development Code in 2000 which now needs to be rectified in a more rational approach to this matter. Commissioner Hull stated that she does not see that the amendment is taking away rights from other residential areas. Commissioner White expressed her concern that a couple of small non- public schools have sprung up in the past and given that they could be placed in residential areas, under this proposal, we need standards for review. The Commission is in agreement that they want to help Eagle Rock. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town Citizen, objects to zone changes that will affect her and her neighborhood, recommending that the Planning Commission should vote this amendment down and come up with a new amendment that helps Eagle Rock. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Foster gave four reasons for voting against this amendment: 1) it is not adequately (narrowly) tailored to Eagle Rock, 2) there hasn’t been an adequate analysis of consequences, 3) the amendment doesn’t meet the Development Code standards, and 4) there is no existing standard of review in Section 5. Table’s 5.1 and 5.2 of the Development Code need to be reviewed regarding Accessory Uses. Commissioner Baker agreed with Foster adding that schools are already allowed by special review in R2 and RM, and by right in CO and A. He stated that for him it’s an issue of putting them in single family neighborhoods, pushing them everywhere in the Valley, when there are plenty of other opportunities for private schools within the Estes Valley. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4 Commissioner Schneider stated that we are in a situation of trying to create code revision for just one specific site and that the amendment needs greater review and questioned if there might be an easier way of doing this, perhaps by amending the specific site use or a Special Review. Director Hunt answered that a “spot zone”, or a Code Amendment Alternative for dealing with nonconforming uses and how they can expand are the only available options. Commissioner Hull asked how Eagle Rock can become legally conforming - what would be the fastest way for Eagle Rock to be allowed to continue with their expansion plan. Michael Whitley explained that Larimer County has a special review procedure of nonconforming use done on a case by case basis, up to a fifty percent (50%) expansion. This procedure is called an Expansion of Nonconforming Use. Trustee Norris expressed his personal concern with moving ahead and not delaying Eagle Rock, asking how quickly could staff look at the Larimer County process, and plan a special meeting. It was noted that a 15 day published legal notice is needed. It was moved and seconded (Foster/Hull) to continue the EVDC Amendment relating to Schools, pending a Special Meeting in April. The motion was approved 6-0. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.15 GENERAL NOTICE PROVISIONS. Director Hunt explained the objective of the proposed Code Amendment is to change the format in which mailed public notifications are sent, expand the property perimeter within which mailed public notices are sent, and require posting of “Development Under Review” public-notice signage for applicable properties. A fee increase would have to be built into this Amendment. Staff and Commission Discussion Commissioner Foster thanked Community Development staff for coming up with this proposal with Commissioner White agreeing. Commissioner Leavitt questioned the sentence regarding failure to give appropriate notice. Attorney White stated that is a standard legal disclaimer. Commissioner Schneider suggested changing the words “meeting” to “hearing”. It was moved and seconded (White/Foster) to approve the Text Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A with changed verbiage. The motion passed 6-0 10. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT. Proposed four townhome lots in Windcliff Estates on 0.574 acre lot, each with single family residence. The current Subdivision/PUD is a recorded plat, with E-1 Zoning, which allows this proposal to be applied. Staff recommended approval with the following RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 20, 2018 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 5 condition: Owner shall submit an Improvement Guarantee which will be reviewed by town and Larimer County staff. Staff and Commission Discussion Questions were raised on whether or not there were other waivers besides those relating to access and if the drainage plan is in final plat. Both were answered in the affirmative by Planner Woeber. Applicant Discussion: David Bangs from Van Horn Engineering was available for questions. It was moved and seconded (Baker/Foster) to approve the Mountain View Townhome Subdivision Plat according to findings of fact, including findings and conditions recommend by staff and the motion passed 6-0. 11. REPORTS A) Planner II interviews going along well, with a lead candidate identified. B) Staff asked the Commission to think about the following changes: Increase Planning Commission Meetings to twice a month and change meeting time to 4:30. C) Study Session’s will need to be held in the Board Room for the next few months due to the sound system in Room 202/203. Study Sessions will possibly be recorded going forward. D) Application reviews 1. Wind River Development Plan (no longer pre-app as of 3/14, now ex parte) 2. Jimmy John’s/Donuts/Urgent Care/Housing: Steamer Drive 3. Habitat for Humanity pre-app 4. Stanley Historic Home Museum 5. Amended Plats, Supplemental Condo Maps 6. McDonalds: subdivision of property pre app 7. 920 Dunraven Street: Rezone from CH to CO for Microbrewery with back-in diagonal parking (no longer pre-app as of 3/14, now ex parte) 8. Cheley Camp High Ropes Course: height variance and amended plat 9. Twin Owls Development Plan: Rezone and Amended Plat (no longer pre-app as of 3/14, now ex parte). E) Plans of posting “current project spreadsheet” on Town web site. There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. _________________________________ Bob Leavitt, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Jeff Woeber, Senior Planner Date: April 10, 2018 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code: Adding Schools to Certain Residential and Non-Residential Zoning Districts, Modifying “School” Definitions, and Adjusting Procedures for School Reviews Planning Commission Objective: Review and provide a recommendation for a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): • To add “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” as uses permitted in most zoning districts under specified circumstances, whereas currently “Schools” are permitted in only four zoning districts; • To clarify definitions of various types of schools (public and non-public), and • To adjust procedures for reviewing public school development by removing language contrary to Colorado Revised Statutes. UPDATE: Planning Commission Continuance (April 10 meeting): On March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission continued this amendment to your April 10, 2018 special meeting. The vote to continue this amendment was accompanied by the Commission’s request that a separate amendment to EVDC be prepared. The separate amendment could provide an alternative path forward for Eagle Rock School, by allowing a one-time expansion of a non-conforming use – e.g., to allow new buildings to be placed on a non-conforming-use property. That separate use is the subject of another staff report and hearing on today’s agenda. Staff continues to propose that the Schools amendment language under consideration since February has merit, and we continue to recommend the amendments be approved. The amendment does provide an alternative route to approval for Eagle Rock Schools, but the amendment’s purpose and benefits go beyond those of one institution. Our reasons are as follows: APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 2 OF 9 • The primary reason is that properly planned schools have a place in residential neighborhoods. This is a best practice in education and a best practice in planning. This proposed amendment would allow non-public schools by Special Review. This is the typical zoning approach to siting neighborhood schools in much of the United States. (Under Colorado law, public schools have to be sited and developed under sole authority of the Board of Education. The current Code requires an invalid mechanism for public-school siting; this error is fixed in the amendment.) Accompanying this staff report are two documents in support of the neighborhood-schools approach. One document is “School Siting: Location Affects the Potential to Walk or Bike” (2011), from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a public/private partnership that works with Federal DOT and various state and local entities to ensure that schools are planned with location accessibility in mind, among other matters. (The Town of Estes Park will begin a grant-funded Safe Routes to School project soon to improve non- motorized access to the public-school campus on Brodie Ave.) The other document, while longer, speaks directly to locating schools in residential neighborhoods. This is “Planning for Schools and Liveable Communities: The Oregon School Siting Handbook” (2005) from the Oregon Transportation & Growth Management Program (a multi-agency state program). At 44 pages this document is a bit lengthy for a staff report, but it contains much useful and valuable information. The report is especially aimed at public school location, but the recommendation applies equally well to non-public schools. We would direct your attention to p. 37 in the PDF file (numbered p. 31 in the text), which states: “Schools are usually treated as conditional uses in residential districts. Conditional uses require the applicant (in this instance, the school district) to apply for a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit application usually requires the school district to conduct a traffic impact study and other analyses.” (“Conditional Use” is a standard planning term for what our Code calls “Special Review”.) Note the Handbook’s specific recommendation for a traffic study. EVDC already provides for this in Special Reviews: see §3.5.B.2. APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 3 OF 9 • On Mar. 20, the PC suggested that more specific review criteria, such as those in EVDC Sec. 5.1, are needed in order to classify schools as a Special Review. Two things should be noted: (a) Not all uses in Sec. 5.1 are Special Reviews – some are permitted by-right; thus, Sec. 5.1 should not be viewed as a “Special Review criteria” list. (b) More to the point, a sizeable number of Special Reviews uses are not specified in Sec. 5.1, but are left to the generalized (but still detailed) review criteria in Sec. 3.5.B. Those have served us reasonably well over many Special Reviews in the Estes Valley. Staff would not oppose adding several specific criteria for schools in Sec. 5.1 (the Oregon document provides some useful approaches), but it is not critical to the SR process, as Sec. 3.5.B already contains the requisite authority. Ideally, adding school-specific criteria would be part of a larger task to include other specific uses in Sec. 5.1 that aren’t there now, such as larger churches, event centers, and the like. • The Schools amendment may be of more utility to Eagle Rock School than the non-conforming uses amendment, as the latter would only be useful for a one- time expansion. After that one-time use, a permanent Code change, like this Schools amendment or another zoning-regulation change (e.g., rezoning), would be needed. We hope and expect to know Eagle Rock’s position on this aspect by the time of the April 10 meeting; it is hoped they will be present. • The Schools amendment deal with other school-related errors in current EVDC besides the residential-districts matter. For example, our current EVDC requires a new public school or a change to an existing public school to go through a Location and Extent Review. That process is suitable for other public facilities, but Colorado Revised Statutes do not allow the Review for public schools. That section is to be removed from EVDC. Another fix in the amendment would clarify the definitions of public and non-public schools. • Practically, it is unlikely that Estes Valley will see many new non-public or public schools, as our population is not growing rapidly, especially in the demographic categories that would lead to school growth. It is possible that could change, however; possibly involving populations who are not here now. For example, as far as staff knows, no one predicted Eagle Rock School might happen before they began exploring opportunities here. The point is that long odds of something happening is no reason to avoid preparing for the possibility. APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 4 OF 9 • Last but not least: Staff would strongly disagree with some of the characterizations made on March 20 that locating schools in residential areas “takes away rights” of residents or is “pushing” an undesirable land use into a wrong location. For one thing, the Special Review process in EVDC is specifically designed to take into account the views of citizens. Every Special Review has at least one - often multiple - public hearings, with (nowadays) posted signage and mailed notice to neighbors. More fundamentally: For many decades now, the concept of the neighborhood school has been tested and found desirable in America. This principle is clearly stated in the Oregon handbook, the SRTS document, and other easily found source materials. It also matches public expectations. Among the first question parents of school-age children ask when house-hunting is, “What are the schools here like?” There is more than sufficient validated research showing that neighborhood schools are seen as anchors for stable neighborhoods and communities. Staff has not yet seen a single study that found a properly planned neighborhood school damages the neighborhood. To be sure, schools have to be sited carefully within such neighborhood settings. For example, there’s evidence that putting a school next to a neighborhood convenience store can create problems for both establishments. (A visit to the store’s candy aisle at 2:45 pm will be enough evidence for any parent or guardian, assuming the adult survives the experience.) Site-specific concerns like this are easily addressed through the Special Review process. Issues around providing for families in Estes Valley are already severe and are damaging our economic growth. The absence of family-friendly policies carries a large social cost, here or anywhere. Adoption of a benign code amendment to provide for families in a family-appropriate setting is one way to help counter this image. Even if the amendment is seldom or never invoked, the message is appropriate. PREVIOUS UPDATES: Planning Commission Continuance (March 20 Meeting): This Code Amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their February 20, 2018 meeting. The Code Amendment was continued to the March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, at staff’s request. It was brought to staff’s attention that there were potential issues regarding allowing schools in certain areas, due to Colorado liquor licensing laws. Statutory requirements mandate a 500-foot separation distance between a licensed liquor establishment and a school. This could present particular problems near downtown, where residential areas adjoin many alcohol-service establishments. Staff is now not proposing allowing any non-public school use in the CD, Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The Town is also exploring eliminating the APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 5 OF 9 500-foot separation distance requirement partially or entirely, within Estes Park Town limits. Staff is also adding “Parochial Schools,” to be included within the “Non-Public Schools” use, to be consistent with school categories described in statutes. See attached Exhibit A [Aquamarine]. Code Amendment Objective: To have the uses, “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” be allowable, under specified criteria, in all zoning districts within the EVDC Boundary other than CD, Downtown Commercial. Establishing a Public School would be subject to meeting State Statutory requirements. A Non-Public School would require review and approval of an S2 Special Review. The EVDC Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts, B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts, would be amended so that “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” would be allowed in all residential zoning districts (RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2, and RM.) Currently “Schools” are allowed through approval of both an “S2” Special Review and a “Location and Extent Review,” only in R-2 and RM Zoning Districts. The EVDC Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts, would be amended so that “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools” would be allowed in the following nonresidential zoning districts (A, A-1, CO, O, CH, and I-1.) Currently “Schools” are allowed through approval of a “Location and Extent Review,” only in A and CO Zoning Districts. (Note: The previous staff report for this Code Amendment included the CD Zoning District. CD is no longer included.) The EVDC Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples, C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples, would be amended to clarify and define “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools,” and also keep that Section’s existing examples of Schools. The EVDC Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.3 Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review, C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review, 1. Public Schools, a. through f., would no longer be applicable and would be deleted, as they conflict with Colorado Statutes. Exhibit A [Aquamarine] is attached, detailing the specific amendments. Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit A [Aquamarine] to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Background, Discussion: APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 6 OF 9 The Eagle Rock School was established in 1993, in unincorporated Larimer County. This is a 501(c)3, nonprofit school, with an enrollment of 72 students, geared towards “adolescents who are not thriving in their current situations.” This was well before the EVDC was adopted, and the current boundary established. The Eagle Rock site, located in a rural setting approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the intersection of Highway 34 and Dry Gulch Road, was within Larimer County “Estate” zoning when originally established. Upon adoption of the EVDC in 2000, the Eagle Rock School site was rezoned to RE-1, Rural Estate, which does not allow for Schools. Since that time, there has been some minor development of the facilities, but no major expansion projects. The nonconforming School use would not be able to undergo any expansion of their facilities based on the EVDC, Section 6.3 C., which does not allow a nonconforming use to be extended. Eagle Rock School recently discussed the proposed expansion of their facilities with staff, and it was recommended that they apply to add the “Schools” use to the RE-1 Zoning District. Discussion among staff and the Town Attorney has led to this being broadened to allowing Schools in most zoning districts within the EVDC. Staff notes: If this code amendment is approved, Eagle Rock School would need to go through a Special Review process for their proposed expansion. Eagle Rock School has begun this Special Review process. The “Schools” use has been broken down into two separate uses by staff: “Public Schools” and “Non-Public Schools.” This distinction is made within Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 22-1-101. The Colorado Department of Education and State Board of Education refer to these two categories as well. Public Schools, currently an undefined term in the EVDC, are proposed to be defined, within Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2, Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples, as follows: “Public School: Any school under the jurisdiction of a public school district and local board of education, organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. Public Schools may include charter schools and institute charter schools, as defined by the Colorado Department of Education.” With this code amendment, the EVDC would allow Public Schools in any zoning district. Schools are a commonly allowed use in residentially-zoned areas in most places. The EVDC would require, “Any Public School shall comply with all applicable requirements per Colorado Revised Statutes.” This code amendment would eliminate the Special Review and the Location and Extent Review requirements currently in the EVDC for Schools. These cannot apply, according to legal advice. Section 22-32-124 of the Colorado Revised Statutes limits the ability of a Town or County to subject school districts to zoning and land use review. In establishing a new public school, the Board of Education of the local school district must consult with, and advise in writing the Planning Commission in order that a proposed site shall conform APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 7 OF 9 to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. The Board of Education shall submit a Site Development Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to construction. The Planning Commission may request a hearing in front of the Board of Education. In spite of this provision for a hearing, that procedure shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Board of Education to finally determine the location of public schools in the school district and construction of necessary buildings and structures. Essentially, the Code Amendment proposes that any School not meeting the definition of a Public School is a “Non-Public School.” A Non-Public School would be allowable in any zoning district except CD, Downtown Commercial, but only upon approval of an “S2” Special Review, which requires a Planning Commission and Board action (Town Board or County Commissioners). Staff emphasizes that although it would be a use allowed in any zoning district, a site-specific review requiring public notice and a public hearing would be required to establish a Non-Public School in any given location. After discussion with the Town Attorney, staff has included “Parochial Schools” in the “Non-Public Schools” definition. The amendment to the Code that staff proposes adding is on the attached Exhibit A [Aquamarine]. Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review “All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:” 1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected, which is to allow existing Schools that are nonconforming uses to be brought into zoning compliance, as well as provide more options for Schools to locate in the Estes Valley. 2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley:” Staff Finding: The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan has little discussion of school siting or planning. Chapter One of the Plan, “The Planning Process,” lists “Local Trends,” one of which is that “Schools will face increasing enrollment due to more families moving into the area.” The “Implication for Estes Park” due to that trend, according APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 8 OF 9 to the Plan, is “The school district and community need to consider options to reduce overcrowding.” The proposed text amendment is generally compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, with staff noting the absence of any policies or intent within the Plan that address the siting or zoning for schools. 3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved.” Staff Finding: Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment is approved. Advantages: • Supports the concept of neighborhood schools in residential settings, through a Special Review process – a best practice in education and in planning and zoning. • Provides an avenue (possibly one of several) for Eagle Rock School to become legally conforming in their current location. • Clears up an error in EVDC regarding local-government authority over public- school siting and development. • Clarifies EVDC definitions for schools. Disadvantages: • Some Planning Commission discussion (March 20) has indicated preference to provide an avenue forward for Eagle Rock School, but not allow schools in other single-family residential neighborhoods. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve. Level of Public Interest Low. Little input or public comment has been received. The Town of Estes Park Public Works Department did comment that any proposed school must be served by adequate transportation facilities. Sample Motion: APPROVAL APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 5, 2018) PAGE 9 OF 9 I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A [Aquamarine] as recommended by staff, with findings as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit A [Aquamarine], finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). Exhibits: 1. Exhibit A [Aquamarine]: Estes Valley Development Code (reformatted, but content unchanged from “Exhibit Green” in March 20 PC packet): o Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts, B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts o Chapter 4. Zoning Districts, Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts, B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts o Chapter 3. Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.3 Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review, C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review, 1. Public Schools, a. through f. o Chapter 13. Definitions, Section 13.2 Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples, C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Example 2. “School Siting: Location Affects the Potential to Walk or Bike” (2011), from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership. 3. “Planning for Schools and Liveable Communities: The Oregon School Siting Handbook” (2005), from the Oregon Transportation & Growth Management Program. EXHIBIT A [Aquamarine] Planning Commission: April 10, 2018 (Existing, Excerpt) B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Additional Regulations Schools __ __ __ __ __ __ S2 S2 §3.13 Location & Extent Review (Proposed, Excerpt) B. Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM Additional Regulations Public Schools P P P P P P P P Any Public School shall comply with all applicable requirements per Colorado Revised Statutes. Non-Public Schools S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 (Existing, Excerpt) B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Regulations Schools P __ __ P __ __ __ §3.13 Location & Extent Review (Proposed, Excerpt) B. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Additional Regulations Public Schools P P P P P P P Any Public School shall comply with all applicable requirements per Colorado Revised Statutes. Non-Public Schools S2 S2 __ S2 S2 S2 S2 CHAPTER 13. DEFINITIONS § 13.2 - USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES C. Use Classification/Specific Use Definitions and Examples. 42. Schools. a. General Definitions: School: Any building or part thereof used for instructional purposes to provide elementary, secondary, post-secondary or vocational education. Public School: Any elementary or secondary school under the jurisdiction of a public school district or local board of education, organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. Public Schools may include charter schools and institute charter schools, as defined by the Colorado Department of Education. Non-Public School: Any elementary or secondary school not under the jurisdiction of a public school district or local board of education. Parochial Schools are Non-Public Schools. b. Examples: This use classification includes: (1) Public or private Educational institutions at the primary, elementary, middle, junior or high school level. Examples include public and private daytime schools, boarding schools and military academies. (2) Colleges and other institutions of higher learning that offer courses of general or specialized study leading to a degree. Examples include universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, and nursing and medical schools not accessory to a hospital and seminaries. Accessory uses may include offices, housing for students, food service, laboratories, health and sports facilities, theaters, meeting areas, parking, maintenance facilities and support commercial. (3 2) Business, vocation and trade schools (at the secondary or higher education levels). c. Exceptions: This use classification does not include preschools, which are classified as "Day Care Centers." § 3.13 - Public Facility/Use Location and Extent Review C. Procedure for Location and Extent Review. 1. Public Schools. a. Prior to acquiring land or contracting for the purchase of land for a school site, the board of education shall consult with and advise the Estes Valley Planning Commission, in writing. b. Prior to construction of any structure or building, the board of education shall submit a development plan for review and comment to the EVPC. c. The EVPC may request a public hearing before the board of education on the proposed site location or development plan. If the EVPC requests a hearing, the board of education shall promptly schedule the hearing, publish at least one (1) notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the hearing to the EVPC. d. The EVPC shall consider all information presented at the public hearing. If no hearing is requested, the EVPC shall consider all information provided by the board of education, and shall convey its findings and recommendations to the board of education. e. Failure of the EVPC to act within thirty (30) days after the date of official submission of the proposal or development plan shall be deemed an approval, unless a longer period for review is granted by the board of education. f. The authority to make final determinations as to the location of public schools and the authority to erect buildings and structures shall remain with the board of education. 2. All Other 1. Public Uses. a. A proposed development plan shall be submitted to the EVPC for approval, pursuant to the development plan approval process set forth in §3.8 of this Chapter, prior to the construction or authorization of any public use that is subject to location and extent review. b. Failure of the EVPC to act within thirty (30) days after the date of official submission of the development plan shall be deemed an approval, unless a longer period is granted by the submitting board, body or official. c. If the EVPC disapproves the development plan, it shall communicate its reasons to the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, depending on the location of the proposed project. The respective Board is authorized to overrule such disapproval by a majority vote of its entire membership. Upon overruling, the Board may proceed with construction or authorization of the project, as applicable. d. If the project is not required to be authorized or financed by the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, or other County or Town official or board, the EVPC's disapproval may be overruled by the body or official having jurisdiction over the authorization and financing of the project. A vote to overrule by such body shall be by a majority vote of its entire membership. In the case of a utility owned by an entity other than a political subdivision, the EVPC's disapproval may be overruled by the Public Utilities Commission by not less than a majority of its entire membership. School Siting L O C AT I O N A F F E C T S T H E P O T E N T I A L T O W A L K O R B I K E Background State and local-level decisions regarding school siting, construction, and design have signicant impacts on whether homes are located within walking and cycling distance of schools. Trends indicate that the average school size has grown and that new schools have been increasingly located on large sites away from the families in the neighborhoods that they ser ve. The National Center for Education Statistics notes that the number of schools in the United States decreased from 262,000 in 1930 to 91,000 today, while student population over the same time has risen from 28 million to 53.5 million. The student population continues to grow; the U.S. Department of Education estimates that by 2030, it will reach 60 million. In many states and local communities there is a policy bias in favor of constructing new schools rather than renovating or expanding existing ones. Guidelines, recommendations and standards that encourage or require building large schools on new campuses are embedded in a variety of regulations and laws. Some states will only provide state funding for schools that follow such guidelines. In addition, many states have school construction funding formulas that favor new construction over renovation. Such formulas t ypically establish a limit on what a district may spend to renovate rather than build new, usually a specic percentage of the cost of new construction. The National Trust for Historic Preser vation urges states to eliminate these funding policies, because they penalize communities for maintaining and modernizing old schools, even when doing so costs less than building new. SubscribeMediaPartnerDonate search our site State S TAT E N E T W O R K P R O J E C T S TAT E P O L I C I E S : B E S T P R A C T I C E S S afe Ro utes t o Sc h o ol S ta te P ro grams C o m plet e St re e ts Tra f c S afet y Tr aining : Wa lki ng a nd Bicy c ling Prog ra m s Fi n e -B ased M e ch anis ms S ha re d U s e of S ch ool an d C o m munit y F ac i lities L e gi s lation L o wer-I nc o m e C omm u ni ties P e r s on al S afe ty S ch ool B us F u nd in g: C uts a n d Ha za rd/C ou r t e s y Bu sing S ch ool S it i n g S tra teg ic H i ghw ay Sa fet y Pla n We llness P oli c ies Another set of policies that favors construction of large new schools are "minimum acreage standards." In an eort to get a clearer picture of the role minimum acreage standards play in school locations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asked the Council of Educational Facility Planners International to research state minimum acreage requirements in 2003 while CEFPI was updating is facilities guide. Recognizing that a "one size ts all" approach is dated and can work counter to a variet y of goals, the new "Guide" encourages communities to analyze their needs in order to make appropriate siting decisions. For a complete listing of state policies governing school site size, see http://media.cefpi.org/issuetraks/issuetrak0903.pdf. As is evidenced by the report, 27 states still have policies that require local communities to build schools on sites that require a certain number of acres, depending on the t ype of school (elementary, middle or high school) and the number of students it will ser ve. According to data from the National Household Travel Survey, in 1969 approximately 50% of elementary school students lived within two miles of their school; by 2001, only about 33% lived within this distance. To achieve the Safe Routes to School goal of getting more children to walk and bicycle to school safely, we must address school siting policies at state and local levels. Good Policies Ideally, schools are centers for the communit y and are located within walking and bicycling distance of the students who the schools ser ve. To help achieve this goal, minimum acreage requirements for schools have been eliminated in South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Maine since 2003. In addition, an increasing number of states are instituting policies that encourage shared use of school facilities and/or increased coordination bet ween school districts and local governments on school facilities and land use planning. In some cases, legislation is needed to change state-level school siting and use policies. In other circumstances, changes can be made to policy guidelines through a State Superintendent’s oce, a State Department of Education, or other policy body. Examples The State of Oregon has an excellent school siting handbook which can serve as a model for other states: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/docs/schoolsitinghandbook.pdf In 2002 the Maine State Board of Education and State Planning Oce released a report entitled “Making Schools Important to Neighborhoods Again.” This report led to changes in state policy whereby minimum acreage standards for schools were eliminated. http://www.maine.gov/spo/landuse/docs/legislature_gov/schoolrpt2001.pdf This Pennsylvania resource on renovating versus replacing schools will be of interest to anyone ghting to save a neighborhood school. http://www.saveourlandsaveourtowns.org/neighborhoodschools.html Resources The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s report “Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School” helped to spark national attention to the issue of school siting. http://www.preser vationnation.org/issues/historic-schools/additional- resources/schools_why_johnny.pdf ChangeLab Solutions has a variet y of resources on smart school siting, including factsheets and a package of model school siting policies for school districts that want to ensure that their school siting decisions support the educational success, physical health, and overall well-being of students and their communit y. http://changelabsolutions.org/publications/smart-school-siting The EPA report “Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting," released by the EPA on October 8, 2003, was the rst study to empirically examine the relationship bet ween school locations, the built environment around schools, how kids get to school, and the impact on air emissions of those travel choices. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/school_travel.htm Smart Growth America features several resources on building smart schools including school siting: http://smartgrowthamerica.org/children.html. They also feature a Smart Schools Initiative: http://www.smartgrowthschools.org/about.html The California Sustainable Schools project of the Division of the State Architect lists several resources related to school siting: http://www.sustainableschools.dgs.ca.gov/SustainableSchools/sustainabledesign/siting/sitin A 2005 doctoral dissertation from Noreen C. McDonald titled “Children’s Travel: Patterns and Inuences” has a lot of information and reference analysis regarding school siting and travel implications: http://www.uctc.net/research/diss118.pdf Travel to School: The Distance Factor was published by FHWA’s Oce of Policy. The FHWA Policy Oce conducts the National Household Travel Sur vey (NHTS) which is undertaken approximately ever y ve to seven years (the national sur vey costs approx $6 - $8 million and is the nation’s inventory of daily and long-distance travel. It is considered the nation’s agship survey quantif ying the travel behavior of the American public.) For this policy brief, they did an analysis of data from the rst national survey completed in 1969 and compared it to the 2001 survey, the latest information available. Please note, any questions for FHWA about the ndings of this policy brief should be directed to: Ms. Heather Contrino, FHWA Oce of Policy, heather.contrino@dot.gov, 202-366-5060. The Environmental Protection Agency has links to a broad set of environmental challenges and solutions regarding school facilit y siting: www.epa.gov/schools/siting.html A complete listing of state policies governing school site size - http://media.cefpi.org/issuetraks/issuetrak0903.pdf Shared use products from the National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesit y (NPLAN). The Oregon School Siting Handbook Planning for Schools & Liveable Communities Cover Photo: Edison Elementary School, Eugene, OR The School Siting Handbook Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................1 II.II. Challenges & Opportunities .......................................................7 Funding ......................................................................................................................................8 Case Studies: Redmond, OR; Glendale, CA Land Availability ................................................................................................................10 Case Studies: Hillsboro, OR; Pomona, CA Transportation & Accessibility ................................................................................12 Case Studies: Bend, OR; Boise, ID Coordinated Planning ...................................................................................................14 Case Studies: Beaverton, OR; State of New Jersey Success Story: Roseburg, OR .................................................................................16 III. Recommendations .......................................................................17 IV. Steps for a CoIV. Steps for a Coordiordinatednated School S School Siting Processiting Process ................. .................2255 VV. Frequently Asked Questions ab out . Frequently Asked Questions about Land UseLand Use Planning and School Planning and School Facility Facility Planning Planning ................................. .................................2929 VI. Resources and Works Cited .......................................................36 Table of Contents i Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Medford, OR Advisory Committee: Constance Beaumont, Transportation and Growth Management Program Meeky Blizzard, Office of Congressman Earl Blumenauer Jerri Bohard, Oregon Department of Transportation Keith Cubic, Douglas County Brian Gander, Salem-Keizer School District Dr. Jane Moore, Oregon Health Division Michael Ronkin, Oregon Department of Transportation Brian Scott, MIG, Inc. Karen Swirsky, David Evans and Associates Trace Ward, gLAs Architectural Group Jan Youngquist, Beaverton School District University of Oregon Community Planning Workshop: Bob Parker, AICP, Director Bethany Johnson, Project Manager Wes Bigelow Kathryn Frank Lilah Glick Tina Nunez Erika Palmer Page Paulsen Phillips Rebeca Potasnik Design by: Michelle Kunec Produced For: The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program ii The School Siting Handbook Acknowledgments Oregon Transportation & Growth Management Staff: Steve Oulman June 2005 Th is project is partially funded by the Oregon Transportation & Growth Management Program (TGM), a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Depart- ment of Land Conservation and Development. Th is TGM project is fi nanced, in part, by the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and State of Oregon funds. Th e contents of this document do not necessarily refl ect views or policies of the State of Oregon. Project Background iii In 2004, the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program contracted with the Community Planning Workshop (CPW) at the University of Oregon to conduct a year-long evaluation of Oregon’s school siting process. Th e purpose of the evaluation was twofold: (1) to develop a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities school districts and local governments experience when making school siting decisions; (2) to empower school districts and local governments to make more informed decisions about future school siting. Th is handbook is the culmination of that research and synthesizes many of the lessons learned. As part of the study, CPW performed the following tasks: Literature Review: Conducted an extensive review of literature about school siting issues. Case Studies: Investigated the school siting practices of eight school districts around the state through site visits and interviews with school superintendents, school facility planners, local government planners, architects, and neighborhood groups. Administered a school transportation survey and conducted focus groups at four middle schools to learn more about how children get to and from school. School Superintendent Survey: Created a survey, disseminated to school district superintendents, focusing on district needs and siting issues. Oregon School Siting Forum: Held a statewide conference encouraging dialogue about school siting issues by a wide range of people, including school district personnel, architects, planners, health advocates, and neighborhood organizers. Project Background iv The School Siting Handbook “The school siting process went very well. I don’t know how it gets any better.” – Kent Hunsaker, Former Bethel School District Superintendent “It is a real relationship of trust…now you have lots of kids walking through the park to get to school.” – Carolyn Weiss, City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Success Stor ySuccess Story Building Partnerships It began informally as a natural partnership between the Bethel School District and the City of Eugene. It came to exemplify how a school district and a city government can buy, develop, and share land for everyone’s benefit. In 1989, as a forward thinking measure, the Bethel School District bought 70 acres well outside the urban area for a potential school site. In 1995, the district approached the city with a desire to build a new school. The city explained that “the site wouldn’t be good for the school district or the city.” Instead of leaving the district alone to look for another site, the city worked with the district to identify ap- propriate alternative parcels within the urban area that would satisfy everyone’s interests. In the end, the district and the city together purchased a 70-acre parcel. Today, this property includes the 35-acre site of Meadow View School (capacity: 800 students, kindergarten through eigth grade) and the 35-acre Bethel Community Park, which includes wetlands, a running path, ball fields, and a skate/community park. If growth continues in the area, the district may develop a small elementary school (K-5) adjacent to the current school. What began as a relationship lacking communication and coordination ended up as a coordinated partnership united by a common goal: community devel- opment. Introduction 1 Introduction School Location: An important and complex decision 2 The School Siting Handbook School districts and local governments depend on each other. A growing community places greater demands on the school system, thereby creating a need for more or expanded schools. Likewise, a new school often stimulates significant traffic as well as residential development near the new school site. Thus, the actions of one entity affect the interests of the other. Given this fact, it is imperative that school districts and local jurisdictions work together to site schools. Deciding where to build a new school or whether to renovate an existing school is not an easy decision. Superintendents, school boards, planning commissions and city planners must balance multiple viewpoints and priorities – from parents wanting expansive athletic fields, to educators wanting smaller, more manageable schools, to transportation planners concerned about traffic, to residents insisting that tax dollars support teachers not facilities, to city planners who want to concentrate growth in the center of town, to community residents who see the school as a neighborhood anchor. Negotiating these complexities takes vision, leadership, and skill. This handbook is for everyone involved in the school siting process - superintendents, school board members, city planners, transportation engineers and citizen activists. Every community will face unique challenges when siting elementary, middle and high schools, yet many communities will confront similar challenges in four areas: funding, land availability, transportation/accessibility, and coordinated planning. The goal of this handbook is to provide strategies for locating schools in ways that benefit the whole community. Working together, and using creative solutions, school districts and cities can locate schools that take full advantage of existing resources, are easily and safely accessible, and become true community anchors. “Public education is an investment in the future, both for our children and for our communities. The average life span of a public school in the United States is 75 years. That, combined with the large financial investment for new school construction, makes cooperation and community input in the school facility planning process critical. We are not only building schools for our children, but for many generations to come.” – Jan Youngquist Beaverton School District Ensworth Elementary School, Bend, OR Introduction 3 Schools unite neighborhoods. The role of the school as a neighborhood focal point is not new. As long ago as the 1920s, Clarence Stein, architect and city planner, advocated for towns in which the school was the physical center of the neighborhood reflecting its prominent role in the community. He believed that a centrally located school reinforces community life and spirit because it is easily accessible and can serve as a community crossroad. In Stein’s view, the majority of the students should live within a quarter mile of the school. The school’s role as a community focal point is still seen today. Parents meet each other while taking their children to school. Neighbors bump into each other while walking their dogs on the schoolgrounds. Grandparents attend the school play and recognize a friend from long ago. Through these informal interactions, social networks are formed that help people provide a stronger support system for children and feel more connected to their community. Transportation costs are increasing. Due to many factors, including the high cost of land, lack of available land, and the desire for large sport fields, America’s schools are increasingly being built on the periphery of communities.1 The cost of transporting students to and from school has risen significantly as school sites have become less community-centered and located farther from the neighborhoods they serve. The state of Oregon spent $130 million for school transportation costs in 2003-04 and is expected to spend $135 million in 2004-05. Recent fuel price increases are straining the budgets of parents and local school districts, both of which often provide student transportation. Childhood obesity is rising. If children live within a mile and a half of school, there is a significantly better chance that they will walk to school.2 In 1969, close to 90% of students who lived within a mile of school walked or biked to school.3 By 2000, this number decreased to only 10%.4 The Institute of Medicine cites the decrease in walking and biking to school as one of the major contributors to childhood obesity. Among 6-11 year olds, obesity has tripled over the last three decades.5 Why should I care about school location? “If the district wants a lot of students in the school, then it has to build big schools on big lots. If it wants small schools, then it needs small lots. This is basic, but is a big philosophical decision.” – Ron Barber Barber, Barrett & Turner 4 The School Siting Handbook 2The School Site Takes Full Advantage of Existing Resources School sites close to existing infrastructure reduce the need for new facilities. In short, by making good use of existing resources, schools can reduce their physical and financial impact on the community and the environment. Integrating well-designed schools into existing or proposed neighborhoods efficiently uses streets, sidewalks and other infrastructure. Preserving historic school buildings helps maintain neighborhood identity and treasured community landmarks, and reusing existing buildings reduces land consumption. School sites that are close to existing play fields or open space provide students with exercise opportunities and access to natural resources. 1School Siting Decisions Benefit the Entire Community Public schools educate our youth to be lifelong learners, engaged citizens, and effective workers in an ever-changing world. Schools are vital institutions in our society. In addition to educating young people, they provide physical places for the community to gather for cultural or sporting events, walk the dog, or play in the playground or school field. Their location affects the social, economic and physical character of a city. Through coordinated planning, school districts, local governments, and community residents select school locations that advance livability goals strongly supported by Oregonians: vibrant communities, good schools, and transportation choices. Well-coordinated school facility planning and comprehensive community planning increases the likelihood that taxpayer dollars will be used efficiently; that school facility and community planning will support, rather than work against, each other; and that community facilities can be jointly purchased, developed, maintained, and used. S chool Siting Guiding Principles The location of schools is one of the most important decisions a community will make. School districts and local governments should use these principles to guide them through the school siting process. 4The School Site is a Community Focal Point Through good siting decisions, schools become more than places to educate students; they serve as community focal points and neighborhood anchors. Community members use the school facility after school hours. Neighbors interact with each other at the school site. A school’s proximity and easy access enhance participation by neighborhood residents in school activities. This, in turn, strengthens the neighborhood’s sense of ownership toward the school and its willingness to take care of and support it. 3The School Site is Easily and Safely Accessible by Walking, Biking, and Transit An important aspect of liveable communities is the option to safely walk, bike, and use transit to reach key destinations. A well-sited school gives school children more transportation choices. This is good for children and good for the community for several reasons: (1) greater accessibility reinforces schools as community focal points; (2) reducing the number of cars on the road decreases traffic congestion and air pollution; (3) opportunities for daily exercise encourage children to develop healthy lifestyles; and (4) children acquire life skills and habits that incorporate a variety of transportation options. Guiding Principles 5 6 The School Siting Handbook Oregon’s school-aged population is growing. As it does, many communities face a need for new or expanded facilities. In 2004, Oregon’s 198 school districts had 1,263 schools and more than 550,000 students.6 This number is expected to increase by nearly 30,000 students by 2013.7 In the 2004 School Superintendent Survey, Oregon school districts reported a need for nearly 50 new elementary schools, about 15 middle/junior high schools, ten K-8 schools, and 20 high schools by 2019. According to the survey, the state of Oregon can expect more than 100 new schools to be built by 2019. Population increase = Need for new or expanded schools Number of SchoolsProjected Need for New Schools by 2019 Source: 2004 School Superintendent Survey 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Elementary K - 8 Middle High Type of school Challenges & Opportunities 7 Challenges & Opportunities Like any large-scale construction project, siting and building schools is multi-faceted. For example, before ground can be broken, school districts must secure funding from the community, identify and purchase sites, complete impact studies and prepare architectural plans, and obtain land use and building permits. Each community’s process will be unique. However, most communities will inevitably have to confront at least four major challenges: funding, land availability, transportation/accessibility, and coordinated planning. This section describes each of these challenges from a school district and city/county point of view. Through case studies, it demonstrates how specific communities in Oregon and around the country have utilized innovative strategies to address these challenges. Roseburg High School, Roseburg, OR School construction and reconstruction is extraordinarily expensive. Districts often lack access to the capital required to buy land and build a school (most are in the millions of dollars), and frequently rely on general obligation (GO) bonds that must receive voter approval. To pass bonds, the school district must balance its own needs with what it believes the community will agree to fund. Some school districts spend years trying to match their needs to what the community will support. For example, if a community wants several athletic fields around a school, the voters may not pass the bond if it fails to include the fields. Moreover, voters are reluctant to approve bonds for districts to acquire sites that will not be developed in the immediate future (a process called “land banking”). In turn, this naturally influences future siting decisions. Most districts do not have a reserve of land waiting for school development. Like any other developer, they are forced to compete for land in the open market. In many instances this requires districts to pay premium prices for sites. According to the 2004 School Superintendent Survey, land cost is second only to land availability in factors affecting school siting. If a school district cannot buy the desired lands at affordable prices, it will be forced to acquire sites along the urban periphery, away from the highest population densities. Simply stated, districts need access to large sums of money for land purchases directly within the nation’s most rapidly growing areas. The Challenge: Funding 8 The School Siting Handbook “Passing bonds is the main challenge.” – Karen Rawnsley Financial Officer Redmond School District Case StudiesCase Studies A recent partnership in Glendale demonstrated how unifying the agendas and visions of a city government and a public school district can lead to mutual success. As in many suburban towns, the city and a school district aggressively compete with developers for space when replacing or renovating their aging public infrastructure. This time, Glendale’s solution was co-location. In 2002, the City of Glendale and the Glendale Unified School District completed a $17.9 million joint-use facility project – the Edison School and Pacific Park. Through a community involvement process, city and school district officials identified strategies for how to share facilities at the new elementary school site. Facilities include: multi-purpose cafeteria; art, science, and computer classrooms; city branch and school library; playing area and field; park; and a community center. The facility operates daily from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The district has exclusive use of the facility during all school hours. The facility is then open to the community after school and on weekends. Students and school staff use one entrance while a separate entrance is reserved for community access. By reducing costs involved with initial construction, operation, and land supply, the city and school district, together, claim the joint-use strategy saved them nearly $5 million. Beyond producing a multi-functional school and community center, the Edison School/Pacific Park project also transformed the concept of joint-use. It provided a powerful example of how to both accelerate and enhance new school construction. For more information: New Schools Better Neighborhoods Update, Spring 2000, www.nsbn.org Redmond, Oregon Challenges & Opportunities 9 Against the odds, the Redmond School District persevered in its dream to purchase four parcels of land and proceed with plans to construct an elementary and middle school. First, it had to build public support for the bond measure necessary to pay off an existing loan. Early in 2004 the district issued a challenge to local voters: pass the bond placed on the March ballot or the school district would eliminate its overcrowding problem by moving either to year-round classes or double-track students (half in the morning, half in the afternoon). Th e district collaborated with community residents to facilitate success in passing the bond measure. Citizens for Quality Schools, a grassroots organization of parents, employed a series of strategies. Th ree hundred volunteers went door-to-door to discuss the value of passing the bond. Th ey collected donations from small businesses and produced an ad for television. Th e superintendent appeared on TV and radio advertisements. She spoke with community groups, businesses, and citizens. Th e district also produced a six-minute informational video describing the situation of Redmond schools and the dire consequences if the bond failed. Luckily, the bond passed by 600 votes. Redmond will use many of the lessons learned from this bond measure experience in forthcoming eff orts, including: starting community outreach eff orts early; developing diverse outreach strategies to appeal to diff erent parts of the community; and stressing the message that schools are an integral part of a community’s quality of life. Glendale, California The Challenge:The Challenge: L and Land Availabilit yAvailability 10 The School Siting Handbook Acquiring school sites is a big challenge. Whether it’s a 5-acre site for a small elementary school, or a 40-acre plot for a large high school, districts must compete with private developers to purchase land. In fact, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in the 2004 School Superintendent Survey identified “land availability” as the most influential factor in siting new schools. Unlike many other states, the state of Oregon does not impose acreage standards for school sites. Of the superintendents surveyed, 90 percent indicated that their district has not adopted formal acreage standards or guidelines for school sites. Moreover, most city and county comprehensive plans do not specify location criteria (not to mention guidelines for school siting). While this may allow flexibility in identifying potential sites, it can also introduce uncertainty into the siting process. While most districts lack formal acreage standards, half of those surveyed use informal standards during the site acquisition process. Many use outdated guidelines from the Council of Educational Facility Planners International as follows: elementary schools – 10 acres plus one acre for every 100 students; middle schools – 20 acres plus one acre for every 100 students; high schools – 30 acres plus one acre for every 100 students. These guidelines were rescinded in 2004. Current thinking suggests that school site size should reflect educational program needs, independent of arbitrary acreage standards. Finding sites is the greatest challenge for districts. What size best meets educational program needs? What about community opinion and city regulations? Beyond the school building, districts must consider athletic facilities, staging areas for buses, parking, buffer zones, site constraints such as wetlands, and landscaping requirements. The more elements there are that require land, the larger the site needs to be, and the more difficult it becomes to centrally locate the school. Districts are tempted to look for land on the urban fringe because it’s cheaper and less limited than potential sites within the city. Ideally, districts will be able to identify single parcels that meet their acreage needs. Assembling sites from smaller parcels requires working with multiple landowners, which costs both time and money. As buildable land within communities becomes more scarce, school districts and cities/counties should work together more carefully through planning and creative siting strategies to address growing challenges to finding suitable land. Cas e StCase Stuudiesdies With limited land availability, insufficient facilities, and little political support for eminent do- main, Pomona Unified School District’s options for school sites were limited to small odd-shaped land parcels and old, vacant industrial sites throughout the city. However, through creative thinking and with cooperation from the city, the school district redeveloped a deteriorating mall and run-down grocery store located in an older and socio-economically depressed section of town, into a vibrant educational facility for kindergarten through high school students. The facil- ity, The Village Complex at Indian Hill Pueblo School, provides separate student instructional facili- ties, a shared cafeteria, and on-site recreation space. The redevelopment site now houses school district administrative offices as well. For more information: New Schools for Older Neighborhoods (Local Government Commission) www.lgc.org.freepub.PDF/Land-use/reports/new_schools_rpt.pdf Challenges & Opportunities 11 Hillsboro, Oregon Pomona, California School siting is at the heart of the Witch Hazel Village Community Plan. Through smart growth, Hillsboro seeks to “create the quintessential new urbanist community.” Situated on 318 acres, the proposed Witch Hazel Village will accommodate 5,000 new residents. Demand for new school facilities is bound to increase. In the spirit of coordination, the City of Hillsboro approached the school district with the need for a new school. The district bought 20 acres of land in the middle of the proposed village. The Witch Hazel site is ideal because it is centrally located and adjacent to the site of a future civic plaza. Witch Hazel Elementary is the first completed building in the Village Plan. It accommodates 660 students and is located on roughly half of the school- owned property. Future plans for the site include co-locating a three-story middle school on the western half. Neighborhood walkways will connect the schools to the community. Embodying the four guiding principles of school siting, this Community Plan exemplifies the success of locating schools in the community center by maximizing land use. The Challenge:The Challenge: Transp or tation & Accessibili t y Transportation & Accessibility School districts are responsible for accommodating diverse transportation needs. Location determines accessibility and influences bus loading areas, car drop-off/pick-up, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle access. If the school is located on a major road, it will be more accessible by auto. But it may not necessarily be friendly to walkers or bicyclists. The distance a student lives from school impacts his or her ability to walk or bike to school.8 If large schools are built in low density housing areas, most children are likely to live far away from school. This will heighten dependence on motorized transportation and force the school to provide more parking and loading/unloading areas. Alternatively, if schools are relatively small and built in close proximity to higher density housing, children will live nearby and will be more likely to walk or bike to school. However, since the state of Oregon pays a large percentage of busing costs, there is little financial incentive for school districts to encourage biking and walking, as opposed to busing. A street network with lots of dead-ends and cul-de-sacs also discourages walking and biking to school. Therefore, planners and school administrators need to think about the street networks around schools.9 Herein lies a central conflict - while school districts may determine school location and on-site pedestrian improvements, they lack control of sidewalks and street types and patterns in the immediate vicinity. In addition to location and neighborhood design, convenience significantly influences how children travel to and from school. Parents participating in a University of Oregon/TGM survey of middle school student transportation patterns chose factors related to convenience (drop off on way to work) as primary reasons for driving their children to school. Other influential factors included: “personal safety (fear of strangers), comfort (weather), and school requirements (carrying books or musical instruments)” as barriers to walking or biking.10 While the urban form influences the decision of whether to walk, bike, or ride to school in a motor vehicle, discussion of transportation issues must involve a wide variety of people, from district administrators to city and transportation planners, from traffic engineers and parents to the children who attend the schools. 12 The School Siting Handbook Case StudiesCase Studies The Bend-LaPine School District ushered in a new era with the opening of Ensworth Elementary in 2004. “It’s progressive,” said District Director of Operations John Rexford, “but in a way it’s borrowing from the past. What’s old is new again.” Based on its 1997 School Siting study, the district developed the Sites and Facilities 2000 Study to guide school development over the next 15 years. The study recommended developing a small school prototype (300 student capacity) as a supplement to the previous (600 student) design. According to the plan, “Smaller schools should be easier to site because there are more sites to select from, encourage walking and biking to school if they are well-sited, may increase after- hours use of the facilities, and require fewer off-site development costs (sewer, water, sidewalk, and road construction).”11 Of the 300 students that now attend Ensworth Elementary, 250 can walk or bike to school. Only one bus is used to transport children across a busy road. While the school sits on 9 acres, the prototype could be situated on a 5-acre plot. The district built up, rather than out. The school consists of two detached buildings: a two-story classroom facility and a combination gymnasium and cafeteria. To meet code, it installed sprinklers and additional second-story exits. To encourage community use, it makes the gymnasium and cafeteria available after hours. Resurrecting traditional 1920s design has proved successful. “The difference between this school and others is that we’re tucked into the neighborhood,” says the kindergarten teacher. “We’re the heart of the neighborhood. With many schools, you couldn’t walk...you have to drive or get on a bus.” Challenges & Opportunities 13 After a citizen campaign convinced the school board to approve $13.5 million to renovate rather than abandon Boise High School (located on 11.5 acres near downtown), the school district developed the following innovative transportation strategies: • Create a parking overlay zone. Th e city created a special parking zone allowing the school district to have full access to a public right-of-way to create parking spaces. • Park on neighborhood streets. Th ere are 475 parking spaces on the city streets reserved for students. Th e city enforces the parking program, and the school uses a lottery system to allocate spaces. • Use existing parking areas. An agreement with a nearby church made available 45 additional spaces for student parking. • Add bike racks. Th e school increased the number of bike racks to accommodate the increased demand. • Give students free city bus passes. Th e school district bought bus passes for students to use city buses. Bend, Oregon Boise, Idaho For more information: New Schools for Older Neighborhoods (Local Government Commission) www.lgc.org.freepub.PDF/Land-use/reports/new_schools_rpt.pdf The Challenge:The Challenge: Co ordinated Coordinated Planning Planning School districts operate independently from municipal governments. Yet community growth affects both. From a municipality’s perspective, new homes require increased municipal services. From a district’s perspective, new homes mean more children to educate. New schools, in turn, attract more households. And the cycle continues. Thus, the actions of one entity influence the other. Given this interdependence, why is the coordinated planning between school districts and cities/ counties so limited? Answer: incentives for coordinated planning are weak or non- existent. Thanks to the vision and perseverance of certain individuals, coordinated planning does take place, even though there are few state requirements that encourage coordination and collaboration. As one city planner put it, “The school district makes the decisions about school siting. We see them as the experts, we defer to their expertise.” Counter to this belief, coordinated planning combines the expertise of these mutually exclusive, yet interdependent, entities to maximize outcomes. Oregon cities and counties are required to prepare comprehensive land use plans that guide future growth and development. Unfortunately, most comprehensive plans only indicate the locations of existing schools, simply noting that new sites will be needed as the population increases. These plans do not include criteria for siting new schools. They also lack strategies for working with school districts to identify and secure sites. State law requires communities with “high growth school districts” to work with the school district to develop and incorporate a school facility plan into the community comprehensive plan (“high growth districts” are those whose enrollment exceeds 5,000 students and with at least 6% growth over the three most recent school years). Although this law encourages coordinated planning, only a handful of school districts meet this requirement and have developed plans under this provision. While coordinated planning can be daunting, districts and cities/ counties desire the partnership. According to the 2004 School Superintendent Survey, about 75% of the superintendents surveyed confirmed that additional coordination between districts and local government would be valuable. Ideas for enhanced coordination between these two entities include: regularly scheduled meetings, coordinated ballot measures, and district presentations to the planning commission and city council. 14 The School Siting Handbook Cas e StudiesCase Studies State governments wondering how to foster effective inter-agency coordination for long-range planning could take a lesson from the Garden State. In 2002, then Governor James McGreevy established a Smart Growth Policy with the intention of “ensuring that school construction initiatives promote smart growth, open space, and revitalization of communities.”13 To help fund such initiatives, the state offers Smart Future Planning Grants to help schools and communities meet their regional planning objectives. In addition, the state has implemented a collaborative planning process between school districts and city governments by requiring all school districts to file long-range (5 years) school facility plans with local planning boards. For more information: New Jersey School Board Association, www.njsba.org Challenges & Opportunities 15 Beaverton, Oregon In response to ORS 195.110 requirements, the Beaverton School District, Oregon’s third largest district, completed the update of its Facility Plan in 2002. Th e plan projects that the district will need eleven elementary, eight middle, and one comprehensive high school over the next 20 years. Th ese facilities will require that the district acquire an average of 10 acres every year. Acquiring suffi ciently large parcels of land for new schools is a formidable task, given the lack of availability and high price of vacant land within the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary (UGB). Land sells for between $300,000 and $500,000 per acre, and prices are volatile. Th e plan recommends that the district take “steps to design its facilities in a manner that reduces overall demand for land, and makes effi cient use of land a facilities planning priority.” 12 To meet this goal, the district decided to implement the following strategies: Reduce site acreage criteria: Because of the scarcity of land, the district’s Facility Plan Commit- tee recommended a reduction in site minimum acreage criteria and hosted a charrette to put forth compact elementary school designs that could be built on one to two acres within a Transit Oriented Development. Partner with Park and Recreation District: Th e district identifi ed the potential for reducing the need for larger sites through the joint use of recreational facilities operated by the park and recre- ation district. Intensify use of existing school buildings: By retrofi tting existing “oversized” school sites, the district makes more effi cient use of existing space. For example, Aloha Park Elementary, located on a 13.5-acre site, is being converted to a middle school. Th e district has purchased a 10-acre “replacement” elementary school site. State of New Jersey 16 The School Siting Handbook Roseburg High School’s fi rst graduating class walked out of the front doors of the stone building in 1924. For eighty years, Roseburg students have sung the same alma mater. In 2003, due to a local education policy shift that moved the ninth grade from junior high into the high school , the community had a major decision to make about how to accomodate the increased high school enrollment- would it support two high schools or would it continue to support only one? After an extensive public involvement campaign that included focus groups, community workshops, and a telephone survey, the majority of the community decided that it wanted only one high school. Some residents say that the main reason for this was the desire to maintain one hometown football team. Whatever the reason, the school district then faced the decision whether to renovate the existing high school located on 25 acres close to downtown or build a new school. Listening to the desires of the community - “don’t leave the current site – it is an anchor of tradition”, the school district bought more land around the high school and built a new two-story classroom and administration building to accommodate the additional 600 ninth grade students. In Fall 2004, the renovated campus opened with 2100 students. Preserving the old, while building the new. “There is an incredible amount of charm living in the neighborhood with a school…” – Roseburg resident Success Stor ySuccess Story Roseburg High School, Roseburg, OR Recommendations Recognizing that there are challenges involved in siting schools, what specific actions can school districts and cities take to facilitate better siting decisions? The recommendations that follow suggest ways to turn challenges into opportunities and select school sites that are consistent with the guiding principles listed in this handbook. Recommendations 17 1School Siting Decisions Benefit the Entire Community 18 The School Siting Handbook Develop a school facilities plan. State law requires communities with “fast growing” school districts to work with the district to develop facilities plans. Districts, even those with declining enrollments, should create a school facilities plan that anticipates need for the next 10 – 20 years. Plans that involve local governments and the community in the planning process will be more successful. The process of planning helps districts understand municipal policies and regulations; but more importantly, it helps the district communicate a vision to residents (and voters) that has multiple benefits. Periodic plan updates will ensure the plan remains responsive to changing conditions in the community. Districts should make sure that the planning process is well-informed by creative ideas and good information, not simply a review of stale school siting concepts. Include schools districts in comprehensive land use plans. State law requires coordination between governments during land use planning processes. Coordination, as it is currently implemented by most cities, is ineffective in addressing school districts’ issues. School districts should be involved in the comprehensive planning process to ensure that the needs of the districts are articulated in the land use plan and implementing ordinances. This involvement provides opportunities to develop and agree upon criteria for siting new schools on new sites as well as siting new schools in previously developed areas. In short, good comprehensive plans can provide multiple benefits to both the city and the school district. Streamline the permitting process. School districts should work proactively with the city to reduce complications in the permitting process. They should acknowledge that certain city codes/regulations (i.e., height, setbacks, parking) may prohibit the school district from designing cutting edge schools. Clear communication can proactively identify issues and lead to creative solutions. “Get a headstart. Long range planning is the key. Do it before there is pressure to build. This way you can be more systematic about it and make more rational decisions.” – Steve Barrett Assistant Superintendent Springfield School District Recommendations 19 “Don’t make assumptions that everyone supports schools. If you do not reach out to everyone, you will not gain support.” – Judy Delahunt Superintendent Redmond School District Develop intergovernmental agreements. Such agreements are common between cities and service providers. Intergovernmental agreements clarify roles and responsibilities regarding land use and school facilities planning—including how to define responsibilities, share information, and resolve disagreements. Beaverton School District uses intergovernmental agreements with the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District to define maintenance responsibilities and field use (normally the recreation district maintains the fields located at schools in return for after-school use). Involve the community. School districts should include the community in school siting decisions. Good community involvement will initiate a sustained, informed dialogue about issues. Moreover, it provides districts a way to communicate to residents and voters that school siting is a necessary element of a good educational program. Oregon School Siting Forum, 2004 2The School Site Takes Full Advantage of Existing Resources “With the budget strapped for everyone, it makes sense to get creative.” - Rebecca Gershow Willamalane Parks and Recreation District 20 The School Siting Handbook Renovate and expand existing schools. Where possible, districts should consider renovating or rebuilding schools on sites that have anchored neighborhoods for decades and to which students already can walk or bike. They should recognize that it is just as important to preserve, maintain, and renovate existing buildings as it is to build well-designed, well-located new ones. Working with architects and engineers who are familiar with school renovation practices is also valuable. Establish mechanisms for cooperative agreements. Such agreements facilitate the shared use of facilities between schools and the local government. Districts should consider the full range of joint use possibilities including parks, recreation facilities, health clinics, elderly facilities, parking, public transportation, and others. The City of Eugene and Eugene 4J School District have developed a successful parking arrangement in which staff of the city-run pool can park in the lot of the adjacent school during the summer. Select sites that can be served by existing infrastructure. Infrastructure costs can add tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to the development of a school. Selecting sites near existing infrastructure has an obvious benefit: school districts can share infrastructure costs with nearby development. Districts can accomplish this by consulting the local planning office when identifying appropriate sites. Planning staff can help assess the costs and benefits of different sites—as well as identify key development issues. Recommendations 21 3The School Site Is Easily and Safely Accessible by Walking, Biking, and Transit Locate schools close to students. Proximity is key. Schools must be close enough to the neighborhoods they serve for students to walk or bike to school. This is a basic, and yet extremely important concept. Increasing the number of students who live within walking/biking distance will increase the percentage of students who actually walk or bike to school. Develop pedestrian facilities on the school site. Even casual observation reveals that many schools have inadequate pedestrian facilities. Districts should use the following strategies to improve pedestrian access: Use the expertise of creative urban designers, transportation planners traffic/transportation engineers. Solicit advice from these groups early in the siting process. It is much easier for them to give advice about potential problems than to fix problems once the school is built/renovated. Provide for good pedestrian and bicycle access. Design the school site to promote walking and biking to school and reduce pedestrian/ vehicle conflicts; place bike racks near entrances; designate pedestrian paths that are separate from automobile pick-up and drop-off zones; provide safety crossings and crossing guards. Create a “Safe Routes to Schools” campaign. Work with city staff, school staff, parents, law enforcement officers, and health care professionals to develop a “Safe Routes to School” campaign to address school-related transportation. Set up a student escort system. Work with school staff and parents to develop a system for organizing children to walk/bike to and from school in groups. Commuter Solutions in Eugene is working with local schools to develop escort systems in which parents take turns walking a group of students to school. • • • • “If we want more children to walk to school, then it is imperative that we actually build routes to school. Although this sounds intuitive, the current preference for building neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs and collector streets actually creates barriers for kids to get to school.” – Marc Schlossberg, Ph.D. University of Oregon For more information: Safe Routes to School www.bikewalk.org/safe_routes_ to_school/SR2S_introduction.htm Smart Ways to School Program www.ltd.org/sws/index.htm “School districts should work more closely with the city or county road authority much earlier in the process.” – Deborah Hogan City of Bend Create a well-connected pedestrian and street network in the area/neighborhood around the school. Address the transportation infrastructure around schools. Make sure there are good connections between the school and nearby neighborhoods by creating pedestrian plans to integrate schools with the community. Work with schools to develop traffic calming devices, sidewalks, and pedestrian infrastructure. Develop a well-connected street system around the school. The school can provide bike racks and crossing guards, but if the area around the school is not conducive to walking, students will be less likely to walk or bike to school. The streets in the neighborhood around the school should connect to each other, allowing students to easily and directly get to school. Locate schools away from hazardous traffic conditions. Railroads and major streets such as arterials are dangerous to cross. Locating schools away from these impediments makes the schools easier to access by walking and biking. Remove policy barriers. Review the comprehensive land use plan, zoning ordinance, and functional plans to identify barriers such as excessive parking, setback, and landscaping requirements. Integrate school transportation into the Transportation Systems Plan. Most Transportation System Plans include detailed analysis of transportation needs and identify projects to meet those needs. Few address school transportation issues. One strategy is to include school transportation in regional transportation planning discussions. Such a discussion will inevitably involve potential school sites. Acknowledge that school transportation systems (i.e., school buses) are an effective form of public transportation that are largely ignored by land use and transportation planners. Work to integrate school busing into the larger discussion of transportation options. • • • • • 22 The School Siting Handbook 3 Recommendations 23 The School Site Is a Community Focal Point44ite Is a Co “Start with schools as a principle planning objective. Cities should think - How can we help schools operate?” – Jack Orchard land use lawyer Consider small sites and multi-level schools. Districts should select sites that can be incorporated into the neighborhood instead of sites that isolate the school from the community it serves. An excessively large site may reduce siting options, eliminate transportation choices, and foreclose the possibility of the school serving as a center of community. By using creative design, schools can be multi-level, thereby requiring less land and making it easier to integrate them into the neighborhood. Involve your architect early in the process. Districts should choose an architect who is familiar with creative school design. He/she may have good solutions for difficult site challenges. If school renovations are an option, be sure to select an architect who is experienced in working with older buildings. Twenty years ago architects were more involved in the entire school siting process, but now, according to an architect specializing in schools, “the norm is for school districts to come to the architect with either one or a few sites.” Involving the architect earlier would allow him or her to work with the site selection committee to identify potential sites. Integrate schools into the community. Districts should begin by connecting the school to the surrounding neighborhood. Key strategies include: (1) removing barriers such as fences around school/playing fields. If fences are a security issue, include several gates so that people have free access to the school and associated facilities; (2) using trails, sidewalks, or bike paths to connect neighborhoods to the school; and (3) controlling auto access and parking so it does not create safety conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle access. The Witch Hazel Community Plan (Hillsboro, OR) requires the developer to build walking paths/sidewalks from the surrounding housing development to the school to facilitate better pedestrian connections. 24 The School Siting Handbook “The City must understand the district’s needs and suggest acquisition opportunities.” – Wink Brooks Hillsboro City Planner Be proactive about identifying sites. A well-sited school can turn a subdivision into a neighborhood. The fact that the district may not have a pool of capital for site acquisition does not preclude identifying and evaluating potential school sites. Consider the following strategies: Land banking. By acquiring land before it is needed to build schools, districts and cities add certainty to the development process and allow better integration of schools into neighborhood. The Hillsboro School District has tried to get ahead of demand – each bond measure includes money to purchase land and replace land in the land bank. Developer set-asides. Identify school locations when meeting with developers and encourage school sites that integrate with the design of new developments. Encourage developers to dedicate or sell land for school sites as part of the entitlement process. Make sure that the site supports city planning goals. Be wary of donated sites whose location could undercut community preservation goals and force taxpayers to pay for unnecessarily expensive infrastructure, transportation, and other services. Community education. Begin by partnering with the city to raise awareness among residents about the importance of planning for schools in the future. Both the Bethel and Redmond School Districts attribute successfully passing bonds to involving the community in the process. Strategies included holding community meetings, producing print and television advertisements, canvassing door to door, and developing a large volunteer base. • • • Establish design and site standards for schools. Working in partnership, school districts and cities should establish design and site standards for schools and school sites. Address the following issues: Size of sites (large enough to meet educational program needs, but small enough to fit easily and gracefully into the neighborhood served) Location of sites within the community Connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian standards Safety standards (including street design and speed) School design (encourage neighborhood pride in the school) • • • • • 4 Steps for a Coordinated School Siting Process 25 Steps for a Coordinated School Siting Process Local governments and school districts that coordinate with each other about school location have an easier time in the siting process and make better site decisions.The following three steps serve as a guide for school districts and cities/counties. They are written from the perspective of the school district because districts normally initiate the process and ultimately will make decisions about where to build new schools or renovate existing ones. Each school district will follow a slightly different process for siting schools depending on the size of the district, the political climate of the community, the capacity of the school district and local jurisdiction. 1 Determine What You Have & Articulate Need and Vision Th e city/county usually does not have a large role in the school district inventory; however, it plays a role in helping the district determine need by providing information on growth. Th e city/county should answer the following questions for the school district: • What are the future growth projections? • Where should growth occur? • Where are transportation infrastructure improvements planned? • What is the land use pattern within the city? • Are new parks or other public facilities going to be built in the near future? • What building codes pertain to schools? • What does the comprehensive plan say about schools? • Where does the city/county allow schools? • How does the city/county envision its role in the school siting process? • Are school planners and city planners using the same demographic and infrastructure data? • Is the city/county interested in pursuing joint use opportunities such as development and maintenance of park and recreation facilities? How Can the City or County be Involved?Why? Determining the number and quality of school district facilities and having a good understanding of city/county growth patterns are important first steps in establishing the district’s needs. This “needs statement” provides the rationale for the siting process. (For example, we have enough room for 20 more students and the city is expecting 200 more students in the next 5-7 years. We will need school capacity to accomodate 180 more students by 2010.) Instead of immediately trying to solve the problem, the school district should develop a vision for the siting process. How does it want to the process to run? What does it want the end result to be? Who? Many school districts develop an Advisory/Steering/Project Committee for the site selection process that is responsible for making key decisions (see Step 2). The Advisory Committee may decide to hire a consultant to perform many of the tasks or may take on the tasks themselves. How? 1) Complete an inventory of school facilities and district owned sites, documenting maintenance needs and capacity. 2) Understand community growth patterns and regulations; ask city/county personnel key questions. 3) Develop population projections for school aged children ; make sure that the projections coincide with those used by the city/ county. 4) Define the need based on background research (inventory, growth patterns, etc.). 5) Develop a vision for the school siting process. 26 The School Siting Handbook Step Steps for a Coordinated School Siting Process 27 2Identify Stakeholders and Engage the Community How Can the City or County be Involved? Many communities recommend having a city/county planner participate in the Siting Advisory Committee. Th is person can help the committee navigate through what can be a challenging laby- rinth of city/county ordinances and regulations. City/county representatives should plan on attending design workshops and focus group sessions to contrib- ute to the process and to listen to what the school district and the community values. Involving the community in the siting process can have short- term and long-term benefits for the school district and local government. If the community is involved and listened to, the school site and design will better meet its needs and be responsive to its desires. Community members/agencies may have ideas that the school district did not originally consider that could maximize resources and better integrate the school into the community. If satisfied with the process and product, residents may be more likely to vote for the next bond measure and stay involved with the school and community. Why? Who? Consider involving the following types of people in Advisory Committee or in other public involvement activities: • School District Personnel (superintendent, school facility planners, school transportation officers) • City and/or county planners • Transportation planners • Architects • Transportation engineers • Historic preservation planners • Park and recreation planners • Youth organizers • Parents • Developers • Students • Public health advocates • N eig hb o rh o o d a s s o ciati o n members • Public relations specialists • Business Owners • Nonprofit Personnel (YMCA/YWCA, Boys and Girls Club, Senior Services) Step There are a number of ways to involve the public in the siting process. School districts will need to think strategically about the appropriate activities for and duration of their involvement. Examples include: • Siting Advisory Committee • Citizen Oversight Committee • Design workshops • Open houses • Newsletters, brochures • Surveys How? 3 Identify, Evaluate, and Select Sites Consider the following criteria when choosing a school site: Why? School Siting Advisory Committee, city/county personnel, if not on advisory committee. Who? How? Conducting an inventory of viable sites (including renovation/ expansion of existing sites) ensures that all options are considered. Some districts may only have one or two sites to choose from; however, when there are several sites, a set of evaluating criteria is helpful in making decisions. How Can the City or County be Involved? City/county planning staff can assist in three specific ways: • Point out areas of potential population growth and/or decline: Cities are required to plan for the next 20 years. Discussing the jurisdiction’s long-range plans will help school districts know where to secure land for the future. • Identify vacant parcels and discuss attributes: Most communities have an up-to-date computer database of vacant land that describes important parcel characteristics, such as size of site, type of zoning, presence of wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas, and floodplains. Access to this data streamlines and better informs the process. • Discuss joint use potentials or important adjacencies: If asked, the city may jointly purchase land with the school district to co- locate facilities such as a park or community center. City officials should also discuss with the school district the overall vision for the community and identify how schools contribute to that vision through strategic planning. Transportation/Accessibility • Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility • Availability of parking • Vehicular access to site • Drop-off and pick-up traffic loads 28 The School Siting Handbook Step Environmental • Presence of wetlands or endangered species • Suitable soil types • Vulnerability to natural hazards • Presence of hazardous substances • Topography Land UseLand Use • Renovation/expansion potential • Site availability • Land use compatibility • Size of site • Proximity to future development • Proximity to students • Proximity to community facilities • Reuse of infrastructure Costs • Land costs • Construction costs • Site maintenance costs • Off-site costs Frequently Asked Questions 29 Frequently Asked Questions about Land Use Planning and School Facility Planning Because of their relationship, it is important that local governments and school districts understand each other’s approach to planning. Some basic information can help demystify the process. The following section is a short primer about land use and school facility planning. West Salem High School, Salem, OR What are the key components of land use planning? Comprehensive Plan: Th e offi cial document adopted by a local government which sets forth the general, long range policies on how the community’s future development should occur. Zoning Ordinance: A set of land use regulations to create districts within which the type, location, density, bulk, height, and lot cov- erage of land use are controlled. Facilities Plans: Plans that address specifi c municipal services such as water, sewer, stormwater, trans- portation, and parks. What is a comprehensive plan? Comprehensive land use plans are the primary tool local governments use to implement planning goals developed and supported by Oregonians. A comprehensive plan is an official document adopted by a city or county that sets forth the general, long-range policies on how the community’s future development should occur. Comprehensive plans are long-range (usually 20 years) and provide a physical guide to development: the how, why, when and where to build, rebuild, or preserve a community. By state law, all incorporated cities and counties must have comprehensive plans that are consistent with the 19 statewide planning goals. What to Know... What is land use planning? Land use planning is the process through which local governments provide for the current and future land needs of a community. It takes into account both public and private interests and tries to balance the “public interest” (e.g., public health, safety, and welfare) with private property rights. While cities and counties in Oregon are required by law to adopt land-use plans, they engage in planning for other reasons as well. Since 1973, Oregon has maintained a strong statewide program for land use planning (See Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660). The foundation of the program is 19 statewide planning goals that are implemented at the local level through comprehensive plans. The goals reflect five general themes: involvement of people, protecting farm and forest lands, managing rural and urban development, protecting natural resources, and managing coastal and ocean resources. 30 The School Siting Handbook Frequently Asked Questions 31 Where can schools be located in a community? Communities use the zoning ordinance (sometimes called the “development code”) to control the type, location, density, and design of development. A zoning district prescribes allowable uses and a list of conditional uses (uses that have a greater impact and thus merit a higher level of review). Schools are usually treated as conditional uses in residential districts. Conditional uses require the applicant (in this instance, the school district) to apply for a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit application usually requires the school district to conduct a traffic impact study and other analyses. School districts face trade-offs when siting schools in areas outside urban growth boundaries (UGB). State statutes prohibit development of urban services (e.g., water, sewer, etc.) in rural areas; therefore, schools must be built within the urban growth boundary to receive city services such as water and sewer. If the district wants to build a school outside the UGB, the district must pay for its own infrastructure. This may require digging a well, developing a septic system, and building roads to connect the site. If a district wants to site a school within three miles of the urban growth boundary, it must apply for an exception based on ORS 197.732. Can cities impose a moratorium on growth because of inadequate school capacity? No. State law (ORS 197.505 to 197.540) explicitly prohibits local government’s ability to restrict development based on school capacity. If new development occurs, the school district must decide how it will accommodate the new students by either expanding existing schools, building new schools, or by reconfiguring school attendance areas. Urban Growth Boundaries One of the key provisions of the statewide planning program is establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) as required by statewide planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). A UGB is a tool intended to foster effi cient land use and complete, well-function- ing communities. Th e UGB is simply a line drawn on planning and zoning maps to indicate where a city will grow. Land out- side the urban growth boundary is rural and generally lacks urban services like sewers. Land outside UGBs is used primarily for farm- ing, forestry, or rural residential development. Do the Federal or Oregon Departments of Education have roles in school siting decisions? No. Neither the Federal nor Oregon Department of Education governs school siting. Decisions are made by local school boards with land use review by the appropriate local government. Local school districts are required to fund their own construction of schools without help from the state. 32 The School Siting Handbook Can a city expand its urban growth boundary because there is not enough land for schools? Maybe. Expanding an urban growth boundary can be a complicated and contentious process. To expand a UGB for a school site, the city would need to make a “special needs” argument consistent with the public facilities and services factor of statewide planning Goal 14. The application must identify clear standards for required school sites and must demonstrate that viable alternative sites do not exist within the UGB. Photo courtesy of ODOT Photo and Video Services Frequently Asked Questions 33 All states have enabling legislation that allows for the creation of “special districts” that are generally geared towards specific services. These special districts are granted some, but not all, of the same powers as a city/county government. In Oregon, the school district has complete independence to levy taxes without external review or approval from municipalities. The independent taxing authority of the school district removes it from any prior review process that cities or counties may have; however, the district, like any other developer, must still secure land use approval from the city or county for developing new schools. Similar to cities/counties, school districts have the power of eminent domain, which gives them the authority to condemn property for school purposes. As with all eminent domain purchases, the school district must pay fair market value for the land. School districts rarely use this because of the negative public relations of taking land for public facilities. Each school district has a specific service boundary; however, school district boundaries do not necessarily follow the same boundaries as municipalities. In 2004, Oregon had 197 school districts and 241 incorporated cities. How do the powers of school districts and city/county governments compare? How do school districts finance construction and maintenance of school facilities? The primary source school districts use to fund capital projects is through voter-approved, general obligation (GO) bonds. School districts issue general obligation bonds secured by future property tax levies. Under Oregon law, passage of bond levies requires at least a 50 percent voter turnout as well as the majority of the votes in favor (the so-called “double majority”). However, bond levies proposed in the general election in even numbered years have no turnout requirement. In addition to GO bonds, school districts can use general fund revenues which come from the state. Most districts, however, use general fund revenues solely for operations. The Impact of Ballot Measures 5, 47, and 50 In 1990, Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 5, which capped property taxes at $15 per $1000 of assessed value. School districts were capped at $5 per $1000 of assessed valuation. Th e key impact of Ballot Measure 5, from a school funding perspective, is that the limitation shifted school funding from local districts to the state. In 1996, voters passed Ballot Measure 47—the cut and cap legislation. Th e Oregon state legislature amended Ballot Measure 47 with Ballot Measure 50. Th e key provision is that it limits increases of property assessments to 3% per year. While Ballot Measures 5, 47, and 50 have had a profound impact on how school operations are funded, they have not had a signifi cant aff ect on how school districts fund capital improvements. Do school districts have to create school facility plans? Although the State Department of Education does not have a direct role in school siting, the state has enacted legislation pertinent to school siting and planning. ORS 195.110 mandates that counties or cities work with the school district to develop facility plans if they contain at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a high growth school district; (2) light rail planning; or (3) the addition of 1,000 or more residential units in a year. The school facility plan must also be incorporated as an element in local comprehensive plans. “High growth districts” are those where enrollment exceeds 5,000 students and with at least 6% growth over the three most recent school years. 34 The School Siting Handbook Do schools have to meet certain square footage requirements to maintain accreditation? The Northwest Association of Accredited Schools is the federally recognized school accreditation body for Oregon. Its standards do not specify maximum capacities for schools or minimum square footage per student. Yes and no. Th e State of Oregon does not impose acreage standards on school districts. School districts, however, may adopt their own standards. Many states and school districts consider the Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) the expert on school facilities and follow acreage formulas previously recommended by CEFPI. Th e 2004 edition of this organization’s guide retracts the previous recommendations and acknowledges that the past “rule of thumb does not take into consideration variations in educational programs or the diffi culties in obtaining sizeable tracts of land in densely populated areas.” Instead, it now suggests calculating the amount of space needed based on program criteria. Are there acreage standards for school sites? Frequently Asked Questions 35 For more information… Department of Land Conservation and Development (http://lcd.state.or.us) Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197 (www.leg.state.or.us/ors/197.html) Chapter 195 (www.leg.state.or.us/ors/195.html) Are schools required to provide busing? Oregon school districts are required to provide transportation for elementary school students who live more than one mile from school and for secondary school students who live more than 1.5 miles from school (ORS 327.043(1)). School districts can amend these limits and provide transportation for students because of health or safety reasons, including special education. Supplemental plans express these amendments and need the approval of the State Board of Education (OAR 581-023-0040(1)(d)). The state reimburses districts for expenditures for home-to-school, school-to-home and other instruction-related trips for students. In 2003-04 the state established a three-tier system based on district transportation costs per student. The top 10% of districts with the highest transportation costs are reimbursed at a rate of 90%; the next highest 10% are reimbursed at a rate of 80%; and the remaining 80% of districts are reimbursed at a rate of 70%. The state of Oregon expects to spend $135 million for student transportation in 2004-05. This does not include private transportation costs paid by families/students. West Salem High School, Salem, OR 36 The School Siting Handbook Organizations Center for Cities and Schools www.citiesandschools.org Council of Educational Facilities Planners International (CEFPI) www.cefpi.org National Center for Education Statistics www.nces.ed.gov National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities www.edfacilities.org Smart Schools Smart Growth Initiative www.smart-schools.org Works Cited 1 Good Schools - Good Neighborhoods (University of North Carolina) http://www.sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca/reports/ goodschoolsreport.pdf 2, 8, 9, 10 Getting to and from school: Urban form, distance, and the role of planning in transportation decision-making. (Marc Schlossberg, et al, under review, JAPA) 3,4 Nationwide Household Travel Survey, 2003. (Federal Highway Administration) www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/nhts/index.htm 4 Statewide Prevalence and Correlates of Walking and Bicycling to School. (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 2003) 4 Travel and environmental implications of school siting. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) www.epa.gov/livability/pdf/school_travel.pdf 5 Obesity: A Weighty Issue for Children (Environmental Health Perspective, 2003) 6 Oregon Blue Book, 2005 7 Projections of Education Statistics to 2013. (National Center for Education Statistics) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/ 11 Bend-LaPine School District Sites and Facilities. 2000 Study 12 Beaverton School District Facility Plan, 2002 13 State Policies and School Facilities (National Trust for Historic Preservation) http://www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schools/schools_state_ policies.pdf Publications ABC’s of School Site Selection (Maine Department of Education) Tel 207-624-6600 Edge-ucation (Governing, 2004) http://governing.com/textbook/schools.htm Th e Future of School Siting, Design and Construction in Delaware (Institute for Public Administration, University of Delaware) http://www.ipa.udel.edu/research/publications/school_ infrastructure_rep.pdf Good Schools- Good Neighborhoods (University of North Carolina) http://www.sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca/reports/ goodschoolsreport.pdf Hard Lessons of Michigan’s School Construction Boom (Michigan Land Use Institute) www.mlui.org/downloads/hardlessons.pdf Linking School Siting to Land Use Planning (Atlanta Regional Commission) http://www.atlantaregional.com/qualitygrowth/SCHOOLS_ TOOL.PDF Of Sprawl and Small Schools (On Common Ground, Winter 2005) www.realtor.org/sg3.nsf/Pages/winter05sprawl?Open Document Primer on School Planning and Coordination (Florida Department of Community Aff airs) www.dca.state.fl .us/fdcp/DCP/SchoolPlanning/Primergradcov. pdf Schools as Centers of Community: A Citizens’ Guide to Planning and Design (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities) www.edfacilities.org/pubs/centers_of_community.cfm Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) www.epa.gov/livability/pdf/school_travel.pdf Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School (National Trust for Historic Preservation) www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schoolsRpt.pdf Resources and Works Cited Memo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: April 10, 2018 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to Add “Extension, Expansion or Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use” Planning Commission Objective: Review and provide a recommendation for a proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), to add a Section with provisions for “Extension, Expansion, or Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use.” See attached Exhibit Red. Code Amendment Objective: To have an option where in some situations, a nonconforming use, or a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use, may be able to expand. Staff recommends the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in Exhibit Red to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners. Background, Discussion: This code amendment was initiated by the Estes Valley Planning Commission at their March 20, 2018 meeting, when another code amendment involving adding the “schools” use to various zoning districts was reviewed. At that time, along with continuing the “schools” code amendment, the Planning Commission asked staff to explore adding a section that was similar to a section in the Larimer County Code which has provisions for extension, expansion, or enlargement of a nonconforming use (Larimer County Code, Chapter 4.8 Nonconformities, Section 4.8.1 through 4.8.21). This is a proposal to add a similar section to the EVDC, Chapter 6. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots. For reference, the existing definitions relevant to this amendment are in the EVDC, Chapter 13 Definitions, Section 13.3, Definitions of Words, Terms and Phrases: 161. Nonconforming Building or Structure shall mean a building or structure, not including signs, that was legally established prior to the effective date of this Code but that does not comply with the dimensional standards that apply within the zoning district in which the building or structure is located. 162. Nonconforming Lot shall mean a lot that was legally established prior to the effective date of this Code but that does not comply with the dimensional standards that apply within the zoning district in which the lot is located. APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 4, 2018) PAGE 2 OF 3 163. Nonconforming Uses shall mean a use that was legally established prior to the effective date of this Code but that no longer complies with the use regulations that apply within the zoning district in which the use is located. Staff notes: The “effective date of this Code” is February 1, 2000. The amendment to the Code that staff proposes adding is on the attached Exhibit Red. The Estes Park Board of Trustees is scheduled to review, and may take action on this code amendment on the night of April 10, 2018. The Board of Larimer County Commissioners is scheduled to review, and may take action on this code amendment on April 23, 2018. Staff Findings: The text amendments comply with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for Review). §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review All rezoning and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Staff Finding: The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected, which is to provide a means for nonconforming uses to expand, as may be appropriate. Zoning was changed in 2000 within the EVDC boundary area, causing situations where a conforming use would be nonconforming. In some situations, the zoning that was applied in 2000 was not necessarily the best fit for a given use. 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley: Staff Finding: There is not one specific development plan being allowed or proposed through this amendment, as it would potentially be applicable to any qualified nonconforming use in the Estes Valley. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan does not address nonconforming uses, or expansion or enlargement of such. The Plan actually predates the EVDC which largely created the existing nonconformities in the Estes Valley. Staff does not find the proposed code amendment contrary to any recommendations of the Plan. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: Town, County or other relevant service providers would not be significantly impacted regarding their respective services and facilities, if this Code Amendment is approved. Advantages: • Complies with the EVDC §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. • Provides a tool for the public, elected officials, and staff to better deal with nonconforming uses. APRIL 10, 2018 EVPC (WRITTEN APRIL 4, 2018) PAGE 3 OF 3 Disadvantages: • Adds slightly to Code length and complexity. Action Recommended: Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners for a final decision to approve. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: APPROVAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners APPROVE the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit Red as recommended by staff, with findings as recommended by staff. CONTINUANCE I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting because…. (state reason(s) for continuance). DENIAL I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Board of Larimer County Commissioners DENY the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in Exhibit Red, finding that . . . (state reasons for denial). JMW Exhibits: Exhibit Red, Estes Valley Development Code: • Chapter 6. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots, Section 6.9 Extension, Expansion, or Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use EXHIBIT RED CHAPTER 6. NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS § 6.1 - APPLICABILITY A. General. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to uses, structures (except signs) and lots that were legally existing as of the effective date of this Code, February 1, 2000, but that become nonconforming as the result of the application of this Code to them or from reclassification of the property under any subsequent amendments to this Code. B. Signs. For provisions applicable to nonconforming signs, see Chapter 8. § 6.2 - PURPOSE It is the general policy under this Code to allow nonconforming uses, structures or lots to continue to exist and to be put to productive use. The limitations of this Chapter are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing to use their property but to reasonably control expansions, reestablishment of discontinued uses and the reestablishment of nonconforming buildings and structures that have been substantially destroyed. § 6.3 - CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR STRUCTURES A. Authority to Continue. Nonconformities shall be allowed to continue in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. B. Repairs and Maintenance. Repairs and normal maintenance required to keep nonconforming uses and structures in a safe condition shall be permitted, provided that no alterations shall be made except those allowed by this Chapter or required by law or ordinance. C. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 1. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses Prohibited. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, except as allowed in §6.4 and §6.9 below, a nonconforming use shall not be altered or extended. The extension of a nonconforming use to a portion of a structure which was built for the nonconforming use at the time of adoption of this Code is not an extension of a nonconforming use. (Ord. 21-11 §1) 2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures Limited. Except as allowed in §3.6.C of this Code, a structure conforming as to use, but nonconforming as to height, setback or coverage, may be altered or extended, provided that the alteration or extension does not result in a new violation of this Code or increase the degree or extent of the existing nonconformity. (See §3.6, Variances; a variance may be sought to permit alterations or extensions to a nonconforming structure not otherwise allowed by this Chapter.) (Ord. 21-11 §1) D. Nonconforming as to Parking. 1. Nonconformity as to off-street parking or loading shall not subject the use to the conditions of this Chapter. 2. A use that is nonconforming as to off-street parking or loading shall not be changed to another use requiring more off-street parking or loading unless the additional required parking or loading is provided. 3. The Board of Adjustment may permit a nonconforming use to provide required off-street parking or loading on a lot other than the lot on which the use is located. (Ord. 21-11 §1, 12/20/11) § 6.4 - CHANGE OF NONCONFORMING USE A. If a nonconforming use is changed, it shall be changed to a use conforming to the regulations of the zoning district and, after the change, it shall not be changed back again to a nonconforming use. (Ord. 21-11 §1) B. A nonconforming use may be changed to a conforming use in phases over time, provided that such phasing is in accordance with a development plan approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in §3.8 of this Code. (Ord. 21-11 §1) C. A nonconforming accessory dwelling unit may be altered, provided that the alteration does not enlarge or move the accessory dwelling unit. See §13.3.13, Alter or Alteration. (Ord. 21-11 §1) (Ord. 21-11 §1, 12/20/11) § 6.5 - DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USE If a nonconforming use is abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, further use of the property or structure shall be for a conforming use and its nonconforming status shall terminate. § 6.6 - DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE If a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, wind, explosion or act of God, the nonconforming structure or use may continue, but restoration shall be started within one (1) year of such calamity and shall be completed within three (3) years of initiating restoration. § 6.7 - ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES Whenever the boundaries of a zoning district shall be changed so as to transfer an area from one (1) district to another district of a different classification, this Chapter shall apply to any nonconforming uses existing therein. § 6.8 - USES ALLOWED ON NONCONFORMING LOTS A. Nonconforming Lots in Residential Zoning Districts. In all residential zoning districts, a lot that is nonconforming as to area or dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be occupied by a single-family detached residential use, subject to all other applicable zoning district and development standards unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment. B. Nonconforming Lots in Nonresidential Zoning Districts. In all nonresidential zoning districts, a lot that is nonconforming as to area or dimension as of the effective date of this Code may be occupied by any use permitted by right in the zoning district, provided that a by-right accommodations use shall not be developed on a lot with an area less than: 1. Forty thousand (40,000) square feet in the A zoning district, or 2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in the A-1 zoning district. Such uses shall be subject to all other applicable zoning district and development standards unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment. (Ord. 18-02 §1, 12/10/02) § 6.9 - EXTENSION, EXPANSION, OR ENLARGEMENT OF A USE A. Extension, expansion, or enlargement of a use. 1. Except as otherwise specified in this code, a nonconforming use, a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use, or a nonconforming building or structure as defined herein, cannot be extended, expanded, or enlarged without the approval through the process found in Subsection 6.9 B of the EVDC. 2. When a building is nonconforming only as to a required setback, it may be extended, expanded or enlarged as long as the following conditions are met: a. The proposed addition is not more than 50 percent of the square footage of the original building and is not more than 2,000 square feet; b. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and c. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation. B. Process. 1. Any request to extend, expand, or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure requires a pre-application conference consistent with requirements in Section 3.2 A of the EVDC. 2. Review of the request commences when a complete application is submitted. 3. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Director will refer the applicable application materials to all appropriate departments and agencies and mail written notice of the application to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal per the General Notice Provisions, Section 3.15 of the EVDC. 4. Neighbor notification and comment. a. Written notice of the proposal shall be mailed to neighbors per the General Notice Provisions, Section 3.15 of the EVDC. b. The notice shall provide 14 days for neighbors to respond with any questions or concerns. Comments shall be provided to the planning department. c. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received. 6. Administrative determination. Within five working days following receipt of comments, the Community Development Director shall provide a written determination stating that the request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure: a. Is approved, and complies with this code and any other approvals imposed by the governing body or the board of adjustment; or b. Requires modifications, based upon the referral review; or c. Is denied based upon an inability to comply with this code, including the review criteria contained herein, and any other approvals or conditions of approval imposed by the governing body or the Board of Adjustment. 7. The decision of the Community Development Director may be appealed in writing to the governing body, pursuant to Subsection 12.1 C. of the EVDC. 8. Upon the determination of the Community Development Director that the application: a. Requires modifications, the applicant shall be required to make a revised submittal, for a subsequent review, that addresses the referral or other comments. Prior to the revised submittal the applicant may request a meeting to discuss the referral or other comments; or b. If approved, the applicant shall provide final versions of the site plan and supporting documents for approval by the Community Development Director. C. Review criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure. To approve a request to extend, expand, or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure, the Community Development Director shall consider the following criteria and find that each has been met or determined to be inapplicable: 1. The extended, expanded, enlarged or changed use, building or structure is not more than 50 percent larger or more intense than the initial use, building or structure as measured by indoor area and/or outdoor use area or as measured by other means deemed applicable by the Community Development Director; 2. The request to extend, expand, or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure complies with all applicable requirements of this Code and any applicable supplementary regulations; 3. The request to extend, expand or enlarge a nonconforming use, building or structure complies with all conditions of approval imposed by the governing body or board of adjustment under another approval process authorized by this code; 4. The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property. D. Number of approvals. Only one request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure shall be granted per nonconformity. Additional expansions or changes in character shall be accomplished by following the appropriate procedure to make the use, building or structure conforming, pursuant to the EVDC. E. Additional approval requirements. Approval of a request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a nonconforming use, building or structure shall not relieve the applicant from complying with the building codes as adopted by the jurisdictional authority or the building permit submittal requirements. F. Minor deviations. Technical, engineering or other considerations may necessitate minor deviations from the approved plans. The Community Development Director may approve minor deviations, in writing, provided they comply with this code and the intent of the original approval. G. Amendments. Changes to the approval that the Community Development Director determines not to be minor deviations shall require approval through the applicable process as described in this code. If the amendments are not minor deviations, a new application shall be required and it shall receive full review under the approval processes appropriate to the use as described in this code. H. Vesting. An approved request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a nonconforming use, building or structure shall not create a vested right. Approved plans shall be effective for two years. If the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development construction permit are not issued within two years of the approval, the approved plan shall automatically expire.