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
signi cant 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 speci c 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 e ort 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 o ce, 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 O ce 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 In uences” 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 O ce of Policy. The
FHWA Policy O ce 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 O ce 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.