Update, Friday, April 11: The paragraph regarding the vote has been updated to change Matt Nobles to Mont McAllister.
The Archuleta County Planning Commission recommended approval of another mobile home park rezone request at its March 27 meeting.
This is the second mobile home park rezone request the commission has heard and approved this year, with the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners giving unanimous final approval to the first request on March 6.
During the March 27 planning commission meeting, Planning Manager Owen O’Dell explained that the rezone request is separate from the tiny home village (THV) request attached to the property, which is a use by right review.
He went on to explain the request to rezone is coming from the Troxtell family for a parcel of land located on U.S. 84, south of Echo Lake, to change the zoning from agriculture ranching to a mobile home park designation.
A mobile home park designation is the only zoning designation in which a THV can be created, according to the county’s Land Use Regulations (LUR).
O’Dell noted that a THV permit is a completely separate process from the rezone request, being that it is reviewed and approved administratively.
He also mentioned the future land use map of the area shows the parcel to be designated for very low-density residential development.
O’Dell then explained that the applicants met seven out of the 10 review criteria elements, explaining that the LUR does not require all 10 review criteria elements to be met and adding that meeting seven of the elements exemplifies the applicant’s compliance with the county’s LUR.
According to O’Dell’s staff report, while the existing zoning is not inconsistent with the community plan, neither is the rezone request.
“Tiny Home Villages (Tiny Homes/Houses), much like multi-family housing, tends to offer housing at a more affordable rate than single-family residences,” the report states.
O’Dell’s report also states that a tiny home can cost anywhere from $37,000 to $160,000 when purchased from a manufacturer out of Durango, with monthly costs estimated as low as $903, while the average rental price in Pagosa Springs is approximately $2,800.
When asked for comments from the applicants, Sarah Troxtell explained that her family moved from Texas two years ago and saw an opportunity to help provide more affordable housing options for the community.
Planning commissioner Peter Beaudry commented that a $37,000 tiny home would likely be only 100 square feet in size, adding that the comparison of a cost of a tiny home to a traditional three-bedroom, two-bathroom home around 1,200 square feet is not a good comparison.
“I don’t think that’s a good comparison,” he said.
Development Director Pamela Flowers explained that according to area median income (AMI) levels identified by the Colorado Housing and Financing Authority, rent for a two-bedroom home at 80 percent AMI in Archuleta County can be as high as $1,800.
Beaudry also commented that last month the planning commission approved a rezone request that was only 1 mile from the Pagosa Springs town limits, whereas this request is about 6 miles from the town limits.
Beaudry asked if there was certain criteria for referencing the distance from town limits in these requests.
O’Dell explained that there is no certain criteria, but that the distance was referenced on this request due to the property being located off of a major highway corridor on U.S. 84, adding the future land use map indicates the area as high-density residential.
“I felt that it was important to note that we are close enough to town for density and other identified high-density areas,” O’Dell said.
Beaudry then commented on the notice requirements, which state that any property within 500 feet of the parcel shall be notified, stating that may be sufficient in urban areas, but not so much in rural communities.
O’Dell noted that the Troxtells had to notify fewer than five people, adding that proper notice requirements were also published in The SUN.
“There’s, not to me, any real public notice,” Beaudry said, adding that nobody reads that section of the paper.
Flowers commented that the planning commission could consider amending notice requirements at a future meeting.
O’Dell also stated that he agrees with Beaudry’s statement on notification requirements, explaining that other request applicants have had to notify more than 50 people.
Planning commissioner Mont McAllister asked when the Troxtell property was last used as a mobile home park.
“It was a long time ago,” Flowers said, indicating that it may have been as long as 12 plus years ago.
O’Dell explained there are still some electric meters on the property, and that the Troxtells are planning on using those as well as the existing roads on the property.
“Its also interesting to note that they’ve already cleaned the property up,” Flowers added, explaining there were multiple abandoned mobile homes on property when the Troxtells purchased it.
Planning commissioner Andre Redstone commented that he lived near the property more than 18 years ago, adding that it’s been a long time since the property was used with its previous intention.
Flowers explained that the county did not have zoning regulations until 2006.
Redstone added that he is “grateful” for the applicants attempting to provide additional housing options for the community.
“I think many of us realize how challenging making any significant changes within our community … it’s no small undertaking,” he said.
Flowers explained that when the zoning regulations were adopted, areas were “blanketed” and grouped together with nearby properties, adding that this property is mostly surrounded by large ranching properties.
She added that it would’ve been zoned as a mobile home park, but since it was not operational at that time, it was grouped in with surrounding properties.
She also noted the property does not meet the minimum size requirement of 35 acres to be zoned as agricultural ranching.
O’Dell mentioned the property was subdivided before zoning regulations were adopted in 2006, and that the Troxtells have corrected the illegally divided parcel by getting a legal lot certificate through the county.
Redstone commented that he had similar concerns with the first mobile home park request.
“One of my expressed concerns is precedence. We set a precedent that then is leveraged within the community, and I have to believe that this may be once more one of those situations, where neighboring property owners inevitably would look at doing exactly the same thing, should a precedence be set.”
Redstone also commented that he was looking at “distinguishing features of this property” compared to others, noting that the nonconforming zoning happened after the intended original use.
“So that’s an important qualifier there,” he said, adding that the details are important to rely on when making a decision that is contrary to this one.
Flowers responded, saying that the idea of precedence “doesn’t quite fit here in my mind.”
She explained that it is the planning commissioners’ job to determine if the applicant meets the county’s standards.
She then used the example of if every property owner in the area wanted to start a mobile home park and they are all able to meet the standards, “then it’s your job to approve it; that is it.”
Flowers noted the planning commissioners’ training in January outlined that it is the commissioner’s job to assess an application and compare it to the county’s standards and regulations, adding that staff has taken the time to review the application and that is why it is being presented with the recommendation for approval from staff.
“Its not about whether you like it or don’t like it or think it’s a good idea or bad idea. It’s not about that. Your job is to apply the standards to the project, and anything else is arbitrary,” Flowers said.
Redstone responded that he appreciated the clarification from Flowers, but commented that precedent is set through standard and that if this property meets the standard, “what makes surrounding properties different?”
“It doesn’t,” Flowers replied.
She added, “Each and every property owner has a right to develop their property in any way that the regulations allow ... as long as they meet the standards for that development.”
Flowers further explained that unless the planning commissioners can say the applicant is not complying with regulations, “then you need to approve. That’s why we recommend approval.”
She also commented that the Troxtells have “repeatedly” worked with the Planning Department to ensure that they are in compliance with the regulations.
Redstone also commented that he recognizes that “we’re all in support of diverse housing in the community,” explaining that his concern lies in the application of the standards, and the implication of spot-zoning.
Commissioner Peter Vecvangs commented that everybody has a right to develop their property within the standards and regulations, acknowledging Redstone’s concern of setting a precedent, “but I don’t know what weight that carries.”
He added, “As long as they meet the standard, they have the right to develop their property as they see fit.”
Flowers commented that the concerns of spot-zoning are fair and that the commission could have another conversation about how it would like to address that, adding that if the commission were to decide to not approve this request, mobile home parks should be removed from the LUR “because you will never have a bunch of mobile parks next to each other to create a mobile home park area,” noting that mobile home parks are spot-zoned in nature.
She explained that it is the opinion of the Planning Department staff that the benefits of this development outweigh the cons of spot-zoning.
Redstone agreed that everyone has a right to develop their property, explaining that a neighboring property was used for industrial activity nearly 30 years ago, raising the question if the same criteria could be applied to that property.
“We’re saying it’s an appropriate development for the area,” Flowers responded.
Beaudry indicated that he’d like to have more conversations in regard to the notification requirements, adding that he is concerned about spot-zoning.
“I wanna look at some kind of further criteria,” Beaudry said, adding that currently the commission is giving off the impression that people can do anything as long as they meet some of the criteria.
Flowers explained that means when the LUR was originally adopted, “they didn’t see a reason to be too restrictive in people’s ability to rezone.”
No public comment was given on the matter before it was approved by the planning commission in a 4-1 vote with Beaudry voting against and Redstone, Vecvangs, Mont McAllister and David Pribble voting to recommend it for approval.
The matter will go to the BoCC for final approval at a future BoCC meeting.
