Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Temporary Use Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodland Park planners refine temporary use permit rules, clarify review paths and timelines
Summary
At a Planning Commission work session, staff and commissioners reviewed a revised Temporary Use Permit (TUP) chapter, clarifying when staff versus city council reviews apply, timelines for applications, exemptions such as garage sales, notice requirements and appeal language slated for legal review.
Woodland Park planners spent the bulk of a work session reviewing a rewritten Temporary Use Permit (TUP) chapter that keeps most existing rules but reorganizes procedures and tightens language about who decides and when.
The Planning Director, Karen, told commissioners the revisions are largely the old rules “restructured into the format that we are now using for all our various application types.” She flagged one state-driven change elsewhere in the code — replacing the term “family” with “household” because the state now limits regulating occupancy by familial relation.
Why it matters: The TUP chapter sets how temporary events, outdoor vendors and other short-term uses are permitted and reviewed. The rewrite clarifies which permits city staff can approve administratively and which must go to the City Council, and it keeps timing provisions (45-, 21-, and 14-day notice windows) that staff said are working in practice.
Key changes and clarifications - Review authority: Staff recommended, and commissioners generally accepted, that the Planning Director be named as the administrative reviewer; only a subset of TUPs would go to City Council. Karen said the city will review “all temporary use permits except for, like Lee said, the time exceeds 9PM, exceeds a hundred and 80 days in length, and it's referred.” Commissioners asked that the text explicitly list the three triggers for City Council review: operations between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., duration longer than 180 days in a calendar year, and staff referral.
- Staff referral discretion: The draft retains a provision allowing the Planning Director to refer an application to City Council at staff discretion. Commissioners asked for examples and for guardrails; staff and several commissioners said discretion is appropriate but should be used sparingly. One commissioner noted the provision functions as a relief valve when applicants or staff disagree about conditions.
- Timelines and notice: Staff signaled it intends to keep current timelines: a 45-day minimum lead time for major events and shorter timelines (e.g., 21 days) when an item must go to City Council because of the additional notice requirements. Karen explained the 21-day timeline aligns with a required 10-day notice period before Council consideration.
- Exemptions and scope: The draft retains an existing exclusion that treats household garage sales, street musicians and neighborhood parties as non-TUP activities. Commissioners agreed not to change that now but said they could revisit if community complaints increase.
- Submittal and permit conditions: Staff proposed clearer submittal language (e.g., “graphic depiction or brief statement” rather than “graphic example”) and a confirmation that subsequent similar permits previously approved by Council may be administratively reissued if circumstances are substantially unchanged. The list of conditions that may be imposed on permits (size, massing, spacing, hours, public-safety measures) remains broadly written to preserve staff flexibility.
- Public notice, referrals, and external review: The draft relies on the code’s common review procedure for referrals to outside agencies (police, fire, county health). Commissioners asked that the use table and the TUP chapter cross-reference each other so permitted areas are clear.
- Appeals and legal review: The chapter keeps two appeal paths: an applicant can request Council review of an administrative decision, and, when an application is heard by Council, a person who filed a timely written objection may have an appeal right under state procedures. Multiple speakers asked legal counsel to review whether referencing the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (CRCP) is the correct citation and to clarify who has standing to appeal; staff agreed to send that language to legal.
What remains unresolved - Precise referral criteria: Commissioners asked staff to add the three explicit Council-review triggers into the draft text and to change generic “staff” references to “Planning Director” for consistency. - Appeal standing and court reference: The commission directed staff to obtain a legal review of the appeal language and whether the CRCP is the correct external citation.
Quotes - "The state in its infinite wisdom last year has declared that we can no longer do that," Karen said about removing occupancy limits tied to familial relationships, adding that “family” language is being replaced by a definition of “household.” - On referral discretion, staff said: "City staff thinks that it needs to go to the City Council. Let's — I think we should let it go." (paraphrase of discussion where the Planning Director explained referral is used rarely.)
Ending Staff will incorporate the edits discussed — explicit Council-review triggers, minor drafting cleanups, and a legal review of appeal citations — and bring a revised draft back to the commission. Commissioners indicated they prefer the Planning Director remain the primary administrative reviewer, with the Council reserved for the specified exceptions.
