Planning commission recommends approval of VA 2‑44 variance for Utah–Nevada Lane, forwards to county commissioners

The El Paso County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of file VA 2‑44, a variance of use for property on Utah–Nevada Lane, with three conditions and four notations and a finding that water sufficiency is not applicable. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final consideration.

The commission returned from an executive session and then resumed deliberations on VA 2‑44 after hearing from the applicant, staff and public comment. Commissioner Jack moved to approve the variance with the stated three conditions and four notations and to forward the item to the Board of County Commissioners; Commissioner Trowbridge seconded the motion. The motion passed, with a roll‑call vote that recorded seven ayes and two nays. Commissioners Carlson and Byers voted no; the chair and the remaining commissioners voted yes.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the record and the public comments supplied the county commissioners with information and a recommendation. Concerns raised during deliberations centered on roadway and public‑safety conditions near the site: Commissioner Carlson said the record included “almost I think 10 negative inputs” and called the proposal “detrimental to the area,” noting that the road in question can be preferable during inclement weather and therefore poses a safety issue. The record also states that water sufficiency was judged not applicable to this variance.

Details of the action: The motion as stated on the record was to approve agenda item 5B, file VA 2‑44, variance of use for Utah–Nevada Lane, with three conditions and four notations; water sufficiency was noted as not applicable; the item was to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration.

What commissioners said: Commissioner Carlson said he “would respectfully disagree” with colleagues who supported approval and argued the application did not meet approval criteria because it would be detrimental to the surrounding area and to the health and safety of area inhabitants. Commissioners who supported forwarding the recommendation said staff, the applicant and public comment had been heard and that the record and conditions provided the county commissioners with sufficient information for their review.

Next steps: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be placed on the agenda for the Board of County Commissioners; the commission’s role was advisory in this case and the final decision rests with the board.

Ending note: No formal ordinance or code change was adopted at the planning commission meeting; the motion forwarded a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.