A third public hearing for Dry Creek, a 2,000-acre subdivision between Brighton, Fort Lupton and Dacono was tabled by the Weld County Commissioners after eight hours of discussion and testimony. Staff from multiple departments opposed the project, saying it would not be financially sustainable with a $6 million gap between Dry Creek’s property tax revenues and the County’s cost for providing services. Residents from adjacent towns also raised concerns about the density of the project, which would add at least 20,000 people to the area. In fact, the project is so ambitious so significant that it would require an amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan to approve it, prompting an interesting discussion about the cost of growth and how to pay for it. Ultimately, the Commissioners decided to postpone their decision and the applicant is expected to return before the Board in February.
What is Good Planning? The Weld County Commissioners held another study session to discuss Recorded Exemptions (RE) and how to control the number of lots split off large parcels in agricultural zones. Most of the Commissioners (Bill Garcia, Sean Conway and Barbara Kirkmeyer) want to see options for landowners with incentives to encourage them to plan the future development of their land in a thoughtful way so that access points make sense and service delivery is efficient. David Long disagreed, saying he didn’t support any limits but wants good planning with “vision.” Commissioner Kirkmeyer voiced concern about costs REs create for the County, saying “the RE process is not a property right.” In the end the staff was directed to research and draft changes that would create incentives for property owners to split off parcels with some kind of planned process however, the devil is in the details. What is good planning? It was something for which all the present commissioners expressed support but without consensus on the definition it is impossible to predict how the RE process might change in the future.
City staff and the Water Board are recommending that the City prohibit building in the Poudre River’s 100 year floodplain, which is more restrictive than the existing code and would impact 2,000 acres and 256 parcels. As usual, there was a difference of opinion on Council. Wade Troxell opposed the stricter regulations while David Roy and Kelly Ohlson were supportive. Mayor Doug Hutchinson directed staff to conduct outreach with property owners before finalizing a proposal for Council’s consideration.
The City Council is continuing its push to consider the means by which to regulate neighborhood compatibility in the older neighborhoods on both sides of College Avenue. The problem, according to some, is that scrape-offs or pop-ups are negatively impacting neighborhood character because they are out of scale with the surrounding houses.
At a recent study session the staff proposed to restrict home size in these neighborhoods, arguing size is the primary element that defines character. However, the Council didn’t appear to have consensus on the issue at all.
David Roy argued that historic preservation should be the guiding principle, but his colleagues did not share his opinion. Kelly Ohlson castigated his fellow Council members, saying they obviously hadn’t read their packets or they would agree with his position, which was to keep the regulations simple to regulate the five percent of homeowners, whose new or renovated homes don’t fit the neighborhood. Ben Manvel was more concerned with regulating how much a property could shade another home, reducing its ability to generate solar power. Wade Troxell and Aislinn Kottwitz were clearly uncomfortable with legislating “taste” while Mayor Doug Hutchinson wondered how big the problem really is and worried about creating simple regulations without unintended consequences. The Council’s goal is to have an ordinance ready for public review beginning December 7.
Note: This discussion should seem familiar because the City of Boulder has adopted legislation with the same intent. Boulder’s ordinance was referred to several times during the study session, illustrating that public policy is regional in the sense that legislation in one of our area’s jurisdictions can lead to similar ideas in others. Creating “HOA” type legislation to regulate what “looks good” is bad enough, but neighborhood compatibility regulations can also impact affected properties’ resale value.
The Fort Collins based group, Community for Sustainable Energy (CSE), was disappointed when the Larimer County Commissioners turned down their request to put a question on the November ballot to create an energy improvement district. Their goal was ask voters to allow the County to issue bonds, creating a funding source for residential energy efficiency loans.
The loan would be added to an owner’s property tax bill and herein lies the problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently prohibit financing of properties with assessments for any energy efficiency/renewable energy improvements. Since loans can, and are routinely sold, this means any residential loan secured by a mortgage could be subject to the GSE rules at some point, which has been the kiss of death for these programs. Boulder County’s ClimateSmart Loan Program is a case in point.
The Larimer County Commissioners declined to support the proposed ballot measure because of the related administrative costs the program would create. In addition, although media coverage did not mention it, the Commissioners are aware of the GSE prohibition against energy loans said Commissioner Steve Johnson. CSE is undeterred, and may gather signatures to force the issue next year.
An Agent of Record (AOR) ordinance was the topic of discussion at a City Council meeting on August 24. LAR opposed the proposal because it would mandate that landlords living outside a 40 mile radius of Longmont to hire an agent to represent their properties.
City staff argued the program was needed to ensure landlords of “problem properties” could be contacted quickly and efficiently. LAR’s position is that an AOR Program would create an additional, unnecessary cost for property owners, most of whom derive little profit from their rental properties. The REALTORS® also argued that the proposal would create another layer of bureaucracy but would not solve the issues it is intended to fix. LAR President Deanna Dyer and President-Elect (2012) Bob Danos testified persuasively about the problems with the ordinance. After much discussion, the City Council voted 4-3 to kill the ordinance on first reading. Council members who against the bill were: Mayor Baum and Council members Alex Sammoury, Gabe Santos and Katie Witt. The vote means that as long as the current Council is in office, the threat of an AOR is gone. However, if enough seats change in the upcoming November 2011 election, the issue could easily be resurrected.
After a citizens’ committee spent months looking at the issue, there is still no reasonable solution to the dilemma of how to pay for rural road maintenance (that is, maintenance other than filling potholes and snow plowing). Property owners were surveyed and unsurprisingly a majority did not want to pay an additional $130 a year for road paving. The Commissioners have retreated to the established policy of putting the responsibility on the subdivisions, saying residents can form improvement districts if they want to do something about the problem. But this is easier said than done.
The creation of an improvement district requires a majority of residents to vote in favor of it, and in this economy that is a tough sell. Any delay in creating a district will increase the cost, making the passage of a vote even less likely. Even though the Commissioners agreed that improvement districts are the only recourse they’re willing to pursue, they still want some sort of comprehensive solution to keep roads from deteriorating. This seems contradictory. Note: Some rural subdivisions don’t have a homeowner’s association, so organizing a campaign to create an improvement district would be a daunting task.