New land use code committee pivotal in planning future

It’s been a long time coming, creating a committee to implement recommendations made by citizens in November 2008 for the Chaffee County Land Use Code.

County commissioners are scheduled to meet Mon., Nov. 16, to begin selecting committee members from a short list.

The newly formed committee will have its work waiting as the current land use code is unclear, conflicting and hinders smart development. To be successful, the committee must create a land use code that’s easy to understand with standards that encourage thoughtful growth. It should also reflect the values of county citizens.

“It’s crucial that we have a functional committee that recognizes the importance of a good land use code,” said Kim Antonucci, Chaffee County planner.

There won’t be much of honeymoon period as the business of land use looms. This committee will take the Chaffee County Citizen’s Land Use Roundtable’s two-plus years of work and revise the code to improve land use patterns and procedures. The roundtable’s work is relevant and important because it’s the closest citizens have come to consensus on land use issues. This last step in an almost 10-year process is to create workable regulations. The committee will work with the Planning Commission and county staffers.

Current county commissioners participated in the final meetings and in December 2008 endorsed Resolution 2008-69, which offers direction to staffers updating the land use code and zoning map. The roundtable’s shared focus was to “enhance and protect Chaffee County’s character.”

Initially, about 200 citizens were invited into the process. This was whittled down to 80 participants, then a core group of about 38, representing diverse interests and various stakeholders within the community.

Until a decisive land use code is finalized, the subdivision review process may present the greatest challenge. There are conflicts going back to previous zoning and subdivision regulations that stood alone but referred to each other. Basically, the two were treated separately and as subdivision requirements evolved and changed, the zoning did not.

Here’s how the conflict came to be. There have been growing pains as Chaffee County’s population increased more than 60 percent since 1970, in step with economic changes from recreation and second-home ownership. Previously, agriculture and mining were king.

As the county changed, new land planning was needed. In 2000 a Comprehensive Plan for the county was adopted. This plan is advisory, not regulatory, and the Board of Commissioners at the time gave the Planning Commission the authority to dig in and create a land use code, inspired by this plan. The land use code has been a work in progress for years.

Citizens at the time were “unable to reach political consensus on land use issues,” Antonucci said.

Meanwhile, the county made regulatory updates with regard to subdivisions between 2001 and 2005 and applied them to new developments, not existing ones. But it did not update zoning requirements.

Actually, the Zoning Resolution has not been updated since its adoption in 1974, except to decrease minimum rural lot sizes to two acres in 1990, as noted in Resolution No. 2008-69. Zoning regs do not consider population growth, economic and cultural changes.

Next, the commission tackled the Zoning Resolution and map in 2004 and made recommendations based on goals in the Comprehensive Plan. In 2006 the board rejected those recommendations, following public input. The board then sought more public involvement. The roundtable was formed to consider everything from zoning and subdivision requirements to resource standards. Recommendations for the land use code are its resulting work.

The commission planned to update the land use code sooner but there were failed efforts over the years, Antonucci said. “It wasn’t supposed to be in conflict this long.”

Subdivision, zoning regs at odds

Planners’ hands are often tied by the conflicting zoning and subdivision regulations. Lots smaller than two-acre parcels can’t normally be approved because of smaller setbacks, and water and sewer requirements that are inconsistent with zoning. It’s an “untenable situation if you’re trying to do a small lot because planning can’t allow it, the zoning won’t allow it without variances or going through a Planned Unit Development process,” said County Development Director Don Reimer.

For example, county residential zoning requires minimum setbacks of 25 feet from the street, 20 feet in the rear and 15 feet on the sides. But subdivision regulations show setbacks can be 20 feet from the street and 10 feet from the rear or the sides. Also, zoning allows one-acre lots with central water and septic systems or half-acre lots with a well and central sewer service. Yet subdivision standards require that any lot with a well or a septic system be at least two acres.

Reimer does not agree that during this interim time, anything goes with conditions. He says the board has denied requests for subdivisions with an inadequate water supply and special land use permits that don’t fit with the area.

Other requirements aren’t clear-cut and the board may use discretion in allowing an exception if the developer makes a strong case. The board considers whether work is mitigated and the larger picture of public health, safety and welfare. For example, a request for a road grade of 12 percent was granted on condition it was paved. The board found the road reasonable for emergency vehicles and this decision was within its discretion.

So a building may be erected in a flood plain if the foundation is engineered. Although it’s not advisable to build in a flood plain because of the downstream impact and the hazard to property owners, there’s no standard to prevent it. The larger question being, “Do we want to put buildings there?” said Reimer.

River setbacks are also troublesome. Current code puts buildings 100 feet from the river’s centerline, but, again, this requirement doesn’t apply to existing lots. “We value our water quality and natural flood plains are critical to watershed health,” Reimer said. “Should those values be reflected in our regulations?”

Downcast lighting is required for new developments, making it easier to view the night sky, but not existing subdivisions.

Special land use and zoning permits are tricky because they’re valid for a limited time, and situations are open to interpretation. If a bed and breakfast owner wants to build additional cabins, for example, the owner would have to return to ask for an extension five to 10 years later. For many, it doesn’t make sense to build a structure and check in years down the road to make sure it’s still acceptable.

‘Stuck with two-acre lots’

Roundtable members’ first recommendation concerns land use zoning, and it’s clear they want something other than two-acre subdivisions. Discussions were heated over whether the minimum lot size should be two or five acres, but the group couldn’t achieve consensus on density. The Planning Commission’s position is one unit per five acres as the minimum lot size. But it emphasized good design, including clustering options and incentives.

Lots created in the ’90s essentially mandate the cookie-cutter two-acre lot developments and make it difficult to create unique clusters, which can make better use of the land. If a developer’s incentive is economic, it’s easy to see how acreage is cut up into as many two-acre lots as possible.

And why would the county want more? In the first week of November 2009, 93 one- to two-acre properties were listed for sale; 203 properties, ranging from a little more than two acres to five acres, were listed; and 47 lots categorized as just two acres were listed, according to the Multiple List Service.

Greg Bayne, who serves on the Planning Commission, likes the idea of clustering to preserve viewsheds and balance needs of developers and communities. For example, say a builder has 35 acres and is allowed a minimum one unit per five acres. An incentive would be to allow the developer to double the number of lots to 12, if the development is clustered. Property owners are closer to neighbors but there is more open space to enjoy.

“We want this county to continue to be a desirable place to live in 30 years,” Bayne said. “There’s another way to develop. We need to develop intelligently. They’re stuck with two-acre lots.”

Conflicting philosophies

Once the land use code committee is selected, it’s vital that it is successful. Building the right team will make all the difference in implementing the roundtable’s recommendations. Members will bring their strengths, personalities and sometimes conflicting philosophies to the table.

Realtor Judy Everett says she’s in the minority because she’d rather see two-acre lots than “five acres of weeds.” And though she doesn’t want to see 40 acres cut into two-acre lots, she says it’s a property rights issue. “I know we need rules, but the government seems to be dictating every part of our lives,” said Everett, who is also a farmer and has a seat on the Planning Commission.

If these two-acre lots don’t sell, it’s the owners’ responsibility, she says. “The market is adjusting,” Everett said. “Let the free market take care of it.”

‘Need to move forward’

County commissioner Dennis Giese, District 1, says no one agrees 100 percent on the recommendations but “we need to move forward.”

“How do we make the code to best satisfy the recommendations?” said Giese.

Giese understands committee members will each have particular passions. He says he’ll tell them: “This is what the process needs to be – it’s about coming to a consensus. We’ve gotten this far and that’s where we want to go. We want good land planning.”

Giese would like to see a land code that “reflects growth but not unabated growth and conserves the rural atmosphere of Chaffee County.”

Chairman of the Board Commissioner Frank Holman, District 2, wrote in an email that the list of applicants has at least one representative from each focus group. Holman also said he has “high expectations.”

On the roundtable recommendations, he said, “Most will be easily implemented. But there were some that were not unanimous and those will have to be worked out by the group.”

Commissioner Tim Glenn, District 3, did not respond to an email by the time this story was submitted.

Antonucci said, “Now the Steering Committee has something to work from and, hopefully, past debates won’t be reopened. For example, there’s no time to re-debate the roundtable’s recommendations or the validity of the Comprehensive Plan. Those tactics will prolong the adoption of a new code. Hopefully, the committee can stay on track with the roundtable’s positive outcomes.”

The anticipated new land use code will surely be a benchmark in Chaffee County’s history of land planning. “The next nine months will shape how the county will look in the future,” Bayne said.

The next Planning Commission Work Session is scheduled for Thurs., Nov. 12, 9 a.m., BoCC meeting room, upstairs in the Courthouse.

The Steering Comittee Kickoff Meeting is scheduled for Mon., Nov. 16, 1:30 p.m, BoCC meeting room, upstairs in the Courthouse. The commissioners will be present for this meeting.