A History of Lafayette's Growth Management Amendment Part Two
The First Exemptions and Turbulence
A HISTORY OF LAFAYETTE’S GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT
PART TWO: THE FIRST CHANGES - IT WAS TURBULENT
2000
The growth amendment (2B) was due to return to the voters in 2001. City Attorney Pat Tisdale and Planning Director Bonnie Star had determined 2400 permits in the pipeline must be issued. This determination meant there would be no extra permits in the first 6 years of the cycle and if the amendment was approved again by the voters it would be a few years into the second cycle before there were available permits.
BOULDER COUNTY BUYS ROCKY MOUNTAIN FUEL COMPANY LAND
The Rocky Mountain Fuel Company property was east of the Rothman Open Space. Boulder County purchased the land as open space and it has since been renamed Josephine Roche Open Space.
The Lafayette city council decided to purchase a section of the land from BoCo as a site for a future park. This is the area now called The Great Park.
Boulder County gave a section of the land to the Boulder County Housing Authority with the intent to construct senior housing. This is now Josephine Commons and Aspinwall. (Aspinwall was Josephine Roche’s middle name)
SHADY ACRES
Shady Acres, was a mobile home park located in the Urban Renewal District on Baseline Road, east of 287. (Now Affinity) The park had poor conditions including tainted water, raw sewage leaks, unsafe wiring, and dirty conditions, and had been investigated by the Boulder County Health Department. Jim Leach, a developer for Wonderland Homes, had an option to buy the site in July 2000. His plan was to turn the 8-acre site, valued at $1.2 million, into a mixed-use development with small stores and houses.
Leach said he would include some affordable units within the development, and thus provide housing for some of the residents his project would displace but he would need building permits.
RESIDENTS COME TOGETHER TO MONITOR
For years the city would have monthly forums on a variety of topics. Some of the same residents would attend all the meetings. Over time a group of us began interacting and attending more city meetings concerned about the council and staff’s continuing talk about the managed growth amendment.
This brought together people from all over town, including the newest development Indian Peaks. Two of the Indian Peaks residents were Jeff Monica and Kerry Bensman. Jeff Monica would go on to be a member of our planning commission and later was appointed to the council to fill a vacancy. Kerry Bensman later ran for and was elected to council on his second try.
There was no city website, the council packets were printed. The city clerk would print packets for reporters. When I started to become more active she would also print one for me. That’s why I have all these details because I saved pertinent documents, as well as newspaper clippings and my own notes.
COUNCIL WANTS A JUNE 2000 MAIL BALLOT
The council began to discuss changes to the amendment and decided to bring them to the voters a year and a half before the end of the first cycle.
A staff memo, from Planning Director Bonnie Star, dated March 2nd, 2000, envisioned the measure would include the following elements:
A mandatory growth boundary.
An annual cap on residential growth that includes incentives for needed housing.
A transportation impact fee.
Increase in open space dedication.
Confirmation of the Comprehensive Plan-perhaps making it enforceable.
The issues staff wished to address:
New housing is more expensive than our workforce can afford.
We have limited locations for our aging population.
The Urban Renewal Area could benefit from a density increase to spur revitalization.
The staff conducted open houses at varied locations around the city asking for resident input, including a questionnaire.
MEANWHILE, THE CITY ATTORNEY DRAFTS THE PROPOSED CHANGES
While staff was soliciting input City Attorney Tisdale drafted proposed changes to Amendment 2B.
March 30th 2000
The city attorney’s first draft of the proposed changes:
Exempted all remaining permits issued prior to 2B, essentially wiping the slate clean.
Allowed for 2000 permits in a ten-year period, 200 per year but, permitted unlimited borrowing from future years.
Eliminated language that gave priority to prior commitments for low-income housing, (There were no commitments for low-income housing at that time.) and instead stated “The city may give priority to those housing types and/or locations, in such numbers as the Council deems necessary to provide an appropriate mix of housing within the city.”
Weakened the citizen’s power to petition against future annexations, limiting it to land zoned for dwelling units only.
Residents were not pleased. The Council rejected this draft and the city attorney was instructed to go back to the drawing board.
RESIDENTS WRITE A NEW VERSION INCLUDING COUNCILORS’ INPUT
At this point, the author of 2B, Paul Zaffino, suggested that we craft a new version of the amendment that would accommodate the changes council said were needed, while preserving the spirit and intent of 2B. I contacted each councilor individually and asked what changes they would like to see.
CITIZENS PROPOSAL TO THE LAFAYETTE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT
April 2000
Some details:
Required the city administrator to present, prior to establishing the number of dwelling units to be built during the calendar year and the anticipated number to be built in the next calendar year, a state of the city report. Included in this report- an analysis of existing conditions including, but not limited to, estimates of housing costs, incomes, and demographic distributions. In addition, the report should include a five-year projection of population, commercial, and industrial growth, based on several models developed with public input.
Required an affordable housing needs assessment. The assessment should be completed within 6 months of passage of the amendment. Within 3 months following the completion of the assessment, council should enact an affordable housing ordinance. Such ordinance should define and target income-eligible households.
Specific to the Urban Renewal District:
1) Exempted mobile home park locations within the URD from the caps (with Shady Acres in mind)
2) Mixed-use will be encouraged
3) Apartment buildings will not be permitted
4) Building height will be limited to no more than two stories
5) Required an urban service area map (a growth boundary)
6) Required any changes to the amendment come from the citizens through the use of the referendum process
Council did not acknowledge this proposal
CITIZENS FOR LAFAYETTE (CFL)
As concerned residents monitored the council’s actions Jeff Monica, Lynn Riedel and I realized we needed to form a more organized group which we named Citizens For Lafayette.
COUNCIL’S SECOND DRAFT
April 2000
Proposed changes from the City Council’s second draft :
Required a housing needs study to be completed and required setting priorities to be consistent with the needs study.
Limited borrowing of building permits to committed dwelling units and priority units.
Exempted mixed-use projects in the Urban Renewal District from the building caps.
Added definitions of affordable housing, mixed-use building complex, senior housing, and urban service area.
Kept to a six-year time period and left the annexation language unchanged.
COUNCIL CAN NOT AGREE ON CHANGES OR TIMING
April 2000
What’s not visible in this history is that as the makeup of council changed, consensus became more difficult, to the point where it was dysfunctional. We had the old pro-growth group who did not want managed growth, while newer councilors were supportive of the amendment but were willing to discuss some changes.
Council disagreement continued. Some wanted a special June mail ballot, others advocated for the regular election in November. However, at this late date, (the end of April), they still could not reach consensus on what changes to 2B, should be made.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEEKING CONSENSUS
Finally, facilitated by City Administrator Gary Klaphake, a four-hour workshop was held on Saturday, April 29th. During the workshop, they sought to find areas of agreement. The city attorney was instructed to draft yet another version of the amendment.
The changes they directed her to include were:
Requiring the council to complete a housing needs study.
Exempting mixed-use projects in the Urban Renewal District
Exempting not more than 200 low-income and/or senior housing units from the growth cap.
Requiring the comprehensive plan contain a growth boundary, provided that it could be coordinated with Boulder County and neighboring cities.
ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE
Three days later interested residents, many having expressed opposition to changes to their managed growth amendment, and also the rush to a June mail ballot attended the council meeting, prepared to support the proposed changes.
We watched in amazement as three councilors did an about-face and came out vehemently against the changes they participated in creating three days earlier.
Councilors Anderson, Wei, and Grant expressed support for the changes.
Councilor Avery (later to be mayor) remained consistent throughout the discussions with regard to the proposed changes. He said all along he believed more solid information and supporting data were needed before changes were made. His no vote on this new draft was expected.
The remaining councilors, those who had been the most vocal in calling for changes, vehemently voted no.
A few quotes from those councilors:
Mayor Pro tem Mark Hoskins:
He referred to the new draft as “half-assed”. He said this was like tying a string around a hemorrhaging appendage, caps don’t solve anything.
Tom Hogue:
He said he would have to be a “committed underachiever” to support these changes, the “council bungled it”, this showed “ineptitude” and “political cowardice”. The voters deserved better.
Mayor Sue Klempan:
She wanted to support the ordinance, but she feared that when they truly tried to solve the problem the public would say it was already fixed.
She couldn’t support it if it didn’t solve all the problems.
Councilor Hogue, seconded by Councilor Avery, moved to table the ordinance indefinitely.
Ayes to table: Hoskins, Avery, Hogue, Grant, Klempan
Noes: Wei and Anderson
May 2000
The minutes from the May 16th council meeting report Councilors Wei and Avery expressing hope that the Council would not lose its momentum and would move forward on the growth issues and the affordable housing study.
August 2000
The council conducted a growth management discussion workshop.
Here are some points made by the council members:
Mayor ProTem Hoskins questioned why the issue was resurrected. He saw three components- Urban Renewal Authority District, senior affordable housing, and affordable housing. He did not favor piecemeal issues.
Councilor Grant was hopeful the Council would begin dealing with the subject and working on specifics for a November 2001 ballot question, when 2B would come back to the voters for renewal.
He suggested exempting a Boulder County owned parcel of land that had been targeted for senior affordable housing.
Councilor Wei said she felt the Council should see if there were components that they agreed upon which would allow them to put something on the 2000 ballot. She recommended exempting the Urban Renewal District in a ballot question in November of 2000.
Councilor Anderson recommended setting a roadmap for November 2001 which involved defining a process and gathering citizen input. He supported exempting the Urban Renewal District.
Councilor Hogue said there was a need to define the process upfront and confront tough realities. He believed the state initiative (this initiative was to help control growth in Colorado, it was rejected by the state’s voters) would pass and the city would have to deal with a ballot question in 2001 to meet the requirements of this initiative.
Councilor Avery was not in attendance. Mayor Klempan passed his comments on to the council. There was a need for serious demographic information and to identify parcels for affordable or subsidized housing. If subsidized, who are the partners? What is the affordable formula?
Mayor Klempan wanted more information regarding the Boulder County senior project. There was also a need for “affordable, assisted” units.
Planning Director Bonnie Star
She summarized points on which there had been consensus in earlier discussions:
a growth boundary
a quantitative cap
preference for mixed-use, senior and affordable housing
problems with implementation with the current growth management plan.
She advised Council that if the current 2B amendment was approved in 2001 approximately 260 units would be carried over, leaving 940 building permits over six years.
She agreed with Councilor Avery that more data was needed but recommended not spending tax dollars to have a consultant perform a very predictable study. She recommended developing a plan.
WHAT THE COUNCIL FINALLY BROUGHT TO THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER
1) Exempt the Urban Renewal District for mixed-use development
2) Exempt the 12-acre Boulder County site.
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THOSE EXEMPTED PROJECTS
SHADY ACRES
When the Shady Acres property was finally developed it was called a mixed-use project for which permit exemptions were specifically written in 2000. I don’t know the exact year a project was built on this site but a Daily Camera article online dated January 2011 reports on the residents’ plan to go to the City Council meeting to express concerns about needing to move.
In 2000 Jim Leach said he needed permits to provide housing for the displaced residents. However, he didn’t develop the property and finally those folks had to find other places to live. I think the Council did provide some funding to assist them but poor conditions at the park had continued for over a decade.
Eventually, Affinity was built on this property but the commercial lot fronting on Baseline, which made it mixed-use and thus exempt from the caps, is still vacant 22 years later.
How many mixed-use developments have occurred in the URD since this exemption in 2000?
BOULDER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY LAND
The first phase of Josephine Commons wasn’t completed until 2012. Twelve years after the permit exemption.
THE BALLOT LANGUAGE - THE FIRST CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENT
November 2000
Title: WITHOUT OTHERWISE AFFECTING THE CHARTER'S CURRENT LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS OF 200 PER YEAR AND 1,200 BETWEEN 1995 AND 2002, SHALL SECTION 6.10 OF THE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO, BE AMENDED TO EXEMPT [1] THE 12 ACRE PARCEL IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF BROOKS AVENUE AND DOUNCE STREET, SO LONG AS IT IS DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES BY THE BOULDER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND [2] MIXED USE PROJECTS IN THE EXISTING URBAN RENEWAL AREA - LAFAYETTE OLD TOWN, FROM SAID LIMITATION?
No campaign was mounted for or against. The exemptions were approved by the voters.
Toby and I wrote the only letter to the editor concerning this ballot issue. We were in support of the amendment.
A HOUSING NEEDS STUDY BEGINS
December 2000
The City Council approved a $50,000 contract to RRC Associates to conduct a housing needs study. The study would inventory housing units by type, location, and condition. It would examine current rents and “for sale” prices. Jobs and wages in the city would also be studied.
With this information in hand, the Council believed they might be better equipped to present an alternative version of 2B to the voters in 2001.