The process of reworking the Estes Park Development Code is currently underway and, in an effort to get feedback on re-zoning criteria, the Town of Estes Park staff presented a memo for discussion at the Jan. 21 meeting of the Estes Park Planning Commission.
No action, other than to approve the consent agenda, was taken during this meeting.
One public comment expressed frustration with the term “workforce housing” and how it is defined, or not, in the current code.
“‘Workforce housing’ is defined in such a way that it really means very little,” said Estes Park resident Jed Eide. “It’s not tied to affordability and therefore does not accomplish what presumably was its original purpose.”
“The term is confusing to citizens who understandably believe workforce housing is meant to help the average household obtain housing in Estes Park,” said Eide.
Kristine Poppitz, who heads a citizen advocacy organization, Preserve Estes Park, expressed concern that the public is not getting adequate notice of public meetings, such as the one in which she was currently making a public comment.
“I read the public town emails right now,” she said. “While I understand the importance of communications, most citizens do not read the public email. So how are they to be made aware of the importance of a meeting such as today, even though it may be considered a study session for you all today?”
Poppitz also offered her time to help with the Development Code rewrite, for which the Town of Estes Park hired Design Workshop, Inc. of Denver.
The discussion with the Commissioners about a review of re-zoning criteria commenced after public comment. The memo outlined three criteria for rezoning that would need to be met in the new code:
- that rezoning was necessary to address “changes in conditions”
- that the development plan is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan
- and if the Town would have the ability to provide adequate services to the property being annexed.
But the term “workforce housing” came up again with Commissioner David Arterburn saying that the term has no income guidleines in the development code,
“My argument isn’t around availability, affordability, any of that,” said Arterburn. “It is about the idea that we’re going to rezone this property” just because it provides workforce housing. “Tell me what the change in that area was, that warrants the change in the rezoning to put a high-density unit right next to” lower-density plots of land?
“The answer comes back up, workforce housing, workforce housing.”
A discussion about what the term workforce housing means and how the term is currently being used followed for most of the rest of the meeting.
Steve Caraccia, the Town’s community development director, concluded his memo by saying Town staff will provide the Planning Commission with professional staff recommendations, incorporating the guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map.
For any rezoning applications, the development department will apply the three criteria before making any recommendations to the Commission.
I found this an ` odd read ‘. For me and everyone I’ve ever discussed this with, ‘Workforce Housing’ is pretty self-defining. Within the English language, I can’t think of other terminology that could more clearly reflect the idea that this is indeed housing being directed toward the local workforce, be it rental or for purchase. It’s about as obvious as it could be. As far as the complaint about notice of any town meeting, I live primarily in Loveland, and the Estes Valley Voice is hardly the only means by which I’ve been able to keep up with the meeting schedules and agendas. Estes Park has a good web page that seems to be kept well up to date, especially for a town its size.