The Nederland Planning Commission met on Wednesday, March 15, 2023, at 7 p.m. to discuss several proposed changes to the Nederland Municipal Code including revisions to fence code, drafting of a
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We hope you have enjoyed the last 2 months of free access to our new and improved website. On December 2, 2024, our website paywall will be up. At this time, we ask you to confirm your subscription at www.themtnear.com, to continue accessing the only weekly paper in the Peak to Peak region to cover ALL the news you need! Simply click Confirm my subscription now!.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Questions? Call us at 303-810-5409 or email info@themountainear.com.
Please log in to continue |
The Nederland Planning Commission met on Wednesday, March 15, 2023, at 7 p.m. to discuss several proposed changes to the Nederland Municipal Code including revisions to fence code, drafting of a Keeping Animals Ordinance, and amendments to matters of lot line consolidation.
The Planning Commission was tasked with voting to either recommend or to deny proposed amendments to Nederland Municipal Code (NMC) Chapters 16 and 17, which would require any approved lot line consolidation to be subject to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process regardless of lot size. The PUD regulatory process forces a developer to meet community goals pertaining to density and land-use.
If the proposed ordinance amendments earn the Planning Commission’s recommendation the Nederland Board of Trustees (BOT) will then hold a public hearing on the matter during their meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2023. The aim is to have the new ordinance effective by April 23, with one lot line consolidation application tentatively set to go before the Planning Commission during their next meeting on April 26.
Members of the Planning Commission asked about the reasons for focusing on just the Central Business District and why there was trepidation about the initial application for lot line consolidation that caused the Town to want to amend code. Town Attorney Jennifer Madsen explained that there was too much ambiguity in the application as to the intentions of the property owner for the consolidated property, due to NMC lacking the language to require such clarification of intention.
The PUD process requires lot line consolidation applications to be reviewed by the BOT under certain standards of approval and evaluating criteria. The purpose of the additional scrutiny is to clarify whether or not the applicant’s intention for the consolidated property meets Town’s goals and vision for future development.
A motion to recommend to the BOT approval of Ordinance 838, which amends NMC Chapter 16 and 17 to include a PUD requirement for lot line consolidation applications that have been recommended by the Planning Commission, was made, seconded, and approved by a unanimous vote.
The Planning Commission has been analyzing sections of NMC 16-89 regarding inconsistencies in permitted fence height limits when compared to International Residential Code. There has also been discussion on how to properly measure fence height if the grade (the degree of inclination of the ground) is different on either side of the fence.
A subcommittee formed to review and rewrite Nederland’s fence code presented to commissioners two options regarding specifying a maximum fence height, as well as presented recommendations based on discussions with SAFEbuilt representatives regarding how to measure fence height.
The two options under consideration in regards to maximum fence height were to change the specified maximum height from six feet to seven feet, or to add language about variable height fences that can exceed six feet. That language would state: “If the height of a fence varies due to features integral to the overall fence design, variable height elements of the fence may exceed the allowed height by a maximum of one-foot.”
The first option in regards to how to measure fence height was to measure from the owner’s side of the fence, unless in the case of a joint fence where there is a difference in the ground level of less than two feet. In that case the height of the fence should be measured from the finished grade at the base of the fence on the property with the highest ground level.
SAFEbuilt Planning Manager Travis Reynolds and SAFEbuilt Building Official Dan Wester agreed that this option was ideal and stated that most municipalities adopt this as the primary option. It was noted that municipalities often amend their decision to include more language to cover more specific concerns and situations, such as encountering a retaining wall that conflicts with potential fence construction.
The Planning Commission reviewed potential language for fence code regarding the unique scenario in which a fence is constructed on top of or within one foot of the face of an above-ground retaining wall that is greater than two feet in height. In this scenario the fence would be measured from the top of the fence to the midpoint height of the retaining wall.
The Planning Commission also discussed which scenarios would allow for a property owner to be permitted to construct an eight foot fence. NMC 16-89 (b) specifies: “A fence exceeding six feet in height may be constructed or erected only for the purpose of screening legally existing junk yards, outdoor storage yards and other legally existing uses involving the outside storage of machinery, equipment, material and automobiles. However, no such fence shall exceed eight feet in height.”
Commissioners suggested that properties adjacent to major highways should be included in the code language as allowed to construct an eight foot fence. Commissioners also were in agreement that NMC 16-89 should specify a seven-foot maximum fence height, and agreed with SAFEbuilt’s recommendations for code language pertaining to how to best measure fence height.
The Planning Commission continued their discussion on creating a Keeping Animals Ordinance. A subcommittee was formed in April 2022, to analyze NMC and draft an ordinance pertaining to the keeping of all types of domestic livestock and domestic pets with an emphasis on animal health, safety, and welfare. The subcommittee presented an 18 page draft ordinance which aims to repeal and replace NMC Chapter 7 Article V and VI.
The matter of drafting the Keeping Animals Ordinance has not been discussed by the Planning Commission or the BOT for nearly a full year due to change-over in town staff and on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Michael Dye, Town Administrator Miranda Fisher, Community Planner Britt DeMinck, and SAFEbuilt Code Enforcement Jake Cooke are currently on the subcommittee responsible for drafting the ordinance.
Commissioners discussed at length several issues with the current language in the draft ordinance pertaining to how to accurately specify and define “livestock,” “household pets,” and “small animals.” Commissioners also had issues with certain regulations affecting the keeping of pets such as dogs and cats.
The conversation of drafting a new Keeping Animals Ordinance originally began due to resident complaints concerning the lack of code language pertaining specifically to the keeping of goats, llamas, and pigs. Some Commissioners desired for the focus of the ordinance to remain on larger livestock and smaller animals such as rabbits, fowl, and swine, instead of regulating household pets.
The current draft includes regulations to the amount of dogs and cats allowed per household (Sec. 7-5 and Sec. 7-11), the proper licensing of dogs and cats (Sec. 7-29, 7-30, and 7-31), the proper leashing, restraint and control of household pets (Sec. 7-38), and the “persistent and habitual” barking, howling, or yelping of a household pet (Sec. 7-47). Commissioners desired for the “grandfathering” of those residents currently in violation, albeit unknowingly, of any newly written regulations that are instated.
There were also concerns raised about Nederland’s lack of proper animal control potentially leading to issues of enforceability in relation to some of the new regulations. Several sections of the draft ordinance mention enforcement of these regulations by either the “animal control division” or an “animal control officer”; the Town of Nederland, being without its own police force, has neither.
The BOT recently voted to contract with Boulder County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) but opted to not include access to Animal Control through that contract. Town Staff has stated that a Code Enforcement Officer also has the ability to enforce much of what is regulated in the ordinance, though matters of pet/ animal seizure and impoundment (Sec. 7-28 and Sec. 7-39 through 7-42) will be handled by BCSO.
As according to the existing town code, the owner of an impounded animal should expect to receive a notice from the “Animal Control Division” (BCSO) through the regular mail and would have five days to pay the redemption fee to Town and receive their animal, if the original matter that resulted in impoundment has been rectified. If the owner has not claimed their animal within the allotted five days the animal will be put up for adoption.
Residents with experience in keeping animals commented on several holes in the current ordinance draft pertaining to the lack of consideration in the lifestyle of those who keep animals and to the lack of mention and reference to how keeping animals promotes sustainability. The Planning Commission urged the subcommittee to return at a future meeting in May with an update and hopefully a revised draft of the ordinance based on the feedback provided by Commissioners.
Town Administrator Fisher presented to the Planning Commission an update, prepared by Community Planner DeMinck, on Town Staff’s progress on the recommendations to development of parking solutions for Nederland.
A subcommittee was formed to devise recommendations for solutions to Nederland’s issues with providing adequate parking; the subcommittee previously has presented four recommendations to the Town’s various boards and commissions, including the BOT. The four recommendations include placing a moratorium on the parking fund (which the BOT approved and is currently in effect until October, 2023), developing parking on town-owned parcels, better designating parking spaces in current lots, like at Chipeta Park, and adopting paid parking on East 1st Street and the Visitors Center parking lot.
Fisher explained to the Planning Commission that Town Staff is recommending to the BOT at their March 21 meeting to extend the parking fund moratorium six months, until April 2024, due to a parking study being conducted. Town Staff is also recommending that any consideration of developing parking be postponed until after the parking study is completed.
Fisher noted that if Town Staff were directed to designate parking spots around Town a supplemental budget would be required, which would need to include at least $15,000 to pay for parking markers. Fisher also mentioned that the Town has been engaging in conversations with RTD concerning building a parking garage on their lot. RTD is agreeable though only if the Town pays for it. A parking garage would cost an estimated $4 million, at $25,000 per parking space for 160 spaces.
The BOT will also be hearing a presentation on March 21 from the Interstate Parking Company of Colorado, a third-party company hoping to contract with Nederland for administering, enforcing, and maintaining our potential paid parking plans for East 1st Street. Interstate Parking currently is contracted with Idaho Springs, overseeing their paid parking system.
The Nederland Planning Commission meets the fourth Wednesday of every month. Their next meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2023, at 7 p.m. Meetings can be attended online. For more information go to: https://townofnederland.colorado. gov/planning-commission.