Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/03/1999 - RESOLUTION 99-99 RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF CO AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 23 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 3, 1999STAFF: Pete Wray SUBJECT : Resolution 99-99 Recommending that the Board of County Commissioners Adopt the Larimer County Land Use Code Following Amendment Thereof as Suggested by the Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Larimer County has had land use and zoning regulations since 1963. These regulations set the rules for developing land in the unincorporated areas (outside the cities) of the County. In 1995, the County Commissioners decided the County's land use and zoning regulations were uncoordinated, sometimes confusing and occasionally contradictory. The Commissioners directed the County staff 110 to undertake a major review and revision of their codes. The Proposed Land Use Code was sent to the City for review and comment. Copies of the proposed Code were distributed to City staff and specific responses from representatives of each of the affected City departments were collected and summarized. In general,the Proposed Land Use Code is a significant improvement over the existing County land use regulations. The purpose of this Resolution is to urge the County to adopt the Proposed Land Use Code. There are a few minor concerns that the City staff would recommend be addressed in the document. These concerns are summarized in Exhibit A. BACKGROUND: Overview In 1994,the Larimer County Commissioners initiated a project to examine and revise the County's land use planning system. The process has evolved to be known as the Partnership Land U se System (PLUS). The two main elements of PLUS are the Master Plan and new Land Use Code. The Larimer County Master Plan is a policy document that establishes a long-range framework for decision making for the unincorporated area of the County. It includes policies for land use,public services and capital facilities and environmental resource protection. The Land Use Code is the second element of PLUS, developed over a period of time beginning in 1997,with an initial draft presented to the public in the fall of 1998.Larimer County actively sought out the comments and suggestions from the affected jurisdictions,including Fort Collins. Based on numerous public meetings and hearings, public comments received were incorporated into a new DATE: August3, 1999 2 ITEM NUMBER: 23 edition titled "The Proposed Latimer County Land Use Code". Significant content revisions have occurred over time. After careful review,staff finds that the Proposed Land Use Code is a significant improvement over the existing County land use regulations. Staff also believes that the Proposed Land Use Code is consistent with the Latimer County Master Plan adopted in November, 1997. Proposed Land Use Code Not all of the Proposed Land Use Code is new. For example, most of the existing zoning districts remain relatively unchanged with only minor changes to make them more consistent and easier to read. However,other changes are more substantial such as the provisions for Planned Development and Conservation Developments, as well as new regulations regarding adequate public facilities, wetlands,hazard areas,wildlife,landscaping,air and water quality, and development design. The City's Land Use Code Standards was used as a basis for several of these new regulations. The Board of County Commissioners has consistently held to its policy that existing zoning will not be changed. However,the proposed changes include new requirements that will impact the pattern and timing of development in the County including performance standards,design criteria,required levels of service and similar tools, as well as several incentive-driven alternative development patterns. For example, one of the major goals of the County's Master Plan was to maintain the "rural" character of the areas located outside of the cities. Some tools that the County will be using to achieve this goal include the new Conservation Development(or"clustering")provisions and the TDU Program. Although the County should be commended for these efforts, staff continues to question whether the Proposed Land Use Code goes far enough in preserving rural character and maintaining separation between communities. The existing zoning of FA, FA-1 and AP Airport allow densities above what would be considered rural by City staff. Lastly,in working towards a funding system where new development pays its fair share of the costs of new services and facilities, certain new fee structures have been incorporated into the Code including regional parkland, county transportation capital expansion, and regional transportation fees. Specific Comments A copy of the proposed Code was distributed to appropriate City Departments for review. Specific staff responses were compiled listing general comments and specific text revisions to be incorporated into the Code (See Exhibit A to Resolution 99-99). Council Growth Management Committee Recommendation: The Council Growth Management Committee reviewed staff comments at its meeting held on July 19, 1999 and agreed to forward a recommendation to Council supporting the Proposed Lorimer County Land Use Code,dated May 17, 1999,with the incorporation of suggested staff changes into the Code Document. DATE: August 3, 1999 3 ITEM NUMBER: 23 List of Attachments: 1. Letter from the Board of County Commissioners to County residents, dated May 17, 1999. 2. List of major changes in the Proposed Land Use Code, published May 17, 1999. 3. Upcoming Public Meetings for the Proposed Land Use Code. 4. Letter from Mayor Ann Azari to Cheryl Olson,dated December 16, 1998. ATTACHMENT- 1 LARIMER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS &NCOUNTY Post Offioe Box 1190 Fort Collins.Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-7010 Fax(970)4984006 May 17, 1999 Dear Latimer County Resident: Thank you for your interest in the Latimer County Partnership Land Use System (PLUS) code. Before you read and comment on it, we'd like to draw your attention to a few key points. Whv are we doing this? Parts of the current land use system have been in place since the early `60's. Unclear, indefensible, and inconsistent policies and regulations in the current code have been frustrating to Latimer County citizens. For example,one application had over 60 development conditions attached to it! We must fix this current code. The unclear and inconsistent nature of the current code has resulted in expensive legal actions and delays for the county and landowners alike. It would be irresponsible not to fix this broken land use system. How did we get here? The County has, literally,outgrown the current land use system. After years of band-aid solutions, the 1994 Board of County Commissioners decided to replace the current system with a modem, functional land use system that actually worked for the citizens of Latimer County. Implementation started with a series of land use symposiums throughout the county. Over 200 citizens participated in these symposiums. These symposiums, and countless hours and comments culminated with the adoption of a new Land Use Master Plan in the fall of 1997. The plan articulates the goals and objectives for County land use planning. After the adoption of the Master Plan,the next step was to develop a land use code that will be used to make the vision of the Master Plan a reality on the land. The new land use code was developed by the PLUS Steering Committee (the Board of County Commissioners, county staff and citizens who volunteer to serve on the Planning Commission ).The Committee met regularly for over a year, incorporating thousands of citizen comments into the code. The Planning Commission began the formal review of the code with public hearings in November of 1998, forwarding their recommendation to us for our hearings in December. During our December hearings it was obvious we still had a lot of work to do. We've been working hard since that time to address each and every comment we received. We went through the code,page by page, line by line, i�PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Dear Latimer County Resident-May. 17, 1999 Page 2 addressing the concerns that Latimer County citizens brought to our attention. Many parts of the code have been changed to address your concerns. Depending on your point of view, some will feel the code is stronger, while others will feel the code is weaker. This is a technical legal document. We've made our best effort to make this code very readable. While we've attempted to remove the technical language and"legalese",this is still a legal and technical document that the County will use for years to come. To cover all the bases and create a code that is clear and concise, (unlike the existing land use code)this document still reads in a formal and technical style. It is important the language of the code be clear and concise in order to meet legal and statutory requirements. We heard you'. Literally hundreds of you took the time to give us your comments and suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your efforts and commitment, and we want you to know we respect your efforts. We have taken the time to review each and every comment. Although it is impossible to adopt EVERY suggestion,we have listened and considered every comment. We have heard you. By working together we, and generations to come, can be proud of the future we create for Larimer County.We look forward to your continued comments on the proposed Partnership Land Use System code. Sincerely, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cheryl Olson Disney Kathay Rennels Chair Commissioner Commissioner District II District III District I ATTACHMENT- 2 0 PARTNERSHIP Nco Nn LAND USE SYSTEM . . Major Changes in the Proposed Land Use Code, published May 17, 1999 During the public hearing process between January 4 and March 15, 1999 the Larimer County Board of Commissioners voted on many motions that made changes to the October 20, 1998 proposed Land Use Code. The major changes . made by the Commissioners are outlined, by section, in this document. • All references to section numbers refer to the May 17. 1999 edition of the proposed Land Use Code, unless otherwise noted. Because some section numbers were added, the section numbers in the October 20 and May 17 editions of the Code may not correspond. • The descriptions of changes, outlined in this document, are not intended to be complete transcriptions of the precise code language. For precise code language please refer to the Proposed Land Use Code, May 17, 1999. Anyone interested in a complete record of all motions and votes should consult the minutes of the Commissioners' hearings. Minutes are available: • At the County's website, www.co.larimer.co.us Go to "virtual courthouse", then "hot topics" and scroll down to the link for the proposed land use code. • The minutes of all the Commissioners' hearings on the code are also available from the Planning Department for $7.50. 0 If you have questions regarding these changes please contact Al Kadera in the Larimer County Planning Department, (970) 498-7699. i Section 4.1 "Zoning Districts" In all the zoning districts that allow residential uses the maximum number of dwelling units (density) in a Conservation Development is determined by dividing the minimum lot size into the area of developable land. If on- site septic systems are proposed for a Conservation Development, the minimum area of each lot must be at least 2 acres. All lot sizes are expressed in both acres and square feet. .Subsection 4.1.G was added to indicate that maximum densities allowed by the current zoning may not be possible due to site constraints and other limiting factors. Section 4.3.1.A "Farm" The definition of"Farm" was changed to remove the size limitation and to add the concept of"custom farming operations". A farm includes the raising of any types of plants or animals provided there is not a feed yard, commercial poultry farm or a fur farm and the sale of produce is limited to that actually grown on the premises. Section 4.3.1.E "Tree Farm" was deleted from the Sod Farm, Tree Farm, Nursery definition and added as 4.3.1.0 and defined as a tract of land used to raise trees. Products sold on a tree farm are limited to forest products produced on the same site. Clear cutting of tracts over 40 acres requires Special Review approval. Section 4.3.1.E "Dairy" was deleted. The term "dairy" does not appear in the current Zoning Resolution. All animal regulations will be considered by the Animal Task Force. Any changes recommended by the task force will be considered by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners at public hearings before adoption into the Land Use Code. Section 4.3.1.M "Greenhouse" definition was amended to limit the size of greenhouse structures. On lots less than 10 acres the limit is 300 square feet. On lots of 10 or more acres the limit is 3,000 square feet. Larger greenhouses require Special Review approval. The sale of plants, etc. is limited to those produced in the greenhouse unless a Special Review approval allows other sales. 4.3.4.0 "School, Non-Public" allows up to 8 unrelated pupils. This allows a home school for up to 8 children without any review. Special Review approval is required for non-public schools with more than 8 pupils. The number 8 is consistent with other parts of the regulations that deal with group homes for the elderly and disabled and day care homes for children or the elderly. Section 4.3.6.G "Religious Retreat' was changed to "Retreat". The Special Review requirement for facilities offering overnight accommodations for 4 or more persons is intended to address the impacts of the accommodation use. It matters not if the retreat facility is used for business, religious or other purposes. The type of study or instruction is not the issue at the Special Review hearings but rather the impacts of the accommodation use on the neighborhood, roads, utilities and other facilities and services. 2 . Section 4.3.9.D "Group Gathering" was deleted from the October 20, 1998 draft of the Code. Section 4.3.9.D "Manufactured Homes" was added as a temporary use during construction of a permanent principal building. The temporary housing may be used for up to 2 years or until the construction is complete, whichever occurs first, at which time the manufactured home must be removed from the site. Section 4.3.10.A "Farmstead" was amended to allow accessory dwellings for family members as well as farm help. The number of accessory dwellings is limited to one such dwelling for each 40 acres of contiguous ownership. Building permits are required and must meet all the standards contained in Section 8, Standards for All Development and are subject to applicable capital expansion fees. A plan must be submitted that clearly demonstrates how separate lots can be created to accommodate each dwelling unit through a land division process if the farming operation ceases. The owner must agree to pursue approval through a land division process when the agricultural operation ceases. The plan and agreement will be recorded in the County Clerk's records. Section 4.3.10.B "Home Occupation" was amended to allow a use in detached- accessory buildings or in an attached garage. A home occupation may occupy up to 50% of the combined square footage of the dwelling and accessory buildings on the site. No outdoor storage is permitted and the home occupation can not change the residential character of the property. No hazardous materials are allowed in the operation of a home occupation. Parking to accommodate the home occupation must be provided on the site. Section 4.3.10.D "Storage Buildings, Barns and Garages" are allowed as accessory buildings for the sole use of the occupants of the principal building or use of the property. These buildings may occupy no more than 5% of the gross area of a lot 5 or more acres and 10% of lots less than 5 acres. A permit may be issued for such a building before the principal building is constructed but the building permit for the principal building must be issued within 2 years of the date the permit is issued for the storage building, bam or garage. Section 4.3.10.E "Outside Storage of Vehicles" is permitted provided the vehicles do not qualify as junk vehicles or are considered agricultural equipment and are owned by the owner of the site on which they are stored. The storage of vehicles can not create a site obstruction or safety hazard. 3 4.3.10.G "Guest House" was deleted from the October 20, 1998 draft of the Code. It was replaced by two different uses: Section 4.3.10.F "Guest Quarters" and Section 4.3.10.G "Extended Family Dwelling". Guest Quarters are incorporated into or added onto a single family dwelling. Additions require compatible construction materials and design and must be connected by an enclosed passageway. The size of the guest quarters can not exceed 40% of the square footage of the single family dwelling, excluding the basement and attached garage. The structure must operate as a single family dwelling with one main entrance, one set of utility meters and one address. An Extended Family Dwelling is a manufactured home used on a temporary basis to house members of the immediate family of the property owner. A building permit will be issued without a hearing if one occupant of the extended family dwelling is over 65 years old or is disabled. The building permit will be issued for a period of two years and is renewable. The dwelling must be removed after the expiration of the building permit. All applicable capital expansion fees will apply to the extended family dwelling. A lot must contain at least 4 acres to be eligible for an extended family dwelling permit without a hearing. An Extended Family Dwelling on a lot of less than 4 acres or for reasons other than age or disability are subject to a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. Parcels of less than 4 acres are only eligible for an Extended Family Dwelling permit if public sewer service is used by the principal dwelling and the extended family dwelling. The Board will decide if there is a legitimate need for the dwelling and will determine the appropriate time period based on the information provided at the hearing. All applicable impact fees apply to the Extended Family Dwelling. Section 4.3.11 "Utilities" Definitions for electric substation, treatment plant, water storage facility, radio and television transmitter and commercial mobile radio service were added to the Code. Section 4.8 "Non-Conformities" Added a new Section 4.8.4 to deal with "Non- Conformities with Respect to Development Standards." Additions or expansions of non-conforming buildings or uses that constitute 75% or more of the existing building or use requires full compliance with all provisions of Section 8, Standards for Ali Development. Expansions or additions of less than 75% require only the addition or expansion to comply with Section 8. Section 4.8.9.13 "Extension, Expansion or Change in Character" Criteria and examples were added to assist in determining if a non-conforming use has changed in character. Section 5.1.4 "Process" Subdivisions with 6 or fewer lots may have the preliminary and final plats reviewed by the County Commissioners at the same time. The applicant should be aware that any changes to the preliminary plat required by the Commissioners may affect the final plat application. 4 Section 6.3 "Conservation Development" There were many discussions regarding the amount of residual land required in Conservation Developments. Section 5.3.6.A details the criteria used to determine the amount of residual land required. Residual land is private property that is protected from development and may be owned by a person or group of persons, such as a homeowners association. The term "open space" was deleted from the Code, because "open space" refers to publicly-funded land and should not be confused with residual land. The percentage of the site to be left undeveloped is determined by the,zoning and the economic feasibility of providing public sewer service, but the amount is never less than 50%. It is also possible to reduce the 80% requirement by reducing the density. In the FA-1 Farming and E- Estate Zoning Districts it is also possible to increase the density by up to 20% when the amount of residual land equals 80% of the developable land on the site. Section 5.8 "Rural Land Use Process" This section included a definition of Special Places in Larimer County which will be used throughout the Code. Special Places in Larimer County are, "Critical areas in Larimer County to be preserved and protected by designating and recognizing distinctions in the land such as agricultural land, open lands, regional preserves, parks and trails, as well as, distinct landscapes, ridge lines, view corridors, historic and archaeological sites and those sites and structures listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places and identified in the Larimer County Parks Master Plan". These Special Places have yet to be designated, except for items • on the State or National Register. 'Designations will be done through a public hearing process. Section 5.14 "Development Design" was moved to Section 8.14. Section 8.0 "Standards for All Development" The issue of hiring a consultant to assist in development review was clarified and an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to hire such a consultant was inserted. Section 8.1.5 "Road Capacity and Level of Service Standard" A Capital Contribution Front-Ending Agreement was added to provide a method to reimburse applicants who are required to pay for road improvements which are used by subsequent developments. Section 8.2 "Wetland Areas" Wetland areas are determined by applying the definitions after a site visit. Wetland mapping, along with other sources of information, will be used for general planning purposes as an indicator of properties that might need further wetland investigation. The County will employ a person with expertise in wetland determination but if anyone disagrees with the County's designation of a wetland there is a process for providing information to the County Commissioners who will make the final determination. The issue of introducing native and adaptive plant . species into wetland areas was resolved by creating a list of acceptable plant species that will be considered "native or adaptive". 5 Section 8.4 "Wildlife" This section was rewritten to remove some confusion about the Level 1 and Level 2 review processes. Projects with important wildlife habitat will be referred to the Division of Wildlife who will determine if a Wildlife Conservation Plan is required. All development projects will be required to meet certain, limited standards to avoid potential wildlife impacts. Section 8.5 "Landscaping" This section was rewritten resulting in many changes. Refer to the May 17, 1999 draft of the Code. Section 8.6 "Off-Street Parking Standards" The table for parking space requirements was designated as a guideline with the number of spaces to be determined by the County Engineer with an appeal to the Board of Commissioners. Section 8.9 "Irrigation Facilities" in the October 20, 1998 draft was moved to Section 8.8. In response to comments from some of the ditch company representatives, changes were made to the minimum standards for ditch easement width and expanded the circumstances under which wider easements may be required. Section 8.10.3 "Fences" in the October 20, 1998 draft was moved to Section 8.9.3. Changes to this section were primarily intended to ensure that standards do not apply to agricultural uses. Section 22 "Appeals" Every decision made in the administration of the Code may be appealed to either the Board of Adjustment or the Board of County Commissioners, depending on the section of the Code being administered. State statute delegates decisions on zoning matters to the Board of Adjustment. All other appeals go the Commissioners. Section 23 "Definitions" The section number was deleted in case additional sections are needed in the future. Nothing will be added to the Code or to the reserved sections of the Code without public notice, meetings and public hearings. "Definitions" The definition of"Stream, Creek or River" was changed to include intermittent streams that appear on U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Many other definitions were added to this section. If terms are used that have a particular meaning in the context of the Code they should appear in the definitions section. Please advise the Planning Department if you find undefined terms that you believe should have definitions. 6 Proposed Land Use Code - May 17, 1999 ATTACHMENT- 3 • ,L= Larimer County Colorado Horse Services Department: tows Hat Topics Help search Proposed Land Use Code - May 17, 1999 ' '7' The Land Use Code is the second phase of the PLUS system. The Master Plan which was adopted in November, 1997, gives the policy direction for land use decisions in the County and the Land Use Code provides the rules and processes to carry out the Plan policies. In many areas, the new Code is exactly the same as the County's current land use regulations, or has only minor changes to make it more consistent and easier to understand. Letter from the Board of Countv Commissioners' %laior Changes *o the Land Use Code since the October 1998 version Upcoming Public Meetings Public Information Sessions Ja.l 1 Lc; r - 1-z P FL . SFafi . July 1 - Berthoud Senor Center, 248 Welch Avenue, 2 - 8 p.m. . July 7 - Poudre Valley REA Building, 7649 REA Pkwy, Windsor Exit of I-25, East 1/4 mile, - 8 p.m. . July 8 - Wellington Leeper Center, 3800 Wilson Avenue, 2 - 8 p.m. Public Hearing Schedule • August 4 - Larimer County Planning Commission - 6:30 p.m. in the BCC Hearing Room. 200 W. Oak St., Fort Collins • September 8 - Board of County Commissioners - 6:30 p.m. in the BCC Hearing Room, 200 W. Oak St., Fort Collins e September 13 -Board of County Commissioners - 1:30 - 4:30 p.m. in the BCC Hearing Room, 200 W. Oak St., Fort Collins EMAII..: plus 'i7 co.laiimer.co.us FAX: (970) 498-7711 MAIL: PO BOX 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522, AT INI Tlanning ATTACHMENT- 4 December 16, 1998 Cheryl 01ilson, Chairperson Latimer County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chairperson Ohlson, On behalf of the entire City Council, I urge you to adopt the proposed Latimer County Land Use Code. As you know, the City of Fort Collins has been actively involved in the PLUS planning process for more than three years. And, while this planning process has gone on, significant and irreversible development of rural lands has continued. Further delay of the Land Use Code will only exacerbate the problems associated with unplanned growth in unincorporated Latimer County. PLUS is about all the residents of the County; including, the urban residents who comprise more than three-quarters of the county-wide population. It has become abundantly clear that in order for our community to be successful in achieving its vision for the Suture that it depends upon a firm foundation of a County-wide plan and land use code. PLUS provided the policy; effective implementation is the logical next step. There are certain sections of the Land Use Code that are of particular interest to the citizens of Fort Collins, including: 1. Encouraging urban development in established urban growth areas. This makes sense from a service delivery efficiency standpoint as well as from a resident standpoint who pays the price of unbridled sprawl. 2. Requiring that new development pay its fair share of the cost of new services and facilities through impact fees. 3. Controlling further residential development in and maintaining rural character of the countryside. 4. Protecting important natural areas and habitat areas. Raising the quality of development in regards to "big boxes" and parking lot landscaping. The development of the County's Comprehensive Plan has already involved a considerable . amount of compromise: it is not what any one interest would have chosen if they were asked to :tter to County Commissioners December 16, 1998 Page 2 .^ write the land use code. This is to be expected; this is how public policy is made. However, we urge the Commissioners to be conservative in terms of any further compromise which would erode the effectiveness of the Plan that so many hundreds of citizens of Latimer County labored to develop. Any set of new regulations as important as the County's Land Use Code must be considered a 'Bing document"that will evolve and improve with use overtime. It is unrealistic to expect that all of the "bugs" could be worked out. We are pleased that the County Commissioners have taken the positive step of setting up a review process for the new Code over the next year. We urge the.Commissioners to give the code a chance and be prepared over the first few months and years of its use to find and correct its weaknesses. We urge you to show strong leadership and adopt the Land Use Code now. We believe it will be worth your effort. Please let us know how we can further contribute to the success of PLUS. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Ann Azari Mayor • RESOLUTION 99-99 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT THEREOF AS SUGGESTED BY THE COUNCIL WHEREAS, as a part of the Partnership Land Use System (PLUS), the Larimer County Planning Commission adopted the Larimer County Master Plan on November 19, 1997, which establishes along-range framework for decision making about the County's future development;and WHEREAS,implementation of the Larimer County Master Plan includes adopting a unified Land Use Code and capital expansion fees, and making revisions to the Intergovernmental Agreements with cities and towns in the County; and WHEREAS,the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County has solicited comments from the City of Fort Collins concerning the content of the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code;and WHEREAS,Fort Collins staff has reviewed the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code, dated May 17, 1999,and has formulated comments and suggestions for revising said proposed Code; and WHEREAS,Fort Collins staff has determined that the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code is consistent with the Larimer County Master Plan, and is beneficial because it consolidates many documents that currently contain land use regulations and procedures and revises old and outdated regulations while incorporating new sections; and WHEREAS,without changing existing County Zoning,and by adding new incentive based growth management tools such as Conservation Development and the Transfer of Development Units Program,Fort Collins staff is concerned that the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code has not gone far enough to protect the rural character of the County outside municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Council Growth Management Committee forwarded a recommendation to City Council supporting adoption of the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code with the amendments suggested by said committee; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins City Council has determined that the expeditious adoption of the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code, following amendment thereof as suggested by the Council, is in the best interest of all of the residents of Larimer County; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council recommends to the Board of Commissioners of Larimer • County that the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code should be adopted and passed into law by the Board of Commissioners following amendment thereof as suggested by the Council of the City of Fort Collins,which suggestions are shown in Exhibit"A",attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That in the event that the Board of Commissioners of Latimer County should determine not to amend the Proposed Latimer County Land Use Code in accordance with the suggestions of the City Council as contained in Exhibit"A",the City Council requests that the Board of Commissioners respond to the City in writing with an explanation of why the City Council's suggested amendments were not made. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 3rd day of August,A.D. 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk . Exhibit A Suggestions for Amendments to the Proposed Larimer County Land Use Code dated May 17, 1999 1. Section 8.1.5 Road Capacity and Level of Service Standard Suggestion: Section 8.1.5.E (pages 8-12 & 13) requires a traffic impact study for projects with 20 or more dwelling units. A 20 dwelling unit project generates approximately 80 to 120 daily trips. This is a relatively small impact to require an impact study be done. A threshold of 40-50 dwelling units may make more sense and be more reasonable. Suggestion: Section 8.1.5.C.2 (Page 8-11) The Code states that LOS C is acceptable for rural areas. We suggest it is more appropriate to maintain LOS A or B for rural areas. LOS C or D for urban areas is appropriate. 2. Table 8.14.7(B).H Minimum Road Surfacing Requirements (page 8-80) Suggestion: The table calls for streets with less than 150 ADT to allow "Gravel" . surfacing. All urban streets in the Growth Management Area (GMA) should be designed and built in accordance with the standards of the municipality. So, all urban GMA streets should be paved. It is the requirement of the City not to allow gravel because of its air quality impacts. Therefore, the minimum for any urban street should be 'Pavement." 3. Section 9.6.7.0 Establishment of Fee Schedule (page 9-50) Suggestion: This section should reference the fees in Appendix B on page 9-59, not Appendix A. 4. Section 12.0 Common Procedures for Development Review (page 12-1) Suggestion: Development applications in the GMA should be referred to the municipality to consider annexation before the County begins its development review procedures. 5. Section 8.9.11.7.a. Entrances (page 8-68) Suggestion: The City has previously amended this provision in our Code. We suggest you replace the existing sentence with the following: Principle Building Entrances. All sides of a principle building that directly face an abutting public street shall feature at least one (1) customer entrance. Where a principle building directly faces more than two (2) abutting public streets, this r requirement shall apply only to two (2) sides of the building, including the side of the building facing the primary street, and another side of the building facing a second street. 6. Section 8.9.11.7.b Parking Lot Location (page 8-68) Suggestion: Staff has found this provision subject to misinterpretation and has revised our code accordingly. The following additional description should be added to the paragraph entitled Parking Lot Location, following the line ending with the words "...and the abutting streets.": The front parking area shall be determined by drawing a line from the front corners of the building to the nearest property corners. If any such line, when connected to the plane of the front facade of the building, creates an angle that is greater than one hundred eighty (180) degrees, then the line shall be adjusted to create an angle of one hundred eighty (180) degrees when connected to the plane of the front facade of the building. If any such line, when connected to the plane of the front facade of the building, creates an angle that is less than (90) degrees, then the line shall be adjusted to create an angle of ninety (90) degrees when connected to the plane of the front facade of the building. Parking spaces in the Front Parking Area shall be counted to include all parking spaces within the boundaries of the Front Parking Area, including(i) all partial parking spaces if the part inside the Front Parking Area boundary lines constitutes more than one-half(1/2) of said parking space, and (ii) all parking spaces associated with any pad sites located within the Front Parking Area boundaries. 7. Section 12.0 Common Procedures for Development Review (page 12-1) Suggestion: This section needs to mention that the City receives certain County submittals through the referral process and in some cases, the IGA requires that waivers be processed through the City Council. 8. Section 5.2 Planned Development (page 5-2) Suggestion: Section 5.2.3. Review Criteria. No specific change is recommended. However, this section highlights the need to update the current Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area in regards to land use and development standards in the unincorporated areas of the community growth management area. 9. Section 5.3 Conservation Development (page 5-3) Suggestion: Section 5.3.2. General provisions. Fort Collins is currently assessing the potential use of Conservation Development for certain areas within our GMA. Some provision should be allowed for the potential use of these developments inside GMA's if . agreeable to the affected jurisdictions. Suggestion: Section 5.3.6.A.7. The 20% density bonus for conservation developments is not needed or desirable. This provision contradicts the Commissioner's policy decision to not rezone (including upzoning) and would increase the number of dwelling units in rural areas. The FA and FA-I zoning districts already allows densities above what would be considered rural. Suggestion: Section 5.3.6.B. Guidelines 3. (residual land uses). Certain uses described could be characterized as urban and not "open" such as golf courses, recreation centers with community buildings, arenas, pools etc. What is the justification for allowing them in these residual areas? . 10. Section 4.1.21 AP Airport General Comment. The adoption of a new Land Use Code provides a good opportunity to consider replacing the AP Airport Zoning with FA-I zoning (thereby incorporating Conservation Development clustering). Presently, the AP zoning district is not achieving the initial intent of protecting the Airport critical zone from development and is inconsistent with the adopted Fossil Creek Resen oir Area Plan and the Plan for the Area Between Loveland and Fort Collins. In establishing a community separator, the density of residential uses should be reduced not increased through special review. MIf the AP Zoning is retained, the following comments relate to this District: Suggestion: Section 4.1.21.C.5. Amend as follows: 5. Certain uses or activities in the designated flight patterns and noise andFer eritieel areas shown on the flight patterns and Composite Noise Rating Contours Map are incompatible with airport operations. The following land uses are generally considered to be incompatible with airport operations in the following areas: 11. Section 5.8.6.D Rural Land Use Process Development Standards Suggestion: The RLUP is resulting in clusters of dozens or more homes on 2 to 5 acre lots. It is unclear what, if any, development standards will apply to these residential clusters. Larimer County may want to specify at least some minimum standards that will apply in these situations where a fairly large number of residences are clustered at densities that would occur under the old PUD process. Without some standards, the County risks substandard development. 12. Section 4.2.2 Flood Plain Overlay Zone Districts General Comment: The City is currently reviewing floodplain regulations and anticipate changes this fall/winter. At that time, City staff will review those changes with the County in regard to consistency with the provisions of the flood plain overlay zone district.. Suggestion: Section 42.2.A. Purpose. This section of the code references FEMA designation floodplains. In regard to locally designated floodplains i.e. West Vine and Fossil Creek, are they also included in this section and if not, is there another section that applies to them? The Floodplain Administrator manages both federal and local floodplains in the floodplain section of our City Code. Suggestion: Section 4.2.2.M. Definitions - Lowest Floor. For your information, FEMA now defines lowest floor to include the bottom of crawl spaces. This is a recent and new interpretation by FEMA. 13. Section 9.2 Drainage/Storm Water Facility Fees Suggestion: Section 9.2.6 Procedure and Requirements for Reimbursement. The County may want to clarify that the remainder of the cost that is the developer's obligation, i.e. historic flows at the time of the development, and not future flows that the basin master plan has identified. 14. General Comments on Natural Areas/Wildlife Habitat Standards (Sections 4 and 8) Suggestion: General. The County's written summary of the changes from the previous draft refers to a process for designating"Special Places in Larimer County" and that these areas may have some special protection in the Land Use Code. Staff could not find the references to this in the code, so it is unclear how these"Special Places" will be used, if at all. If a list of"Special Places" is to be prepared, Fort Collins Natural Resources staff would like to be involved. Suggestion: Section 4.2.1 Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District, page 4-31. The text states that County standards will be used in the Growth Management Area. Within the Fort Collins GMA, the City will probably want to structure the Intergovernmental Agreement to allow the City's standards to be used, especially where they are more stringent than the County's. Examples would be standards with respect to wetlands, wildlife habitats, and floodplains. Suggestion: Section 8.2.4.D, Wetland Mapping, page 8-15. Please specifically reference applicable municipalities in the list of agencies that may provide maps or other information. Loveland and Fort Collins both have extensive information resources. Suggestion: Section 8.2.8 Wetland Development Standards, page 8-16. The buffer areas are less than those required by the City of Fort Collins. If these buffer areas are to be combined with the County's wildlife standards, we could see comparable levels of protection. We would prefer to see buffers of 50 feet for wetlands less than 1/3 acre in size, 100 feet for larger wetlands, and 300 feet for wetlands with significant use by waterfowl or shorebirds. Within the GMA, we would recommend use of Fort Collins' . standards. Subsection B refers to plants and animals that are native or adaptive to Larimer County. We would recommend use of native plants only. We would like to review the list, if one exists, of plants that Latimer County considers native or adaptive. Sections C, D, E and F are very good. Suggestion: Section 8.2.9.A Protection of Wetland Water Sources, page 8-17. This section states that applicants must"evaluate" the impact of proposed development on surface and ground water flows. This should be modified to make it clear that the evaluation should occur and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the development does not adversely impact surface and ground water conditions needed to sustain the wetland. Suggestion: Section 8.4 Wildlife, page 8-25. A general comment is that this section only addresses wildlife and wildlife habitats. There is nothing in the proposed Land Use Code that addresses other natural features(other than wetlands) such as rare plans, native plant communities, etc. This is a significant gap that should be filled. Perhaps the definition and designation of"Special Places in Larimer County" could address this concern. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program should have significant input into this issue. Also, in general, this section is not as specific, or as restrictive as Fort Collins' Land Use . Code. For that reason, we would prefer to see our standards used in the Fort Collins GMA. Suggestion: Section 8.4.3 Wildlife Habitat Database, page 8-26. Thanks for including the cities in the list of agencies that may provide information. Suggestion: Section 8.4.4 Review Procedures, page 8-26. The wildlife conservation plan must "successfully address" the adverse impacts of the proposal. Shouldn't the standard be to describe and successfully minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts of the development? Suggestion: Section 8.4.5 Wildlife Development Standards, page 8-28. This section and others references"important habitats". Is there any definition of what constitutes "important habitats" or any mapping of these areas? It is unclear how these will be determined. Suggestion: Section 8.4.6 Wildlife Development Review Criteria, page 8-29. Generally, the standard invoked here is that development must not reduce the health and viability of a species to the point where it is threatened in Latimer County. This standard may be open to wide ranging interpretation that will make it difficult to administer. Overall, we are concerned that this standard will allow significant losses of wildlife and wildlife habitat that are important to the citizens of the county, but still do not threaten the existence of the species in the county. It could be interpreted that the standards would not apply until • we were down to the last areas of habitat for a species or group of species. Clearly, this does not achieve the wildlife protection goals of the master plan.