HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-099-08/03/1999-RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE FOLLOWING 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 a long-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outdated regulations while incorporating new sections; and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 Latimer 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 1"HE 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 Larimer County should
determine not to amend the Proposed Larimer 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,no later than August 31, 1999,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:
« 14�111y
City Clerk Ole*� ���f-
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 Cis 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),II 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
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-1 zoning districts already allows densities above what would
be considered rural.
Suggestion: Section 5.3.6.13. 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-1 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 Reservoir 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.
If 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 and/or
efitieal-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 4.2.2.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 8.2.4.1), 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 Larimer 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 Larimer 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.