PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1999

CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF LAND-USE CODE

(#427 @ 100 & #433)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. to continue discussion of the PLUS Land Use Code. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were: Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Al Kadera, Planner II; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM DISCUSSION HEARINGS ON THE LAND-USE CODE ON JANUARY 4, 5, & 6, 1999:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the discussion on the Land-Use Code held on January 4, 5, & 6, 1999, as submitted.

Motion carried 3-0.

2. REVIEW WORDING FROM ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES (SECTION 4.3.10.F)

Section 4.3.10(F) - Outside Storage of Vehicles:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revised Section 4.3.10(F) Outside Storage of Vehicles, as recommended by the Assistant County Attorney, to read: "Only those vehicles which do not qualify as junk vehicles and which are owned by the occupant of a single family dwelling, and agricultural equipment, may be stored outside on the same lot with the dwelling. These vehicles and agricultural equipment must be located on the lot such that they will not cause traffic sight obstructions or safety hazards."

Motion carried 3-0.

3. CONTINUE FROM POINT OF ENDING AT JANUARY 5, 1999 HEARING:

Section 4.3.10.G - (Guest House)

Discussion ensued regarding Section 4.3.10.G (Guest House); Mr. Kadera noted that the Planning Commission has recommended a few changes to this section, but staff is recommending that no changes be made to the definition of 'Guest House' until they have an opportunity for more evaluation. Much discussion followed regarding whether or not 'kitchen facilities" may be in the guest house. Commissioner Disney also wants to seriously consider the zones in which 'guest houses' are permitted. No action taken.

Section 4.7.3.G - (Review Criteria)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners accept the Planning Commission recommendation and change Section 4.7.3.G (Review Criteria) to read: "The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands".

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 4.7.5 - (Minor Deviations)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners add the following sentence to the end of Section 4.7.5 (Minor Deviations): The decision of the Planning Director is subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustment".

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 4.8.4 - (Non-conforming with respect to the standards of Section 8)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners insert the following new section, to be 4.8.4, between 4.8.3. and the existing 4.8.4 (Maintenance), which now will be Section 4.8.5 and the following sections each changed by one letter: "A use or structure which does not conform with the requirements of Section 8 of this Code, but was in conformance with all applicable requirements of Section 8 at the time of adoption, revision, or amendment of this Code shall be considered to be non-conforming with respect to the standards of Section 8. Any addition or expansion of a building, structure or use which exceeds 75% of the building, structure or use, as of the effective date of this Code, shall require the entire site, building, use(s) or structures to comply with the standards of Section 8 of this Code. For additions or expansions of a building, structure or use which are 75% or less increase as of the effective date of this Code, only the addition or expansion shall be required to meet the standards of Section 8 of this Code."

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 4.9.8 (old #) 4.9.9 (new #) - (Extension, Expansion or Change in Character):

Section 8.0.A - (Standards for All Development)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners add the following sentence to the end of 4.8.9 (new #) (Extension, Expansion, or Change in Character) to read: "Buildings, structures or uses which are non-conforming with respect to the standards of Section 8 of this Code may be added on to or expanded provided the requirements of Section 8.0.A are met". And add the following paragraph as a new section numbered 8.0.A (Standards for All Development): "The standards of development for any addition or expansion of a building, structure or use as defined in Section 4.8.10, which exceeds 75% of the building, structure or use, as of the effective date of this Code, shall require the entire site, building, use(s) or structures to comply with the standards of this Section. For additions or expansions of a building, structure or use which are 75% or less increase, as of the effective date of this Code, only the addition or expansion shall be required to meet the standards of this Section."

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 5.0 - (Land Division)

Mr. Kadera explained that when they wrote the section for minor subdivisions, it was anticipated that a conservation development would be required on parcels of 20 acres, which now has been changed to 30 acres; he continued that since it was 20 acres, and since they were replacing the old minor residential development regulations, they limited the number of lots in a minor subdivision to five. However, now that they have raised the minimum size for a conservation development, he asked if they also need to consider raising the number of lots allowed. This needs to be discussed and re-worded and will be included under "Process" (Section 12) and under (Section 5.1.4) when resolved.

Section 5.3.6 - (Open Space Design under Conservation Developments)

Mr. Timm submitted a list of questions for the Board to answer regarding the density bonus proposed by Commissioner Clarke for those conservation developments in the FA-1 Farming and E-Estate Zoning districts where public sewer service is provided. The Board provided answers to all the questions and staff will re-write this section for clarification and return for approval at a later date.

Section 5.8 - (Rural Land Use Process)

The question was asked by the Planning Commission if all sections of the Code apply to the Rural Land Use Center Process, as it was written with separate standards and should not be subject to all the standards of the Code. Ms. Haag discussed Section 5.8.8 (Vested Rights); she noted that there are questions that need to be answered and they will discuss this with Jim Reidhead, Director of the Rural Land Use Center.

Section 5.14.1.A - (Planning Considerations for Development Design)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve changing the words "cultural resources" in the second sentence under Section 5.14.1.A to "special places of Larimer County", in order to be consistent with the Master Plan.

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 5.14.2 - (Development Design Standards)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the addition of the following to the introductory sentence under Section 5.14.2 (Development Design Standards) to read: "The following design standards shall apply to all development, except Rural Land Plans."

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 5.14.3.H - (Development Design Guidelines)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Planning Commission recommendation to change Section 5.14.3.H to read: "All lots should have reasonable physical and visual access to open space; and/or visual access to open space".

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 8.1.1.A.3.b - (Sewage Disposal Level of Service Standards)

Mr. Timm submitted a hand-out from Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner, with several options and suggested wording changes to Section 8.1.1.A.3.b (Options for Community Sewer Systems)







M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners replace the existing Section 8.1.1.A.3.b with the following: "Management arrangements will meet one of the following criteria: 1) The development site is located outside an existing or proposed sewer service area as defined in the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association's Water Quality Management Plan and the sewer system will be operated by a management entity as specified in Section f) below, or 2) The development site is located within an existing or proposed sewer service area and the sewer system will be operated by the applicable sewer district or municipality under the terms of a State discharge permit issued to the district, or 3) The development site is located within an existing or proposed sewer service area and the applicable sewer district or municipality has informed the County in writing that it does not wish to manage the community sewer system and the sewer system will be operated by a management entity as specified in Section f) below, or 4) The development will connect to an existing community sewer system with adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow, and will be operated by the applicable authority under the terms of a State discharge permit issued to the authority."

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 8.1.4.2 - Rural Standard

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the County Commissioners approve the change in wording in Section 8.1.4.2 (Rural Standard) from Class A 1000 gallon pumper truck to read: "Type III Engine, based on standards developed by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group".

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 8.1.5 - (Road Capacity and Level of Service Standard)












M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the recommendation from Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works, to add the following to Section 8.1.5 (Road Capacity and Level of Service Standard), as written in the August 9, 1998 draft of the Land-Use Code, but omitted in the October 20, 1998 draft, with Ms. Haag to determine the proper order or placement of this portion of the Section: "Capital Contribution Front-ending Agreement. The County may enter into a Capital Contribution Front-ending Agreement with any person proposing to construct a road to provide safe and adequate access to a proposed development. Where the road is on the County's Major Road System and eligible for road impact fee credits, the Capital Front-ending Agreement shall provide proportionate and fair share reimbursement to the extent that the cost of the road exceeds the amount of the credits for which the road is eligible. Where the road is not eligible for road impact fee credits, the Capital Contribution Front-ending Agreement shall provide proportionate and fair share reimbursement. Reimbursement shall be provided from the new development that in the future will use the road for safe and adequate access to the nearest paved road on the County's Major Road System". "For the above paragraph to work in the Code, the following definition of "safe and adequate access" should be added to Section 8.1.5.A, "Safe and adequate access shall exist when traffic volumes do not exceed the capacity of the roadway, when operating conditions do not fall below a specified level of service (LOS) and when pavement section and structures are adequate."

Motion carried 3-0.

There was a lengthy discussion of Section 8.2. (Wetlands), but no action was taken at this time and replacement of the Wetland Mapping and Wetland Definition sections will be considered at a later date.

Motion carried 3-0.

Section 8.2.8.B - (Wetland Development Standards)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a change in wording in Section 8.2.8.B to read "There shall be no introduction of plant or animal species that are not native or adaptive to Larimer County into any wetland or buffer area", and change Section 8.2.8.C to read: "Development proposals which include the keeping of livestock adjacent to wetlands or their buffer areas shall include provisions in a management plan written pursuant to Section 8.11 Management Plans that protect the wetland and buffer area from damage due to such livestock; each as recommended by the Planning Commission.

Motion carried 3-0.

M O T I O N

Due to the inclement weather tonight, Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners continue discussion of the land use hearings on the Code until 6:30 p.m. on Monday, February 1, 1999 in the Commissioners Hearing Room.

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing adjourned at 9:40 p.m.


____________________________________________

CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA J. RODENBERGER

LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER

( S EA L )

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk