HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit M - Staff Memo 03.13.2013/
MEMO
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Tamra Allen, Planning Manager
DATE: March 13, 2013 RE: Targeted Code Revisions, Review Draft
Background
On September 4, 2012, the BOCC formally
initiated the text amendment process for Phase II, Targeted Code Improvements to Improve Efficiency and Reduce Barriers to Economic Development. On October 24, 2012, the Planning Commission
first started reviewing the redlined recommendations for changes to the ULUR based on the Advisory Committee on Land Use Code of Garfield County’s (“Code Committee) recommended changes
to this Code. To date, the Planning Commission has reviewed and provided recommendations on all of the Articles, excluding Article 6, PUDs.
Articles 1-15, (Excluding 6) Remaining Issues
Enclosed
in this binder are the completed redlined and clean copy of the Planning Commission’s work that reflect the Planning Commission’s review and comments on all of the ULUR Articles. The
exceptions to this are Article 6, Planned Unit Development, which the Planning Commission will be reviewing for the first time on at the March 13th meeting, and Article 7 which will
be delivered separately. During the course of the Planning Commission’s review, there have been several issues in which the Commission has flagged to revisit. Staff has also flagged
a few additional content-related items that the Planning Commission should review. Below is a list of these outstanding issues:
Section 1-105.A. Page 1-1. Staff and CAO’s recommendation
to change the name of the Code from ULUR 2008 to the Land Use and Development Code 2013
Section 3-301.I. Page 3-6. Staff recommendation to review 30,000 square foot building regulations.
These regulations were designed originally to help regulate large riding stables. Riding stable standards have since been recommended to be removed from the Code.
Section 3-501. Page
3-27. Staff recommendation to move water impoundment to the Industrial Use Category in the Use Table, which reflects how this use is currently categorized in practice.
Section 4-103
Page 4-9. Staff recommendation to modify the Administrative Review procedure to provide more adequate public notice (30 days), to clarify
how the BOCC may be referred a decision, and to allow a decision date to be schedule but not be noticed about the actual decision.
Section 4-203.1.b.5.c. Page 4-39. Staff recommendation
to consider providing clarity in the existing water quality testing requirements in regard to CDPHE’s primary drinking water standards.
Section 5-301.A.2. Page 5-6. Staff recommendation
to include language about only using the minor subdivision process one time, based on consistency with code language that requires a lot that has been split in a minor subdivision process
to only be able to be split again through a major subdivision process.
Section 5.301.C.9. Page 5-6. Planning Commission flagged to revisit the provision for the Review Criteria about
providing information on estimated probable construction costs.
Section 7-304.A.3. Page 7-xx. Staff recommendation to allow the Director to make a determination on parking standards
for uses not listed in parking table instead of the BOCC. This is consistent with unlisted uses in the Use Table, Article 3.
Section 7-1002.H.4 Page 7- xx. Also includes I.5 and I.8.
Planning Commission flagged to have Assistant County Attorney consolidate and clarify the language in regard to financial guarantees and bonds for gravel extraction.
Section 15-102 Page
15-44. Staff recommendation to revise the definition for water impoundment to include water tanks which reflects current practice.
Section 15-102 Page 15-22. Staff recommendation to
modify the definition of Lot Coverage to exclude parking areas, driveways and other impervious surfaces.
Article 6, PUD
The redlined copy of the PUD shows the previous PUD article
from the ULUR as well as the Code Committee’s work on a number of issues, including timing, consolidation of review (preliminary and final) and the removal of the requirement for a PUD
to provide open space. Based on the Code Committee’s recommendation for this Article, Staff has prepared a new iteration of Article 6 for review. This new PUD Article follows the direction
from the Code Committee and also draws from other land use codes for process and submittal information. This Article will be reviewed on the 13th of March and any comments on the Article
will be incorporated into a new redline document.
Text Amendment Process
As the Planning Commission, the ULUR requires the review of the proposed text amendments and a recommendation
to the BOCC based upon compliance with the Review Criteria in Section 4-113.C. Upon the completion of the Planning Commission’s review, a motion to recommend approval, approval with
conditions (modifications), or denial of the text amendment will be forwarded to the BOCC for final review. Applications for a text amendment shall meet the following criteria:
The proposed text amendment is in compliance with any applicable intergovernmental agreement, and
The proposed text does not conflict with State statutory provisions regulation land
use.
Resolution
When the Planning Commission completes the review of the Code and has found the application for a text amendment to meet the required criteria (Section 4-113.C), they
should memorialize the action in the form of a resolution with a vote to either approve or deny the application with the modifications. Any approval motion should include the ability
for Staff to make any outstanding formatting, grammatical, consistency, clarity and/or scrivener’s error corrections. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for review.