Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.LUC.packet.07072004NO MINUTES REQUIRED FOR THIS MEETING WITH THE LAND USE CODE CONSULTANTS J e ~.~'e MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners fur Meeting -July 7, 2004 FROM: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director Ellen Sassano, Senior Long Range Planner RE: Land Use Code Revision -Diagnosis and Outline BACKGROUND: To initiate the Land Use Code revision process, Clarion Associates and Alan Richman interviewed roughly forty citizens (including elected officials) in early May to get their impressions of what aspects of the Code need to be improved. As a result of interviews and review of the Comprehensive Plan and . the existing Code, the consultants identified the following six major themes for improvements to the Code: • Format and Usability • Districts and Permitted Uses • Environmental Protection and Rural Character • Procedural5treamlining • Transferable Development Rights • Certainty They prepared the attached "Diagnosis" and "Annotated Outline" in which they identified substantive, organizational and procedura) changes that could be made to improve the Land Use Code. Specifically, in addition to identification of the six themes, the consultant provided asection-by-section review of the Code with detailed comments to supplement the themes, and provided an outline showing how the revised Code would appear, and what each section would contain. The proposed revisions are centered around clear specific standards with an - emphasis on rural character and protection of the environment. To streamline process, significant changes are proposed to administration of the Code. Revisions delegate much greater review and approval authority to professional staff, particularly in the area of site plan review and routine approvals, leaving major project decisions to the P&Z and 8000. The consultants will meet with the Planning Commission on July 6t" and with the Technical Advisory Committee on the morning of July 7t" to review the Diagnosis and Outline, and will provide a summary of their comments to the Board. M PURPOSE OF MEETING The consultants will present an overview of the Diagnosis and Outline at the meeting. The Board ~s requested to provide direction as to whether the themes identified, the broad recommendations for revisions to specific sections of the Code, and the outline for the revised Code are acceptable. DISCUSSION To facilitate discussion, Staff has identified the following areas which require clarification, or are a significant departure from current practice, and/or which specifically need direction from the Board. Each comment is referenced to a page number in the attached document. 1. Pg. 7. C/arification to the discussion on zoning modifications Staff will work with the consultants on the modification of residential zone districts in the Urban Growth boundary area to potentially accommodate more density associated with affordable housing and/or TDRs, as contemplated in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff will also take the lead on revisions to the B-2 zone district at the Airport Business Center to potentially accommodate more intensity and a different mix of uses. 2. Pg. 14. Need for direction regarding oi/ and gas drilling regulations Staff agrees with Clarion's recommendation that we review the La Plata County oil and gas regulations as an example of a recent ordinance incorporating best practices, and that staff prepare a draft of any provisions necessary to avoid foreseeable negative impacts to Pitkin County from possible oil and gas activities. Those provisions could be incorporated into the revised code (or could be the subject of a free-standing ordinance before the code rewrite is complete). If it is determined that a more comprehensive or significantly modified oil and gas drilling ordinance is necessary, such an ordinance will likely require a public process beyond the scope of this project, given timeframe and budget. 3. Pg. 15 Need for direction regarding water supply requirement The County is currently requiring an applicant to demonstrate an adjudicated water _ supply at conceptual submission for development of more than one lot or parcel. Shalt we modify this requirement to require documentation by a water engineer that a 100-300 year water supply exists for development (This is more common practice in Colorado); or add a sketch plan phase where less of a water commitment `~ is required? The County Attorney believes we should adhere to our current practice. 4. Pg. 17 Need direction regarding delegation of authority to professional staff,' when site p/on review shou/d occur; and handling of vesting extensions » 2 The diagnosis recommends that Staff be given authority to approve the location and size of a building envelope(s) based upon site analysis and clear standards regarding rural character, environmental protection and visual considerations. This is a departure from current practice, where the hearing officer has the authority to approve 1041 site plans. Two options are proposed for design of the site planning process. One would allow site planning (currently 1041 Review) to occur at any time on a legally created parcel or lot. The second option would require site planning to occur at or shortly before the building permit stage (which would avoid the current practice of repeated approvals and amendments of site plans before actual construction on the property). Regarding vesting extension, the Diagnosis recommends that staff be authorized to determine whether re-submission of existing approvals for vesting extension can be more effectively handled administratively (beyond the extent done so today). These concepts will be more fully described at the meeting. 5. Pg. 20, #7 Need direction regarding Code interpretations The Diagnosis recommends that the Planning Director be given the authority to provide written interpretations of code provisions (not policies) to provide certainty to customers where Code provisions may not be clear. 6. Pg. 22 Need direction regarding "takings" procedure The Diagnosis recommends that the Planning Director be given authority to determine when there is no buildable site that will meet site planning/1041 requirements; then permit the applicant, at its option, to proceed directly to the hearing officer takings determination, rather than go through a 1041 review process to be denied prior to a takings hearing (current process). 7. Pg. 23. Need direction regarding Hearing Officer ro% The Diagnosis proposes that the Hearing Officer role change to the extent that he would be involved in the hearing of takings issues and certain types of appeals, but not involved in making routine site planning decisions. _ 8. Pg. 24. Need direction regarding growth management revisions Staff agrees with Clarion's belief that an informed decision as to whether the current "point-based" growth management system should remain in-place, or a potential lottery system should be considered, can't be made until improvements in rural `~ character and protection standards and corresponding changes to the existing growth management system have been made. In the event that a lottery system is an alternative that we want to pursue, Staff will come back to the Board to discuss contract modifications to cost and timing that would be required to accommodate that direction. 3 9. Pg. 29 Need direction regarding change to house size The Diagnosis recommends that permissible house size in the Urban Growth Boundary area (UGB) be reduced from 15,000 to 5,750 sq. ft., requiring use of TDRs to go bigger (to an established limit) to expand TDR receiving potential within the County; and that site plan review for use of TDR only be required outside of the UGB. This concept was considered as part of the proposed 2000 Code modifications, but not formally reviewed. 10. Pg. 43 Need direction regarding commercia/ growth management in the rural area The Diagnosis recommends that the commercial and rural area tourist accommodation growth management categories be deleted in the rural area, as these categories are historically un-used, and perhaps not appropriate in the rural area. NEXT STEPS (AFTER DIAGNOSIS/OUTLINE) Clarion will take input regarding the Diagnosis/Outline from Staff, the Technical Advisory Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board, and begin drafting specific Code sections, the first of which should be available for review in mid-to-late August. 4 Rewrite of the Land Use Code for Pitkin County, Colorado Code Diagnosis and Annotated Outline Prepared by: Clarion ssociat~s LLC 1700 Broaduvay, suite 400 Denver, CO 80290 303-830-2890 With Alan Richman Planning Services June 22, 2004 Table of Contents PART I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 PART II. MAJOR THEMES FOR IMPROVEMENT ............................................ 2 1. IMPROVE USER-FRIENDLINESS ....................................~................. .. 2 a. Reorganization .................................................................................................... ...2 b. Techniques to improve usability .......................................................................... ...4 2. REVISIT DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES ................................. .. 6 a. Districts ................................................................................................................ ...6 b. Uses ..................................................................................................................... ...9 3. RURAL CHARARACTER AND THE ENVIRONMENT ....................... 11 a. Current Regulations ............................................................................................. .11 b. Evaluation ............................................................................................................ .13 c. Recommended Changes ..................................................................................... .13 4. STREAMLINE PROCEDURES .......................................................... 19 a. The Current System ............................................................................................ .19 b. General Matters ................................................................................................... .19 c. Substantive Improvements .................................................................................. .21 5. IMPROVE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ................... 25 a. Sending Areas ..................................................................................................... .26 b. Receiving Areas .................................................................................................. .27 c. Home Size ........................................................................................................... .27 6. IMPROVE CERTAINTY ...................................................................... 29 a. Current Code Regulations ................................................................................... .30 b. Evaluation and Recommendations ...................................................................... .31 PART III. SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS .............................................. 34 ARTICLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS ....................................... 34 ARTICLE 2. LAND USE POLICIES ........................................................ 34 ARTICLE 3. LAND USE STANDARDS .................................................. 35 ARTICLE 4. PROCEDURES ................................................................. 40 ARTICLE 5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ....................................... 41 ARTICLE 6. NON-CONFORMITIES ....................................................... 41 ARTICLE 7. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT ........................ 42 ARTICLE 8. ARTICLE 8 DEFINITIONS .................................................. 42 ARTICLE 9. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ................................................ 42 ARTICLE 10. FAIR SHARE REQUIREMENTS ................................:....... 43 PART II. ANNOTATED OUTLINE .................................................................... 44 - ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS ........ ........................................... 44 1-10 Title and Short Title ................................... .....................................................44 1-20 Power and Authority .................................. .....................................................44 1-30 Repeal and Reenactment ......................... .....................................................45 1-40 Purposes ................................................... .....................................................45 __,. 1-50 How to Use This Code .............................. .....................................................45 1-60 Applicability ............................................... .....................................................45 1-70 Official Zoning Map ................................... .....................................................45 1-80 Conflicting Provisions and Other Laws ..... .....................................................45 1-90 Effective Date ............................................ .....................................................45 1-100 Transitional Provisions .............................. .....................................................46 Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 1 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 1-110 Severability .....................................................................................................46 ARTICLE 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES ...................... 46 2-10 Review and Decision-Making Bodies ............................................................ .46 2-20 General Land Use Policies ........................................................................... .47 2-30 General Land Use Procedures ..................................................................... .47 2-40 Specific Procedures ...................................................................................... .50 ARTICLE 3. ZONE DISTRICTS .............................................................. 54 3-10 Rural and Conservation Zones ..................................................................... .55 3-20 Residential Districts ....................................................................................... .55 3-30 Business and Commercial Zones ................................................................. .55 3-40 Special Purpose Districts .............................................................................. .56 ARTICLE 4. PERMITTED USES ............................................................ 56 4-10 Permitted and Special Review Uses ............................................................. .56 4-20 Use Table ...................................................................................................... .56 4-30 Use-Specific Standards ................................................................................. .57 ARTICLE 5. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 57 5-10 Dimensional Standards Table ....................................................................... .58 5-20 Rules of Measurement .................................................................................. .59 ARTICLE 6. GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND SCORING ............................. 59 6-10 Allocations ..................................................................................................... .59 6-20 Scoring .......................................................................................................... .59 ARTICLE 7. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ......................................... 60 7-10 Rural Character, Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards ............... .60 7-20 Roads ............................................................................................................ .62 7-30 Parking Requirements .................................................................................. .62 7-40 Public Services and Utilities .......................................................................... .63 7-50 Trails ............................................................................................................. .63 7-60 Signs ............................................................................................................. .63 7-70 Planned Unit Developments ......................................................................... .63 7-80 Subdivisions .................................................................................................. .63 7-90 Conservation Subdivisions ........................:................................................... .64 7-100 Mobile Home Parks ....................................................................................... .64 7-110 Common Interest Communities and Timeshares ...................:..................... .64 7-120 Airport and Transit Station Area Regulations ............................................... .64 7-130 Operational Standards .................................................................................. .64 ARTICLE 8. FAIR SHARE REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS ....................................................................... 64 ARTICLE 9. NON-CONFORMING LOTS, USES, STRUCTURES & SIGNS 65 9-10 General ......................................................................................................... .65 9-20 Non-conforming Lots ..................................................................................... .65 9-30 Non-conforming Uses ................................................................................... .65 _ 9-40 Non-conforming Structures ........................................................................... .65 9-50 Repairs, Restoration and Alterations ............................................................ .65 ARTICLE 10. VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES .......... 65 10-10 General ......................................................................................................... .65 10-20 Violations ....................................................................................................... .65 -~~ 10-30 Enforcement Procedures .............................................................................. .65 10-40 Penalties ....................................................................................................... .66 1 D-50 Inspection ...................................................................................................... .66 10-60 Judicial Review by the Board of County Commissioners ............................. .66 10-70 Maintenance of Common Open Space ......................................................... .66 ARTICLE 11. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION ......... 66 Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 2 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 11-10 Rules of Interpretation .............. 11-20 Definitions ................................ 11-30 Use Categories and Use Types 66 66 66 Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 3 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 PART I. INTRODUCTION The first "Task" in the rewrite of Pitkin County's land use regulations was to conduct an initial kickoff visit to Pitkin County. On May 3~d and 4t", the Clarion team visited Pitkin County to conduct interviews with staff, the Planning Commission, key stakeholders in the Comprehensive Plan process, key stakeholders in real estate development, and the Board of County Commissioners. We also visited examples of development that illustrated planning challenges or exceptional development within the county. Our purpose was to gain a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current Pitkin County land use code and what types of development it permits or encourages. The second step in the code rewrite process is to deliver this Diagnosis and Annotated Outline of how the code might be reorganized, revised, and improved. The materials below represent a combination of comments we heard during our visits, recommendations made in the Comprehensive Plan process, and our reactions based on our national experience revising land use regulations. The materials following this introduction below are organized into three parts. Part II identifies six major themes for improvements in the code, which include: • Improve the Format and Usability • Districts and Permitted Uses • Environmental Protection and Rural Character • Procedural Streamlining • Transferable Development Rights Certainty Part III includes asection-by-section review of the current code, with detailed comments to supplement the six major themes. Finally, Part IV includes an Annotated Outline of how the revised code would appear, and what each section would contain. Once this document has been discussed with staff, the Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners, we will proceed to Task 3, which includes the drafting of the revised code itself. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 7 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 PART il. MAJOR THEMES FOR IMPROVEMENT 1. IMPROVE USER-FRIENDLINESS An overall theme voiced by most interviewees is that the code is difficult to navigate and understand for both novices and experienced users. Problems include the lack of page numbers in the table of contents and index; absence of other ways for readers to find their way such as headers and footers; no illustrations; an out-of-date use table; lack of flow charts and other methods for clarifying procedures; and a jumbled organization. We recommend a number of common-sense changes that will dramatically improve the code's usability. Reorganizing the current sections into a more logical format and utilizing several "user-friendly" formatting techniques will address these concerns. a. Reorganization The current code is organized into several helpful major sections such as procedures, nonconformities, administration and enforcement, and definitions. We propose taking this concept further and making all of the chapters based on functions such as administration/review roles, development review processes and procedures, zoning districts, and general development standards -that apply to all development and subdivisions. This is a common method used by many jurisdictions nationwide and lends itself well to any future amendments and to transitions to web-based versions of the code. Some interviewees asked that all relevant SUMMARY OF REORGANIZATION TECHNIQUES provisions be repeated in each Organize chapters based on major functional topics, section of the code in such as Administration, Decision=Making Bodies, order to avoid the Procedures, and `Districts need to flip from Separate current Article 3 Standards into separate between different chapters on Districts., Uses, and Development sections of the Standards document. However, this approach would Incorporate Growth Management, TDRs, and Fair require very extensive Share topics into logical sections of the. code repetition of common - procedural steps -- such as notice requirements -- in each type of development review process. It would also require repeating specific use standards -such as bed and breakfast standards -- in every zone district where the use is allowed. -- We have discussed this suggestion with the Board of County Commissioners and staff, and have agreed that this approach will not be used at this time, for several reasons. First and foremost, the code can become very large and unwieldy if information is repeated throughout the code. In addition when identical text is repeated in several sections of the code, amendments to the code often fail to make the same amendment to each repeated instance of the language. To address the concern for user- Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 2 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 friendliness that underlies the desire to repeat information, we will use various techniques to ensure that readers know exactly which sections to use and how to find them quickly. Instead of repeating text, we will use more extensive cross-referencing, a more informative table of contents and index, and recommend the use of application packets that assemble relevant sections of the code related to a specific type of application in a single document. The Annotated Outline portion of this document groups similar topics together into chapters as mentioned above. Although several of the current code sections already fit into this format, several adjustments are necessary. For example, the current procedures chapter is organized by how many steps are involved in each procedure and instead should be organized by the names or topics of the procedures. There are several different procedures for transfer of development rights scattered throughout the current procedures article, and these have now been placed in one section. More descriptive headings will help the applicant know which procedure is relevant for their situation. ~'- The current chapters regarding land use policies and ~.. ~,~°_~`~ ~~...{ standards initially appear to fit into the functional theme, but .~``°~_ ~' ' ~ ~~°~°"°~, in reality are a hodge-podge of varying provisions. To ~~'` ~~,~ '~~~ °'r A°°' illustrate, some procedures such as code amendments and ~~r ~,_-'~ rezoning appear in the standards chapter. To further ~`°~°`~ complicate things, the line between policies and standards 3' ~.-w~ ~~.~;~_~i a°.~ is not clear. The land use policies. In most cases, the ~ ~,~~~,~~ ~~ policies are in fact being used as standards for the review of ~j ~ development applications, and this will be clarified. Where ~-°°~~>~ ' possible, general policies will be replaced by specific ~~~:?;~ ~ approval criteria, or by standards for specific types of ~`~~.,~~~~~~~ development. "~~ ~`~ ~ The standards chapter is very large and mixes information ~ ~~~~:~~ .~~g about zone districts and .use-specific regulations with other ~'`~°°" more general development standards. Breaking the chapter ~ ~` ~'~ ~ into four separate chapters for (1) zone districts (2) permitted uses and use standards, (3) dimensional ,, ~~ ' standards, and (4) general development standards would , help differentiate among the three topics. Transfer of Development Rights provisions have been lumped with development standards, and the growth management and fair share chapters have been tacked on f 7w_-°~ ~_ ._ _~~ to the end of the code. These should be incorporated into more logical locations (i.e., procedures in the procedures ~,~,a°~°~~"-`~~`"~~°°-~_. chapter, and development standards in that chapter), while .M,~re `~°~ ~~~~~~~"~~ ~`' ~ . the definitions chapter should be moved to the back of the •~~.".x,~~.`~`"° code for ease of use as a reference. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 3 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 Another suggestion is to remove submission requirements from the main body of the code. These requirements should be in a separate document so that they could be revised administratively from time to time without the need for code amendments. In addition to moving current text into a more logical order, repetitious and obsolete text will be eliminated. b. Techniques to improve usability Several techniques will help readers navigate through the code text much more quickly and easily. These include a table of contents with page numbers, page numbers used more logically in the body of the document, refinement of the index, improved page formatting (including headers/footers), more detailed cross-references to specific subsections, tables, graphics, and a user guide. The current code does not use page numbers and instead readers must rely on section numbers to find their way. We recommend including a SUMMARY OF USABILITY TECHNIQUES More effective page numbering Table of contents with page numbers Refined index Improved page format including headers/ footers More cross-references Revised tables master table of contents at the beginning of the code (with page numbers) as well as a detailed table of contents at the beginning of each chapter (with page numbers) to make referencing topics simpler. We also recommend providing a list of tables and figures in the table of contents. Page numbers could be used much more effectively elsewhere in the document as well. Currently, page numbers appear in the hard copy of the code that is available to users but do not appear in the electronic version on the County's website. However, each article in the hard copy has separate page numbers, so page numbers repeat throughout the document with no way to discern if it is page four in Article 3 or page four in Article 4, without flipping through several pages to find a section number that indicates which article it is. The current index is useful, but needs refinement. For example, the reference to the primary section for transfer of development rights is buried in a list of every single section that contains the phrase throughout the code. Vested rights information is similarly difficult to find. More extensive use of cross-references also would be helpful to identify relationships of topics. The current cross-references are very imprecise, and often refer to a general section rather than to a specific subsection. In the current Section 3-100 concerning "Areas Around Key Facilities," the reader is referred to Section 4-60 for review procedures, and it is not clear which subsection should be used. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 4 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 Another way to improve the overall structure of the code and make key information more prominent will be to employ a variety of page formatting techniques that can more quickly alert the reader as to where they are in the document (see sample page below). More extensive use of headers and footers, section headings, and also a more creative use of font types and sizes, all may be used to illustrate the hierarchy of topics in the code. Illustrations, graphics, and tables should be used more frequently in the code to explain complex standards and to summarize detailed information. The current code contains only a few such graphic aids -- primarily photos of lighting fixtures in the standards chapter. Graphics could be helpful in illustrating key concepts, such as basic measurements (for example, how to measure height) and unusual situations (e.g., how to apply setback requirements to odd-shaped lots). Tables can be used more frequently to summarize information such as dimensional standards and administrative review bodies. The current use table is helpful, but needs to be updated. In addition, flow charts should be included to illustrate all administrative procedures, as well as interrelationships between procedures. A common concern was that the code should be made more accessible to the average landowner or applicant. Simple procedures should be easy to find and understand. The techniques already mentioned above will help dramatically. However, there are several ways to address this concern even more directly, including a brief user guide at the front of the code and providing focused application packets for various types of procedures (e.g., amendments, variances, etc.). 9.,, ~n se~ Pa,~„a_ ~,~ ~a~<r,9 Lam,<,.~ ~<~<~amen 9. Off-Street Parking Area Srxening OH~urres packing urn shall b< u,e<nrd in acco,d.nc<ais1, d:< suv:dards ai Scc 19.9.2. O. leading Area Design RrT,im{ off-srrea lwdiog spaces (See S<c. 19.9.1-B and 19.9.1-D) shad nor be locoed ..shin a bvAduig, k.vs shall Fse on shr rsc of Ja vsc ur.eal or on an adjvisJng rise On a sire adininusg ur aley, a regwred leading spa¢ shall 4x ar«sublr. from shr alley svJos alswad~e access c apprw~ed by she TrJEc Enpneer. A rcgvirtd loading space il:sU b< sable nmhous barkivgasvrkaw ms proxrsyi,r<udess the 7nfiic Eng~n dnermi,m spar pm.isov a[ n,sv-arusvd space ss u+fessihle >vd apprwex ulrc,-uu ear M .xrvpied loadivg space shill vn p.rvrnr a<cen ro a regsumJ offarrr<r parlwg apu<~A Ivadv:g am shill nos be bcarM in a regsend sesbae! In addioor4 suees side leading docks :hall M scs bacA x Ica.. ]c lees han she aces Prv['r,Ty line or } 10 faes from the xsrees cr line, n-hichevn is Breuer. No Indirg hay r:vy viws4 euo auc ponion of a ,squired .isle or aarss dime,~sion. leading arr sivbl< G.,:,s s sss«s :Call Lc screm<d on) ssdcs 6v a solid d<coram~c fences wall or hedge ar Ian a feec sn hrighs. Sec 19.9.2/ landscaping and Screening 'h,is secvun <v ou: Jac mu~imwnlanr6capi,sy. b~iien,ig and screening rmuimmems kn devdsr,snvus n-'uhus shr Cisy of Hend<rsua 0.. Open Space landsoping 1. landscape Planting Area ()pen Space I~nduape planw.g ua shill br prend<d u. acccrdmee n:~, she louonv,g schedWe o(regswrmensx nm < c<~~m<a ~~ n m o~sm Sv_~ tol po1....~ cn'm o occ ca v u arc ~ 'v nsP w,.wsumny a~ep ~a . m~ I aces ~n e a isr~~r,,~r~i~~rs~:~ns ,s ,9 ~..wa.~,~ m r* . ",. ~ J - _, ~-~;~ - ~- , , b ~ X1:1 >, i i r. .J 3oa RaaneE 02omr6. tMe~ We will develop an overview flow chart at the front of the code to help a novice understand how to use the document, starting with the fundamental distinction between rural vs. urban lands and the differing standards and procedures that apply to each. This graphic user guide would help a new user focus on key questions like "ts my land within the urban growth boundary or not?", "Where do I find what types of land uses are possible in the rural areas of the county?" and "Where can I learn how to get a county subdivision approval?" The intent would be to provide references to the appropriate sections of the code for the most common types of development activities, as well as alerting citizens to the types of standards that might be applicable. After the code has been adopted, staff Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 5 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 could put together application packets (similar to those used by the City of Aspen) for common types of development approval requests, which would include a simple summary cover page with attached excerpts from the code. 2. REVISIT DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES The overall theme of the new Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan (which incorporates individual area plans) is to maintain the existing rural character of the County. One of the major purposes of the code revision project is to implement the vision set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. An in-depth look at zoning districts and the uses allowed in the County will further that goal. While our review and staff comments do not reveal the need for extensive replacements or rewrites of existing districts, some new districts and changes to existing districts may prove helpful in carrying out the Comprehensive Plan's intent. In addition, some uses have become problematic (such as "home-based cottage industries") while addition of several new uses may assist in meeting county goals (for example, nurseries and small conference facilities). a. Districts The county has aline-up of districts that appears to be working well for the most part, with no need for major changes. We will continue to evaluate existing districts to determine how well the mix of districts meets county goals, by comparing uses allowed by right and by special review, looking at dimensional and other standards across the board, and by reviewing problems mentioned during the kick-off meetings. At this point, however, it appears that only a few additional districts may be needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan and address other concerns, while a few unused districts may be candidates for deletion. Minor revisions need to be made to several districts as mentioned below. Our preliminary recommendations for changes to the district structure are contained in the table on the following page, and those changes are discussed on the pages that follow. District. Current Districts Preliminar Recommendations Resid ential R-6 Medium Densit Residential Roll over without major revisions R-15 Moderate Density Residential Possible consolidation of these two very similar R-15A Moderate Densit Residential districts R-30 Suburban Density Residential Roll over without major revisions MHP Mobile Home Park Roll over without major revisions SR Special Residential Possible elimination, especially if no lands mapped VR Village Residential Roll over without major revisions Affordable Housing AH Affordable Housing Roll over without major revisions AH2/ PUD Affordable Housing PUD Possible consolidation of some of these districts AH3/ PUD Affordable Housing PUD to reduce their number. In addition, the intent and AHO/ PUD Affordable Housing PUD standards applicable to these types of Planned Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 6 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 District. Current Districts Preliminary Recommendations AHP/ PUD Affordable Housing Preservation/PUD Unit Developments will be clarified and simplified. Rural & Conservation AFR-1 Agricultural/Forest /Residential Roll over without major revisions AFR-2 Agricultural/Forestr /Residential Roll over without major revisions AFR-10 Agricultural/Forestry/Residential Roll over without major revisions AF-SKI Agricultural/Forestr /Ski Roll over without major revisions RS-20 PUD Resource PUD Continue, but the intent and standards applicable RS-30 PUD Resource PUD to these types of Planned Unit Developments will RS-160 PUD Resource PUD be clarified and simplified. RS-35 Possible new district referenced in Comp Plan LIR Low Impact Residential Recent) adopted -will be integrated into code RR Rural/Remote Roll over without major revisions UFRS-35 Upper Fryin Pan Valley Resource Possible change to a character/overlay district Federal/ Forest Possible new district Business and Commercial AR-1 Accommodations/Recreation Continues if an lands mapped -otherwise drop AR-2 Accommodations/Recreation Roll over without major revisions T Tourist Roll over without major revisions B-1 Business Focus on smaller business clarified; and possible elimination of some residential uses B-2 Business Roll over without major revisions Institutional Possible new district -unless uses can be adequate) addressed in use table I Industrial Possible elimination of some residential uses VC Village Commercial Roll over without major revisions Special Purpose PUB Public Continues-but with clarification of what types of public uses are available in rural and urban areas U Unclassified May be eliminated as no longer necessary UFV Upper F ing Pan Valley Overlay Clear identification as a character/overlay district Conservation Possible new overlay district to be used for public open lands Although all of the existing districts will be further evaluated as we review specific uses and district standards, we have identified the following probable changes: 1. Federal/Forest Zone District - One potential new district noted by staff is a federal land/forest district to address federal lands that may become available for development as a result of land exchanges. This new district would limit development density and allowable uses of these lands (perhaps in a manner similar to the Rural Remote District) if they are transferred to private ownership. 2. Mandatory PUDs Resource and Affordable Housing Zones The treatment of PUDs needs to be refined. It is not clear when the PUDs should be used, and the review criteria are not clear. We will review the role Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 7 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 and use of the PUD districts and recommend revisions that may change how and when they are used. In general, PUD standards will be strengthened to ensure that the County is receiving clear benefits in return for flexibility in development standards. Vague terms and standards will be clarified, and the intent of each PUD designation will be stated in clear an unambiguous terms. In some cases, it may be necessary to add specific language as to how the PUD is not to be used. 3. Low Impact Residential Zone District The county has recently adopted the Low Impact Residential Zone District (LIR) to reflect Master Plan recommendations regarding rural character. We will integrate these new provisions into the code. In addition, although it appears that this new district could be a valuable tool to promote land conservation, the standards in the current ordinance are vague. We will suggest revisions to guide development into more appropriate locations and to tell the applicant which types of lands are most important for preservation. 4. Industrial/Commercial Districts Preservation of land for industrial and commercial development was cited by several interviewees as an important issue for the county. Current districts (B-1, B-2, and Industrial) that allow residential uses by right will be revised to prevent residential uses now allowed in those districts from becoming the primary use, which could create conflicts with industrial and commercial uses and erode the County's small stock of commercially zoned land in appropriate locations. 5. Public Zone District The existing Public Zone District covers land inside and'outside of the urban growth boundary. Staff noted that appropriate "public" uses may differ between the two areas. For example, schools and churches may not be appropriate throughout the entire district, while bus stops would be considered allowable in all areas. Instead of creating two separate districts to address this issue, we suggest having a different list of permitted use in the urban and rural areas. 6. Institutional Zone District - This possible new district could be used for unique and hard-to-categorize institutional uses (such as Rocky Mountain Institute and the Pine Creek Cookhouse) that help make Pitkin County the unique place that it is. _ Institutional zone districts often describe the types of activities that are - allowed, and then require certain types of institutions to outline a plan that addresses the relationships between their various buildings, facilities, access and circulation routes, so as to minimize impacts on surrounding (and often very different) land uses. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 8 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 Some of those interviewed during the project initiation have suggested a "resident- occupied" district that would require homes to be occupied by full-time county residents. However, this raises serious legal issues as well as administrative ones such as having to monitor who is living in a residence and for how long, and we do not recommend that the County pursue this tool. b. Uses Permitted and Conditional Uses, as well as references to related use regulations, will be organized in a table such as the one shown here. The primary theme we heard from staff and others regarding uses is that clearer, more objective standards are needed for approval of special review uses. One way to approach this issue is to have fewer special review uses and have more uses by right with I. 1 1 i -~~ rr ~ PUD Zone Additional Use 5pesifislhe riondordZmeDittri~tr Disirists Regulotim Oossifisufion 1YPe '' A R•1 to [1 PUp-1 FULL s k. rialturcJ Uses Agrivltu-e l'mp prc~ud~, pesNre gnzng A h rd, etc Pe rrm nent roudsdes~rd 5 S Agrimltrrd ked store Servia~ S ~ Horitiu~hure & Greenhou~ gam Nur9=ries. S '~ $ . 5.2.19 P.essiclentiaf Uses Group Living Avated Lung ~~. Fa9lities k dhy ~ 4 5 S S?.20 Ebodisg Homer ,q $ clear standards that must be met. This is a trend we see throughout the United States. The remaining special review use standards would be clarified to make the review process more straightforward. For example, it is possible to set criteria for uses like community health facilities (such as maximum floor area and hours of operation) then allow these uses by right in certain districts within the Urban Growth Boundary. Other topics the county may wish to consider include expanding available rural economic uses and allowing the planning director more power to interpret unlisted uses. While regulations and public land acquisition will remain primary tools in protecting rural character, allowing a wider range of rural economic uses may help existing landowners make a living on the land and forestall conversion of the land to residential development. Examples of rural economic uses allowed successfully in other jurisdictions include nurseries, small conference and wedding facilities, and small offices _ in historic structures. This may not be a critical issue for Pitkin County - we will need to determine if the number of remaining large landholders is large enough to justify creating an expanded list of allowable rural economic uses and standards. However, even at a smaller scale, allowing more low-impact commercial uses in rural areas could __ be helpful in keeping the land a living randscape, as opposed a set piece, and should be explored. Use standards would be spelled out to avoid over-commercialization of rural areas and adverse impacts on neighbors and roads, among others. New uses are beginning to crop up more often. For example, video stores were unheard of 30 years ago. The issue of new, unlisted uses can be addressed in several Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 9 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 ways. The first step is to modernize the list of uses itself and to organize the uses into logical categories with common characteristics. Even so, however, new and unlisted uses will continue to arise. Many jurisdictions give the planning director the authority to assign an unlisted use to an existing category of uses, based on a list of characteristics set forth in the code. This process is easier and more consistent if the jurisdiction has an existing comprehensive list of use categories with explanatory text of the main attributes of those uses. To illustrate, "Health Care Facilities" could be described as follows, with short sections describing typical use characteristics, examples, and exceptions. The planning director could then determine whether a new and unlisted use fits into this category. Characteristics Health Care Facilities include uses providing medical or surgical care to patients. Hospitals offer overnight care, while other medical facilities provide outpatient care only. Accessory uses include offices, laboratories, teaching facilities, meeting areas, cafeterias, parking, maintenance facilities, and housing for staff or trainees. Examples Examples include hospitals, medical centers, medical and dental clinics, medical and dental labs, and blood-collection facilities. Exceptions Uses that provide exclusive care and planned treatment or training for psychiatric, alcohol, or drug problems, where patients are residents of the program, are classified as Institutions. There are also questions about existing uses that need to be resolved. In connection with our work on rural economic uses, we will consider possible size limits on commercial uses in the rural areas to preserve rural character. Specific uses that need attention include "essential community facility" and "home-based cottage industry." "Essential community facility" should be defined less broadly, or perhaps broken into "major" and "minor" facilities. The minor facilities (smaller items such as gas regulators and water pump stations) could be allowed in all districts, while major facilities (larger regional items such as community waste water treatment plants and electrical substations) would require special review. "Home-based cottage industry" needs to be clarified so that home occupations, which take place primarily inside a home and do not have much impact on the surrounding neighborhood, are differentiated from cottage industries, which are likely to have a higher impact, including outbuildings, agricultural _ activities, and more visitors. Adequate standards for each use would be paramount and further discussion with the County stakeholders would be required to determine how far to proceed in this direction. This would also tie in to the rural economic uses mentioned earlier. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 10 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 Staff also raised the issue of multiple uses on a parcel. We will clarify that multiple principal uses on one parcel are allowed only through a special review process, and that if the primary use of a parcel in the rural area is residential, then a primary non- residential use will not be allowed on that same parcel. We will clarify that multiple principal structures are not allowed on a single parcel. 3. RURAL CHARARACTER AND THE ENVIRONMENT Pitkin County is well-known for its ambitious efforts to protect the environment, natural resources, and wildlife through development regulations. Its growth management system included a number of ground-breaking provisions relating to environmental protection when first adopted in the 1980s, and more recently the county has enacted strong standards to protect against development in hazard areas such as steep slopes. The strong commitment by citizens of Pitkin County to preserving the environment was echoed in all of the recently completed caucus plans as well as by people interviewed as part of this Diagnosis process. Indeed, in the plans and the interviews there were strong calls to expand the county's efforts to preserve the environment, focusing on such issues as water quality, wildlife protection beyond ungulates like elk, vegetation removal, hillside development (vs. steep slopes), and oil and gas drilling. At the same time, we see a groundswell of opinion among many that the county must go beyond regulations that protect the environment and strengthen its standards geared to preserving the County's rural character. Preserving rural character and scenic views was a recurring theme in all of the caucus plans and a key element of the County's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Citizens felt that protecting against development in hazard and environmentally sensitive areas was important but not enough; without more, they felt that the all-important rural character`of the County would be steadily eroded. This section first sets forth a brief overview of the County's current regulations related to environmental protection and rural character preservation. It then examines potential revisions in both arenas that would respond to shortcomings in the current system identified by interviewees, staff, and the consulting team. a. Current Regulations The County has three distinct sets of regulations that address the impact of development on the environment, natural resources, and scenic qualities/rural character. At times these regulations operate independently and at other times they overlap, depending on the type of development, its impacts, and whether the growth `- management system provisions apply. 1. Development standards Like most modern development codes, the Pitkin County Code contains a major section (Section 3-60) devoted to environmental and aesthetic Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 77 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 standards. These regulations cover such topics as air quality, preservation of natural landscape, scenic corridors and scenic quality, and water resources. These rules apply to all development whether exempted from growth management review or not. For the most part, the development standards are quite general and vague and typically lack quantitative or objective measures. Thus the subsection of preservation of natural landscape states that the County may require design techniques that "lessen physical and visual damage to the natural terrain, stream vegetation, and other natural features of the landscape." Under the scenic quality subsection, buildings are to be screened by utilizing "natural topography whenever possible to screen buildings to the maximum extent possible. A few other provisions are more specific, but they are the exception. For example, the dimensional standards (3-50-040) require a minimum stream setback of twenty-feet up to a maximum of 150 feet under specific circumstances. Similarly, the scenic overlay regulations (3-60-040) that apply to the State Highway 82 and other major road corridors requires that a structure to be "placed so it does not break a ridgeline, unless there is no alternative building site on the lot." 2. 1041 Regulations A second parallel set of standards can be found in Section 3-8 of the development code, Areas of Local and State Interest/1041 Environmental Hazard Areas. These regulations were specifically authorized by the state legislature in the 1970s pursuant to House Bill 1041, hence the name. They apply to all except very minor development. The primary focus of these provisions is avoiding development in so-called hazard areas such as floodplains, steep slopes, and wildfire areas. The wildlife. habitat preservation standards primarily seek to steer development away from critical deer, elk, and bighorn sheep habitat, although there are some general provisions regarding stream protection. If a developer satisfies the 1041 strictures, he is afforded significant leeway according to staff regarding placement of a residence or location of roads and driveways on a site. When there is a conflict between 1041 hazard regulations and preservation of scenic areas, the development code (Section 3-60-040.F) specifically states that 1041 should take precedence. 3. Growth Management System Pitkin County is known nationally for its Growth Management System that _ allocates a limited number of development permits annually based on a beauty contest among projects. Projects are scored against a list of criteria relating to issues such as environmental protection, scenic character, habitat preservation, design quality, and affordable housing. Currently, a substantial number of projects are exempted from Growth Management System review through the use of transferable development rights or other mechanisms. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 12 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 The scope of the review criteria is comprehensive and the topics addressed laudatory; however, the review standards themselves are quite vague and subjective. For example, 3 points can be awarded to a project for an "excellent" design, but only 1 if it has a "major design flaw." None of these terms are defined. Likewise, with regard to environmental impacts, 3 points can be awarded for site planning that "minimizes adverse impacts..." Little guidance is given to reviewers on how this might be measured. b. Evaluation There is a consensus that the current regulatory approach has two significant shortcomings. First, it is focused primarily on hazard avoidance. If a development complies with the 1041 hazard regulations and avoids steep slopes or wildlife habitats, for example, there is only limited further control over placement of buildings on site, location of roads and driveways, vegetation removal or other key site planning aspects-particularly if the development is exempt from the Growth Management System. Staff has little strong authority to ensure that a development fits with the rural landscape and maintains rural character by, for example, preserving vegetation, directing how driveways should be laid out, or avoiding highly visible locations (other than ridgelines within the major road corridors). The second chronic problem is that many of the standards are highly subjective and vague, providing little guidance to staff or applicants as to what is required of a development. To illustrate, the term "maximum extent possible" appears time and again in the development code, but is never defined. c. Recommended Changes The consulting team is recommending three major areas of revisions to accomplish the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, caucus plans, and as expressed by interviewees, as follows: First, strengthen the existing environmental standards in targeted key areas including wildlife habitat, water quality, and stream corridors. Second, draft new rural character protection regulations that address topics such as hillside development and vegetation protection. These standards should be applied in an expanded site planning process that focuses not only on avoiding hazard areas, but locating a development in the most suitable area that respects rural character. Limited building envelopes would be specifically delineated for each development (including houses, driveways, septic, etc.); construction outside these building envelopes would be carefully limited. Finally, these regulatory approaches should be enhanced by the use of incentives such as an effective conservation subdivision/development option that could offer benefits such as accelerated processing or exemption from the Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 13 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 Growth Management System in return for preservation of substantial open space on a site. 1. Buttress Existing Environmental Regulations Our review reveals a number of areas that would benefit from new or strengthened environmental regulations: (a) Wildlife Habitat/Biodiversity Protection The current 1041 provisions contain regulations geared to protect wildlife habitat (Section 3-80-080). For the most part, the regulations focus on preservation of deer, elk, and bighorn sheep habitat. While these protections are laudable, Pitkin County should shift its primary emphasis on these three species to a much broader range of species. It should adopt standards based on accepted biodiversity protection principles that preserve critical habitat associated with other species such as birds and plants (e.g., avoid carving habitat up into small patches; maintain connections among habitats). County staff has begun work on new standards based on such principles that can serve as a starting point for further discussions. (b) River and Stream Corridors The current stream setback requirement of 20 feet is much lower than is commonly accepted to provide an adequate buffer to protect stream quality, particularly in rural areas. Most progressive jurisdictions have adopted a minimum setback of 100 feet which can be increased if circumstances warrant. These setback requirements are typically applied to other water bodies and sensitive areas such as lakes, ponds, aquifer recharge areas and wetlands. (c) Oil and Gas Drilling The county currently has some extensive mining control regulations that apply to oil and gas drilling. However, the existing standards are geared towards hard-rock mining and gravel removal, not oil and gas drilling. Since proposals for oil and gas drilling are likely in the future, the county should consider some simple, interim, supplementary regulations to address specific risks and anticipated impacts of those activities. Such ` ~ regulations might address visual impacts (such as rig location and color), landscaping, and waste disposal. In the longer term, the county may wish to consider a comprehensive oil and gas drilling ordinance such as that adopted in La Plata County, but the development of such extensive and -~ detailed standards for Pitkin County is beyond the scope of this project. (d) Water Quality and Quantity In addition to adopting river/stream corridor setbacks, the county should consider adopting a comprehensive soil erosion and storm water Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 14 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 management ordinance. Although such an ordinance is beyond the scope of this project, the consulting team has supplied county staff with several examples of comprehensive regulations adopted in other jurisdictions (e.g., Dane County (Madison), Wisconsin). Colorado Revised Statutes 30-28-133 requires that counties only approve subdivisions when an adequate water supply has been demonstrated - but the types of documentation required to obtain approvals vary widely among counties. We heard a significant number of complaints that Pitkin County's current standard requiring adjudicated proof of adequate water prior to any subdivision approval is difficult and expensive to satisfy. The more common practice in Colorado is to require documentation from a certified hydrologic engineer (rather than a water court) that the development has access to a 100-300 year water supply. Some counties that use this alternative approach apply it at the "concept plan" or "sketch plan" stage of subdivision review (prior to any engineering or surveying work) - while others allow applicants to proceed on through the preliminary plat stage based on such a letter. 2. Enact Rural Character Protection Standards To meet the goal of better protecting and enhancing the rural character and landscape of Pitkin County, we recommend several new regulations be considered. (a) Hillside Protection The County currently has very strict standards prohibiting most development on slopes in excess of 30 percent. County regulations also attempt to keep development out of the foreground and meadows on most parcels. The result is that development is guided to moderately steep, but highly visible slopes, for which few protective standards existing. The County should consider a wide range of standards that will make this hillside development fit better with the landscape. For example, Salt Lake County, Utah, has adopted comprehensive regulations that restrict the height of retaining walls, limit the amount of cutting on hillsides, and restrict the width and length of driveways, among other things. Additionally, the County's current exception for driveway and road improvements across previously disturbed very steep slopes (>30%) should be rewritten to provide stronger environmental and visual protection (e.g., limit length of run across a 30%+ slope). (b) Vegetation Preservation/Clearing, Grubbing, Grading Standards While the current code contains several provisions recommending preservation of natural vegetation on a site, for the most part they are very vague and unenforceable. The county should consider a permitting system that requires a fully approved development plan prior to any Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 15 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 clearing of vegetation and places a numerical limit on the percentage of vegetation or tree canopy that can removed from a site or disturbed. In other jurisdictions that have adopted this approach, aerial photos are utilized to determine predevelopment canopy or vegetation coverage so that more costly on-the-ground tree counts are not necessary. Any trees removed might be mitigated on a caliper-for-caliper-or-more basis or through a contribution to a county tree replacement fund. Numerous jurisdictions across the United States have adopted such standards including Fairfax County, Virginia, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Cary, North Carolina. As a related issue, the standards governing site disturbances should address the creation of new ponds. While ponds in some locations undoubtedly have wildlife protection value, ponds that are poorly designed or located can disrupt wildlife corridors. In addition the amount of grading and vegetation changes permitted around new ponds should be addressed in order to avoid unnecessary visual and wildlife impacts on the surrounding area. (c) Protection of Visible Natural Features The code currently contains a mish-mash of provisions relating to protection of prominent features such as ridgelines and scenic views. These provisions need to be consolidated and reviewed to ensure they are not contradictory. Importantly, staff will need to better define what visual resources need protecting and from where. Moreover, review language needs be clarified and made more specific-for example, a requirement that all structures set back a minimum distance (e.g., up to 100 feet) from defined ridgelines; mandatory use of non-reflective, natural colored roof materials, mandatory undergrounding of utilities except where necessary to avoid damage to sensitive environmental areas. (d) Landscaping Currently the County does not have detailed landscaping standards for parking and other sites that are found in most modern codes. According to observers, one reason is that most developments are well-landscaped to meet market demands or to compete in the Growth Management System. 3. Consider Revamped Integrated Site Planning Process There is widespread agreement that the County's current development review ~- system focuses heavily on hazard avoidance. Once a determination is made where a development should not go, a relatively large building envelope is established within which there is relatively wide latitude for the applicant to locate buildings, driveways, and septic systems-particularly if the application is exempt from the Growth Management System. There are only vague prohibitions against siting in visible locations in many instances. In other Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 16 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 words, the review process focuses on where not to build, and once that is defined it does not pay enough attention to defining the best location for development on a tract. The county should consider an alternative review process like that used in Park City, Utah, and several other western jurisdictions-one that carefully defines a building envelope and then prohibits land disturbance outside that envelope (which includes land for driveways, septics, accessory structures, ponds, etc.). The location and size of the envelope takes into account not only hazard areas, but rural character and visual quality as well. In effect, it flips the presumption of developability from the way the current system works. The process would work like this: (a) Hazard areas and sensitive natural resources on a site would be identified. Current and new code .regulations (e.g., increased stream setbacks, revamped wildlife habitat protection provisions) would be applied to define portions of a site off-limits to development. (b) Staff would conduct an on-site analysis with the applicant to assess other site resources (e.g., views, ridgelines, vegetation) and determine the least obtrusive location for the residence, septic system, accessory buildings, driveway, ponds, and stream crossings, for example. (c) The applicant would propose a building envelope or envelopes on a site based on Steps 1 and 2 that provide adequate space for approved structures and uses. Staff would review and approve/disapprove of the propose envelope. Once the envelope was established, any disturbance of vegetation or land outside of it would be strictly prohibited. To make this process work efficiently, staff would be given authority to make minor modifications in development standards if there was a conflict between two standards For example, if applying a 100-foot stream setback and other regulations resulted in the development being pushed too close to a protected ridgeline, staff would be delegated power to modify the stream setback or ridgeline setback requirement by up to 10 percent if they found that there was no significant adverse impact from such modification. Other jurisdictions with ` strong environmental standards have found that this administrative modification process has been very valuable in adding flexibility to the site planning process and avoiding takings claims. Two options for the design of the site planning process would be presented. The first would involve an expansion of the current process, where site planning (currently 1041 review) can occur at any point after zoning or subdivision review (which landowners often prefer because of the perceived certainty it adds to their potential uses of the property). The second would require that site planning occur at or shortly before the issuance of a building Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 17 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 permit (which would avoid the current practice of repeated approvals and amendments of site plans before actual construction on the property). 4. Explore Conservation Subdivision Option The county formerly had a Low Impacts Subdivision (LIS) option in the early 1990s to help implement the Down Valley Plan. It required an owner to set aside 2.5 times the underlying zone density on a parcel as open space in return for a GMQS exemption (e.g., 50 acres in an RS-20 zone district). It allowed up to 4 lots total. For a variety of reasons, this option was repealed about 10 years ago. While the LIS alternative had some shortcomings, it did result in several developments that preserved a significant amount of contiguous open space. Several observers suggested the County explore other tools that might help protect significant blocks of open space while fostering subdivision layouts that respect the County's rural character. Ag.icullu.al Lands '`3 Aq.icuRu.ol Lands Bulle. ~~ ._ ._ .... ... ~ ... _ .. , . ~ ~ _ _ Bulle.~ t Ridge (. ' SrrvNUre Reserved ' ~' ar ~9e .'.. ~ ~ , .... r. ' Tro 1. 5 ~~ 3 R I r g ~,3 ~ ~ r ~ ... 'p v s:'- ~r ~ o @L.k... Con .m oae J Fl ~~ c 3 ~.~ .. SIC ~. ~: ~I N 'b Id, i~ s ~~,F t' ':' ~1. Iloedvh~ H~n n _ .a^,,,..e~ /•n9 rc J ~ ~ -B , ' 0. , . . .. a .. Ai. _. _. _.._._...... _. -L ` ._. _._ _. _B""". .6. ~ ~; .A hu.ol lands grlcu ~ ~ Traditional "cookie cutter" subdivision Conservation Subdivision As a result of these changes, and the other changes discussed in Part II of this document, Pitkin County would have at least six significant tools available to help protect rural character: • Stronger environmental regulations • Rural character standards • Enhanced site planning • Conservation subdivision • Enhanced TDR regulations • The Low Impact Residential zone Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 18 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 4. STREAMLINE PROCEDURES One of the most common comments made during our initial visit to Pitkin County was that the procedures for development review and approval are unclear and time- consuming. Pitkin County is not alone in facing these types of comments, however. Based on our work throughout the U.S., it appears that almost all codes develop more complicated procedures over time, and that the public does not understand many of those procedures. The issue is more complex than usual in Pitkin County because of the interrelationships among zoning and subdivision controls, the Growth Management Quota System, and the Transferable Development Rights system. Although clarifying and simplifying procedures is often time-consuming work, it is also one of the most popular changes that can be made during the development code revision process. a. The Current System In order to understand the proposed changes to development review and approval procedures, we must first review the system of procedures contained in the current code. Article 4 of the current code organizes existing procedures into a "One-Step", a "Two-Step", a "Three Step" and a "Five Step" process. While this approach is logical, it does not appear to accurately mirror how these reviews actually take place. In some cases, additional steps or requirements have been grafted onto these generalized procedures. Even in the simplest cases (i.e., the "One-Step" process) it is possible that the BOCC will be the final decision maker. There is also an Administrative Review process that does not fall into the "step" categorization. Before and after the description of the One-, Two-, Three-, and Four- step processes are general provisions. In addition, there are procedures and sub- procedures for approvals scattered through various other sections of the code - particularly in the GMQS and TDR sections. Those procedures do not fit the One-, Two-, Three-, or Five-Step categorization. As a result, for a county of its size, there is a relatively large number of procedures that differ slightly from each other and that are not clearly labeled as to their function, and it is fairly difficult for a non-expert to understand the differences between them or where to find them in the code. Just as importantly, it is difficult to understand how the various procedures related to each other - i.e., how to go through what is nominally a Two-Step process when a GMQS allocation is also needed or TDRs are - involved. b. General Matters __ In the case of Pitkin County, procedural streamlining will involve a number of discrete tasks. 1. We will need to identify and document those unwritten policies that have evolved within the Planning Department to address issues where the current code is silent or ambiguous. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 19 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2. The merits of those unwritten policies will also need to be discussed with staff and perhaps revised in light of other changes being made in the code. 3. Another task will be to eliminate unused or obsolete provisions in the code - such as some of the culvert requirements and the distinction between Category 1 and Category 2 building permits. 4. We will clarify public notice procedures in order to make compliance easier and to reduce the number of instances in which hearings and decisions must be postponed due to a technical failure to meet notice requirements. These types of delays often inconvenience members of the public who did receive (imperfect) notice and showed up for the hearing as much as they inconvenience the applicant. 5. The names of the various procedures will be changed to better indicate the types of approvals they relate to and the ultimate decision-maker involved. 6. As illustrated below, we will create a master table identifying each reviewing body and each decision-making body involved in any development review process, and will clarify whether their role is to review an application, make a decision on the application, or hear an appeal from a lower level decision-maker. This table will also clarify what types of notice (if any) are required for each type of decision. Procedure Preapp. Review and Decision- Notices Lapse of Conf. Making Body. Approval Re d.? Staff PC CC BOA HO ~ o, ~ ~ w Code Amendments (Text) / §3.5 NO R R / DM T H /H Rezonings (Map) / §3.6 1'GS R R / DM T T T 2 ~. 3 years H / FI for concept Tian Minor Subdivisions / §3.9 NO DM A A 30 days to record Conditional Use Approval / §3.14 CBS R R / DM T T T 3 years H /I1 Site Plan Review / §3.15 YI/S DM A A ?years Temporary Use Permits / §3.17 NO DM A 30 days Minor Modifications / §3.19 NU DM A n/a Variances / §3.20 NO R DM / T T T 1 year H 7. We will create a new procedure through which applicants and the public can request a written interpretation of code provisions from the Planning Director, and the staff will maintain a written record of such interpretations to Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 20 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 promote consistency in decision-making over time. This power will not extend to interpretations of policy, but will be limited to those inevitable situations where there are differences of opinion regarding the plain language of definitions, the measurement of standards, and technical aspects of procedures. 8. Although some procedures in the current code clearly state that applications must be complete before they will be processed, others do not. The concept of a determination of completeness will be added as a general provision applicable to all applications. These provisions would authorize staff to waive submissions or supporting materials that are not relevant to the facts of the proposed development. c. Substantive Improvements 1. Empowering Staff One important way to promote faster and more consistent decision making is to allow planning staff to make more determinations as to whether applications meet the requirements of the code - and a code with clearer standards and criteria can allow them to do that more often. The trend towards. greater use of administrative decision-making is pervasive in Colorado and nationwide, as local governments face pressure for more efficient and less politicized decisions. We heard a second concern that staff often sends applications to referral agencies, receive the responses, and simply transmit them to the decision- making body for consideration during the hearing. However, it is common for the responses of referral agencies to be inconsistent with one another. We recommend that staff be permitted and directed to reconcile those inconsistencies -- or at least recommend which of the inconsistent recommendations should prevail in a given case. In addition, we heard a concern that the number of decisions that call for hearings before adecision-making body (whether the hearing officer, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, or the BOCC) require staff to focus most of their time on preparation for hearings rather than problem-solving for applicants and citizens for applications are not yet on the hearing docket. We recommend that the number and complexity of procedures be reduced, so that demands on staff time are reduced. Staff should also be empowered and directed to meet with applicants, caucus groups, and others to ensure that applications are understood and that differences can be worked out (if possible) between the time the application is _, filed and the time a hearing occurs. Where staff is authorized to make an administrative decision, will provide an option for the director to move the determination to the hearing officer level based on specific findings that the application is unusually complex or potentially controversial. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 21 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2. Distinguishing Between Major and Minor Approvals In its current form, the Pitkin County Code sometimes requires that even minor matters -such as the addition of a deck or the relocation of a proposed building by a few feet -- go through afull-blown "1041 review". There seems to be a consensus that there are some matters so minor that they should be approved by planning staff as an administrative matter over the counter - a practice that is more common in most jurisdictions than it is in Pitkin County. As part of the code rewrite, we will clearly define the line between "major" and "minor" matters and allow staff to handle some of the minor ones (such as an application for a deck) without the need for site planning or 1041 review. In many communities, these types of minor permits cover matters such as decks, landscaping, retaining walls, and fences. 3. Submissions to "Re-Vest" Rights Another issue in procedural efficiency is the re-submission of an existing development approval simply to extend (or restart) the vesting period. Obviously, this issue will need to be resolved in conjunction with the County's overall approach to vested rights, which is discussed in more detail in the discussion of Certainty below. Regardless of whether the vested rights period is extended or not, however, the County may want to empower staff to consider the re-submission of existing approvals (especially in non- controversial cases). We will need further guidance from the County Commissioners on the scope of this authority. A solution that allowed the county to ensure that new development standards are met, while allowing the applicant to avoid another discretionary approval process, would be a significant improvement over the current system. 4. Denials and "Takings" Under the current code, a property owner who knows in advance that his or her property contains no building site that will pass a 1041 review still must obtain denials from the Planning Commission and/or the BOCC before beginning a "takings" proceeding in front of the hearing officer. We heard that in several cases the landowner who knew that his or her application could not meet the letter of the 1041 regulations -- and who would therefore be denied the right to build on a platted lot through the normal review procedures -- had already located the least-damaging site available for construction, which the hearing officer subsequently approved for construction. Some have questioned why the applicant should go through the time and expense of a formal denial before beginning the takings review. To avoid this situation, the revised code will clarify that if the Planning Director determines that there is no buildable site that will meet site planning/1041 requirements, then the applicant, at its option, will be permitted to proceed directly to the hearing officer takings determination. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 22 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 5. Refining the Role of the Hearing Officer In general, we recommend the use of hearing officers to hear decisions that are not administrative and that require some degree of significant judgment as to how to apply the code to the facts at hand. Stated another way, the hearing officer should be involved in the hearing of "takings" issues and certain types of appeals, but should not be involved in making routine site planning decisions. Pitkin County has an advantage over many Colorado communities in that it has already established a hearing officer system and has experience using they system. However, we heard some concern that some of the matters that currently go to the hearing officer are in fact administrative matters that simply involve the application of standard conditions to a proposed development. To the greatest degree possible, site planning decisions -even in complex cases - should be delegated to staff, with much clearer and more objective standards to guide their decision-making, and adequate appeal and call-up provisions to allow higher level review if necessary. With regard to cases that are heard by the hearing officer, it may be appropriate to have a "call-up" provision through which two or more members of the BOCC can call up a hearing officer decision for review and possible modification of the decision. 6. Refining the Role of the Board of Adjustment During our initial interviews, we heard concerns that it is inefficient for an applicant to go to both the Board of Adjustment for a variance, and then to the hearing officer far a related development approval. To the degree possible under Colorado law, we will modify the current provisions to allow variations of development standards related to the design of a proposed project to go to the hearing officer, while variances related to existing properties and hardships remain with the Board of Adjustment. 7. Clarifying How GMQS Works The Pitkin County Growth Management Quota System is one of the most sophisticated growth management systems currently in use in the western U.S., and it has had a significant impact on the appearance and character of - the County. Interestingly, its impact has been both direct (by encouraging competition for higher development quality and capping the overall amount of new square footage that can be build in urban and rural areas) and indirect (by creating an incentive to look for types of development that will not require -~ GMQS approval -such as the use of transferable development rights). However, there have been many suggestions about how the system might be changed to better help implement the Comprehensive Plan, or to address caucus group concerns, or simply to reduce the uncertainty that many people associate with the operation of the GMQS system. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 23 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 We will review the current scoring criteria to eliminate overlaps between those criteria and the enhanced standards for environmental protection and rural character protection in the new code. Already, the code contains an overlap, in that some of the current criteria for energy-efficiency are already lower than the standards required by the County's "green building" program. These types of overlaps are likely to increase under the new standards, and the GMQS criteria will need to be reviewed to eliminate them. We will also consider whether commercial and lodge properties should be removed from the GMQS system, because of the low volume of lodge and commercial development occurring in the County. Incidentally, one alternative to the current point-based system (sometimes called a "beauty contest" system) would be a lottery system. As a practical matter, an informed decision about the potential benefits of a lottery system cannot be made until the improvements in rural character and protection standards discussed above, and the corresponding changes to the GMQS system (also discussed above) have been made. At that time, we will discuss the potential pros and cons of a lottery approach. However, because of the numerous new policy choices that need to be made in the design of a lottery system, as well as time required for public involvement and the costs of producing iterative drafts of the system, the draft the detailed design of a new lottery system as a replacement for GMQS is probably beyond the scope of this project. 8. Integrating GMQS and TDRs with Zoning and Subdivision One complex aspect of procedural streamlining will be the full integration of the GMQS system and the Transferable Development Rights procedures into the County's overall approach to development processing. In the current code, they are clearly. later additions and their procedures are in separate parts of the code. Moreover, those procedures do not fit into the One-, Two-, Three- and Five-Step review typology set forth in Article 4, and their relationships to other procedures is unclear. As part of the current code rewrite effort, we will set forth the GMQS and TDR procedures in greater detail, and on a parallel footing with other zoning, subdivision, conditional use, and permit procedures. We will also clarify in a table and flow chart form the order in which these determinations must be made -for example, when an applicant is attempting to use TDRs as part of a GMQS application for a subdivision. Pitkin County. Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 24 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 5. IMPROVE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Pitkin County is one of the few communities in Colorado that has created an active and successful Transferable Development Rights program. Success in this field is rare not only in Colorado, but also nationally -only about 150 communities in the U.S. have created TDR systems, and a majority of those systems have logged only a handful of transfers. In contrast, a review of the Pitkin County TDR program completed in December 2003 found that the County's program has been very active. The study showed that: • Approvals have been given for 160 TDRs, that 130 TDR certificates have actually been issued since 1997, and that the number issued each year has fluctuated between 11 and 37. • Of the 130 certificates issued, 47 have been used on development parcels (and have therefore been extinguished). Of those 47, 29 were used to obtain a right to build a new home, and 18 were used to increase the size of a home beyond the size otherwise permitted. • Of the 113 county approvals for TDRs that have not yet been used on a development site, 40 would create a right to a new home, and 73 are for added floor area. • Finally, requests to use an additional 43 development rights are in the pipeline; 15 of which could be used for new homes, and 28 for additional floor area. • 1n general, lot owners in non-B000 approved subdivisions (generally older subdivisions) have chosen to buy TDRs to obtain their development rights or increased house sizes, while property owners in BOCC-approved _ subdivisions have chosen to compete for development rights through the GMQS program. During this code rewrite process, the challenge will be to build on this success and to consider what changes to the TDR system could help ensure an adequate supply of ~- both "sending" and "receiving" parcels while also helping to achieve more of the County's land use goals, as articulate in the Comprehensive Plan. Throughout this process, it will be important to keep an eye on the balance between total available TDRs and the sites on which they can be used. It is very common for communities to be able to identify many sending areas (i.e., areas where they would like to see Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 25 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 development potential reduced), and very few receiving areas (i.e., areas where TDRs could be used to build more houses or bigger houses). If TDRs cannot be used on a significant number of sites, in a fairly painless and predictable manner, then their value will go down, and the number of landowners interested in selling TDRs will also decline. To date, Pitkin County has largely avoided this problem. We anticipate that it may take some significant staff time to help collect information regarding the volumes of TDRs that might be created or absorbed under various scenarios in order to maintain this balance in the future. In addition, we will consider other refinements of the system, and may include an option for a landowner to transfer a development right between two adjacent (or almost- adjacent) parcels that he or she owns in return for placing a conservation easement on the more environmentally or visually sensitive lot. a. Sending Areas At present, TDRs can only be transferred away from lots designated as Rural and Remote zone district. There have been many suggestions for expanding the types of lands from which TDRs could be sold to include (1) agricultural lands, and/or (2) potentially unbuildable development parcels, and (3) land that is or will be subject to a conservation easement or part of a conservation subdivision. Each of these proposals has. pros and cons associated with it. While transfers of TDRs from agricultural lands could be a powerful tool to help promote and maintain the County's rural character, the amount of those lands could potentially flood the TDR market and devalue TDRs for all sellers. We will need to do some additional analysis with staff to understand the amount of additional TDRs that might be created under various scenarios, and to review possible implications. When this has been done, then the eligible sending areas must be clearly identified through a listing of zone districts or through mapping. The transfer of TDRs from constrained lots could help remove the pressure for "takings" determinations, but could increase the total amount of development in the county, since some constrained lots would never be built on and would not be able to prove a "takings". One variation on this idea would be to allow the hearing officer or BOCC to issue a TDR as a form of relief and compensation when a potential taking can be shown, so that the resulting development occurs in an area better able to accommodate it. With respect to the third variation, while issuing TDRs to land that is subject to a conservation easement may provide additional encouragement for that type of easement, it would in fact constitute "compensation" to the landowner, who might then become ineligible for the tax benefits that usually accompany the granting of an easement. In effect then, the owner would be choosing between a TDR and a tax deduction, so the actual incentive would only be the amount by which the value of a TDR exceeded the value of the tax deduction (if any). This issue will require significant additional discussion with staff and review of TDR data. However, our initial recommendation is that the county decide which Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 26 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 of these three potential expansions would contribute most to the achievement of the protection of rural character in the county, and that any expansion be limited (through the use of qualification criteria), so that the potential supply of TDRs not be increased by more than 50% in the short term. b. Receiving Areas The identification of workable receiving areas is always more difficult than the identification of sending area, and Pitkin County is not an exception to this rule. In fact, almost all of the caucus plans call for the transfers of TDRs out of the caucus area, and recommend either banning or restricting transfer of TDRs into the area. Because of the importance of the house size issue in Pitkin County, this section should be read in conjunction with the discussion of home sizes that follows. As noted above, the issue of identifying potential TDR receiving areas and simplifying their use in those areas is one of the most difficult aspects of a successful TDR program. During our initial visits, we received recommendations that (1) TDR urban and rural receiving areas be pre-mapped, so that an individualized determination of the appropriateness is not necessary, (2) TDR receiving areas be pre-mapped inside the Urban Growth Boundary, with possible use outside the UGB still requiring an individualized review. This issue will require significant additional discussion with staff and review of TDR data. However, our initial recommendation is that TDR receiving areas be pre-mapped within the Urban Growth Boundary, and that TDRs be made usable by right (i.e., without an individualized determination) within these areas. This pre-identification (or mapping) of TDR receiving areas is a key to successful operation of the system. Use of a TDR to create a new development right in areas outside the UGB would still require a determination` of appropriateness. That determination might still be made by staff. Since these siting decisions involve the application of criteria to site-specific characteristics, that determination should probably be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than by staff or the BOCC. Although we heard requests that the use of any TDR be subject to asite-specific review of the "visibility impacts" of the resulting home, we do not believe such a review should apply to sites within the UGB. Outside the UGB, we recommend that such a - review only be required if the house exceeds a threshold size of 5,750 square feet. In addition, we recommend that the potential market for TDRs be increased through changes to the maximum home size as discussed below. c. Home Size The maximum home size issue is closely related to the issue of TDR receiving areas, since TDRs can be used to obtain the right to build either a new home that is exempt from the GMQS system or to build a larger home. At present, the base by-right house size in rural areas of the county is 5,750 square feet, but homes Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 27 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 inside the Urban Growth Boundary are not subject to the same limit, and can in fact be as large as 15,000 square feet. Importantly, focusing on the potential use of TDRs to increase house sizes in a broader range of circumstances (i.e., inside the UGB), could significantly increase the receiving potential for the TDR system without creating new development rights. In addition, some of the community concerns about the location of new homes in inappropriate locations also apply to the construction of large houses in highly visible locations. During our initial visit, we heard the following suggestions: • The base size of a permitted house inside the UGB be reduced to 5,750, with larger homes possible through the purchase of TDRs (just as they are in the rural areas) which would increase the potential market for TDRs; • That the perceived imbalance between the use of a TDR to add 2500 square feet, versus using it to build a home of 5,750 square feet needs to addressed; • That the relationship between the use of a TDR to add 2,500 square feet of space and the 1,000 square foot "one time exemption" be explained; • That we reconcile apparent inconsistencies in the code between FAR limits and the 5,750 square foot (and 1,000 square foot exemption) limits in different parts of the code. • That we create a new mechanism by which an older house on an existing lot in the rural area may be deed restricted as affordable housing instead of being torn down to make way for a new residence, and that the square footage of the older house not count against the possible square footage of a new house on the same lot. • That houses larger than some number (say 10,000) square feet only be allowed on large parcels, and that the maximum house size be tied to the amount of land on the site subject to a conservation easement - or, in the alternative, that only TDRs created from land that is subject to a conservation easement be permitted to be used to increase maximum home size. • That adjacent BOCC-approved lots in common ownership be permitted to aggregate the 5,750 square foot base house size allowance on each lot onto a single lot (perhaps subject to some maximum size cap) so long as the - remaining lots were subject to a conservation easement; • That environmental standards (including visibility impact review) apply to the use of TDRs on BOCC-approved lots (i.e., that the current exemption when TDRs are used to expand house size on such lots be repealed). As can be seen by the above list, the effort to manage home sizes in Pitkin County has given rise to several complex and inter-related issues. This is an area where we will need to have additional discussions with staff regarding the pros and cons of each suggestion. We do agree, however, that managing Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 28 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 maximum sizes in the county is very important to preservation of the character of many areas of the County. It is also important to achieve many other county goals articulated in the Comprehensive Plan - so the existing system should be refined rather than deleted. Based on our initial reviews, however, our preliminary recommendations are as follows: • The maximum size of a home permissible without the use of TDRs within the Urban Growth Boundary should be reduced to 5,750 square feet - to match the approach used in the rural areas -which would help achieve multiple plan goals and would expand the TDR receiving potential within the County. • That the owners of adjacent parcels be able to aggregate square footage allowances from each lot onto a single lot -subject to a maximum size limit consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • That the owner of an existing home be able to use the 1,000 square foot one- time exemption together with a purchased TDR (i.e., that the owner not be forced to break an expansion project into two parts simply because of the two different allowances) -- subject to a maximum size limit consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • That the perceived imbalance between the value of TDRs for the creation of a new development right (5,750 square feet) and for expansion (2,500) square feet be addressed by requiring that -for new development rights created in the future -two development rights would be required to create a new development right, and only one would be required fora 2,500 square foot expansion. The ability of the public to understand the system could be improved by clarifying that two TDRs give the right to build a 5,000 square foot home (which carries with it the right to build a 750 square foot garage if desired), while one TDR gives the right to build a 2,500 square foot addition. 6. IMPROVE CERTAINTY Perhaps the most common and deeply felt comment by frequent code users was that _ the County development review process was heavy with uncertainty. Interviewees and staff pointed to two primary sources for this uncertainty. First, the code is replete with vague and unclear review standards that, for example, __ require new development to be "compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity" (special use review criterion) or direct that some potential impacts be avoided to the "maximum extent possible" (environmental standards). Neither of these terms is defined in any meaningful way. Additionally, some users assert that even if code standards are met, the standards can be trumped at the end of the process by decision- Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 29 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 makers invoking general policy statements found in the code (e.g., Article 2) or relevant land-use plans. A second problem area involves vested rights. Critics complain that the existing vested rights provisions in the code (Section 4-140) are difficult to interpret and do not make clear to which type of approvals vested rights attach. But an even more serious concern according to many interviewees is that the County routinely invokes what they see as a loophole in state vested rights law that allows local governments to continue to enact and apply "laws of generally applicability" to a property that erode the intent of the state vested rights statute. They suggested that the County limit such general regulatory changes to matters of serious public health and safety concerns (not, for example, scenic quality, or building size considerations). In reviewing vested rights provisions, we will keep in mind that the single most important aspect of development that most applicants want to vest is the right to a house of given size, and that changes to subsidiary regulations or impact fees are often accepted as long as basic house size is protected. A subsidiary issue raised by several observers relates to the term of a vested right. Under state law, a vested right attaches for three years unless otherwise provided for in the local development code. Three years may be a relatively short period for a large project or if market conditions slow a development. Several people suggested that the County needs a mechanism by which a vested right can be granted for a longer period or extended if the applicant provides compensating amenities to the community (for example, additional open space). Several of the caucus plans also contain this suggestion as an incentive for development that is more consistent with the policies of those plans. Some caucus groups have suggested that the County create a "non-development" agreement process by which a landowner could agree not to pursue any development for a set period (e.g., 10 years) and agree to preserve a significant amount of open space when the property was ultimately developed. In return, the County would agree that when an application was submitted in the future, it would be governed by the regulations in existence at the time the non-development agreement was signed, thereby insulating the landowner for any potential ensuing reductions in densities (downzoning) or imposition of more stringent review standards. Since this is an alternative approach to the vesting of rights, we suggest that this idea be incorporated as one of many issues that could be addressed in a development agreement between a _ landowner and the county. a. Current Code Regulations Even a cursory reading of the land use code reveals a substantial number of -~ regulatory standards that are vague on their face and are not defined. County officials and private sector representatives alike agree on this problem that makes the code hard to administer and life uncertain for applicants. Some of the most serious shortcomings can be found in the environmental/scenic quality standards and in the special review criteria. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 30 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 With regard to vested rights, the current provisions in Section 4-140 are somewhat confusing. Unlike most vested rights provisions in other Colorado jurisdictions, Section 4-140 does not clearly spell out which approvals are site specific development plans to which vested rights may attach under state law. Moreover, the definition of "site specific development plan" in Article 8 refers the user back to Section 4-20 of the land use code and the "detailed submission approval" described there. However, Section 4-20 merely lists the various types of development review processes in the code. The County recognized these shortcomings, and steps were taken to draft clearer vested rights provisions in 2001. The revised sections represented a significant improvement over the current provisions, setting forth clearly exactly what permit qualified for vested rights; however, while the proposed revisions passed on first reading, they were never enacted into law. The current vested rights section does contain a useful provision regarding extension of vested rights by the BOCC. An extension can be approved, for example, if the applicant has already dedicated land to the County or paid impact fees. However, it is our understanding the County has not been consistently applying this section in practice. b. Evaluation and Recommendations The issue of certainty as it relates to review standards and criteria must be tackled on a comprehensive basis by either eliminating or defining vague criteria throughout the code. As discussed later in the section on environmental/rural character protection, there are certain recurring terms that should either be rooted out or clearly defined. "Maximum extent possible" is a prime candidate for replacement. Terms like "compatibility" can be useful, but an attempt must be made to define the word in the context it is being used. To illustrate, if a standard requires that new development be "compatible" with other homes in an area, "compatibility" can be defined in terms of materials, height, mass, and other criteria that do have meaning. The goal here should be to make clear to a person of average intelligence what is required of them before they submit an application-the essence of due process. The uncertainty issue as it related to invocation of code and plan policies as a substitute for code standards is at once a more difficult and easier challenge. Colorado courts allow local governments to rely on land-use plan policies in - reviewing a development application if two conditions are met: The code must specifically cite those policies as decision-making criteria and those policies must be clear and certain enough to serve as standards. As discussed below, our approach will be to codify policies as standards where that is possible, and to `-~ explicitly cross-reference remaining policies as criteria to be considered in the decision-making process. The development process uncertainties noted above are more problematic in some respects. While it appears that the number of distinct types of review processes could and should be whittled down and consolidated, the more Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 31 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 controversial issue will be limitations on public hearings and BOCC reviews. While most applicants would obviously like to limit the number of public hearings on a development proposal to reduce processing time and potential controversy, such hearings give neighbors an opportunity to comment and the afford decision- making bodies an opportunity to scrutinize a proposal. Because such hearings play an invaluable role in some instances, we recommend that public hearing and planning and zoning/BOCC review be kept in place for major projects. On the other hand, the clear trend in Colorado and around the nation is to delegate much greater review and approval authority to professional staff- particularly in the area of site plan review and more routine approvals. The city council retains the ability to "call-up" the application by a majority vote. In other jurisdictions, an interested party can appeal staff decisions. The call-up and appeals provisions thus provide a safety valve in controversial cases and ensure the ability to hold a public hearing. As discussed earlier, in section 4.C, we recommend that the County seriously consider delegating greater review authority to staff, which in tandem with clearer and more specific review standards, will make the review process much more certain and efficient. With regard to vested rights, the county should reconsider the draft 2001 vested rights provisions. These new provisions are much more certain than existing code vested rights rules, because they clearly specify to which types of approvals vested rights may attach. With selected revisions (such as providing for vesting of administratively approved site plans after the County Commissioners have approved a rezoning or subdivision), these proposed vested rights provisions can greatly reduce the uncertainty currently associated with development in the County. However, we do not recommend that the county unduly restrict itself in the future by adopting a limited interpretation of what constitutes a "law of general applicability" for purposes of protecting vested rights. Defining what is a serious public health and safety concern versus agarden-variety one is an often fruitless task, one over which reasonable people can and often do differ. On the other hand, county officials may want to keep in mind these concerns that were expressed by a number of thoughtful interviewees when next considering imposing new regulations that could erode existing vested rights. _ Importantly, we do not recommend that the multiple new standards that we are recommending as part of this comprehensive code update (i.e.., beefed-up environmental and rural character standards) be applied to existing legally subdivided vacant residential and commercial lots in approved subdivisions or __ planned developments. The only exception might be new standards that have a very clear public health-related rationale (i.e., if the County were to adopt additional regulations restricting development on very steep slopes). Finally, we think that the "non-development" development agreement idea outlined in Section 4 above has some merit and bears further discussion. The Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 32 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 County arguably already has authority to enter in such agreements, but a clear framework set forth in the code might prove helpful. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 33 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 PART III. SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS In addition to the six major issues summarized above, we have the following comments on specific sections of the current code. ARTICLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS a. The list of articles in Section 1-20-010 will be amended to match the new outline of the revised code. b. Pursuant to discussions with staff, the text of 1-20-020 will be replaced with a graphic flow chart guiding the reader how to use the code, as well as a table incorporating the material in the current figure 1-1 (as updated to reflect the provisions of the revised code) c. Section 1-40 will be significantly expanded to include more substantive descriptions of the purpose of the code, and to tie those purposes to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. d. In light of the expanded scope of Section 1-40 (Purposes of the Land Use Code), Section 1-50 (Basis for the Land Use Code) is no longer necessary and will be deleted e. figure 1-1 will be updated to a table containing the same general information (revised to match the substance of the new code). Since the submission requirements are being removed from the code and placed into an administrative document, the column for submission requirements will be deleted and replaced with a text notice directing the reader to the administrative document. ARTICLE 2. LAND USE POLICIES Because there have been criticisms that the meanings of some policies are not clear, and that their use in the development review and approval process is sometimes uncertain, the existing land use policies should be tightened up. Some policies address topics that are also covered by development standards (or will be after the inclusion of the rural character and environmental protection standards discussed in Part II of this document). To avoid this overlap, policies that overlap with objective development standards will be removed. The remaining policies will be clearly cross-referenced in development review and approval procedures as factors to be considered in approving or denying applications. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 34 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 ARTICLE 3. LAND USE STANDARDS The content of Article 3 will be updated consistent with the six general themes outlined in Part II of this document, and the materials will be reorganized to appear in four separate chapters of the new code: • One section will focus on the creation of distinct zone districts; • A second section will address the uses permitted in each zone district (either by right or with approval), as well as the conditions that apply to that use • A third section will address the dimensional standards governing lot size, setbacks, structure height, and house size in different zone districts. • The fourth chapter will specify development standards applicable to each type of development in the County. This revised organization will make it easier for the reader to find the answer to specific questions, and will also avoid the current situation where almost half of the content of the code is contained in a single chapter. Specific comments on the content of this long chapter include the following. a. Districts and Permitted Uses 1. The text of Section 3-20-010 (Official Zone District Map) will be expanded by adding a provision describing what zoning district and standards apply to a parcel that is split by a zone district boundary line or a county line. This material will be based on draft language prepared by county staff a few years ago. . 2. The table of allowed, prohibited, and special review uses in figure 3-2 will be updated to modernize the list of uses, to categorize them by type, and to better reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the six major themes outlined in Part II of this document. 3. The list of zone districts in Section 3-30-010 will be amended to include new districts such as Federal/Forest, Institutional, and R-35, as well as the newly adopted LIR district. In addition, some districts may be consolidated (such as R-15 and R-15A, or some of the AH/PUD districts). Finally, obsolete or unused districts (such as U and SR) will be deleted. If land has already been mapped into a district that is no longer needed for new development, the district may be left in the code with a note that additional lands cannot be mapped into that district. The new list of district will be grouped by type (for --` example, medium density residential, rural, and affordable housing) to facilitate comparisons among similar districts. The description of the districts may clarify that some are only available inside - or outside -the Urban Growth Boundary. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 35 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 4. The narrative lists of uses contained in subsections (B) and (C) of Sections 3-30-020 through 3-20-260 will be replaced by a single use table covering all zone districts, indicating whether the use is available by right, or as a conditional use, and what use-specific conditions apply to the use. Rather than listing all prohibited uses, the Table will make clear that all uses not permitted as a use-by-right or conditional use are prohibited. Names of uses will be modernized and the number of discrete uses reduced in order to provide fewer, broader use descriptions. In some cases, use-specific standards may provide that a use is only available inside - or outside - of the Urban Growth Boundary. 5. The references to TDRs should be removed from the use lists, since they are not a use in themselves -but only a means to other uses listed in the table. The TDR procedures section of the code will clarify where TDRs can be created and where they can be used. 6. The provisions of all residential zone districts will be reviewed for conformity to the federal Fair Housing Act and the National Manufactured Housing Act. 7. As part of the effort to clarify the purpose and use of PUDS in general, we will clarify the relationship of the AH2/PUD, AH3/PUD, AHO/PUD overlay, and AHP/PUD zone districts to both the AH zone district and the PUD zone district. In the process, we will consider whether the two or more of these districts can be combined. Recent amendments to the AH, AH2/PUD, and AH3/PUD zone districts will be incorporated. 8. Since the Comprehensive Plan now covers all areas of the County, we will consider whether the U (Unclassified) District is still necessary, and will delete it if possible. 9. Some of the existing districts are clearly intended for`use only in one part of the County -such as the OF districts and the Village districts. We will consider whether there is a more consistent way to address these types of caucus-specific concerns. In addition, in light of the improvements being suggested to the environmental and rural character standards, we will consider whether some of the area specific concerns can be realized without the need for such tailored districts in the future. 10.The adult use regulations ordinance approved in 1996 will be incorporated into the new code. 11.The current draft of the cell tower regulations will be finalized and integrated into the code. 12. Recent amendments permitting accessory uses with bathing facilities will be incorporated. 13.The recently adopted LIR district will be integrated into the revised code Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 36 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 14. References to Low Impact Subdivisions (now repealed) will either be deleted from the revised code or clearly marked to indicate that it is no longer available to new subdividers or re-subdividers. b. Dimensional and Development Standards 1. The narrative lists of dimensional requirements contained in subsection (D) of Sections 3-30-020 through 3-30-260 will be replaced by a single table of dimensional standards covering all zone districts (i.e., an expanded version of current figure 3-1). In the process, we will implement the changes to maximum home size discussed in Part II of this document. We will also clarify that the FAR limits are upper limits that, in many cases, can only be achieve through the use of TDRs, and that cannot be exceeded even with TDRs. 2. Recent amendments to the AH2/PUD district in 3-40-071 will be integrated into the revised code. 3. Recent amendments relating to accessory structures with bathing facilities will be integrated to apply to the AFR-10, RS-20, RS-30; and RS-160 zone districts. 4. In consolidating the information in Section 3-50-020 (Road Setbacks) into a consolidated dimensional table, we will consider reducing the current 200 foot rural setback along highways, since many parcels cannot meet the standard, which creates "takings" situations. 5. The stream setbacks set forth in Section 3-50-030 will be moved into the Environmental and Rural Character protection standards described in Part II of this document. 6. The Environmental and Aesthetic Standards in Section 3-50-040 shall be significantly strengthened as described in Part II of this document. 7. The grading and fill provisions in Section 3-60-030 will be significantly strengthened to address over-grading of sites, and to address the visibility of grading activities. 8. The scenic overlay district in Section 3-60-040 will be renamed to avoid any implication that it is a zone district, and will be significantly strengthened to protect rural character and to address impacts from large houses as discussed in Part II of this document. Rather than having its own procedure, these regulations will be integrated as a criteria approval (as applicable, __. based on location) for all developments through standard approval procedures. 9. The scenic quality standards of Section 3-60-050 will be strengthened and integrated into the new rural character provisions, or into the visual screening requirements for certain types of uses and facilities. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 37 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 10.The recently-adopted amendments to the steep slope requirements will be integrated into the revised code, and will be reconciled with the existing provisions of Section 3-60-070. Based on discussions with staff, we will consider whether further revisions are necessary to provisions affecting slopes greater than 30%, or to the way in which slopes are measured. We will also add new steep slope provisions to ensure that development is more environmentally and visually compatible (i.e., through limits on the heights of visible retaining walls both upslope and downslope of development). 11.The water supply provisions of Section 3-70-100 will be strengthened to require a documented adequate supply of "wet" water for development to proceed. In light of these new standards, we will consider whether it is necessary to retain the current policy of requiring a final water decree before performing even conceptual approval of subdivisions. 12. As addressed in Part II above, the current "1041" provisions of Section 3- 80 will be integrated into a broader and more comprehensive set of standards to protect the environment and rural character. The fact that these regulations are grounded in the 1041 powers will be noted. Some of the subsections of 3-80 contain free-standing review, approval, and appeal procedures for reviewing specific aspects of development, and those will be integrated into the consolidated procedures chapter. 13. Since the site selection provisions of Section 3-90 concern procedures, rather than development standards, they will be relocated to the consolidated procedures chapter. c. GMQS, TDRs, and PUDs 1. The GMQS scoring criteria in Sections 3-130-14fl and 150 will be reviewed and significantly simplified to remove any inconsistencies or overlap with the revised rural character and environmental protection standards. 2. Because of the length of the lists, the GMQS exemptions in Sections 3- 150-030, 040, and 050 will be organized into a table. Similarly, all of the exemptions related to affordable housing in Sections 3-150-100 and 110 will be organized into a table. 3. Some of the general baseline standards for the GMQS standards in _ Sections 3-150 and 3-160 will be covered by general development requirements applicable to all development in the County, and those standards will not need to be repeated in these sections. 4. The PUD provisions in Section 3-170 will be revised to move from a - mandatory PUD system (with exemptions) to a system in which layouts are done through a site planning system wherever possible. In most jurisdictions, PUDs are zoning tools, or joint zoning and subdivision tools. The purposes and uses of PUDs will be clarified and their potential uses will be narrowed, Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 38 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 and the standards applicable to them will be made more objective and predictable. 5. Recent amendments to the rural growth management incentives and exemptions will be incorporated. d. Other Matters 1. The content of Section 3-110 (Improvements and Services) will be carried over into a separate section of the new code addressing utility systems, and consistency with these policies will be a criterion for granting of development approvals, including subdivisions. We will consider whether changes to these standards need to be made to improve consistency with, and implementation of, the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The provisions concerning Affordable Housing of Section 3-130-020 will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan goals in this area, and we will consider whether other standards in the code need to be revised to promote this goal. We will also consider whether there are any effective ways to promote the provision of affordable rental housing in the wake of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that rental rate controls are unconstitutional. 3. The subdivision exemption procedures of Section 3-190 will be moved to the consolidated procedures chapter of the code. That section will clarify that all land divisions are subject to a defined major and minor subdivision process unless exempted by this list. 4. The grab bag of provisions in Section 3-200 (Minor Activities) will be moved to various sections of the code. Procedures and approval criteria will be moved to the procedures section, while substantive standards will be moved to the development standards chapter. 5. The substance of Section 3-200-90 (Residential Development with more than 15,000 square feet of Residential Floor Area) will be revised to reflect the recently adopted "barn ordinance" and related changes to exempt square footage. 6. The provisions in Section 30-210 regarding Special Review Uses will be moved to the consolidated procedures chapter, and shall be revised to permit staff to make all decisions on Special Review Uses based on the new and more detailed criteria and standards in the revised code (subject to appeal and call up provisions). 7. The criteria for approval of Special Review Uses in 30-210-020 shall be __ strengthened to require compliance with key Comprehensive Plan principles, rather than just consideration of the Comprehensive Plan in general. 8. Section 3-270-050 and the use table will be reviewed for conformance with the National Manufactured Housing Act. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 39 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 9. Section 3-280 will be revised to remove the distinction, in the title, between Category 1 and Category 2 mobile home standards. 10. Section 3-300-020 regarding the discretion of the Planning Director to direct appeals to various entities (i.e., the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or BOCC) shall be revised to include standards to guide the Planning Director's decision. 11.The provisions on Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) in Section 3- 310shall be revised as set forth in Part II of this document above. 12.The provisions of the recently adopted "barn ordinance" shall be integrated into the chapter of the new code addressing dimensional and development standards. 13. Design standards applicable to subdivisions shall be integrated with other development standards, but their applicability to subdivisions shall be clearly noted. Subdivision procedures shall remain in the procedures section of the revised code: ARTICLE 4. PROCEDURES a. The chapter will be revised to make those changes described in Part II above as it relates to procedural streamlining. a. The text of this chapter will be revised to clarify what types of modifications can be addressed as plat amendments and which can be addressed as minor modifications of development permits. b. The existing standards to guide BOCC consideration of code amendments will be strengthened to increase objectivity in the process, and to ensure that amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. Cell tower approval procedures will be clarified, and will be integrated with approval procedures for other Special Review Uses. d. The names of various procedures will be revised to move away from the current naming scheme (i.e., 1-step review, 2-step review) to procedures referencing the types of approval being sought. It appears that the current naming scheme no longer accurately describes the number of steps in several of the procedures. e. The provisions of section 4-10-050 regarding planning and zoning review and referral fees shall be deleted from the code and relocated in an administrative document that can be periodically updated without the need to amend the code. This section will include across-reference authorizing the Planning Department to establish and amend such fees from time to time based on actual costs of processing various types of applications. f. Provisions in this chapter regarding submission materials -such as those in Section 4-40-040 and 4-50-040 -will be removed from the code and relocated Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 40 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 in an administrative document that can be periodically updated without the need to amend the code. g. The current narrative descriptions of which types of applications are subject to which types of review will be replaced by a master table identifying review bodies, decision-making bodies, and appeal bodies. This will be an expanded form of figure 4-7. h. We will explore whether some of the many "special" procedures related to specific types of applications -such as the special provisions for AF-SKI master plans and major amendments in Section 4-60-070 or the Special Provisions for transfer of TDRs in Section 4-60-095 can be integrated into more general purpose procedures. i. The material in Section 4-110 on actions by decision making bodies shall be divided into those provisions of general applicability -which shall appear at the beginning of the procedures chapter -- and those matters addressing subdivision matters, which shall be integrated into the subdivision procedures. j. The provisions of Section 4-140 regarding vested rights shall be revised in accordance with the discussion of such rights in the section on Certainty in Part II of this document. k. Provisions will be added to address the County's "location and extent" powers with respect to facilities of other public agencies under Colorado law. ARTICLE 5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS The provisions of this section will be moved to an administrative manual outside the code that can be periodically updated without the need to amend the code. ARTICLE 6. NON-CONFORMITIES a. The provisions of Section 6-10-001 shall be revised to address the treatment of non-conformities created by the adoption of this revised code (as opposed to previous codes) a. The provisions of Section 6-50-020 shall be revised to ensure conformity with the restrictions on lot merger adopted by the Colorado General Assembly in 2003. b. Anew provision shall be added addressing the continued use, repair, and maintenance, and abandonment of non-conforming signs - c. Detailed clarifications of the existing text, previously drafted by staff but never incorporated, shall be integrated into this section. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 41 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 ARTICLE 7. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT a. The material in Sections 7-10 addresses the creation of all of the administrative bodies with review, decision-making, and appeal powers under the code. Its provisions will be moved to a new chapter specifically addressing review and decision-making bodies, which will appear immediately prior to the chapter on procedures. a. We will review Section 7-20 to ensure that all enforcement powers available under Colorado Revised Statutes are referenced in the code. b. This Section will clarify how on-site construction will be monitored for compliance with conditions imposed at the development permit stage. c. Section 7-10-030(C)(2) concerning the Board of Adjustment should be redrafted to remove internal inconsistencies, to clarity that the Board does not have authority to vary floor area restrictions, and to generally modernize the description of the Board's activities. ARTICLE 8. ARTICLE 8 DEFINITIONS a. This Section will be moved to the end of the code. b. We will review and revise key definitions identified during the initial interview process, including the definitions for "development", "detached caretaker units" (to consider whether than be attached, and if so, to revise the term), and "essential public facilities". c. Missing definitions will be added. During the initial interview process, suggestions were made to add definitions for "board approved subdivision", "non- board approved subdivision", "barn", and "nursery", among others. d. Unused definitions will be removed. At this point, the list of definitions to be removed includes "certificate of incentive/exemption" and "employee dwelling unit". Following our substantive edits to the entire code, we will remove other unused definitions. e. Current definitions will be reviewed for compliance with Colorado and federal law, such as laws relating to group homes, day care, religious institutions, manufactured homes, and stormwater. ARTICLE 9. GROWTH MANAGEMENT a. One major challenge shall be to better integrate the GMQS provisions with __.- other provisions of the code addressing development, approval procedures and standards. To accomplish this goal, the purpose statements from this chapter will be integrated into the overall purpose statements for the code, and the procedures to obtain a GMQS allotment will be integrated into the early stages of each development permit to which it applies. Provisions addressing the need for compliance with all other provisions of the code, as well as provisions on non- Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 42 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 conforming uses and structures, shall be integrated into general provisions addressing those matters. b. To clarify the functioning of the GMQS system, basic limits on house size permitted without the use of TDRs shall be moved to a general section of the code. GMQS and TDR provisions will then be able to focus on exceptions to those limits. c. The scoring criteria for GMQS shall be revised to eliminate any overlap with the revised development standards being developed to protect rural character or the environment. d. The relationship between the 1,000 square foot exemption for small additions, and the use of TDRs for larger additions of square footage, will be clarified as set forth in Part II of this document. e. The substance of the barn exemption contained in the recently adopted "barn ordinance" will be integrated into the table in Section 9-110-030 and the text in various subsections of 9-110. In addition, a new Section will be added titled "Growth Management Exemption for Barns." f. Because of the very low levels of development (and potential development) involved, and to simplify the operation of the GMQS system, we will consider whether section 9-130 (Reserved For Rural Area Commercial Growth Management: Allotments And Competition), and section 9-140 (Reserved For Rural Area Tourist Accommodation Growth Management: Allotments And Competition) should be deleted from the code. g. The provisions of Sections 9-150-21 on Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Incentive/Exemption and 9-150-22 on Issuance of Certificate of Incentive/Exemption at Building Permit will be revised to match current practice. ARTICLE 10. FAIR SHARE REQUIREMENTS a. The provisions of this section shall be integrated with other code provisions addressing land dedications, such as those in Section 3-130. b. School district fees for the REI school district will included in this section of the code. c. This section will be reviewed for compliance with Senate Bill B15, adopted - in 2001, which governs the use of development impact fees in Colorado. d. The procedures established in Section 10-190 will be integrated into the chapter consolidating all other provisions of the code. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 43 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 PART IV. ANNOTATED OUTLINE This section of the document outlines the proposed reorganization of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and summarizes the substance of each section and subsection. All changes discussed in Part II (Major Themes for Improvement) and Part III (Section-by- Section Comments) above will be reflected in the appropriate sections of the revised outline -although not all of those changes are specifically repeated in Part IV. The reorganized code has 11 sections, as follows: 1. General Provisions 2. Review and Approval Procedures 3. Zone Districts 4. Permitted Uses 5. Dimensional Requirements 6. GMQS Allotments and Scoring 7. Development Standards 8. Fair Share Requirements and Development Exactions 9. Non-Conforming Uses, Lots, Structures, and Signs 10. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11. Definitions and Rules of Interpretation = ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1-10 Title and Short Title The material from section 1-10 (Title and Short Title) will be carried over here. 1-20 Power and Authority The material from section 1-60 (Power and Authority) will be carried over here. In addition, Colorado law provides several specific grants of authority to address -~ different land use issues (such as adult uses, weeds, and fireworks), and specific citations to those sources of authority will be added, as applicable. A reference to the new grant of statutory authority for development impact fees will be added. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 44 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 1-30 Repeal and Reenactment The material from section 1-30 (Repeal and Re-Enactment) will be carried over here. 1-40 Purposes The material from section 1-40 (Purposes of the Land Use Code) will be significantly expanded to include more substantive descriptions of the purpose of the code, and to tie those purposes more closely to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Because the growth management provisions will be integrated into the land use standards and procedures, the GMQS purposes set forth in section 9-100-010 (GMQS--Purposes) will be integrated into this section. Similarly, the purposes listed in section 10-100 (Fair Share-Purpose and Applicability) will also appear here. 1-50 How to Use This Code The material from section 1-20 (Organizational Format) will be will be replaced with a graphic flow chart guiding the reader how to use the code, as well as a table incorporating the material in the current figure 1-1 (as updated to reflect the provisions of the revised code, and with the column for submission requirements replaced by cross-references to an administrative document). 1-60 Applicability The material from section 1-80 (Application) will be carried over here. Because the growth management provisions will be integrated into the land use standards and procedures, the GMQS applicability statement set forth in section 9-100-020 (GMQS-Applicability) will be integrated into this section. Because the fair share system is also to be integrated into the code, the applicability statement in section 10-100 (Fair Share- Purpose and Applicability) will also appear here. 1-70 Official Zoning Map The materials in section 3-20-020 (Official Zone District Map) will appear here, and will be supplemented by rules addressing properties split by a zone district line. 1-80 Conflicting Provisions and Other Laws _ The materials from section 1-90 (Conflicting Provisions) will be carried over here, and will be expanded to explain how the provisions of the code relate to provisions of Colorado and federal law. ___ 1-90 Effective Date This new section will identify the date on which the revised code becomes effective. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 45 Clarion Asspciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 1-100 Transitional Provisions This section would clearly state how the revised code applies to applications already filed, being processed, and approved, as well as to modifications of those applications after the effective date of the revised code. 1-110 Severability The materials from section 1-70 (Severability) will be carried over here. ARTICLE 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES This section would consolidate all information in the code related to development review and approval (and exemption) procedures. It would create a single place where readers could go to understand "How I go about getting an approval" for a proposed development or activity. Numerous clarifications of and improvements to the current procedures are outlined in Part II, Sections 4 and 6 of this document, and those changes would be integrated throughout this Article 2. 2-10 Review and Decision-Making Bodies This new section would describe all bodies involved in the review, approval, or appeal process. Descriptions would include the following: 2-10-010 The Board of County Commissioners The material from section 7-10-010 (Administration--General) regarding the authority of the County Commissioners would appear here. 2-10-020 Planning and Zoning Commission The material from section 7-10-020 (Planning and Zoning Commission} will appear here. 2-10-030 Growth Management Commission The material from section 7-10-070 (Growth Management Commission) will appear here. 2-10-040 Board of Adjustment The material from section 7-10-030 (Pitkin County Board of Adjustment) will appear here. 2-10-050 Redstone Historic Preservation Commission (RHPC) The materials from section 7-10-050 (Redstone Historic Preservation Commission) will appear here. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 46 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2-10-060 Hearing Officer This new section will describe the role of the hearing officer, as clarified pursuant to the discussions on procedural efficiency and certainty iri Part II of this document. 2-10-070 Planning Office The materials from section 7-10-050 (Pitkin County Planning Office) will appear here. 2-10-080 Building Department The materials from section 7-10-060 (Aspen-Pitkin County Building Department) will appear here, with amendments to reflect the fact that it is now a county department (rather than a joint department). This section will also include a table summarizing the authority of each group, as well as notice requirements and cross-references to subsidiary regulations, similar to the table shown in Part II, Section 4 of this document. The material in this table will replace the material currently found in figure 4-7 of the code. 2-20 General Land Use Policies The material from Chapter 2 (Land Use Policies) will be refined as described in Part II above. Those policies that can be refined into objective development standards will be moved to new Article 6 (Development Standards) below. Those that can be turned into objective approval criteria for specific types of development will be listed in section 2-40 below. The remainder will be listed in this section with a clear statement that they will be considered during staff review of applications, grid that failure to meet the one or more of the policies is grounds for a recommendation to modify or deny an application. 2-30 General Land Use Procedures This new section of the ordinance would consolidate all procedural requirements that apply in general, or to multiple procedures, so that they do not need to be repeated for each specific procedure. It would include the following: 2-30-010 Requirement for Development Permit _ The material from section 4-10-010 (Procedures--General) will appear here, and would be expanded to reference the various types of development permits described in the code 2-30-020 Requirement for Building Permit The material from section 4-10-020 (Procedures-General) will appear here. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 47 Clarion Assgciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2-30-030 Constrained Lots This new section would clarify that constrained lots (i.e. lots that appear to have no buildable sites under county standards) are treated differently, primarily through the "takings determination" process, and would guide the owners of such parcels as to how that process differs from standard review processes. 2-30-040 Pre-Application Conferences This section would identify which types of applications require a pre- application conference with staff prior to filing of the application 2-30-050 Submittal Requirements This section would authorize the Planning Department to establish written submittal requirements for each type of application, and would include a cross-reference to an administrative document containing detailed- submission materials available from the Planning Department. 2-30-060 Planning, Zoning Review and Referral Fees The material from 4-10-050 (Procedures-Fees) would appear here. 2-30-070 Determination of Completeness This section would clarify that incomplete applications will not be processed, and would set forth timeframes within which staff will notify an applicant whether the application is complete, or, if the application is not complete, what additional or corrected materials .need to be submitted. 2-30-080 Determination of Need for GMQS Allocation.: In order to integrate the GMQS system into more traditional land use provisions, we will define a general procedure that serves as a screen to determine whether a GMQS allocation is necessary as apre-requisite to other types of development permits. The material from section 9-110 (Rural Area Growth Management: Incentives and Exemptions) would appear here, and similar provisions for the Urban Area would be drafted. The provisions of sections 9-150-21 (Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Incentive/ Exemption} and 9-150-22 (issuance of Certificate of Incentive/Exemption at - Building Permit) wi{I be revised to match current practice, and their substance would be incorporated here. As a result of this determination, applications would be categorized into: • Exempt from GMQS without the use of a TDR; • Exempt from GMQS if a TDR is presented; or • Subject to GMQS. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 48 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2-30-090 Combined Development Applications The material from section 4-10-030 (Procedures-General) will appear here. 2-30-0100 Public Notice Requirements The materials from section 4-90 (Public Notice Requirements) and details regarding posted, mailed, and published notices will be included here. 2-30-0110 Conduct of Public Meetings The materials from section 4-100 (Conduct of Public Meetings) would appear here. 2-30-0120 Actions by Decision-Making Bodies The materials from section 4-110 (Actions by Decision-Making Bodies) would appear here. 2-30-0130 Conditions on Approvals This section would specifically authorize decision-making bodies to attach conditions to approvals -and would set limitations on those conditions based on the federal Nollan and Dolan decisions and Colorado statutes. 2-30-0140 Improvement Agreements and Performance Guarantees The materials from section 4-120 (Improvement Agreements and Performance Guarantees) will appear here. 2-30-0150 Resubmission or Reapplication Affecting Same Property The material from section 4-10-040 (Resubmission or Reapplication Affecting Same Property) would appear here. 2-30-0160 Amendments to Development Applications The materials from section 4-10-130 (Amendments to Development Applications) would appear here, but may be modified as a result of the efforts to improve certainty of development decisions as described in Part II of this document. In addition, we will clarify the difference between major and minor plat amendments, and major and minor development permit amendments, and clearly state the procedures for processing each type of amendment. 2-30-0170 Vesting of Property Rights and Expiration or Revocation of Development Approvals This section will incorporate the materials in section 4-140 (Vesting of Property Rights and Expiration or Revocation of Development Approvals) but will also incorporate changes listed in the discussion of "Certainty" in Part II of this document. It will include a clear statement of the county's vested rights policy, as well as a statement of what constitutes a "site specific development Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 49 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 plan" as required by C.R.S. 24-68-101 et. seq. It will include significant cross- references to the state law (for definitions of terms and effects of creation of a vested right, for example), and will also address how amendments to an underlying development approval affect any related vested development right. Our starting point for these revisions will be the draft changes prepared by staff in 2001. This section will also offer a mechanism for extending the vesting period under certain circumstances through a development agreement. This would permit the creation of a "no-development" agreement as discussed in Part II above, but would also be usable in a broader variety of contexts. 2-30-0180 Appeals The materials from section 4-160 (Appeal of Development Order) would appear here, but may be modified as a result of the discussions of Procedural Efficiency and Certainty in Part II of this document. Materials from section 3- 300 (Appeal of Development Order) and from section 9-150-40 (GMQS-- Appeals) regarding appeals from determinations of exemption or incentives under the GMQS system, would be integrated into this section. Similarly, materials from section 10-190-060 (Fair Share -Appeals) will appear here. 2-40 Specific Procedures This section will include separate subsections for each type of development review and approval procedure used by Pitkin County. The interrelationship between zoning, GMQS, and TDRs will be explained for each procedure -for example, if a specific type of application can only be approved once a TDR certificate is obtained, then the procedure for obtaining a TDR certificate will be shown as a preliminary step in that process. Each procedure will be illustrated by a flowchart identifying review and approval bodies (as shown in Part II, section 1.b of this document). These provisions must be read in conjunction with the General Procedures in section 2-30 above, and there will be numerous cross-references between the two. The names of various procedures will be revised to move away from the current naming scheme (i.e., 1-step review, 2-step review) to names referencing the types of approval being sought. This material would replace the materials in section 4-20 (Overview), 4-50 (One-Step Reviews), 4-60 (Two-Step Reviews), 4- 70 (Three-Step Reviews), and 4-80 (Five-Step Reviews). 2-40-010 Land Use Code Text Amendments The existing standards to guide BOCC consideration of code amendments --~ will be strengthened to increase objectivity in the process, and to ensure that amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Applicable provisions from section 3-220 (Land Use Code Amendments and Rezoning) would be incorporated. We would clarify that changes to code text amendments affecting numerous properties or multiple areas do not constitute rezonings or map amendments. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 50 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2-40-020 Land Use Code Map Amendments Applicable provisions from section 3-220 (Land Use Code Amendments and Rezoning) would be incorporated. 2-40-030 Growth Management Quota System Scoring The materials from section 9-120 (Rural Area Residential Growth Management: Allotments and Competition) would appear here, and similar provisions would be drafted for the Urban Area. Although some criteria may differ between Rural and Urban areas, others may be the same. Most of these provisions address the standards and criteria for scoring those applications that are not exempt from the GMQS system. In addition, portions of the material from section 9-150 (Rural Area Growth Management: Special Procedures) dealing with special procedures for competition and scoring would be included here, and similar provisions would be drafted for the Urban Areas. Because many of the topics addressed in the current scoring matrix may be reflected in development standards or criteria in the revised code, the scoring matrix may be able to be simplified significantly. When this has been done, we will discuss with the county the pros and cons of maintaining the simplified scoring system as opposed to a lottery system (though the full drafting of a new lottery system is probably beyond the scope of this project). 2-40-040 Issuance and Use of TDR Certificates The provisions of section 3-310 (Transfer Of Development Rights (TDRs)) would be incorporated here, and refinements to the TDR system discussed in Part II, Section 5 of this document would be incorporated here. Maps or descriptions of sending and receiving areas will be cross-referenced. The relationship between the use of TDRs, the GMQS system, and the need for various subdivision and development approvals would be explained. The applicability and scope of the TDR system may be expanded as described in Part II above. 2-40-050 Subdivision Exemption The material from section 3-190 (Subdivision Exemptions) would appear here. 2-40-060 Subdivision of Land This section would set forth the basic procedures for review and approval of a __ major or minor subdivision plat. It would review both the process for approval of both the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat. In addition to summarizing current requirements for approval of a final plat, we will clarify that the plat must be recorded within 180 days of final approval or the approval becomes invalid (and perhaps including a procedure for cone-time extension of that date for good cause). Since Improvement Agreements are now used Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 51 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 exclusively in connection with the subdivision process, the materials from section 3-180 (Improvements Agreements) would also appear here. 2-40-070 Site Plan This key section will outline the revised and strengthened site planning process described in Part II, Section 3 of this document. As discussed above, this procedure will include, but will not be limited to, review of 1041 standards. In rural areas of the county, the expanded site planning process will focus not only on avoiding hazard areas, but on locating a development in the most suitable area that respects rural character. Building envelopes would be specifically delineated for each development (including houses, driveways, septic, etc.), and construction outside these building envelopes would be carefully limited. In addition, this section we will clarify that a site plan must be recorded within 30 days after final approval or it becomes invalid. 2-40-080 Special Review Uses This section would set forth the procedure for review and approval of special review uses. Materials in section 3-210 (Special Review and Major Amendments for Activities Listed as Special Review in the Use Tables) will be incorporated here. In addition: • Cell tower approval procedures will be clarified, and will be integrated with approval procedures for other Special Review Uses; • Provisions of section 3-200-095 (Utility Extensions in the Rural/Remote Zone District) would be incorporated; and Provisions in section 3-200-090 (Residential Development with More than Fifteen Thousand Square Feet of Residential Floor Area) would be incorporated. 2-40-090 Accessory and Temporary Uses This section would consolidate and clarify all procedures in the code related to the review and approval of accessory and temporary uses. In most cases, approval would be by staff pursuant to specific criteria. 2-40-0100 Administrative Review Procedures This section would include the materials from sections 4-40 (Administrative Reviews), 3-200-040 (Highway Vendors), 3-200-050 (Satellite Reception Devices), 3-200-060 (Demolition Extensions); 3-200-080 (Minor Amendments to a Development Permit); and a new section addressing approvals for pre- - development site grading, vegetation removal, and earthmoving. This section will also clarify that the Planning Director can decide to have administrative matters heard and determined by the Hearing Officer if he or she determines that they present unusual complexity or potential controversy. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 52 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 2-40-0110 Street and Easement Vacations The material from section 3-200-070 (Street and Easement Vacations) will appear here. 2-40-0120 Variances The procedure for obtaining a variance, through the Board of Adjustment, would appear here 2-40-0130 Administrative Modifications This new section will document the procedures for staff approval of minor administrative adjustments consistent with the discussion in Part III above. Administrative approvals shall be limited to a maximum of 10% change in any dimensional standard and a maximum of 1 parking space. 2-40-0140 Fair Share Determinations This new section would clarify how the county's fair share system fits into the development review and approval system. It would also clarify the point at which determinations of exemption are made. The materials from section 10- 110 (Fair Share Requirements Exemptions) and section 10-190 (Fair Share - Special Procedures) would be integrated into this section. 2-40-0150 Building Permit This section would include materials from sections 4-30 (Building Permits) and section 3-280 (Category 1 and 2 Building Permit Standards) -but with the Category 1, 2, and 3 system simplified. The procedure would be included in the summary table in Section 2-10 above. 2-40-0160 Site Selection for Specific Facilities The provisions of current section 4-90 (Activities of State and Local Interest) related to site selection criteria will be located here, with cross references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seg•, with two exceptions. The materials on water projects will appear in the subsection on water resources above, and the materials on nuclear detonations will appear in the operational standards at the end of Article VI. _ 2-40-0170 Takings Determination This section will include the materials from sections 4-150 (Takings Determination), and section 3-290 (Takings Determination), but may include modifications pursuant to the recommendations on Procedural Efficiency and `~ Certainty in Part II of this document. The procedure would be included in the summary table in section 2-10 above. We will include provisions for the award of a TDR in the event a site is too constrained to allow any meaningful development, and/or the approval of a limited amount of square footage if the Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 53 . Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 site can accommodate that square footage outside of constrained areas, as forms of relief available under this process. ARTICLE 3. ZONE DISTRICTS This section will identify each zone district available in Pitkin County, and will clearly categorize them according to whether they were designed for use in the rural or urban areas of the county. This material would replace the district list in section 3-20-010 (Establishment of Zone Districts and the Official Zoning Map) and the list of districts would be revised as described in Part II, Section 2.a of this document (see table on pages 7 and 8). The materials from section 3-40-20 (Permitted Uses -General) will also be incorporated into this section. For each zone district, this section would include a brief description of the purpose of the zone district, based on the intent statements in subsections A of sections 3-40-20 through 260 for each of the zone districts. In addition, for each district there would be cross-references to Article 4 (which identifies the permitted and special review uses available in each district), Article 5 (which identifies the dimensional requirements, including house sizes, applicable to each district), and Article 7 (which outlines the development standards applicable in each district). In addition, this section would include cross-references to Article 2 (clarifying when GMOS will apply to proposed development), and Article 8 (clarifying that development will be required to meet fair share requirements). Where a zone district includes material that is unlike the types of regulations included in other zone districts (other than differences in intent, uses, dimensions, or parking), those materials would appear in this Article. For example, the following materials would appear in their respective zone districts • The provisions of the AHP/PUD district regarding public facilities, housing type, and site design criteria; • Provisions regarding master plan uses and seasonal uses in the AF-SKI district, with a cross reference in Article 4 (permitted uses), as well as the provisions of section 3-230 regarding AF-SKI master.plans; • The additional criteria listed for approval of PUDs in the Upper Frying Pan ` Valley Overlay (UFV-O) district; • The standards in section 3-240 regarding development In the Public (Pub) zone district and major amendments to public master plans; and ~ In the new RS-35 zone district, there might be separate standards to be used in (a) rural conservation areas, and (b) mostly-built-out subdivisions with a residential character -such as Owl Creek Ranch. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 54 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 The preliminary list of districts is repeated below, although this list may change if further consolidations of districts appear logical, and staff endorses those consolidations, during the drafting process. 3-10 Rural and Conservation Zones 1. RR (Rural and Remote) 2. FF (Federal/Forrest) 3. RS-160 PUD (Resource PUD 160-acres) 4. RS-35 (Resource 35-acres) 5. RSUF-35 (Resource Upper Frying Pan 35-acres) 6. RS-30 PUD (Resource PUD 30 acres) 7. RS-20 PUD (Resource PUD 20 acres) 8. AFR-10 (Agricultural/Forestry/Residentia110-acres) 9. AFR-2 (Agricultural/Forestry/Residential2-acre) 10 .AFR-1 (Agricultural/Forestry/Residential1-acre) 11 .AF-SKI (Agricultural/Forestry/Ski) 12 . LIR (Low Impact Residential) 3-20 Residential Districts 1. R-30 (Suburban Density Residential - 30,000 sf lot) 2. R-15 (Moderate Density Residential -15,000 sf lot) 3. R-6 (Medium Density Residential - 6,000 sf lot) 4. VR (Village Residential) 5. MHP (Mobile Home Park) 6. AH (Affordable Housing) 7. AH2/AH3/AHO PUD (Affordable Housing PUD) 8. AHP (Affordable Housing Preservation PUD) 3-30 Business and Commercial Zones 1. AR (Accommodations/Recreation-based on current AR2) 2. T (Tourist) 3. B-1 (Business 1) 4. B-2 (Business 2) Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 55 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 5. VC (Village Commercial) 6. IND (Industrial) 3-40 Special Purpose Districts 1. INS (Institutional) 2. PUB (Public) 3. PC-O (Public Conservation Overlay) 4. UFV-O (Upper Frying Pan Valley Overlay) ARTICLE 4. PERMITTED USES This section would clarify all of the uses permitted by right, or permitted by special review, in each zone district. Uses not listed would be prohibited. The introductory material from section 3-30 (Uses--Applicability) would appear here. The repetitive lists of uses currently set forth in subsections 6 (permitted uses), C (special review uses), and D (prohibited uses) of sections 3-40-20 through 260 would be reflected in a single use table, and would not be listed in narrative form for each district. 4-10 Permitted and Special Review Uses This section will contain an introduction to the comprehensive use table, and an explanation that uses are either permitted by right, permitted by special review, or prohibited, and how each of those uses are shown in the use table. In addition, it will explain that the right-hand column of the table includes across- reference to use-specific standards that apply regardless of .whether the use is a permitted or special review use. 4-20 Use Table The section would present a use table incorporating a revised version of the material now shown in section 3-40-270 (figure 1-1, sometimes referred to as figure 3-2). The use table would be presented in the format shown in Part II, Section 2.b of this document. Staff may recommend amendments to permitted and special review uses in the B-2 zone district to better achieve the purpose of that zone district. We will review the B-1 district to confirm that the listed uses are appropriate fora "rural neighborhood commercial" purpose. In addition, we will review the recently-adopted Low Impact Residential (LIR) district for possible improvements in allowed uses. In the process of consolidating materials on permitted and special review uses, we will pay particular attention to non-residential uses that are not appropriate for rural residential areas, and may recommend revisions to preserve rural character. For example, the use of "home-based cottage industries" will be reviewed for appropriateness, and the treatment of "essential public facilities" (as Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 56 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 a land use, rather than a category of growth management exemption), will be clarified. We will also incorporate the results of the work on rural economic uses discussed in Part II. The result of this work may be that some non-residential uses are removed, while others more consistent with rural character are added to the use table. TDRs will not be listed as a separate use, since they are really a mechanism to achieve other specific land uses listed in the table. 4-30 Use-Specific Standards This section of the revised code will incorporate all of those standards and conditions that apply to specific land uses (as opposed to specific zone districts). In the current ordinance, use-specific standards are scattered throughout the use lists in the various zoning districts, in the definitions section, and in other regulations. By consolidating these standards in one place, and cross- referencing them to the revised use list, we can ensure that each reader understands where different uses are permitted and what conditions apply to them. The following use-specific materials in the current code will appear here, as well as new use-specific standards drafted in this process. • Adult Uses (adopted in 1996) • Mineral Exploration And Mining (section 3-250) • Logging (section 3-260) • Temporary Commercial Uses (section 3-200-030) • Cell Tower Regulations -including new basic siting requirements. • Accessory Structures and Uses with Bathing Facilities (recently adopted) • Interim Basic Standards for Oil and Gas Drilling (to be drafted by staff based on prior drafts and reference materials collected by staff, and additional materials provided by Clarion) Specific use standards will be reviewed for compliance with state and federal law, as applicable. ARTICLE 5. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS This section will consolidate all information in the code related to dimensional requirements of development -including lot sizes, heights, setbacks, open space requirements, and similar dimensional standards. It will incorporate those dimensional standards set forth for each zone district in subsections E of sections 3-40-020 through 260. The material from sections 3-50-020 (Road Setbacks), 3-50-030 (Setbacks for Properties With Irregular Outlines), and 3-50-040 (Stream Setbacks) will also appear here. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 will be incorporated. Some of the dimensional standards may be modified as a result of the discussion on rural character in Part II of this Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 57 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 document. For example, general setbacks may cross-reference stronger standards that apply to stream corridors, as set forth in Article VI below. Staff may recommend amendments to dimensional standards in the B-2 zone district to better achieve the purpose of that zone district. We will review the B-1 district to confirm that the dimensional standards are appropriate fora "rural neighborhood commercial" purpose. In addition, we will incorporate "contextual" development standards for some zone districts. Contextual standards require that new homes meet the same general setbacks met by neighboring development within a defined area, rather than a fixed standard that ignores the character of the area. Contextual standards may be helpful in avoiding non-conforming setback situations in areas such as Brush Creek Village, which were zoned differently when development began than they are now. Because of the importance of managing house sizes in Pitkin County, this section would also incorporate a section identifying base house sizes for both the rural and urban areas, cross-references to how additional house size can be obtained through the use of TDRs, and caps on house sizes where those exist. We will review the recently- adopted Low Impact Residential (LIR) district for possible improvements in dimensional standards. Among other things, these provisions would incorporate those changes and clarifications recommended in Part II, Section 5 of this document. This section would also clarify that if an existing house is preserved on a parcel, then its square footage shall be deducted from the available square footage for anew/additional house on the parcel. 5-10 Dimensional Standards Table Dimensional materials would be presented in tables such as the partial table one below. Lot Width (feet) Street Rear -abutting RS/RD districts -~ Side (interior) - abutting RS/RD districts Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 58 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 5-20 Rules of Measurement All rules and conventions regarding the measurement of distances, areas, and volumes would be stated here, with across-reference in Article 11 (Definitions and Rules of Interpretation). ARTICLE 6, GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND SCORING In Pitkin County, the ability to claim an exemption from the GMQS system, or the ability to obtain a GMQS allotment, is often apre-requisite to development. Exemptions to the system will be addressed in section 2-30-80 above. This section would address the standards applicable to non-exempt development. 6-10 Allocations This section would include a table summarizing allocations. 6-20 Scoring Over time, the scoring criteria for GMQS allotments and the development standards applicable to various types of development have become confused and overlapping. This overlap needs to be eliminated, because it is confusing to both staff and the public. As discussed in Part II of this document, the development standards applicable to all development (and particularly those related to rural character and environmental protection) will be strengthened and clarified, and the results will be reflected in Article 7 below. Once this has been done, the GMQS scoring criteria will be able to be dramatically simplified to focus on a few key areas in which the county is interested in rewarding development that exceeds those development standards. Although this section will replace the material in sections 3-140 (Non-Metro Area Residential and Tourist Accommodations and Metro and Non-Metro Commercial Growth Management Quota System Allotments), Section 3-150 (Aspen Urban Growth Boundary -Growth Management Quota System -Exemptions), and section 3-160 (Aspen Urban Growth Boundary Residential And Tourist Accommodations Growth Management Quota System Allotments), the materials in those sections will be significantly simplified. _ Once the simplification of the rural standards has been completed, standards parallel to the remaining rural standards will be drafted for the urban area. In addition, both the list of exemptions and the allocations will be organized into tables to improve their understandability by the average reader. The recent _. addition of a barn exemption will be incorporated into these tables. The term "essential public facilities", as used in the exemption table, would be renamed to distinguish it from any similar term used in the list of uses. In the context of GMQS, "essential public facilities" include non-profit and educational uses, while the standard use definition generally extends only to public utilities and public safety facilities. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 59 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 ARTICLE 7. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All standards applicable to new development -and to the operations of existing development -wilt be consolidated in this section. 7-10 Rural Character, Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards This section will include all development standards related to the protection of rural character, protection of the environment, and avoidance of natural hazards. As discussed in Part II, Section 3 of this document, the achievement of the Comprehensive Pian goals and objectives requires significant strengthening and clarification of these standards (as well as simplification if possible). While some of these standards are grounded in the provisions of C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq. related to Areas and Activities of State Interest (1041 Powers), others are grounded in standard county zoning and subdivision powers or the broad powers given to counties under C.R.S. 29-20-101 et. seq. (1034 Powers). Because some of these regulations rely on multiple sources of authority, they will be organized by topic, rather than by the source of authority to regulate them under Colorado law. Some portions of sections 3-80-020 (Areas of State Interest - Exemptions) and 3-80-030 (Areas of State Interest--General Standards), will be made generally applicable. Procedures currently outlined under the Natural Hazards/1041 provisions will be moved to the site planning provisions of Article II. Throughout this section, the clarification and strengthening of standards discussed in Part II, Section 3 of this document will be incorporated. 7-10-010 Site Preparation and Grading The provisions of section 3-60-030 (Preservation of Natural Landscape) will appear here. Standards to address vegetation removal, clearing, grubbing, grading, earthmoving, pond creation, and protection of visible natural features would be added, as discussed in Part II of this document. Although a full set of stormwater management standards is beyond the scope of this project, a placeholder for those types of standards will be included. In addition, this section would clearly identify the types of site grading or alterations that require the issuance of a permit. 7-10-020 Steep Slopes The provisions of section 3-60-070 (Density Reduction for Steep Slopes) will __. appear here, as well as the recent amendments to steep slope regulations. As discussed in Part II, Section 3, these materials will also be reviewed and broadened to address a larger range of hillside development issues. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 60 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 7-10-030 Water Resources The provisions of section 3-70 (Water Resources) will appear here, with amendments as discussed in Part II of this document. Provisions related to water quantity shall clarify what types of documentation are required at which stages in the development review process, in order to satisfy county standards. The provisions of section 3-90-090 Activities of State and Local Interest -Water Projects) will also be incorporated here, with references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq. Provisions on water quality will be reviewed for compliance with C.R.S. § 25- 8-101 et_ seq• (Water Quality Control), and C.R.S. § 25-9-101 et. seq. (Water and Wastewater Treatment). 7-10-040 Floodplain Hazards The provisions of section 3-80-040 (Floodplain Hazard Areas) will appear here, along with cross-references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et• seq., and cross-references to the floodplain hazards map. The text will clarify that in areas not mapped by FEMA, a property owner may conduct his or her own floodplain survey to determine the location of the floodplain. In addition, this section will cross-reference the availability of the FEMA process to request an amendment to the floodplain map. 7-10-050 Geologic Hazards The provisions of section 3-80-050 (Geologic Hazard Areas) will appear here, (except for those related to steep slopes) along with cross-references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq. and cross-references to the geologic hazards map. 7-10-060 Wildfire Hazards The provisions of section 3-80-070 (Wildfire Areas) will appear here, along with cross-references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq. and cross-references to the wildfire hazards map. Procedures described in subsection B will be integrated with site planning, notice, and appeal provisions in Article 2. 7-10-070 Wildlife Habitat Areas The provisions of section 3-80-080 (Wildlife Habitat Areas) will appear here, along with cross-references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq. and cross-references to the wildlife habitat map. Staff has provided some draft additional standards that we will review and incorporate. In addition, as described in Part II of this document, the current standard will be broadened beyond a focus on preservation of deer, elk, and bighorn sheep habitat. The revised standards will move towards general protection of biodiversity in order to protect critical habitat associated with other species such as birds and plants. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 61 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 7-10-080 Historical and Archeological Resources The provisions of section 3-80-060 (Historical and Archeological Resources) will appear here, along with cross-references to explicit authority for these regulations under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq. 7-10-090 River and Stream Corridors This new section would include enhanced setback standards for river and stream corridors, as well as riparian areas, as discussed in Part II of this document. 7-10-0100 Scenic Regulations The provisions of sections 3-60-040 (Scenic Overlay) and 3-60-050 (Scenic Quality) will appear here, and will be clarified and strengthened as discussed in Part II. Since the scenic overlay area is not really an overlay district, that term will not be used. Provisions related to landscaping will appear in section 7-10-110 below, and provisions relating to lighting will appear in section 7-10- 120 below. Portions of these sections relating to the procedures will be moved to the site planning procedures in Article II. 7-10-0110 Landscaping Basic provisions for landscaping shall be drafted to protect the rural character of rural areas (i.e. they will prohibit "urban landscaping" treatments for rural areas, and describe rural treatments): Simple standards for urban area non- residential and parking uses will also be drafted. 7-10-0120 Lighting The materials and illustrations of section 3-110-110 (Lighting) and related figure 3-5 will appear here. 7-10-0130 Solar Access The provisions of section 3-60-060 (Solar Access) will appear here. 7-20 Roads - The provisions of section 3-110-070 (Improvements and Services-Roads) will appear here. 7-30 Parking Requirements The materials in section 3-110-080 (Improvements and Services -- Parking) will appear here, including the table of minimum parking requirements shown in figure 3-4. The provisions of section 3-40-070.F (AH2/PUD -Parking), 3-40-072 (AH3/PUD-Parking), 3-40-074.G.3 (AHP/PUD-Parking) will be incorporated. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 62 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 7-40 Public Services and Utilities The materials in sections 3-110-010 (Improvements and Services-General), 3- 110-020 (Logical Extension of Utilities), 3-110-030 (Water Distribution Systems), 2-110-040 (Water Supply Systems), and 3-110-050 (Sewage Treatment and Collection), and 3-110-060 (Public Utilities) will appear here. All these provisions will be reviewed against relevant state law, including C.R.S. § 25-9-101 et. seq. -- Water and wastewater treatment. 7-50 Trails The provisions of section 3-110-100 (Trails) will appear here. 7-60 Signs The materials of section 3-110-130 (Signs) will appear here. Staff may propose minor amendments and clarifications to the existing standards. 7-70 Planned Unit Developments Since Planned Unit Developments involve one or more zone districts, unique development standards, and sometimes a unique approval process (for example, when PUD zoning also incorporates a subdivision approval), it is always difficult to determine where to place PUD provisions. Since the PUD is not a single zone district, but an approach that is paired with discrete zone districts in Article 3 (Zone Districts), it should not be listed as a separate zone district. In addition, because the process for approval of a PUD in Pitkin County is the same as a rezoning, it does not make sense to list it as a separate procedure in Article 2 (Procedures). In this case we believe it makes more sense to treat PUD materials as specialized development standards, and to include them here in Article 7. This section would include a clear statement of the standards and criteria that apply whenever one of the PUD zone districts listed in Article 3 is used. It will also clearly outline those situations in which a PUD is not appropriate - i.e., simply to obtain a waiver from a development standard that would otherwise apply. It will also require that the PUD plan reflect the entire ownership of the property, a provision that is missing from the current code. The materials from section 3-170 (Planned Unit Developments) - which contains primarily development standards -- will appear here, and will be clarified and strengthened - as appropriate. As stated in Part II above, we will attempt to simplify these standards, and to remove those that overlap or repeat new general development standards. `-~ 7-80 Subdivisions This section would include basic standards clearly requiring that proposed subdivisions be consistent with the use, dimensional, and development standards of the zone district in which the land is located, requiring platting to be completed in accordance with applicable Colorado law, and cross-referencing the Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 63 Clarion .Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 requirement for Improvement Agreements. The materials in section 3-120 (Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services) will also appear here. 7-90 Conservation Subdivisions Standards for conservation subdivisions will appear here, along with descriptions of how they function in combination with the Low Impact Residential (LIR) zone district and other low intensity residential zone districts. 7-100 Mobile Home Parks The materials from section 3-270 (Mobile Home Parks) and figure 3-9, would be incorporated here. These standards will be cross-referenced in the use table in Article 4. 7-110 Common Interest Communities and Timeshares The materials from section 3-320 (Common Interest Communities and Timeshares) will appear here. 7-120 Airport and Transit Station Area Regulations The materials in section 3-100 (Areas Around Key Facilities) will appear here. 7-130 Operational Standards This section will contain those performance standards relating to air quality, glare, noise, vibration, odors, and the like. Rather than addressing the design of a project, these standards address the continuing operation of a project over time, and violations of these standards are violations of the code. Among others, the provisions of section 3-60-02 (Air Quality) will appear here, and will be reviewed against Colorado state law on the topic (C.R.S. 25-7-101 et. seq. -- Air Pollution Control). The provisions of section 4-90 banning nuclear detonations will also appear here. Provisions on radiation will be reviewed for consistency with C.R.S. 25-11-101 et. seq., and provisions on noise will be consistent with C.R.S. 25-12-101 et. seq. -Noise Abatement. ARTICLE 8. FAIR SHARE REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS All of the county's substantive fair share requirements will be consolidated in this section. The substantive requirements of sections 10-120 through 180 related to public roads will appear here. In addition, the provisions of sections 3-130 (Development Exactions) addressing dedication requirements for affordable housing, parks/recreation/open space, trails, and school land dedications, will appear here. Article X of the current code includes placeholders for requirements related to public transportation, agricultural preservation, and health and human services, and those placeholders will be retained. The procedures for determining fair share requirements - Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 64 Clarion Associates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 either through pre-calculated tables or through individualized assessments of impacts - will appear in Article 2 along with all other procedures. ARTICLE 9. NON-CONFORMING LOTS, USES, STRUCTURES & SIGNS This article will carry over the provisions of Article 6 (Non-Conformities) in the current code. No significant changes have been proposed for these sections. 9-10 General The materials from section 6-10 (Non-Conformities -General) will appear here. 9-20 Non-conforming Lots The materials from section 6-50 (Substandard Size Lots) will appear here. Recent Colorado legislation restricting the power of lot merger will be reflected in these provisions. 9-30 Non-conforming Uses The materials from section 6-20 (Non-conforming Uses) will appear here. 9-40 Non-conforming Structures The materials from section 6-30 (Non-conforming Structures) will appear here. 9-50 Repairs, Restoration and Alterations The materials from section 6-40 (Repairs, Restoration and Alterations to Non- conforming Uses and Structures) will appear here. ARTICLE 10. VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES This article will consolidate all of the material in the current code regarding what constitute violations of the code, what tools the county will use to enforce the code, and what penalties will apply to those who violate the code. No changes have been suggested to the provisions in the current code, and the materials of section 7-20 ill be carried over. 10-10 General The materials from section 7-20-010 (Enforcement -General) will appear here. ~_ 10-20 Violations The materials from section 7-20-020 (Violations) will appear here. 10-30 Enforcement Procedures The materials from section 7-20-030 (Enforcement Procedures) will appear here. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 65 Clarion Ass®ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004 10-40 Penalties The materials from section 7-20-040 (Penalties) will appear here. 10-50 Inspection The materials from section 7-20-050 (Inspection) will appear here. 10-60 Judicial Review by the Board of County Commissioners The materials from section 7-20-060 (Judicial Review) will appear here. 10-70 Maintenance of Common Open Space The materials of section 7-20-070 (Maintenance of Common Open Space) will appear here. ARTICLE 11. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION All definitions and rules of interpretation will be consolidated in this section. 11-10 Rules of Interpretation This section would carry forward the current provisions regarding rules of interpretation 11-20 Definitions The current list of definitions from article 8 of the current code will be carried over here. In addition, existing definitions will be reviewed and revised, missing definitions will be added, and unused definitions will be deleted, as described in the section-by-section comments on Article 8 in Part Ilt of this document. Definitions of permitted uses will be simplified, and may be consolidated, to remove unnecessary detail and distinctions between uses with similar land use impacts. Finally, definition amendments from the recently adopted "barn ordinance' will be inserted here. 11-30 Use Categories and Use Types The list of broad use categories, as well as descriptions, characteristics, and examples of uses within those categories (as described in Part II, Section 2.b of - this document. Pitkin County, Colorado Land Use Code Diagnosis Page 66 Clarion Ass©ciates -Alan Richman STAFF DRAFT June 22, 2004