Larimer County staff preview code changes for affordable housing, transit parking, turf and EV charging

Larimer County planning staff on Oct. 20 gave commissioners a preview of four land‑use code amendments the department plans to bring this fall and winter to comply with recent state legislation and to implement local procedures for affordable housing, parking near transit, turf planting, and electric vehicle charging.

Rebecca Everett, the county’s community development director, introduced the agenda item and said the four code changes are tied to state mandates and related legislative deadlines. Matt Lafferty, principal planner, summarized two measures: a house bill that prevents counties from enforcing minimum parking requirements within qualifying transit areas, and an expedited review process the county is proposing to meet requirements tied to Proposition 123.

On parking, Lafferty said House Bill (as cited in the presentation) requires jurisdictions not to require minimum parking in designated transit‑area buffers. He said the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) maintains the list of qualifying transit stations; Larimer County’s affected areas are limited and include a quarter‑mile radius around specified hubs. Lafferty noted developers may still choose to provide parking to meet lender or market requirements, but the county would not set a minimum number in those small corridors.

On affordable housing and Proposition 123, staff said the county proposes an expedited review pathway so qualifying affordable housing projects can be processed on a shortened schedule. Staff described a proposed 90‑day target for site plan review and a separate 90‑day target for building permit review, with written rules for when extensions are allowed. The county would allow the applicant to opt out of the expedited process if a project is expected to be complex. Staff said adopting the expedited process before year‑end would make the county eligible for an additional $50,000 in planning grant funds.

Commissioners sought clarification about how the 90‑day timelines would work in practice. Commissioner Follis asked whether two separate 90‑day clocks would amount to 180 days; staff said the proposed process sets time limits for each administrative stage and includes written turnaround requirements for both the county and applicants. Staff also said extensions are possible but must be requested in writing, and the applicant can request a one‑time 90‑day extension while the county may request a 30‑day extension. Staff said the county could deny an application if the applicant fails to meet agreed resubmittal deadlines.

Cassidy Fiore, principal planner, summarized an electric vehicle charging code update the county is preparing to meet the requirements of the state’s House Bill 24‑1173 (as cited in the presentation). Staff said code changes would add EV charging as a principal and accessory use in specified zoning districts, establish an administrative approval pathway for public charging projects, and include permitting standards. The county must file a compliance report in March and an outcomes report in January 2027 identifying the number and outcomes of EV charging project requests.

Scott Benton summarized proposed changes related to SB5 restricting nonfunctional turf and certain invasive plantings on nonresidential development, redevelopment, public rights‑of‑way, and transportation corridors. Staff said the rule applies broadly to commercial, institutional, industrial and common‑interest developments but does not apply to private residential yards.

Next steps: staff said they will return with code language to the Planning Commission in November and will seek Planning Commission review and a Board of County Commissioners decision later this year; staff also offered to provide a fuller briefing at a future work session before the county adopts a resolution to opt in to the expedited Proposition 123 review process. Commissioners asked staff to share slides ahead of any follow‑up to streamline further discussion.

No votes or formal county actions were taken at the Oct. 20 work session; staff sought feedback and signaled plans to bring formal resolutions and code amendments for public hearings in the weeks ahead.