Log In


Reset Password
Pine River Times Pine River Times opinion Pine River Times news Pine River Times sports

County comp plan land use section gets simplified

Planning commissioners review draft updates

New and more general language about rural land use is being proposed to update the County Comprehensive Plan from the version adopted in 2001. County planning commissioners had their first chance to discuss the new language on Feb. 4.

"We have a major undertaking with this section," County Planning Director Damian Peduto said. "The existing and proposed versions are quite different." Planning commissioner concerns from their Jan. 7 meeting have been incorporated, such as cluster development. It's included in policies and objectives, "such as to consider alternative tools for different types of planning. You would be able to say that's appropriate here and not here" in terms of district area plans adopted in the late 1990s, he said.

Peduto said the draft update also supports a simplified process for a landowner to get a change in their land use classification as set out in their district plan. "We can identify process very broadly. The current land use code identifies what we should measure before considering a land use change on an advisory map. We'd look at that section of the code for that change." The regulatory land use code is being updated in small increments separate from the comp plan update.

The 2001 plan has six pages in its land use section, with paragraphs on overview, background, eight goals, and urban growth areas including joint planning areas, urban service areas, and growth hubs. The overview stated a key point that, "The Land Use Element is intended to uphold the visions and goals of the district land use plans while guiding future growth in the county."

That section is followed by general discussion about the district plans. But it gets into things that were criticized last month as being too specific for a comp plan or that belong in the land use code. The old version devotes several pages to clustering, open space within a development, areas for business development, mixed uses, public facilities, park and ride lots, and RV parks. It also gets into area plan review process and public benefit criteria for determning what project density might be allowed.

The new wording eliminates all that. It lists a goal to "Develop and maintain a land use planning system which encourages a high quality living environment with a mix of compatible land uses; and coordinates managed growth with other plan elements, promoting public health, safety, and welfare." The word "clustering" does not appear in the policies under that goal.

The new wording discussed last week has a much expanded land use overview section, including state statutes that provide juridictional authority for the county to plan for and regulate land use.

It says, "As the population of the county grows, lands which were once predominantly rural and dedicated to agricultural uses have seen shifts toward more dense and higher intensive uses. Guidance documents, such as this plan, will identify changes and patterns, and promote effective growth management policies to be utilized and refined for years to come."

The new background section has been reduced. It cites the impacts of rural sprawl development, including reduced service levels and quality of life. It also cites the impacts of sharply falling tax revenue from coalbed methane production.

The background section is followed by a section on managed growth and municipal future service area plans. It says, "the State of Colorado provides that municipalities may actively plan annexable areas outside of their jurisdictional boundaries, future service areas, within up to three miles."

It includes growth area maps from Ignacio, Bayfield, and Durango and says, "In order to achieve higher potential for increased levels of service for future resiidents and businesses within these communities, the county should strive to accommodate the planned and managed growth of the municipalities, and coordinate more closely with their individual '3-Mile Plans'." It cites benefit to the towns and to the county's financial plan "to maintain a general level of service to the largest areas of potential future growth."

Planning commissioner Lucy Baizel commented, "the county isn't in the business yet of providing water or sewer facilities. So how can we talk about planning for levels of service?"

Peduto responded, "The most intensive uses must occur where those services exist. That doesn't mean they would be our services" provided by the county. It means "encouraging and planning to accommodate growth in those areas and discouraging them in others."

The old and new versions talk about growth hubs that have some level of central services. These include areas such as Oxford, Allison, and Bondad that are not incorporated towns.

Planning commissioner Gabe Candelaria objected that Vallecito isn't listed. "In the summer, you can't find a parking place" there, he said.

That can be added, Peduto said. "Vallecito is a significant place."

"It's an area that I appreciate and would like to see treated well," Candelaria said.

Various maps need to be updated, including the one showing activity-growth hubs, Peduto said. "The whole Vallecito area isn't a growth hub. There are specific places. The hubs will be different from the plan maps."

Peduto said the new land use wording will be adjusted based on the Feb. 4 comments and will be considered again on March 3. Comp plan updates are reviewed by planning commissioners on the first Thursday each month. The land use section probably will be wrapped up in the April meeting, with discussion turning then to the Durango- La Plata County airport.