• Comments? Return to Original Post (http://montrosecitizens.org/archives/26) at Montrose Citizens for Responsible Growth (MCRG), or email MCRG (citizens@montrosecitizens.org).
• Return to the Original Article (http://montrosecitizens.org/planning-commission-work-session-notes/)
• Return to MCRG's Home Page (http://www.montrosecitizens.org)

Notes on 6 April 2006 Planning Commission Work Session

In attendance: Dale Eckerdt, Jon Waschbusch, Ron Brown, Steve White, Robert Ray, Lynda Glover, Bill Fritz, Bob Hill, Nick Copeland.

Dale waited to call the meeting to order at 5:30, rather than a few minutes early, after being advised to do so by Steve White. When Dale did call the meeting to order, Steve was given the floor and he asked if anyone minded if he stood up, to be able to move around while he spoke. (Editorial comment: this move was very effective in grabbing the attention of the Planning Commission.) He thanked the Planning Commission (PC) for their service and stated that he wanted to do a “refresher course” and discuss why they were at the meeting. His introductory points follow:

• Roberts Rules of Order – “stick to them.” Recognize the chair; all communication goes through the chair; chatter at various ends of the table shouldn’t happen. This is necessary out of respect and for record-keeping purposes.
• Whenever a PC member has a discussion with someone outside of a public meeting regarding a land use issue, they are to disclose it and share it with fellow PC members. Everyone should have the same information.
• If any PC member gets an e-mail, or any written communication from a member of the public, forward to Steve and he will disseminate it.
• Steve has an open-door policy, but he is careful about discussing individual cases; he will share all information.
• Disclose conflict of interest (i.e., family connection or financial gain); even if there may be a remote connection, disclose it.
• Equal time should be given for all speakers; it is up to the Chair to manage this with the help of other PC members.

Steve then stated his “planning philosophy”:

• He is an advocate of the Master Plan. He was surprised that it had not been adopted by the elected officials, though he understands that that is not required by statute in CO. The issue of the Master Plan will come up soon because there are “growth issues.” He will use the Master Plan, especially the Land Use section.
• If you have the document, use it.
• The Master Plan should be used as a direction for zoning. Density is an issue and it cannot be addressed without zoning.
• Zoning, and where it needs to go, will be discussed. The hard part will be putting zoning in place. This may take 3 – 5 years. People will be upset when they find that their zoning has changed.
• There will be a “re-look” at the Master Plan in terms of density and use of land. The discussion needs to start and he doesn’t know where it will go.
• There are lots of issues and it would be easier to ignore the issues related to the Master Plan (density and use), but we won’t do that.

At this point, the zoning issues and subdivision regs will be separated; zoning will be set aside until subdivision regs can be finalized.

A related question I (Linda) posed at the end of the meeting: If zoning is not addressed, where does that leave the “development standards” section of the subdivision regs? At the present time, there is a cross-over between development standards and the zoning of R-R. Steve’s response was that it will remain as is (i.e., sanitation regs prevail) until zoning can be implemented. He acknowledged that some not-so-good-stuff will continue to happen in the short term. I urged the Land Use Dept. and PC to “hurry up” and get to the zoning.

Steve then was very respectful (editorial comment) of Jon, indicating that they have had extensive discussions and Jon had a couple of issues he felt strongly about. He handed out two items, which were somewhat finalized regs pertaining to two issues:

1. Large Tract Exemption (otherwise known as the “Aunt Jane reg”). This had been deleted from the new regs, but he would like it reinstated. Its purpose is to streamline the process for people to subdivide a small piece of land from a larger property (> 75 acres and zoned GA). Such a “subdivision” cannot be resubdivided for a minimum of three years in order to discourage developers from hacking away at a large parcel until they have a major subdivision without infrastructure. It is meant to service the Aunt Janes and the farmers. This replaces the “Small Tract.”
2. Minor Subdivisions. This was deleted from the revised regs. Steve indicated that he’d never encountered subdivision regs that didn’t have a provision for Minor Subdivisions. Jon stated that it is overkill to require the entire process for these types of developments. The purpose of having Minor Subdivisions is to streamline the process. This regulation also provides for access easements.

It should be noted that the wording of the above two regs is clear and they are “not waiverable.”

The PC indicated that they were pleased with Jon’s presentation and ideas. Ron asked, “Where have you been?” Jon gave credit to Rick for giving them a good foundation from which to work. Both Jon and Steve indicated that they just need to “tighten up” the regs and it shouldn’t be a lengthy process.

Steve proposed that he and Jon will work on one section at a time in the regs and present them with recommendations. The PC will settle on one section before they move on to another. Steve would like to accelerate the work sessions and not have them associated with the regular PC meetings. Once the revised subdivision regs are “done” in the view of Land Use and PC, then they will be again placed on to the agenda for a regular PC meeting for (I assume) public comment prior to sending them off to the BOCC for approval/disapproval.

Once the regs are in place, they will be black and white, not ambiguous. If you can’t enforce a reg, or it’s arbitrary, take it out. There will be no waivers. Staff will make recommendations based on findings of fact – the project either meets the standards, or it doesn’t, even if neighbors object.

Steve re-emphasized that the subdivision regs are NOT zoning. Subdivision regs delineate a process. Subdivision regs do not deal with density. Zoning and the Master Plan will deal with density and use. That is “the next level.”

Jon mentioned that, as per Chris Kovacic’s request, the notification requirements will be updated.

Steve stated that, while the time period for public comment has ended in this phase, written questions or comments would be welcomed and he would disseminate comments for consideration.

Jon said that changes in regs are italicized for recognition.

Steve commented on future considerations, such as sidewalks, curbs, and gutters for higher density developments that may be annexed by the city. Why not develop them according to City standards? Steve has regular, ongoing meetings with his counterpart at the City. He stated that he has no problem with the City or annexation. He does ask, however, that the City keep the County informed as to plans that affect the County. Steve said (and it was clear!) that he is not afraid to express his professional opinion. Good for him (another editorial comment).

NEXT WORK SESSION – APRIL 20 AT 6:30 PM

Following the meeting, I (Linda) had a discussion with Steve and Jon regarding zoning ideas. Included in those ideas is varying densities for different areas of the county. Steve and Jon indicated that it would take a lot of educating of the public for that to fly. We all agreed that, while the landowners think that they will make more money off of dense developments, the reverse can actually be true – with varied density zoning, property values can increase. It was also agreed that depending upon sanitation regs for zoning is absurd. Right now there is no way to say “no” to any development as long as it meets the sanitation regs. The County needs zoning as a growth management/planning tool.

• Comments? Return to Original Post (http://montrosecitizens.org/archives/26) at Montrose Citizens for Responsible Growth (MCRG), or email MCRG (citizens@montrosecitizens.org).
• Return to the Original Article (http://montrosecitizens.org/planning-commission-work-session-notes/)
• Return to MCRG's Home Page (http://www.montrosecitizens.org)