TO: MONTROSE COUNTY BOCC - MARCH 6, 2006 MEETING
FROM: LINDA ORCUTT ON BEHALF OF THE UNCOMPAHGRE VALLEY ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONTROSE COUNTY MASTER PLAN DATE: 03/01/2006

This presentation is being brought to you by "The Folks." We speak on behalf of private citizens of Montrose County and well over 250 voters in this County. We are not driven by an immediate, or short-term, profit motive. Our only investment is in quality of life for ourselves and our children.

We respectfully request that the BOCC reject the "Proposed Resolution Concerning the Determination of Consistency with the Montrose County Master Plan" offered by Rick Gibbons, Land Use Director on February 6, 2006.

Mr. Gibbons states in his memo that ". . . members of the public . . . have inadvertently misinterpreted the way that a Master Plan is constructed and how it should be used . . ." He further states that his resolution " . . . declares how to use the Master Plan to determine the question of 'consistency'" and it " . . . also declares how the balance of the Master Plan is intended to be used."

However, Mr. Gibbons's own hand-outs in support of his resolution state that "The maps that follow are conceptual in nature. They designate broad areas . . . and do not address specific sites or parcels . . . they indicate the general directions in which development could take place and do not indicate the density or the extent of any potential development. These maps are not zoning maps . . . they are an indication of potential land use only."

These quotes most certainly do not support Mr. Gibbons's assertions that the public has "misinterpreted" the Master Plan. They do not support his claim that his resolution is the "best course of action" on how the Master Plan "should" be used, nor does it support his claim that his resolution "declares how the balance of the Master Plan is intended to be used."

In point of fact, Mr. Gibbons is using a few select, out of context, pages of the Master Plan as a "zoning map," in direct contradiction of the Land Use guidelines of the Master Plan itself. He disregards the remainder of the Master Plan as no more than an "advisory document."

An Alternative Approach

The Master Plan, in its entirety, cannot be relegated to a backseat position, while a few out-of-context paragraphs might be deemed "consistent" with the Master Plan for land use decisions. Mr. Gibbons provided copies of Colorado State County Planning and Building Codes to support his position. Within those very hand-outs, it states that, ". . . a county has the authority to require compliance with a master plan . . ." We urge our county to take the necessary steps to do just that.

The Master Plan specifically states that it embodies the "hopes, dreams, and goals" of a community. "The people in a community can guide decisions, development, and growth." The Master Plan is a vehicle by which the people voice their desires for their community. Two-thirds of those surveyed expressed the belief that "the county is not taking sufficient steps to direct growth, and a majority felt that they would like to see much less population growth than in the last few years . . ." Suggestions included "limiting growth in agricultural areas, and directing growth to urban areas in the county. A strong majority of respondents supported regulations to protect scenic views and to discourage residential development of agricultural lands."

Historically, Montrose promoted growth and opposed strict management of growth. Be careful what you ask for; you might get it. And, we did. Let's error on the side of caution. Our county cannot afford the rampant development we are experiencing. Our people are saying, by their votes and their letters to the editor, "Slow down." Let's listen to the voices heard in the Master Plan.

To address land use and growth issues, we would respectfully suggest the following action plan:

  1. Strict enforcement of existing Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations.
  2. Timely adoption of revised Subdivision Regulations that reflect the "hopes, dreams, and goals" of the citizens of Montrose County as stated in the Master Plan.
  3. Use of the "Implementation" section of the Master Plan, which gives guidance. While the Master Plan does not embody zoning resolutions and subdivision regulations, it does "provide the detailed means of giving effect" to the principles of the Master Plan in the Zoning Resolutions and Subdivision Regulations. For example:
    a) Development of an Urban Growth Boundary. Growth is best managed by directing it to areas adjacent to already developed lands, presumably closer to town. Unfortunately, the Montrose countryside is beginning to see dense development in rural agricultural lands many miles from town. This is a strain on our already strained infrastructure. And, is this really how we want Montrose to grow? An Urban Growth Boundary should be incorporated into the Revised Subdivision Regulations and/or Zoning Resolution.
    b) Adoption of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Infill must be promoted in order to direct development where the infrastructure exists and to limit growth where infrastructure is not adequate. Such an ordinance would prohibit "new development unless infrastructure needs are met at the same time." This should be incorporated into the Revised Subdivision Regulations and/or Zoning Resolution.
    c) Implementing Performance Zoning. Such a zoning ordinance would limit negative impacts of developments by requiring developers to focus on contributing to, not depleting, the resources of Montrose County. This should be incorporated into the Revised Subdivision Regulations and/or Zoning Resolution.
    d) Encouragement of Clustering. Clustering designs for developments promote open-space, while operating under existing zoning on smaller lots. Density for such developments is determined by lots per acre, not lot size. This should be incorporated into the Revised Subdivision Regulations and/or Zoning Resolution. e.
    e) Offering of Density Bonuses. Encourage developers to incorporate open-space by offering them bonuses on density in exchange. This can be coordinated with clustering. This should be incorporated into the Revised Subdivision Regulations and/or Zoning Resolution.
  4. Aggressive outreach for grant money. Grants offer a means to enhance our public facilities, open-spaces, recreation opportunities, historical preservation, and other amenities to benefit the citizens. Grants are also available for evaluating land use planning alternatives (see attached information pertaining to Ouray County "Build-Out Analysis").
  5. Timely and consistent updating and revision of the Master Plan. Montrose is ready for a Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, which designates that densities of developments (lots/acre) decrease as developments move further from the center of town. We have such a proposal to offer for incorporation into a revised Master Plan AND inclusion in the Montrose County Zoning Resolution.
  6. Ongoing incorporation of Master Plan policies into Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Resolutions by revisions or amendments.

While this is just a sample of what can be done, and while some of these recommendations may have been implemented to a degree, perhaps they ought to be revisited to be sure that they are providing the desired benefits to the citizens of Montrose County as they expressed in the Master Plan.