City Master Plan Comments
11 January 2007
Steve White
Jon Waschbusch
Montrose County Land Use Department
317 South Second Street
Montrose, CO 81401
Dear Steve and Jon:
We are writing in regards to your initiative to update the county’s master plan and zoning regulations. Together, our organizations represent approximately 500 local citizens who care deeply about the quality of life in the Uncompahgre Valley. We appreciate your efforts and applaud you for undertaking this important process in the community.
Rather than fill-in the mock zoning maps you distributed at the public meetings, which we found to be very difficult, we opted instead to offer our written input and suggestions in the form of this letter.
In general, the evidence suggests that good planning should result in increased property values across the county. The alternative is for landowners to race their neighbors to the market with the highest density subdivision proposal possible, so they can sell their land before the county becomes an unwieldy mess. This rush to develop land can result in harmful competition among developers, which leaves little incentive to maintain land in agriculture or open space. With the implementation of good planning, a more tempered approach to development can result in extra money in landowners’ pockets (not unlike a well managed mutual fund), and protect some of the features that make this a wonderful place to live. In other words, it’s a win-win situation.
More specifically, we wish to express our support of a system whereby land within and adjacent to the City of Montrose and Town of Olathe is more densely developed than land farther out. We believe the best way to implement this system is by adopting a number of rural residential zones.
We strongly encourage you to adopt a density, rather than a lot size, approach to residential development in the county. As you know, density is typically measured in dwelling units per acre, which is quite different in concept and application from specifying a minimum lot size.
Requiring a minimum lot size limits the flexibility in subdivisions and does not lend itself to cluster development, which promotes the retention of land for agriculture, open space etc. For instance, if you have a 300 acre subdivision and a minimum lot size of ten acres, the entire area would probably be subdivided into 30 ten-acre lots.
But, if there was a density requirement of one residence per ten acres, and the soil conditions required three acre lots, 30 three-acre lots could be clustered in one portion of the property (totaling 90 acres), and 210 acres could be left as open space for agricultural uses, land conservation, recreation areas, etc. Infrastructure costs would be less and smaller lots would be easier to market, making this approach more attractive to developers.
Some additional benefits of this kind of approach to residential development in rural and urban fringe areas of the county include:
- retaining land in agriculture,
- decreasing costs to the county and developers,
- providing adequate public services and facilities, and
- protecting environmentally important areas, such as wetlands, riparian areas, river and stream corridors, critical wildlife habitat, and natural drainages.
Of course, the devil is in the details, and we acknowledge the concerns and fears expressed by some of our neighbors in Montrose County about instituting a density approach to development. We are not suggesting that a landowner be prevented in any way from selling her/his property to anyone. But no one has an absolute right to use her/his property in a manner that may harm the public health and welfare, or damage the interests of neighboring landowners or the community as a whole.
We need to move beyond the polarizing rhetoric over property rights. Land development regulations in Montrose County must be fair to all by giving due consideration to protecting private property rights, the rights of individuals, and the rights of the community as a whole.
Because there are so many details involved in developing new rural residential zones that incorporate standards for density, we would like to suggest some factors that we believe must be weighed in the creation of such zones.
- proximity to city and town boundaries
- amount of prime agricultural land, and other types of land uses
- number and type of cultural and historic sites
- riparian areas, stream and river corridors
- wildlife corridors and habitat as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife
- availability of and access to water (both for drinking and irrigation)
- topography, geology and soil conditions (esp. as they impact road construction and septic systems)
- impact of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) on ground water and waterways (canals, ditches, and streams) and subsequent impact on rivers
- existing transportation network and condition thereof
- input and preferences of people who live within the proposed zone
- unique view sheds and scenic vistas
In addition, we suggest that the county and its residents think outside the box and consider a range of zoning innovations that are designed to offer incentives to landowners to take actions that will benefit both them and the community at large. Such innovations might include, but are not limited to, incentive zoning, cluster zoning, transferable development rights and conservation easements.
For example, Mesa County recently amended its Land Development Code to incorporate an incentive based point system for determining building density on land zoned for agricultural uses. A July 11, 2006 article in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel describes Mesa County’s system.
Under the new guidelines, developers who wish to build in areas designated as rural in the county’s future land use map can construct higher density subdivisions, provided they meet certain provisions. Everything from xeriscaping to building a neighborhood school bus shelter or homes of different sizes earn developers points that qualify them to build subdivisions that include more lots and reduce sprawl.
Cluster zoning, which we alluded to earlier in this letter, is a type of zoning that allows greater density of dwelling units on small lots on one part of a site to preserve open space and/or natural features on the remainder of the site. Cluster zoning site plans are typically subject to more rigorous plan review.
Transferable development rights permit owners of property restricted from development to recoup some lost value by selling development rights to developers for transfer to another location where increased density is permitted.
All of us who live in Montrose County need to figure out what we can accomplish in the way of updating the county’s master plan and zoning regulations. Now that the first round of public meetings is over, we encourage you to continue to reach across traditional divides and try to bring all those who have differing viewpoints together in the spirit of doing what is best for the entire county and all of its residents.
We would like to discuss this letter with you in more detail, and we will follow- up with you to schedule a time when we can meet face-to-face. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Suze Gingery, President
Uncompahgre Valley Association
John Cossick & Mary Wood
Montrose Citizens for Responsible Growth
Barbara Popp & Elizabeth Roscoe
Friends of the River Uncompahgre
Larry Lemser, President
Roland Holzwarth, Vice President
Whole Life Network