County planning commissioners and planning staff resumed work on the county comprehensive plan on Thursday. The plan's focus now is on land use, including 10 district area plans, eight of which were adopted in the late 1990s.
The land use section is scheduled to occupy three more meetings, the first Thursday each month at 6 p.m. in the county administration building at 1101 E. 2nd Ave. in Durango.
In November, planning commissioners certified the updated introduction and sections on growth trends, agriculture, infrastructure, and extractive resources/ renewable energy. They also certified the rest of the 2001 comp plan as the 2015 plan, with work on updates to continue into 2017. Land use is actually listed as chapter 1 of the plan after the introduction and growth trends.
As certified in November, the land use section lists a focus on urban growth areas, the district plans, the land use code, and other land use considerations.
It says, "The district land use plans, created in the mid-1990s, establish the framework from which land use and density determinations are made in most of the county. This plan element is intended to provide clarity to those plans by removing ambiguities and adding detail where needed."
The Southeast District (Ignacio/ Allison/ Oxford area) has never come to agreement with county officials on a plan and land use map. The Southwest District Plan was adopted a few years ago.
The 2001 wording in the now 2015 comp plan lists 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."
It cites the cost of providing services to rural development, especially as property tax from natural gas production declines. "While new development will provide some relief in this area, it is widely held that development does not pay its own way relative to the service demands it creates."
The land use overview also cites the cumulative impacts of rural development - visual impacts, destruction and fragmentation of wildlife habitat, traffic congestion and road deterioration, increased erosion and runoff, pollution from noise and light, water and air pollution, negative impacts on groundwater, proliferation of individual sewage systems, and loss of productive ag land.
"Minimizing the physical impacts of growth while also ensuring that the service expectation of the citizenry is met within the resources available is the essence of proper growth management," the 2001 plan wording says. "It does not mean stopping growth but establishing sound management strategies that can allow the county to grow while maintaining and enhancing its economic base and protecting its unique character."
The growth trends section lists total county population at 43,941 in 2000 and 53,446 in 2010, and projects it to reach 91,442 in 2040.
As of 2010, 61.2 percent of residents lived in unincorporated parts of the county. From 1970 to 2010, the rural population has increased much more than in Durango, Bayfield, or Ignacio. In 1970 there were more Durango residents than rural residents. In 2010, rural residents were about double the number in Durango.
The 2001 vintage land use section lists eight goals. They include periodic re-evaluation of the district plans. The Vallecito plan was revised about 10 years ago. Discussion over the past few months has included the need to make sure terms used in the various plans mean the same thing from one plan to another.
Goals also include supporting the towns in their commercial, residential, and job development activities and encouraging growth hubs suitable for higher density commercial, residential, and job development; also to expand central services to growth hub areas.
It discusses urban growth areas suitable for development at urban densities, meaning higher than one unit per three acres, and joint planning areas with the towns for land likely to be annexed in the future and have town water and sewer.
Creating a rural water system is another goal from 2001. The La Plata/Archuleta Water District (LAPLAWD) has been building a system southwest of Bayfield, and the La Plata West Water Authority is working toward being able to build a system in the southwest part of the county.
The 2001 wording says, "Assuming such a system is eventually established, cooperation and coordination with the service providers will be critical to effectively upholding and implementing the district land use plans."
The 2001 wording envisions growth hubs with central water and sewer, but not necessarily close to one of the towns. It says, "The growth hubs would essentially be higher density developments having a mix of uses including such things as residential, commercial, employment, and civic opportunities."
However, it also says, "The growth hub concept is not intended to encourage the proliferation of unplanned and scattered high-density development in outlying parts of the county, but to allow for strategically located growth areas." They could make rural residents less reliant on driving to Durango for jobs, services, and shopping, the plan says.
The 2001 wording talks about cluster development and designated open space within developments to preserve open space, views, and wildlife habitat. It also talks about designated building envelopes, dictating where buildings can go on platted lots.
The plan also cites the need for more land designated for business development. Instead of designating new development as mixed use, it talks about designating specific areas within a development as residential or commercial.
The plan talks about public benefit criteria, including affordable housing, that could allow higher density in a development. The criteria in the district plans need to be made more consistent, and they need to be applied objectively, the plan says. It cites lack of detail in the district plans of what is meant by clustering, open space, trails, ridgelines and other things that resulted in case-by-case interpretations of density bonus criteria.
The county doesn't have traditional zoning for rural land. However, the district plans (except the southeast and southwest plans) created maps showing land uses. The 2001 land use wording says, "Unfortunately the land use code, which was originally established upon the notion of compatibility (with neighboring land uses) and impact mitigation rather than use designation, was never revised to truly reflect this change."
