Archuleta County Director of Development Eva Kruse provided the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) with an update on the county’s comprehensive community plan project during a BoCC work session on Tuesday, June 23.
“We’ve just kicked the project off,” Kruse said, explaining that she’s requested an update from the county’s hired consultant on the public engagement part of the project.
She noted that was one of the tasks that was given a higher priority number.
Kruse explained that staff held a kickoff meeting at the beginning of June with the county’s consultant, mentioning that a project webpage is underway that will be “dedicated to project updates.”
“This will also be dedicated to public education,” Kruse said.
She explained there will be articles on what is being required by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), such as the water supply and strategic growth elements of the comprehensive plan.
“We’re also gonna create a community survey,” Kruse said, adding that folks can sign up to be added to the community stakeholder lists.
Kruse noted that the webpage will be up within the next month or two.
She then explained that she started building a stakeholder committee list three months ago, along with a technical committee.
In response to a question from Commissioner Veronica Medina, Kruse explained that the community stakeholder list includes “anybody who’s part of the public who wants to be engaged in this process.”
Kruse noted that the first public meeting for community stakeholders is scheduled for Aug. 12.
Until then, there will be some individual stakeholder meetings, Kruse explained, where the county will reach out to folks on the list and “get a feel for what they want to see” in the community over the next two years, five years or 10 years.
“So, that’s an actual opportunity to reach out to those individuals specifically,” Kruse said.
Kruse also noted that the county does not intend to cap the list of community stakeholders.
Medina asked for clarification in that it won’t be a small group of people helping provide input on behalf of the community, but rather it would be the whole community providing input and staff making the decisions and deciphering what was said.
Kruse indicated that everybody in the community can provide input, and “ultimately, the decision comes down to the planning commission and then the [BoCC].”
Medina explained she has never been a part of something like this, explaining her reasoning for her question is that it was explained to her the last time the county did its comprehensive plan that a group of 18 or so individuals were active in gathering and vetting information.
Kruse commented that “it’s two-fold” with getting as much public input as possible, “but we also have a technical committee.”
She explained that the technical committee is comprised of county staff, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD), La Plata Electric Association (LPEA), the Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation, Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Water Resources, “and any other agency that you think needs to be included.”
“It’s staff, plus,” Kruse said, referring to the technical committee.
Kruse also mentioned that, “statutorily, we’re required to do the water supply element,” noting that planning commission members were under the impression the county had an open-ended timeline, “and we do on the remainder of the elements for the comprehensive plan, but not for water supply and strategic growth.”
She added, “Those two elements have to be completed by Dec. 31 — there’s no ifs, ands or buts about that.”
According to Kruse’s presentation, strategic growth is defined as “a fiscally and environmentally sustainable approach to land use planning, housing, community well-being, and infrastructure that promotes the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized infill parcels and mitigates the need for extensions of infrastructure and public services into natural and agricultural lands.”
“We already know we struggle with infrastructure,” Kruse commented, noting that the strategic growth element is new to comprehensive community plans.
She also mentioned that the county’s current plan is “pretty old” and includes five elements, compared to plans that typically have seven elements.
“So, we have quite a bit to catch up on,” Kruse said.
Kruse’s presentation also notes that the strategic growth element is a new section of comprehensive plan required for jurisdictions in Colorado by Senate Bill 24-174.
She explained that the strategic growth element “will also help us craft the updates we need to the land use regulations.”
“So, doing this element will really help us get there next year,” Kruse said.
Highlighted in Kruse’s presentation is that a statewide strategic growth report shows that, “compared to business as usual,” strategic growth could reduce household costs by $1,700 per year.
Medina asked how the state was able to come up with the projected $1,700 in household savings, specifically how “more rules and regulations” help reduce household costs.
“It’s the efficiency of land use,” Kruse said, explaining that, based on her experience “it’s not necessarily more rules, it’s better use of land use.”
She explained that if zoning and land use maps are allocated in a better way, “you don’t necessarily need more restriction, you just use the land more efficiently.”
Kruse provided an example of someone looking to put in a business in the Cloman Park area “and instead of having them go through a process where we’re gonna ask them to pay a permitting fee, go through a board conditional use, spend three or four months going through all these permitting requirements, we could have looked at the map — if the map had been industrial zoning instead of [agricultural] ranching — then the project that only takes four acres out of 90 acres would’ve already been appropriate for that zoning district.”
She added, “They don’t have to go to [the BoCC], they don’t have to go to the planning commission, they don’t have to spend three or four months going through all these regulations,” Kruse said.
She clarified that applicants wouldn’t have to deal with restrictions, “because the site would’ve already allowed for specific uses.”
Kruse added that if the county’s maps are better identified for uses appropriate for specific locations, then applicants “wouldn’t have to do all those things.”
She added, “So, it’s just a matter of us having a little more foresight and a little more proactive on what’s allocated on the ground.”
She explained that unnecessary steps would be eliminated “and they don’t have to pay all the permitting fees.”
“That’s a good thing,” Commissioner John Ranson commented.
“It is,” Kruse replied, explaining that it would make it a lot easier for a developer, while also making it clear where the county wants to see certain types of developments.
Kruse commented that the county is not trying to be restrictive or antidevelopment, “but we know where we want to see the development.”
She also mentioned that the purpose of the comprehensive plan is ultimately to provide the county a guide for what it wants to see in the long run in terms of developments.
She commented that county’s not trying to fight “tooth and nail” over locations of developments; instead, “Let’s try and come up with a plan of where it should be, and then it’s either allowed there or it’s not.”
Kruse then further explained the water supply element being included in the comprehensive plan.
“I think everybody agrees, we know we have infrastructure issues,” she said, explaining that there might be a challenge with this element and that the county might need help from PAWSD, although she indicated that PAWSD is “not willing to help me so much” right now, “because they don’t want us to know where the infrastructure is.”
Kruse suggested that a joint letter from the county and Town of Pagosa Springs could be sent to PAWSD asking for its cooperation and assistance.
“We really need this information in order to plan for our future,” Kruse said.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked if that information should be available through the Public Utilities Commission, to which Kruse answered, “It’s not.”
She explained that the county has “very little information,” noting that she’s expressed to PAWSD that a nondisclosure agreement could be signed in regard to information about PAWSD’s water infrastructure.
Kruse also explained that that specific information would not be shared with the public.
“We just need it so as a county we can plan better,” Kruse said.
Ranson commented that the county needs to encourage PAWSD to work together, adding that the community “should be working together.”
Kruse commented that the goal is to be proactive in planning for the future, adding that she is “willing to do whatever it is to have them work with us.”
Kruse indicated again that the first public meeting on the comprehensive plan will be a community forum format on Aug. 12.
She also noted that the consultants will be available at the Aug. 13 planning commission meeting.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>