Final For a Regular Meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION

~ Agenda ~ Final For a Regular Meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION 1101 East 2nd Avenue

Durango, CO 81301 http://co.laplata.co.us

Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:00 PM County Board Room

Generated 3/5/2018 8:45 AM

I. Call to Order

II. Approval of Agenda

III. Public Comment

Public Hearing of the following requests:

IV. Reports

V. Other Business

1. PROJECT #2017-0160 DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE

The Planning Department will be updating the District Plans the public is encouraged to attend and provide comment. Staff: Daniel Murray/Robby Overfield

VI. Adjournment

NOTICE is further given that all persons may appear and present oral & written testimony regarding these projects prior to or at public hearing and the Planning Commission may continue a project until a recommendation decision is reached. Complete files for projects listed on this agenda are maintained and available for review at the La Plata County Planning Department office located at 211 Rock Point Drive., Durango, CO 81301. Interested persons may visit the Planning Department office during regular business hours to review the files or ask any questions, or call (970) 382.6263. The policy of La Plata County is to not discriminate against the disabled in the provision of service. For special assistance, please call the Planning Department.

Planning Commission Meeting: 03/01/18 06:00 PM 211 Rockpoint Drive Department: Planning Department Durango, CO 81301 Category: District Plan Update Prepared By: Allison Kardas

SCHEDULED Initiator: Allison Kardas

Sponsors:

OTHER BUSINESS (ID # 3948) DOC ID: 3948

Updated: 2/22/2018 12:32 PM by Robby Overfield Page 1

PROJECT #2017-0160 DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE

The Planning Department will be updating the District Plans the public is encouraged to attend and provide comment. Staff: Daniel Murray/Robby Overfield HISTORY:

11/02/17 Planning Commission CONTINUED


01/04/18 Planning Commission REVIEWED


5.1

Packet Pg. 2

of 3

DATE: February 21, 2018 TO: La Plata County Planning Commission FROM: Robby Overfield and Daniel Murray, Planning Department

RE: Junction Creek District Plan Analysis, Revision and Update

I. Overview The intent of this memo is to inform the Planning Commission and public on the existing Junction Creek District Plan update, approach in analysis, and action moving forward with an agreed upon method of revision. More specifically, this memo will define staff’s methodology for revision, highlight key components to take into consideration while moving forward with appropriate changes to the content in the Plan, as well as a recommendation to the Planning Commission moving into the subsequent review periods and hearings.

II. Approach in Analysis

The existing Junction Creek District Plan is very robust when it comes to its goals, objectives and policies for accomplishing the overall vision. Upon further review, staff has revealed a very inclusive public process dating back to 1986 and up to its 1997 adoption and beyond. The notes, survey results and previous working documents have proven to be very effective in the plan and its success. It has also helped staff discover that in the formulation of the goals, objectives and policies, there may have been many authors working on different components of the plan. This has resulted in multiple redundancies and unnecessary cross-referencing which create unintended consequences in delineation and distinction regarding each goal.

The proposed amount of content revision may be extremely difficult to read at this juncture in a redline document. As an alternative approach, staff has implemented a tiered methodology that includes a combination of color-coding that will help inform the Planning Commission, and residents of the District receive a more readable format. The tiered color-scheme is defined as:

1. No Color – This content will be kept, more so, in its existing configuration and location. And are in alignment with guiding and regulatory documents that capture the intent of the District Plans as currently constructed.

2. Yellow – This content will also be kept, but will require revision, rewording, and consolidation or movement to accurately capture its intent. This will clean up redundancies and ensure they adhere to the other guiding and regulatory documents in the county as well as existing conditions since the original adoption in 1997. Some of the content in the Plan’s “Overview”, “Vision” and “General Characteristics” have also been identified by this category.

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 3

Att

ach

men

t: M

emo

to

Pla

nn

ing

Co

mm

issi

on

2-2

2-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

of 3

3. Red – Items highlighted in red should be considered for deletion or flagged as not applicable to the existing policy document. While the large majority of the Plan does not fall under this category, there are some items for the Commission and public to consider moving forward with the revision.

Staff has also used comment boxes with the intent of further addressing the associated issue based on its color designation. This will help the Planning Commission and public provide feedback on staff’s methodology with a revised document. In all, there are 97 comment boxes that should help give direction and shed light on the complexity and breadth of revisions to consider.

III. Findings and Key Points After reviewing the results from the February 13th open house, the Junction Creek District Plan online survey, Public Stakeholder matrix, other forms of community input, as well as staff’s professional analysis of the Junction Creek District Plan, the following issues have been brought forth as a primary form of discussion moving forward (in no particular order): 1. Wildfire Mitigation: Through conversation with stakeholders at the open house as well

as comments in the comprehensive stakeholder matrix, the need to address wildfire mitigation is a current priority. The revised document will attempt at providing a goal, objectives and policies for public input moving forward.

2. Desire for low density development: Given the lack of infrastructure necessary for higher density development, as well as the echo of sentiment reciprocated by stakeholder input, there is very little desire for additional high density development. If it is to occur, it is very clear the stakeholders desire the need for clustering provisions in order to ensure contiguous open space.

3. Access/Transportation: There are mixed comments in the District regarding whether or not improvements are necessary to CR 204/205. These range from improvements that will increase speed, straighten the road, widen the surface, include shoulders and add bike lanes where possible. This was even documents in the 1997 Junction Creek Plan notes that it should be revisited in the future with the residents in the District. This also includes emergency access.

4. Protection of the Natural Environment and Wildlife: There are a large amount of comments from stakeholders regarding these concerns as well as a large number of objectives and policies which attempt to address the interest in their protection. This also included the acknowledgement of the shallow water table and the water critical status of the district and its associated wells.

5. The desire to limit Commercial Development: The majority of the District is in close proximity to the City of Durango, where the general commercial and public services reside for the residents. There is a desire to keep those uses in the City where there is infrastructure to support it. In contrast, the district residents then and now understand the need for people to make a living and encourage low impact home based business and

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 4

Att

ach

men

t: M

emo

to

Pla

nn

ing

Co

mm

issi

on

2-2

2-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

of 3

accessory uses. The document is a little specific for what they would like allowed as the adopted land use code identifies requirements for home based businesses, accessory uses and temporary uses to allow for a myriad of uses yet still accomplish the goal of “low impact”.

IV. Recommendation

After reviewing the current state of the District Plan, input from stakeholders at the February 13th Open House, online survey results, existing stakeholder public matrix and other forms of public correspondence, staff recommends the Planning Commission acknowledge and continue with the revision approach as presented by staff. This includes further input from the public which is included, but not limited to, the March 1st, Planning Commission hearing, further online survey results, additional input to the public stakeholder matrix and other forms of correspondence with staff and the Planning Commission. The result will be a revised document to be digitally distributed to the public prior to the April 1st Planning Commission Hearing using this memo and subsequent attachments to inform the revisions, in substitution of a redlined document.

V. Attachments 1.) Junction Creek District Plan DRAFT 2-21-18

2.) Comprehensive Public Stakeholder Matrix 2-13-18

3.) Junction Creek District Plan Online Survey Results 2-21-18

4.) Map of Existing Junction Creek District Plan

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 5

Att

ach

men

t: M

emo

to

Pla

nn

ing

Co

mm

issi

on

2-2

2-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

JUNCTION CREEK DISTRICT

LAND USE PLAN

JUNCTION CREEK DISTRICT LAND USE PLAN Page 13 JUNE 12, 1997

OVERVIEW

La Plata County, like many other Southwestern Colorado communities, has been experiencing

considerable growth in recent years. Population growth rates of over 3% per year have been

recorded between 1992 and 1996. Until the adoption of this land use plan, development proposals

in the Junction Creek Planning District were considered on a case by case basis. The case by case

review did not provide an opportunity for citizens, the Planning Commission, and County

Commissioners to consider the cumulative impacts that individual projects could have on the

County. This land use plan was prepared in order to provide the citizens and County with a

framework for evaluating development proposals with the perspective of how the project relates to

the Planning District and County as a whole. This plan will also provide the citizens and County

the opportunity to begin to shape future development within the district to insure that it is

compatible with the current lifestyles, businesses, homes, and natural features. The Plan is

intended to provide citizens with more predictability about what kinds of communities,

commercial developments, recreational areas, residential areas, and agricultural areas may exist

in the future within the District.

This Plan was created under the premise that it would provide landowners with general guidance

and positive incentives for developing their property. Development proposals submitted to the

County for review by the La Plata County Planning Commission will be reviewed for

conformance with this plan’s goals, objectives, and Land Use Classification Map, which were

developed by the District’s residents. This is not to say that the plan cannot be changed.

However, it is important that changes to the plan be considered outside the context of the details of

a specific project. Therefore, if a specific application is not in conformance with the Plan, this

application should be preceded by a plan amendment to bring it into conformity. It is the policy

of the Planning Commission that projects that are not in conformance with the Land Use

Classification Map will be recommended for denial.

Plan amendments will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing

prior to consideration of the project by the Planning Commission. Issues to be considered when

reviewing plan amendments include:

Comment [RO1]: Revise to reflect current growth

rates or be more generic and leave specific % out

Comment [RO2]: If BOCC has not adopted the District Plans, should this be removed

Comment [RO3]: Revise to read more accurately regarding the land use code.

Comment [RO4]: Revised to accurately reflect what the code requires for map/plan amendments/or

removed

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 6

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


Road Capacities and Safety Considerations

Wildlife Impacts

Visual Impacts

Water and Sewer Availability and Impacts

Conformance with Goals/

Objectives/Vision of Plan

RELATIONSHIP TO 1986 JUNCTION CREEK AREA LAND USE PLAN

A previous plan was prepared for a portion of the Junction Creek Planning District. The Plan titled

Junction Creek Area Land Use Plan, September 29, 1986 included properties along CR 204.

Properties along CR 205, East of Chapman Lake, were not included in the 1986 plan. The 1986

plan was developed in response to a request by Durango Estates Subdivision for central sewer

service from the City of Durango. The plan was developed in conjunction with La Plata County

and the City of Durango. The plan was ultimately adopted by the City and the County Planning

Commission, but not the Board of County Commissioners. The plan addressed the impacts of

extending central water and sewer up CR 204 to serve the Durango Estates subdivision and other

properties in the plan area. The plan also addressed such issues as, land use densities,

environmental constraints, road capacities, schools, and fire protection.

In light of changed conditions and the fact that the 1986 Plan was never officially adopted by the

County, this plan is being created to assist La Plata County officials in the review of development

proposals within the Junction Creek Planning District. The plan boundaries were developed in

consultation with the City of Durango. This plan addresses many of the same issues that were

contained in the 1986 plan, such as traffic safety, environmental constraints, public lands issues,

and maintenance of rural character. This plan encompasses a broader planning area, which

includes the Chapman Lake Subdivision along CR 205 as well as Falls Creek and High Meadows

subdivisions. The number of properties anticipated to be served by City Services is more limited

under this plan. This plan does not anticipate the extension of City Services beyond the existing

mobile home park on CR 204.

Comment [RO5]: This should include the Durango District and how properties have been

absorbed by the IGA as well. Should we still include the 1986 Plan now that this plan has been in place 21

years and use that as the reference point? Consider a

full re-write of this section highlighting the 97 plan and incorporating changes since. This is common

practice and can be seen in other district plans such as

north county which has made multiple updates.

Comment [RO6]: This may not be as applicable now that there has been an adopted plan since 1997. Possibly an appendix or possible removal/condensing

Comment [RO7]: This may not be relevant anymore and should be confirmed by the City to reflect existing conditions and policies.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 7

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JUNCTION CREEK DISTRICT

The Junction Creek District encompasses a myriad of forests, mountainous terrain, meadows,

lakes, creeks, National Forest with people living together with the wildlife that abounds there.

The area is surrounded (except where the City of Durango adjoins it to the south) by government

owned land. This is primarily National Forest land, but includes B. L. M. and other government

land. The entire District is like a huge box canyon with the only access via County Road 204,

which leads to County Road 205. These are narrow, winding, two-lane, paved roads shared by

motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.

The District comprises Falls Creek Ranch and High Meadows subdivisions to the north (which are

substantially developed), along with Sailing Hawks (about half developed), and the Jacob’s

Cliffs and Durango Estates subdivisions on the south side. There is a mobile home park within

the District just north of the Durango City limits. The remainder of the homes are located on

property ranging from less than one acre to the 70-plus acre Balliger Ranch, with the majority in

the 1 to 3 acre sizes. Most residents who live in the District commute daily by auto into the city of

Durango and vicinity to work or do business or shop. Others are retired or work in their homes.

Hidden Valley, also known as the Durango Archeological Area, is on U.S. Forest Service land, and

is home to “Esther’s Cave,” a historic Anasazi dwelling. Privately owned Chapman Lake is the

only natural lake more than an acre in size at this altitude in La Plata County; it is home to an

unusual aquatic and wetland community including: turtles, frogs, and other animals restricted to

semi-arid environments.

Much of the District is considered to be in the “water critical” area. It is unknown how many

aquifers supply this area. The extent to which they could be interdependent, their current usage,

and whether or not they are under stress is also largely unknown. The Junction Creek watershed is

classified as an “over appropriated” watershed by the State Division of Water Resources.

Accordingly, significant restrictions on the issuance of new well permits exist. This factor may

Comment [RO8]: Reword to read more fluently

Comment [RO9]: Reword to read more fluently

Comment [RO10]: This paragraph should be

updated and revised to reflect existing conditions (i.e. any new subdivisions, Dalla Mtn Parl, etc…

Comment [RO11]: Reword but content is mostly in-tact

Comment [RO12]: Identified by DOWR as “potential” water critical and should be revised

accordingly

Comment [RO13]: Confirm with DOWR for accuracy.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 8

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


limit new or additional development. The Falls Creek drainage and the area east of Chapman Lake

are not classified as over-appropriated and therefore well permits may be more readily available in

these parts of the District. Sailing Hawks and Falls Creek Ranch have central water systems, all

other dwellings use individual wells as their water source and all are on septic for their sewage

disposal.

The District has fire protection services through the Animas Fire Protection District. The District

has a fire house with one pumper truck and one fire foam-fog truck (partially purchased by the

Junction Creek District land/homeowners). It is located at Falls Creek Ranch and is partially

served by volunteers who live in the near vicinity.

Part of the District is in an unstable geological hazard area, with much of the terrain in at least 30

percent slopes. There are a variety of home sites, from the valley bottom to the canyon walls. A

floodplain danger exists in the valley.

Vision

The residents of the Junction Creek Planning District believe our community is a very special

place and that it provides a unique rural, riparian area to be valued by the whole community.

We want to retain its rural character and uncrowded country feeling and would like to maintain a

community with very low residential density. We envision the area remaining as socially and

economically diverse; where people know and are tolerant and accepting of each other. It is an area

where different groups of people can live comfortably. We want to maintain a strong sense of

community, where the residents have a mutual respect for each other and the land. We believe that

the quality of the environment is very important. We want to retain the open spaces, natural

views, water and wildlife resources and a healthy environment where children can be independent,

safe and self-reliant.

We believe development should occur within the limits of the natural environment, not exceeding

the availability of water resources and not intruding upon a diverse wildlife and ecological system.

We believe in access to public lands, without creating excessive recreation impacts on trails and

wildlife habitat. We feel that improvements to the existing roads should be made only for safety

considerations, as far as sight distance, curves, grades, etc., due to the excessive speed already seen

Comment [RO14]: It should be noted the interest in Animas Water Company moving into Falls Creek

via easement and Directionally piping. Falls Creek has shown interest in being served by Animas Water

Company

Comment [RO15]: Include presence of City water and sewer to the south

Comment [RO16]: Now Durango Fire Protection District. Confirm existing DFPD infrastructure is accurate, include hydrants and other fire0fighting

infrastructure provided by DFPD as well as proximity

to closest staffed station

Comment [RO17]: Expand to include riparian areas and wetlands as it is very important in the goal,

objectives and policies

Comment [RO18]: This may belong in the paragraph above for continuity

Comment [RO19]: Revise to read more fluently as a government guiding document

Comment [RO20]: Re-word. Remove the “we” yet still capture the intent of the word.


5.1.b

Packet Pg. 9

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


on the thoroughfares. Adding shoulders to the narrow roads would improve pedestrian and cyclist

safety. Wildlife corridors, riparian areas, wetlands and water quality are critical to the future

environmental character.

We believe our rural character should be protected by insuring low impact development, and

avoiding the extension of urban infrastructures into the District. We want to avoid negative

impacts of growth, such as crime, to maintain a secure, safe and healthy rural neighborhood. We

want to retain and improve ease and safety of access to urban services, especially good schools.

We do not envision commercial development occurring within the Junction Creek area.

JUNCTION CREEK DISTRICT GOALS

Goal 1: To maintain the rural, low density, neighborly atmosphere of the Junction Creek area.

Objective 1.A: To emphasize low-impact, low-density residential development.

Action 1.A1: Implement a three acre minimum density to offset infrastructure

stress and the need for central services.

Action 1.A2: Define “compatibility,” including consideration of density,

architectural, environmental, historical, and cultural compatibilities.

Action 1.A3: Develop a multi-tiered set of land use tools (current standards: 3

acre lots allow for individual septic and well; 1 acre lots require one

central service (water or sewer); 10,000 ft. lots require both central

services).

Objective 1.B: To restrict commercial development and signage.

Action 1.B1: Allow for continued use and establishment of home occupations,

provided these do not affect neighbors.

Action 1.B2: Allow for the establishment of day-care homes serving up to 6

children or senior citizens.

Action 1.B3: Any commercial lodging development should address the

constraints described in the goals of this plan.

Action 1.B4: Bed and breakfast, day-care homes, and home occupations should

be the only type of commercial activities allowed in the District.

Comment [RO22]: Revise to include less “we” language, yet keep it reflective of the community

Comment [RO23]: Remove the “we” yet still capture the intent of the word.




Comment [RO27]: This Policy is land use code oriented and should be removed from the policy

document

Comment [RO28]: Compatibility is defined by a combination of Planning District review and land use

code requirements. Consider revising to be more

reflective.

Comment [RO29]: This Policy is land use code oriented and should be removed from the policy

document

Comment [RO30]: This objective has the opportunity to be expanded. It is currently written as

more of a policy than objective.

Comment [RO31]: This should be more in line with what is defined as an accessory use by the land

use code.

Comment [RO32]: Conflicting and hard to define commercial lodging. Suggest rewording.

Comment [RO33]: Combine with policy 1.B.2 to reflect LPLUC 82-5 for accessory uses.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 10

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


Objective 1.C: To guide development within the constraints of the natural

environment.

Action 1.C1: Determine gross density for specific areas. Cluster developments

should be encouraged in order to maintain open spaces.

Action 1.C2: Development must be guided away from steep slopes, unstable

geologic hazards, wetlands, flood plains, and other sensitive areas.

Action 1.C3: Utilize proper setbacks and avoid creating silhouettes along hilltops

or ridge lines.

Action 1.C4: Look at each site, keep in mind the “spirit” of the plan is to blend in,

not stand out.

Action 1.C5: Limit tree removal on building sites to the absolute minimum

required for construction and fire safety.

Objective 1.D: To avoid/discourage developments that will cause light, noise,

visual, and air pollution.

Action1.D1: Require light fixtures that do not cast light on adjacent properties.

Action 1.D2: Require utilities located underground, or if underground are not

feasible, try to make aesthetic (non-visible) as possible.

Action 1.D3: Adopt guidelines for attractive compatible buildings and signage.

Action 1.D4: Require developments to be sighted in such a way as to preserve

important visual resources of the site. For example, new

developments should respect the following criteria when applicable:

1.D4.a: Located in wooded areas so as to be screened from roadways.

1.D4.b: Set back from road to preserve rural character.

1.D4.c: Located near other subdivided lots and/or houses.

1.D4.d: Located so buildings are set back from ridge tops or do not

intrude above horizon lines.

1.D4.e: Located so as to avoid steep slopes (30%>).

Goal 2: To maintain a socially diverse community that sustains a safe neighborhood for raising

children.

Comment [RO34]: What is natural environment?

Comment [RO35]: Through land use code requirements and the district plan land use

classifications/public benefit criteria, this gets accomplished. Re-word to focus more on

“clustering” component of the policy

Comment [RO36]: Remove “must” with “encourage”. This is a policy document and should

read as such

Comment [RO37]: Possibly combine with Policy 1.C.2 above.

Comment [RO38]: This is encompassed in plan review and site plans and relevant to standards in the

land use code.

Comment [RO39]: There was good discussion regarding creating a new goal for wildfire protection

and mitigation, this may be more appropriate in that new goal, if so desired.

Comment [RO40]: Policy as opposed to objective

Comment [RO41]: This can be combined into objective 1.D which, in turn should be a policy

anyway

Comment [RO42]: This is a land use code item and should be removed (or possibly re-worded or consolidated into another action item or objective

Comment [RO43]: This seems like it should be the objective, and the objective 1.D should be a policy

Comment [RO44]: Consolidate 1.D4a – 1D4.e to read as one policy. It’s the only area in the plan that contains “sub-policies”. Some of all of this is also

captured in objective 1.C

Comment [RO45]: Goal 2 has good content but maybe one of the objectives is better suited as the goal and this be removed

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 11

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


Objective 2.A: To encourage development that attracts diverse social and economic

groups.

Action 2.A1: Promote a tax code that does not increase gentrification so

affordable property and taxation levels are maintained.

Objective 2.B: To promote mutual respect and caring that encourages and strengthens

trust, tolerance, and acceptance.

Action 2.B1: As an educational strategy, inform potential land buyers of this plan,

working with the Board of Realtors.

Objective 2.C: To limit the impact of social change—preventing crime and

promoting safety and security.

Goal 3: To protect the quality of the natural environment.

Objective 3.A: To protect riparian and wetland areas.

Action 3.A1: Seek wetlands conservation.

Action 3.A2: Review, clarify, and if necessary, revise the building setbacks from

flood ways in La Plata Land Use Code.

Action 3.A3: Require buffering (setbacks for berms, vegetation, etc.) between

differing land uses and environmental conditions, especially

wetland and riparian areas.

Action 3.A4: Conduct flood plain/ floodway analysis.

Action 3.A5: Inventory wetlands.

Objective 3.B: To maintain supply and quality both of domestic and natural waters.

Action 3.B1: Based on accurate information, create water use restrictions and

limits for developments and in home businesses.

Action 3.B2: Encourage water conservation regarding lawns.

Action 3.B3: Conduct regular water quality tests at the lakes and streams in the

area to monitor and evaluate water conditions.

Comment [RO46]: Revise to more appropriately capture or reflect intent of “social and economic

groups”

Comment [RO47]: This seems a higher level policy that may be better suited in a comprehensive

plan and perused by a different department (i.e. assessor, treasurer).

Comment [RO48]: This should be revised or moved into the vision portion of the plan rather than

an objective. An objective should be more tangible. Suggest incorporating into the vision portion.

Comment [RO49]: This is hard to define and enforce or guide. Consider removing

Comment [RO50]: If this is the objective, make more substantiated in order to capture objectives and

policies identified below.

Comment [RO51]: Include in Objective 3.A1

Comment [RO52]: This is in line with revising regulatory documents and should be removed from

guiding policies.

Comment [RO53]: Removed or, at best, reworded or consolidated into another goal, objective or policy

Comment [RO54]: This would be done by Army Corps of Engineers and not County related. Possibly

removed

Comment [RO55]: Possibly include in policies under objective 1.B

Comment [RO56]: This would be the sole responsibility of the landowner of Chapman lake. Any new development for subdivision, or otherwise

would be subject to water quality standards via

LPLUC 82-187(VII)

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 12

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN

JUNCTION CREEK DISTRICT LAND USE PLAN JUNE 12, 1997

Action 3.B4: Require new developments to implement erosion control measures.

Objective 3.C: To encourage retention of open spaces and scenic vistas

Action 3.C1: Protect views of cliffs and mountain sides.

Action 3.C2: Establish view corridors in areas of particular scenic value and

encourage developments within corridors to respect vistas and open

spaces, though thoughtful site design.

Goal 4: To maintain high quality wildlife habitats.

Objective 4.A: To encourage community education about wildlife, especially

among recreationalists.

Action 4.A1: Provide information to recreationalists and others, specifically on

wildlife tolerance, trail etiquette, loose dogs, etc.

Action 4.A2: Develop guidelines for wildlife protection (such as acceptable

fencing types, setbacks from riparian areas, and appropriate

landscaping materials).

Objective 4.B: To insure the protection of wildlife corridors.

Action 4.B1: Explore the possibility of purchasing land for winter range.

Action 4.B2: Maintain wildlife habitats and encourage new developments to

allow wildlife to move freely throughout the project.

Action 4.B3: Identify critical wildlife corridors.

Action 4.B4: Identify winter wildlife habitats.

Action 4.B5: Avoid trail impacts in riparian areas.

Objective 4.C: To encourage the preservation of sizable open tracts of land and

discourage development pressures.

Action 4.C1: Maintain lower overall residential density.

Action 4.C2: Develop detailed land use guidelines.

Comment [RO57]: Required in the land use code for new subdivisions and development, when

applicable

Comment [RO58]: This entire objective can be consolidated into components in objective 1.D, which

may be replaced by 1.D4

Comment [RO59]: Consolidate with policy 1D.4

which will ultimately become objective 1.D

Comment [RO60]: Consolidate with policy 1D.4 which will ultimately become objective 1.D

Comment [RO61]: This is a Colorado Division of Wildlife related scenario and LPC would not implement such measure. Possibly replace with

Policies 4.B3-5

Comment [RO62]: See comment below

Comment [RO63]: Consolidate Policy 4.B3 & 4.B4

Comment [RO64]: Incorporate into components of objective 3.A

Comment [RO65]: This is captured in other parts of the documents, possibly reword to be more unique or reflect a component of specificity. All of the

policies under this objective, is already captured

elsewhere. Consider removing.

Comment [RO66]: Captured in Objective 1.A

Comment [RO67]: This is something the Planning Dept. Constantly works on and seems to be captured in the overview

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 13

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


Action 4.C3: Initiate riparian and wildlife education.

Action 4.C4: Prohibit fencing where not absolutely necessary.

Action 4.C5: Secure funding for the purchase of appropriate properties,

especially valuable as habitat or migration corridors.

Goal 5: To maintain an appropriate level of infrastructure development to support low density,

rural neighborhood development.

Objective 5.A: To discourage the development or extension of sewer services

Action 5.A1: Monitor ground water quality to enable a proactive stance and

establish standards for water quality.

Objective 5.B: To discourage the extension of an arterial transportation route

through the community.

Action 5.B1: Avoid extension of roadway easement idea through “notch.”

Action 5.B2: Research ownership status and easement status of the road through

the notch.

Action 5.B3: Ensure that no County road plans include the establishment of an

Animas connection to the valley.

Objective 5.C: To establish an adequate transportation system that will provide

safety for residents and those accessing public lands.

Action 5.C1: Prohibit improvements that will result in increased speeds, i.e., do

not allow line-of-sight improvements or straightening

improvements.

Action 5.C2: Leave natural barriers to control speed.

Action 5.C3: Avoid the use of urban road standards for the District’s rural setting.

Adopt rural road standards with minimum impacts appropriate for

the area and its steep terrain. For instance, require road widths no

wider than necessary for the normal and emergency access. This

would minimize the cut through the trees and meadows.

Action 5.C4: Add shoulders for safety.

Comment [RO68]: Incorporate into objective 3.A or subsequent policies.

Comment [RO69]: Maybe incorporate into wildlife component and reference DOW fencing

guidelines

Comment [RO70]: This is not the Planning Department’s function and may not fit well in this

type of policy document

Comment [RO71]: This entire goal seems to be captured by component in the goal 1 and subsequent,

objectives and policies of

Comment [RO72]: Reword as the intent should not be to discourage more efficient supply of services

that promote safety health and welfare of the county, residents and environment.

Comment [RO73]: Not a policy that accomplished objective 5.A and should be moved

Comment [RO74]: Reword as the intent should not be to discourage more efficient supply of services

that promote safety health and welfare of the county, residents and environment.

Comment [RO75]: Reword and combine with Policy 5.B2

Comment [RO76]: Reword and combine with Policy 5.B1

Comment [RO77]: Re-word and incorporate into a goal for wildfire mitigation as evacuation access is

crucial to emergency services and OEM/ DFPD goals and objectives.

Comment [RO78]: Prohibiting improvements should not be a goal, objective or policy in county as our job is to protect public safety health and welfare.

This needs to be carefully reviewed and re-worded.

Comment [RO79]: Use this as a good starting point to re-word policy 5.C1

Comment [RO80]: New development is required to follow adopted road standards and should be adhered to. Components of this Policy should be

revised.

Comment [RO81]: In conflict with Policy 5.C1 as written. Incorporate into re-worded policy

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 14

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


Objective 5.D: To establish a safe hiking/biking trail system, on public land, that is

sensitive to the natural environment, particularly wildlife.

Action 5.D1: Work with the FS to create safe parking at Colorado Trail head

and enforce parking within the designated area, i.e., respecting private

properties.

Action5.D2: Explore the possibility of a bike path along Junction Creek Road.

Action 5.D3: Critically assess pros and cons of Barnes Mountain and Animas

Mountain Trails Westside connection

Goal 6: To protect the quality of public lands

Objective 6.A: To maintain appropriate recreation access and use, avoiding social

and environmental conflicts among users

Action 6.A1: Explore the possibility of specific use designation on trails.

Action 6.A2: Explore possibilities for enforcing regulations concerning dogs and

bikers.

Action 6.A3: Establish adequate parking areas at public land access points.

Objective 6.B: To support good public and private land planning that avoids

negative impacts such as wildfires, hunting near residencies, and

protects cultural and natural resources.

Action 6.B1: Discourage public land exchanges for private development unless

there is clear public interest value.

Action 6.B2: Implement use restricted buffer zones on public lands adjacent to

private residencies.

Action 6.B3: Encourage B.L.M. not to open public land for development.

Action 6.B4: Work with U.S. and Colorado State Forest Services to use

prescribed burns for residential safety and to improve wildlife

habitat.

Comment [RO82]: Include a reference to county trails plan which is an appendix to comp plan?

Comment [RO83]: I believe this has been accomplished with incorporation of Dalla Mountain

park on the westside of animas City Mountain and other access points to sailing hawks and to the animas

city mtn trails since 97. Maybe revise to reflect

existing conditions.

Comment [RO84]: A bit lofty and vague for a goal. Objective 6.B may be a more appropriate goal.

Comment [RO85]: Currently the county does not have trails in the area, this should add appropriate

enforcing agencies.

Comment [RO86]: The county has enacted barking dog ordinances since this but other

components still apply

Comment [RO87]: Add language along the lines of “in coordination with appropriate regulating

agencies such as BLM and NF service”

Comment [RO88]: Review against comp plan and code to see if it’s in line with other guiding and regulatory documents.

Comment [RO89]: Incorporate with Policy 6.B1

Comment [RO90]: Incorporate into a new goal that addresses wildfire

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN

The proposed land use plan is based on a vision for Junction Creek that will evolve over the next

ten to twenty years. The following section discusses the land use classifications included in the

Land Use Classification Map that accompanies the text of this plan. The Land Use Classifications

/ Descriptions Table contained in Section V of the Plan also discusses the various land use

classifications. The recommended land uses, their locations and the approximate densities are

based upon the goals and objectives set forth in Section II. They are guided further by a desire to

maintain compatibility with adjacent and neighboring existing uses. Development proposals

must be reviewed for consistency with the plan’s Goals, Objectives, Actions, and the Land Use

Classification Map and La Plata County Code.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

The predominant land use on developed private lands within the district is residential. Existing

and proposed residential development densities vary considerably throughout the District.

Several residential land use classifications are included in the Plan. It must be noted that the

residential densities contained within land use classifications are intended to be used for

calculating overall residential density for Class II projects, Subdivisions, and Minor Exemption

Subdivisions. Minimum lot sizes are determined via the land use code and the subdivision

requirements contained within. Class I projects are reviewed via the land use code and not

required to conform with this plan in regards to density.

Home occupations are acceptable in all residential classifications, providing the use seems

residential in nature and the impacts are minimal such as: no outside storage, minimal signage and

lighting, traffic generation, noises, odors, and on or off street parking. Small scale bed and

breakfast type lodging facilities and day-care establishments are permitted within the District, if

care is taken to blend them in with adjacent or nearby residential uses with a minimum of impact (

noise, traffic, light and glare). The size of lodging establishments may be no larger than five

rooms per allowable dwelling unit equivalent, up to a maximum of 10 guest rooms1. Day-care

homes shall be limited to a maximum of 6 children or senior citizens. Home occupations, bed and

1Allowable dwelling unit equivalents are determined through the residential densities associated with

the Plan’s Land Use Classification Map

Comment [RO91]: We are now at that “10 or 20 years point” and should update this sentence

accordingly with possibly zoning, future land use maps or updated land use code

Comment [RO92]: Admin BA/LC also now have language that discourage increasing a non-conformity

(i.e. lot size). Consider re-wording

Comment [RO93]: Class I’s are now required to conform with the District Plan

Comment [RO94]: This entire section is regulated by the land use code and should be

considered for serious revision or to be removed

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


Breakfast type lodging facilities and day-care homes are the only types of commercial activities

allowed in the District.

CITY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL

This classification identifies lands in the Southern end of the District that are served, or may likely

be served, by City of Durango central water and sewer services and may likely be annexed by the

City. Lands in this category are classified with a maximum density of one unit per one (1) to six

(6) acres. These lands are given a higher potential maximum density due to the availability or

anticipated availability of city services. Development densities within this range are determined

through utilization of the Plan’s public benefit criteria. Minimum lot sizes are determined via the

land use code and the subdivision requirements contained within.

RESIDENTIAL

The majority of lands that lie on the bottom of the valley are included within this classification.

These lands are generally flatter and adjacent or proximate to the District’s main roads. These

lands generally have fewer development constraints than lands contained with the Agricultural /

Rural Residential classification. Lands in this category are classified with a maximum density

of one unit per three (3) to six (6) acres. Development densities within this range are determined

through utilization of the Plan’s Public Benefit Criteria. Minimum lot sizes are determined via the

land use code and the subdivision requirements contained within.

AGRICULTURAL / RURAL RESIDENTIAL

Land within this classification is generally located on and above the steep slopes of the valley

walls or in the outlying portions of the District, such as Falls Creek and High Meadows

subdivisions. The overall development densities envisioned under this classification are 1 unit

per ten (10) to twenty (20) acres. Development densities within this range are determined through

utilization of the Plan’s public benefit criteria. Minimum lot sizes are determined via the land use

code and the subdivision requirements contained within.

Comment [RO95]: With the implementation of the Durango District and IGA, this should be

re-worded to accurately reflect those documents

Comment [RO96]: Main Roads? Private, County? All Roads?

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 17

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


2. CRITICAL LANDS

This classification is an overlay category which applies to all land use classifications. The

Critical Lands classification identifies areas that possess significant constraints to development

and public safety hazards. This category encompasses lands with slopes over 30%, lands

possessing landslides and unstable slope hazards 2 , lands within 100 year flood plains, and

wetlands.

The base density for lands in this category is 1 unit per 35 acres. If Critical Lands within a

proposed development are protected and permanent development exclusions or dedicated open

space (such as conservation easements) are established, a density bonus may be granted to transfer

development to more suitable portions of a project. Such density bonuses should not exceed 1

unit per 17.5 acres of critical lands, i.e. If Critical Lands are protected, allowable densities are 1

unit per 17.5 acres vs.1 unit per 35 acres if Critical Lands are developed.

The Land Use Classification Map identifies, in most cases, the general location of some of the

District’s Critical Lands. Site specific studies must be conducted to determine the location and

extent of these lands. The Land Use Classification Map identifies the general location of Slopes

over 30%, and lands classified as Landslides and Unstable Slopes. Flood plains and wetlands are

not currently designated on the Land Use Classification Map.

PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

This land use designation accommodates public and community facilities. Currently, one fire

station is located within the Junction Creek District in Falls Creek Subdivision. In general public

and community facilities are suitable in all land use designations except critical lands.

2 The location of landslides and unstable slopes was determined using the County’s Geologic Hazard Maps, Circa 1976.

Comment [RO97]: Confirm this is reflective of existing conditions

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 18

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


AGRICULTURAL/TIMBER/PUBLIC RECREATION/WILDLIFE

A large portion of the District is on U.S. Forest Service, B.L.M., and Division of Wildlife lands.

This category identifies public lands within the District used primarily for agricultural, timber,

recreational and wildlife uses. These lands are given a base density of 1 unit per 35 acres to

discourage a land trade undertaken for speculative purposes.

LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS/DESCRIPTIONS

Land Use Resid. Density /

Size Restrictions Description

Agricultural /

Timber / Public

Recreation / Wildlife

1 unit per 35 acres Public lands that are used primarily for agricultural, forestry,

land/water recreation, or wildlife uses. Public lands transferred

to private ownership will retain a 1 unit per 35 acre density

designation. Agricultural / Rural

Residential 1 unit per

10 - 20 acres 3

Private land that can be developed at a maximum density of 1 unit

per 10 to 20 acres. Will typically be served by wells and septic

systems. Residential 1 unit per

3 - 6 acres 4 Private land that can be developed at a density of 1 unit per 3 to 6

acres. Will typically be served by wells and septic systems. City Adjacent

Residential 1 unit per

1 to 6 acres 4 Private land that can be developed at a density of 1 unit per 1 to 6

acres. Will likely be served by City of Durango central water

and/or sewer services. Critical Lands

4 1 unit per

35 acres Land with steep slopes (over 30%), landslides, unstable slopes,

wetlands and flood plains. If density is transferred to

non-critical lands, a density bonus of 1 unit per 17.5 acres will be

granted. Maximum Bonus = a total of 2 units for each 35 acres

of critical land left permanently undeveloped. Public and

Community Facilities Per Code Public and quasi-public uses, such as fire stations, trail heads,

recreation facilities.

34 Density within given range is determined by Public Benefit Criteria. Proponent is encouraged to cluster density on smaller lots,

creating permanent open space. Minimum lot size is determined by the land use code and the subdivision requirements contained therein. 45 Critical Land designation only applies to unsubdivided land. Environmental conditions on subdivided land are regulated through the

approved subdivision plan and the land use code. Critical Land designation on Land Use map only partially or generally portrays the Critical Land

constraint area. Specific analysis may be required to refine location of Critical Land boundary.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 19

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


VII. PUBLIC BENEFIT CRITERIA

To determine the allowable density for a project within the Agricultural / Rural Residential,

Residential, and City-Adjacent Residential Classifications, the County will allocate densities

above the lower end of the density range upon demonstration that there is a public benefit in doing

so. To make this determination as objective as possible, the density range shall be granted based

upon the following criteria and percentages:

40%

Clustering the units to preserve the maximum portion of the land in contiguous

dedicated open space and to preserve wildlife habitats. This space could be owned by a

single entity or multiple entities with undivided interests, or overlain by an open space or

agricultural easement. (50% open space = full 40% of density range).

40%

Structures located to preserve open meadows, in or against trees if present and not within

flood plains or critical areas.

20% Project designed so as to protect wildlife corridors and riparian / stream corridors

100% Total

Full compliance with all of the above would result in granting 100% of the density range. For

example, if the range is 1 unit per 3-6 acres, and all of the criteria were fully met, the proponent

would qualify for a density of 1 unit per 3 acres. If only the first two criteria were met (40% +

40% = 80%) the owner would qualify for 80% of the range, or 1 unit per 3.6 acres.

Subdivisions, Minor Exempt Subdivisions, and Class II projects shall be designed in such a

manner to prevent the location of buildings or other structures that create a silhouette along the

top of a ridge or hilltop as seen from public roads5. The ridge line or hilltop silhouette should be

composed predominantly of trees and land forms. Building envelopes and plat notes shall be the

primary method of implementing this policy on subdivision plats and MES’s. Site plan review

and conditions of approval shall be the primary method of implementing this policy for Class II

projects. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the project’s avoidance of ridges and

hilltops to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission using appropriate visual or graphic

techniques (e.g., photos, drawings, site visits).

5A “ridge” is a long narrow, conspicuous elevation of land, a “hilltop” means a knoll or small hill.

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 20

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)


LAND USE PLAN


If site conditions do not permit compliance with any specific criteria, credit for compliance will be

automatically granted. i.e.: If a site does not possess any open meadows, then the applicant would

receive the full 40% density bonus for avoiding ridge lines etc.

* * * *

5.1.b

Packet Pg. 21

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Dis

tric

t P

lan

DR

AF

T 2

-22-

18 (

3948

: P

RO

JEC

T #

2017

-016

0 D

IST

RIC

T P

LA

N U

PD

AT

E)

Junction Creek District Plan Text Agree Disagree Suggestions for Improvement

Goal 1: To maintain the rural, low density, neighborly atmosphere of the Junction Creek area.

X X X X X X X X X X Limit development/density. No central water. Underground utilities/power for

new housing

Objective 1.A: To emphasize low-impact, low-density residential development.

X X X X X X X X X X

Action 1.A1: Implement a three acre minimum density to offset infrastructure stress and the need for central services.

X X X X X X X Comments: Subject to 1.A3 comment

Comment: Why 3?

Action 1.A2: Define “compatibility,” including consideration of density, architectural, environmental, historical, and cultural compatibilities.

X X X X X X X Comment: Rural nature of area, low density (3ac min.), no hillside dev.

Action 1.A3: Develop a multi tiered set of land use tools (current standards: 3 acre lots allow for individual septic and well; 1 acre lots require one central service (water or sewer); 10,000 ft. lots require both central services).

X X X X X X X Delete and ensure that any restrictions exclude existing lots of record

Objective 1.B: To restrict commercial development and signage.

X X X X X X X X X X In the prior planning sessions (90s and since), it was clearly expressed that the

community wants no retail, office or other commercial development except as

noted below with regard to home based businesses, care homes, and B&B. I

have not heard any sentiment expressed that would change that.

Disallow retail and other business aside from low impact homes based business

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 22

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Existing Junction Creek District Plan Text Agree Disagree Suggestions for Improvement

Action 1.B1: Allow for continued use and establishment of home occupations, provided these do not affect neighbors.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: No stored toxic pesticides commercially

Comment: Affect the neighbors…is relative of course but placing the closwe

neighbors in risk of toxicity from the large storage tanks of chemical

herbicides& fertilizers is definitely an example of negatively affecting

neighbors, including the odors of chemicals, the noise of semi trucks, filling

tanks regularly and the continual risk of spills, and exposure from dumping

excess from washing trucks after season

Comment: Should commercial marijuana growth be added?

Action 1.B2: Allow for the establishment of day-care homes serving up to 6 children or senior citizens.

X X X X X X X X X Subject to appropriate capacity of water, sewer, access, etc..

Comment: Im not sure

Comment: Provided that neighbors are not impacted by traffic, noise, etc

Comment: As long as non-impactive to neighbors

Action 1.B3: Any commercial lodging

development should address the constraints

described in the goals of this plan.

X X X X X X X X X

Action 1.B4: Bed and breakfast, day-care homes, and home occupations should be the only type of commercial activities allowed in the District.

X X X X X X X Comment: Allow for Café? Corner Market?

Comment: Reword? Or eliminate if action 1.B1 can cover this? Seems like

there are other commercial activities in the valley that aren’t necessarily “bed

and breakfast, day care and home” occupations but do not impact the

community in a negative way…these include businesses in studios, workshops

and on the land…..examples that come to mind include a musical instrument

business and numerous small commercial gardens

Objective 1.C: To guide development within the constraints of the natural environment

X X X X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 23

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 1.C1: Determine gross density for specific areas. Cluster developments should be encouraged in order to maintain open spaces.

X X X X X X X X X Cluster development areas should be limited to areas already impacted

Cluster developments encouraged. The greatest growth challenges facing the

area are the same as elsewhere, in that the word “growth” has become a

favorite spin word & seldom equates to the nice sound it puts out. LPC, as a

whole, is being challenged to focus less on increased numbers & dollars and

more on quality of life index

Action 1.C2: Development must be guided away from steep slopes, unstable geologic hazards, wetlands, flood plains, and other sensitive areas.

X X X X X X X X X

Action 1.C3: Utilize proper set backs and avoid creating silhouettes along hilltops or ridge lines.

X X X X X X X X X No obvious hipptop/ridgeline development that “sticks out”

Action 1.C4: Look at each site, keep in mind the “spirit” of the plan is to blend in, not stand out.

X X X X X X X X

Action 1.C5: Limit tree removal on building sites to the absolute minimum required for construction and fire safety.

X X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 24

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Action1.D1: Require light fixtures that do ot cast light on adjacent properties.

X X X X X X X Comment: Encourage lights to be extinguished at night if not needed

Action 1.D2: Require utilities located underground, or if underground is not feasible, try to make aesthetic (non-visible) as possible.

X X X X X X X X

Action 1.D3: Adopt guidelines for attractive compatible buildings and signage.

X X X X X X X X Comment: Signage?

Action 1.D4: Require developments to be sighted in such a way as to preserve important visual resources of the site. For example, new developments should respect the following criteria when applicable

X X X X X X Comment: I don’t want a major development

Comment: Views, privacy, sunlight


Objective 1.D: To avoid/discourage developments that will cause light, noise, visual, and air pollution.

X X X X X X X X X X Comment: Existing development of stored commercial pesticides causes air

pollution

Comment: Storage with large scale commercial herbicide and chemical

fertilizers filled regularly by semi trucks seems out of compliance with this goal

(such as scott’s pro lawn business)

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 25

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


1.D4.a: Located in wooded areas so as to be screened from roadways. 1.D4.b: Set back from road to preserve rural character. 1.D4.c: Located near other subdivided lots and/or houses. 1.D4.d: Located so buildings are set back from ridge tops or do not intrude above horizon lines. 1.D4.e: Located so as to avoid steep slopes (30%>).

X X X X X X X X Comment: Subject to fire mitigation needs

Goal 2: To maintain a socially diverse community that sustains a safe neighborhood for raising children.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: This needs to be defined….new low income housing would bring

down property values

Comment: Parts of this statement seems not so important/relevant and hard to

control with guiding documents. Would change this goal to “To create a

community that sustains a safe neighborhood for all residents.” Especially in

light of increasing homelessness in La Plata county. Additionally, I believe one

of the fires started a couple of summers ago in J.C. district was by squatters on

the hill above where C.R. 204 and C.R. 205 split. Not sure wording for

objectives and actions? Perhaps just keep 2.C. below.

Objective 2.A: To encourage development that attracts diverse social and economic groups.

X X X X X X X X X Limited

Not Needed

Action 2.A1: Promote a tax code that does not increase gentrification so affordable property and taxation levels are maintained.

X X X X X X X X X Not Needed

Objective 2.B: To promote mutual respect and caring that encourages and strengthens trust, tolerance, and acceptance.

X X X X X X X X X X Not needed

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 2.B1: As an educational strategy, inform potential land buyers of this plan, working with the Board of Realtors.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: Should be on any MLS brochure

Comment: I would probably move this out of this section, but like the idea of

buyers being made aware of this document, perhaps via closing docs at real

estate closing?

Objective 2.C: To limit the impact of social change—preventing crime and promoting safety and security.

X X X X X X X Comment: What does limit the impact of social change mean?

Goal 3: To protect the quality of the natural environment.

X X X X X X X X X X Comment: Incentives & infrastructure for solar/renewable energy. Incentives

for residents to manage the spread of noxious & invasive weed species.

Objective 3.A: To protect riparian and wetland areas.

X X X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 27

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 3.A1: Seek wetlands conservation. X X X X X X X X X

Action 3.A2: Review, clarify, and if necessary, revise the building setbacks from flood ways in La Plata Land Use Code.

X X X X X X Comment: ?

Action 3.A3: Require buffering (setbacks for berms, vegetation, etc.) between differing land uses and environmental conditions, especially wetland and riparian areas.

X X X X X X Comment: ?

Comment: Especially space & vegetation

Action 3.A4: Conduct flood plain/ floodway analysis.

X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 3.A5: Inventory wetlands. X X X X X X X

Objective 3.B: To maintain supply and quality both of domestic and natural waters.

X X X X X X X X X X Comment: Requires a limit (reasonable) to density

Concern: Amount of sewage & chemical residues that may flow into the

shallow aquifer/well systems.

Action 3.B1: Based on accurate information, create water use restrictions and limits for developments and in home businesses.

X X X X X X X Comments: What does this mean in context of wells? Too vague…does not

address wells, irrigation ditches

How many people can be adequately supported by the available water

Action 3.B2: Encourage water conservation regarding lawns.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: Farming Exempt

Comment: “Encourage water conservation regarding lawns, gardens, pastures

and household use.”

Comment: Might be sufficient as is but could include wording regarding use of

strategic watering, xeric design and reduced flow plumbing fixtures.

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 3.B3: Conduct regular water quality tests at the lakes and streams in the area to monitor and evaluate water conditions.

X X X X X X X Comments: Who’s going to do it?

Comment: Is this going to cost the homeowners money?

Action 3.B4: Require new developments to implement erosion control measures.

X X X X X X X

Objective 3.C: To encourage retention of open spaces and scenic vistas

X X X X X X X X X X

Action 3.C1: Protect views of cliffs and mountain sides.

X X X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 30

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 3.C2: Establish view corridors in areas of particular scenic value and encourage developments within corridors to respect vistas and open spaces, though thoughtful site design.

X X X X X X Comments: “Encourage” being the operative word

Comment: I’m not so much on the “encouraged Development” side

Goal 4: To maintain high quality wildlife

habitats. X X X X X X X X X

Curious if upper ditch near Junction Creek trailhead diverts water from Junction

Creek during dry winters like this one where the water available to wildlife

along Junction Creek corridor is almost nonexistent, except in man-made

ponds.

Objective 4.A: To encourage community education about wildlife, especially among recreationalists.

X X X X X X X

Action 4.A1: Provide information to recreationalists and others, specifically on wildlife tolerance, trail etiquette, loose dogs, etc.

X X X X X X X X Comment: And cleanup of canine waste

Action 4.A2: Develop guidelines for wildlife protection (such as acceptable fencing types, setbacks from riparian areas, and appropriate landscaping materials).

X X X X X X X X X Comment: But these need to be allowing of personal choices and diversity

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 31

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Objective 4.B: To insure the protection of

wildlife corridors. X X X X X X X X X

Action 4.B1: Explore the possibility of purchasing land for winter range.

X X X X X X X X Comment: Who would do this?

Action 4.B2: Maintain wildlife habitats and encourage new developments to allow wildlife to move freely throughout the project.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: Yes on wildlife habitats. No on encourage new development

Action 4.B3: Identify critical wildlife corridors. X X X X X X X X

Action 4.B4: Identify winter wildlife habitats. X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 32

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 4.B5: Avoid trail impacts in riparian areas.

X X X X X X X

Objective 4.C: To encourage the preservation of sizable open tracts of land and discourage development pressures.

X X X X X X X X X X

Action 4.C1: Maintain lower overall residential density.

X X X X X X X X X

Action 4.C2: Develop detailed land use guidelines.

X X X X X X X Comments: Too open-ended, already have land use development plan

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 4.C3: Initiate riparian and wildlife education.

X X X X X X X X Comment: Who would do it, who would pay for it?

Action 4.C4: Prohibit fencing where not absolutely necessary.

X X X X X X X Comment: Clarify – should allow open horse fencing e.g. split rail cedar

Comment: Often privacy and security concerns come into play here

Action 4.C5: Secure funding for the purchase

of appropriate properties, especially valuable

as habitat or migration corridors.

X X X X X X X X X Comments:?

Goal 5: To maintain an appropriate level of infrastructure development to support low density, rural neighborhood development.

X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 34

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Objective 5.A: To discourage the development or extension of sewer services

X X X X X X X X X X

Action 5.A1: Monitor ground water quality to enable a proactive stance and establish standards for water quality.

X X X X X X X X Limit septic systems/density

Objective 5.B: To discourage the extension of

an arterial transportation route through the

community.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: The community was almost unanimous (1 dissenter) in opposition

with regard to any extension of any roadway to connect directly through the

Animas Valley. I have not heard any sentiment to change of that position

Comment: ?

Curious if there is an emergency access route to Valley in case of fire, either for

access of fire/emergency vehicles or egress of residents?

Action 5.B1: Avoid extension of roadway easement idea through “notch.”

X X X X X X X X X Comment: The community was almost unanimous (1 dissenter) in opposition



Comment: No Opinion

Unless it can be done w/minimal impact to adjacent owners

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 5.B2: Research ownership status and easement status of the road through the notch.

X X X X X X Comment: To the extent that it could assure no future development of a

roadway to the Animas Valley

Comment: No roadway through the notch

Comment: 2nd access would be good

Action 5.B3: Ensure that no County road plans include the establishment of an Animas connection to the valley.

X X X X X X Comment: The community was almost unanimous (1 dissenter) in opposition



Comment: Depends on how its done

Objective 5.C: To establish an adequate transportation system that will provide safety for residents and those accessing public lands.

X X X X X X X Comment: Depends on how it would be done

Action 5.C1: Prohibit improvements that will

result in increased speeds, i.e., do not allow

line-of-sight improvements or straightening

improvements.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: Straight section of 204 before pavement already a problem

Comment: Keep “rural nature” of the road including greenbelt. No bike bath –

will cause increased speed and impact on the area (extensive road work,

excavation to steep terrain)

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 5.C2: Leave natural barriers to control speed.

X X X X X X X X X X X Comment: Natural?

Comment: Bring back the cattle guard to slow traffic entry/exit to not national

forest service rd on CR 204. Good luck with the 3-way stop!

Action 5.C3: Avoid the use of urban road standards for the District’s rural setting. Adopt rural road standards with minimum impacts appropriate for the area and its steep terrain. For instance, require road widths no wider than necessary for the normal and emergency access. This would minimize the cut through the trees and meadows.

X X X X X X X X Comment: Speed bumps @ end of CR 204?

Action 5.C4: Add shoulders for safety. X X X X X X Comment: The community was very supportive of the building of a bike

lane/path along CR 204. At the prior plan reviews, the majority of residents

along CR 205were against a separate bike lane/path, this sentiment was far

from unanimous. This issued should be aired and polled, especially among

those that live in CR 205 area.

Comment: Request bike lane form Miller to CR 204/205 junction only for

safety.

Comment: Especially along CR 204

Comment: Yes! Objective 5.D: To establish a safe hiking/biking trail system, on public land, that is sensitive to the natural environment, particularly wildlife.

X X X X X X X X Comment: The community was very supportive of the building of a bike





Comment: Yes!

Comment: Looks like we have that

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 37

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 5.D1: Work with the FS to create safe

parking at Colorado Trail head and enforce

parking within the designated area, i.e.,

respecting private properties.

X X X X X X Comment: Done?

Comment: Miller to CR 204/205 only for safety (cars and bikes)

Comment: And keep the bathroom clean! Encourage dogowners to clean up

poop

Action5.D2: Explore the possibility of a bike path along Junction Creek Road.

X X X X X X X X Comment: The community was very supportive of the building of a bike





Comment: What options exist for this? What about CR 205?

Comment: This is needed! What options do we have? What about CR 205?

Comment: We don’t need one

Creates propensity for excessive speed and danger

Comment: Nopers…..instead, encourage drivers to keep lower speeds, pass

bikers correctly & encourage bikers to follow safety protocol (simple-life etc..)

Action 5.D3: Critically assess pros and cons of Barnes Mountain and Animas Mountain Trails Westside connection

X X X X X Comment: Where would this be? Ask private property owners

Goal 6: To protect the quality of public lands

X X X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 38

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Objective 6.A: To maintain appropriate

recreation access and use, avoiding social and

environmental conflicts among users

X X X X X X X X X

Action 6.A1: Explore the possibility of specific use designation on trails.

X X X X X X X Comment: Add more signage where necessary

Action 6.A2: Explore possibilities for enforcing

regulations concerning dogs and bikers. X X X X X X Comment: Enforce what?

Action 6.A3: Establish adequate parking areas at public land access points.

X X X X X X X

Objective 6.B: To support good public and private land planning that avoids negative impacts such as wildfires, hunting near residencies, and protects cultural and natural resources.

X X X X X X X X X Comment: Fire-risk in the area is a concern (egress, control availability of water,

mitigation)

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 39

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)


Action 6.B1: Discourage public land

exchanges for private development unless

there is clear public interest value.

X X X X X X X X X

Action 6.B2: Implement use restricted buffer zones on public lands adjacent to private residencies.

X X X X X X X

Action 6.B3: Encourage B.L.M. not to open public land for development.

X X X X X X X X X X X Comment: Encourage engagement in Firewise Durango program

Action 6.B4: Work with U.S. and Colorado State Forest Services to use prescribed burns for residential safety and to improve wildlife habitat.

X X X X X X X

5.1.c

Packet Pg. 40

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Sta

keh

old

er M

atri

x 2-

13-1

8 C

om

pre

hen

sive

Inp

ut

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Junction Creek District Plan Update: ScopingSurvey

QUESTION SUMMARIES DATA TRENDS INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES

Q1

Q2

Q3

100.00% 20

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

100.00% 20

100.00% 20

Contact informationAnswered: 20 Skipped: 0

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

ResponsesName

ResponsesCompany

ResponsesAddress

ResponsesAddress 2

ResponsesCity/Town

ResponsesState/Province

ResponsesZIP/Postal Code

ResponsesCountry

ResponsesEmail Address

ResponsesPhone Number

100.00% 20

0.00% 0

Is your primary residence located in the Junction CreekDistrict?Answered: 20 Skipped: 0

TOTAL 20

Comments (1)

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

0.00% 0

If no, where do you live?Answered: 0 Skipped: 20

! No matching responses.


Elsewhere in La Plata County

20 responsesShare Link https://www.surveymonkey.com/res COPY

÷ SIGN UP

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 41

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-Y3H8MWVB8/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-Y3H8MWVB8/data-trends/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-Y3H8MWVB8/browse/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/user/sign-up/?ut_source=sp_sign_up&ut_source2=new_analyze_header

Q4

Q5

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

TOTAL 0

Elsewhere in La Plata County

Elsewhere in Colorado

Out of state

100.00% 20

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

What is your property type?Answered: 20 Skipped: 0

TOTAL 20

Comments (1)

Single-familyresidence

Multi-family/Mobile home park

Vacant

I don't own orrent in the...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Single-family residence

Multi-family/Mobile home park

Vacant

I don't own or rent in the Junction Creek District

100.00% 19

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

If you have a residential property, please describe itsstatusAnswered: 19 Skipped: 1

TOTAL 19

Comments (1)

Owner-occupied

Long-termrental

Short-termrental

Vacant

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Owner-occupied

Long-term rental

Short-term rental

Vacant

20 responsesShare Link

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 42

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q6

Q7

Q8

What features make the Junction Creek District unique?Answered: 18 Skipped: 2

The close proximity to town with the rural feel. The winding county roads. The wildlife.

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Peaceful, natural, low-traffic and low-density environment.

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

The trees, the hills, the valley. Wide open space... Picturesque views .

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

No through access, wildlife, recreational trails, relatively safe, no large-scale retail commercialactivity, space

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

Removed geographically from town bustle. 3 acre zoning makes it expensive and exclusive.

2/13/2018 8:26 AM

l l /

What are the greatest growth/development challengesfacing the Junction Creek District?Answered: 17 Skipped: 3

The growing number of people who use the roads, trails and wilderness area (hiking, biking, dogwalking, etc).

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Water usage. Over population.

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

Water

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

Water, fire mitigation and rise in property taxes for long term residents.

2/13/2018 8:26 AM

Junction creek district is already facing over development issues. Limit the growth.

2/12/2018 7:18 PM

ld l d d i i h l d ( ) l d i

What is most important to you when considering theJunction Creek District's future?Answered: 19 Skipped: 1

Keeping it the way it is!

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Peaceful, natural, low-traffic and low-density

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

Population

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

Water resources, cleanliness of water supply,

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

A bik l l J ti C k R d


5.1.d

Packet Pg. 43

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q9

Q10

A bike lane along Junction Creek Road.

2/13/2018 8:26 AM

Limiting the growth

Please indicate how important each of the following policytopics is to you:Answered: 20 Skipped: 0

5.00%1

5.00%1

20.00%4

70.00%14

20

3.55

0.00%0

0.00%0

10.00%2

90.00%18

20

3.90

30.00%6

50.00%10

10.00%2

10.00%2

20

2.00

5.00%1

15.00%3

25.00%5

55.00%11

20

3.30

10.00%2

10.00%2

20.00%4

60.00%12

20

3.30

0.00%0

5.00%1

20.00%4

75.00%15

20

3.70

5.26%1

10.53%2

21.05%4

63.16%12

19

3.42

0.00%0

5.00%1

20.00%4

75.00%15

20

3.70

Comments (3)

Traffic andRoad Safety

ProtectingQuality of...

HousingAvailability...

Access toPublic Lands

ManagingCommercial...

OpenSpace/Scenic...

Availabilityof Domestic...

MaintainingRural Character

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NOT AT ALLIMPORTANT

SOMEWHATIMPORTANT

IMPORTANT VERYIMPORTANT

TOTAL WEIGHTEDAVERAGE

Traffic and Road Safety

Protecting Quality ofNatural Environment

HousingAvailability/Affordability

Access to Public Lands

Managing CommercialDevelopment

Open Space/ScenicCorridor

Availability of DomesticWater

Maintaining RuralCharacter

Please elaborate on your priorities in Question 9, includingany additional topics not listed above.Answered: 10 Skipped: 10

Question 9? All of the above are important to us. It would be helpful to add and maintain road signson curves. "SLOW" signs needed on several areas of CR 204 and CR 205.

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Bike lanes are nice to have, but may adversely increase the speed of traffic.

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

Dead tree control

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

The Junction Creek district's unique rural quality so convenient to the amenities of town is why I livethere. Larger lot sizes with options for livestock and other animals and no commercial developmentcreate a quiet and peaceful living environment. The availability of a variety of public trails makes it


5.1.d

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q11

Q12

Q13

c eate a qu et a d peace ul l g e o e t. e a a lab l ty o a a ety o publ c t a ls a es tunique and access to these public trails is important.

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

We built our home here (with our own hands) because we love the beauty and peace in the valley.This has been a perfect spot to raise our child. Residents have enough room on their two-three acre

Please indicate how important each of the following landuse concerns is to you:Answered: 20 Skipped: 0

30.00%6

30.00%6

25.00%5

15.00%3

20

2.25

0.00%0

10.00%2

25.00%5

65.00%13

20

3.55

0.00%0

10.00%2

30.00%6

60.00%12

20

3.50

10.00%2

40.00%8

10.00%2

40.00%8

20

2.80

0.00%0

20.00%4

25.00%5

55.00%11

20

3.35

Short-termrentals

Public landmanagement

Trailaccess/infra...

Ability tohave home-ba...

Visual impactsof development

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NOT AT ALLIMPORTANT

SOMEWHATIMPORTANT

IMPORTANT VERYIMPORTANT

TOTAL WEIGHTEDAVERAGE

Short-term rentals

Public landmanagement

Trailaccess/infrastructure

Ability to havehome-basedbusiness

Visual impacts ofdevelopment

Please elaborate on the ranking in Question 11, includingany additional topics not listed above.Answered: 12 Skipped: 8

Question 11? Short-term rentals okay, but wouldn't want it to become too busy.

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

The current land-use codes seem adequate.

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

The trees, the hills, the valley. Wide open space... Picturesque views .Water usage. Overpopulation.Weed control, Maintaining water rights Dead tree control

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

this is a great place to live, I'd like to see land use continue as it currently is, giving land ownersability to have home-based businesses of many kinds.

2/12/2018 8:47 AM

There is little I would change to the Junction Creek District. I prefer to maintain existingdevelopmental restrictions in an effort to maintain the rural character of the district.

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?20 responsesShare Link

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!

Powered by

Answered: 6 Skipped: 14

Would like to be put on your email list for further updates. Thanks!

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Concern about impact of commercial growth of marijuana in Junction Creek district...primarily from acommunity safety point of view

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

I have seen the road design for (CR204) and while I support road improvements and bike lanes, feelthe road widening, straightening, and the large scale tree cutting and road cuts not in alignment withthe spirit of the area plan. Surely, bike lanes could be addressed without the new roadway resemblinga freeway on ramp.

2/12/2018 6:29 PM

Many people in the community have concerns about Durango Estates, the large platted subdivisionon the ridge next to Log Chutes. There has been a steady increase of illegal camping and squattingover the last couple of years, which raises safety and fire issues. There are also concerns that housesmay be built along the ridge, which would significantly impact the views from the valley.

2/10/2018 12:28 PM


5.1.d

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/survey-templates/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/user/sign-up/?ut_source=sp_content_footer&ut_source2=new_analyze_content_footer

https://www.surveymonkey.com/

Q6 What features make the Junction Creek District unique?


The close proximity to town with the rural feel. The winding county roads. The wildlife.

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Peaceful, natural, low-traffic and low-density environment.

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

The trees, the hills, the valley. Wide open space... Picturesque views .

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

No through access, wildlife, recreational trails, relatively safe, no large-scale retail commercial

activity, space

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

Removed geographically from town bustle. 3 acre zoning makes it expensive and exclusive.

2/13/2018 8:26 AM

Large rural lots w/ space

2/12/2018 7:18 PM

Proximity to town yet very rural appearance and much open space. Many landmark trees.

2/12/2018 6:29 PM

close to town, yet feels removed. beautiful views. trails in every direction.

2/12/2018 8:47 AM

Rural feeling so close to town. Variety of public recreational activities available. No commercial

development. Little residential development.

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

This area is unique because it has a quiet rural atmosphere and scenic beauty, but is only five minutes

from town.

2/10/2018 12:28 PM

it's rural feel yet being close to town.

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 47

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

2/10/2018 10:46 AM

It's unique geography, archaeological significance, and quiet.

2/10/2018 9:17 AM

Beauty, "rural feel", vegetation. The new bike lane on the city edge.

2/10/2018 9:07 AM

Natural beauty. Low density housing. Bike friendly- sorta....

2/10/2018 8:54 AM

It's the natural beauty, coupled with a friendly neighborhood, where the residents work together and

look out for each other, in our beautiful location. The 'hanging valley' geologic feature provides a

sound and light pollution block from greater Durango. The proximity to the archeological preserve

provides serenity and undisturbed natural beauty. Living across from falls creek trail-head, i can attest

to the growing popularity of the falls creek trail, and that people really enjoy and value the

UNDEVELOPED nature of the hidden valley (north of turtle lake, south of falls creek lake). Its an oasis

just 10 minutes from Durango.

2/9/2018 10:12 AM

Rural setting, yet so close & convenient to town.

2/8/2018 8:52 PM

The rural and community feeling of the area and the amount of open space.

2/8/2018 8:12 PM

The Junction Creek and Hidden Valleys are defined by the steep cliffs and hillsides rising up on both

sides naturally limiting development.

2/8/2018 4:05 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 48

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q7 What are the greatest growth/development challenges facing the

Junction Creek District?


The growing number of people who use the roads, trails and wilderness area (hiking, biking, dog

walking, etc).

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Water usage. Over population.

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

Water

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

Water, fire mitigation and rise in property taxes for long term residents.

2/13/2018 8:26 AM

Junction creek district is already facing over development issues. Limit the growth.

2/12/2018 7:18 PM

Larger tracts could lead to density increases. Area has only one access roadway (CR204) already in

poor condition.

2/12/2018 6:29 PM

Growth needs to be limited.

2/12/2018 1:33 PM

water.

2/12/2018 8:47 AM

Safe biking access.

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

The greatest challenges are preserving the scenic beauty as the community grows and road safety,

especially on CR 204.

2/10/2018 12:28 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Does it need to grow?

2/10/2018 10:46 AM

I think the biggest challenge is water usage. An increasing number of ADU's indicate that more people

will be utilizing a dwindling resource. Many wells have been challenged in our area within the past

couple of years, and lake levels are as low as I can remember. Also,more traffic (both Bike and

vehicular), more people using the valley area. Some visitors do not understand the fire danger we

have, as fires have come close to our house (set by campers), and visitors have been seen shooting off

bottle rockets in the valley. Bikers sometimes ride in packs, not moving for vehicles to pass. We do not

favor a bike lane for these few rude riders, for the most part people move around them pretty safely.

Also, the threat of development posed by Ed Zink, who strove to develop the valley.

2/10/2018 9:17 AM

Increased number of residents/building of homes. Increased recreation use of the beautiful Colorado

trail head. The road is narrow so widening it (which I advocate) would be challenging.

2/10/2018 9:07 AM

Traffic speeds- recommend 25 mph on CR 204 and CR 205. Clear need for bike lanes on CR 204 and CR

205.

2/10/2018 8:54 AM

The proposed 'Zink road access' would permanently scar the wetlands area of the valley. Also the

impact of continued use on the trail system needs to be managed for dog waste. It has become

'Durango Dog Park North'. Also more signs are needed to slow cars down within 100 yards of the trail

head so there are no accidents involving cars and children and dogs and mountain bikers at the

trailhead. The new house on the lake on Turtle/chapman lake is extremely close to wetlands and its

impact will undoubtedly be felt. Also it was built on know basket maker pit houses. I know they

unearthed a vast amount of pottery and it should be documented.

2/9/2018 10:12 AM

Traffic

2/8/2018 8:12 PM

Maintaining the aquifers since most all are on well water and not overusing the land to detriment of

neighbors. Also important to try and continue encouraging other forms of travel along Junction Creek

Road.

2/8/2018 4:05 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q8 What is most important to you when considering the Junction

Creek District's future?


Keeping it the way it is!

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Peaceful, natural, low-traffic and low-density

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

Population

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

Water resources, cleanliness of water supply,

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

A bike lane along Junction Creek Road.

2/13/2018 8:26 AM

Limiting the growth

2/12/2018 7:18 PM

No Edgemont style density mistakes.

2/12/2018 6:29 PM

Maintaining a rural atmosphere.

2/12/2018 1:33 PM

bike path on the road reducing light pollution

2/12/2018 8:47 AM

Little to no change to existing land use

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

Smart growth that preserves scenic beauty and mountain views.

2/10/2018 12:28 PM

That it keep it's rural feel.

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 51

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

2/10/2018 10:46 AM

Water, density, traffic (both bike and vehicular)

2/10/2018 9:17 AM

Slower traffic speeds!!! High level need for a bike lane all the way up Junction Creek

2/10/2018 9:07 AM

Traffic speeds- recommend 25 mph on CR 204 and CR 205. Clear need for bike lanes on CR 204 and CR

205.

2/10/2018 8:54 AM

Preserve what natural beauty is left and minimize the impact of private developments. Allowing the

current owner to build a house on the lake in a known archeological area that is currently under

construction is an example of scaring the view shed. Also preserving the right to garden and farm on

the land.

2/9/2018 10:12 AM

Maintaining the characteristics of the current lower density housing, quiet neighborhoods. Bike path

along CR 204, but no bike path along CR 205.

2/8/2018 8:52 PM

Maintaining the rural feel of the neighborhood and protecting wildlife habitat. Limiting any

commercial development.

2/8/2018 8:12 PM

See above response to #7.

2/8/2018 4:05 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 52

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q10 Please elaborate on your priorities in Question 6, including any

additional topics not listed above.


Question 9? All of the above are important to us. It would be helpful to add and maintain road signs

on curves. "SLOW" signs needed on several areas of CR 204 and CR 205.

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Bike lanes are nice to have, but may adversely increase the speed of traffic.

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

Dead tree control

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

The Junction Creek district's unique rural quality so convenient to the amenities of town is why I live

there. Larger lot sizes with options for livestock and other animals and no commercial development

create a quiet and peaceful living environment. The availability of a variety of public trails makes it

unique and access to these public trails is important.

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

We built our home here (with our own hands) because we love the beauty and peace in the valley.

This has been a perfect spot to raise our child. Residents have enough room on their two-three acre

plots to have privacy, but we are close enough to be a neighborhood. I am concerned about increasing

density.

2/10/2018 9:17 AM

Keeping skies dark with lighting type recommendations for residences.

2/10/2018 8:54 AM

the new house on turtle lake needs to be assured not to impact the lakes wetlands. I find it a harsh

reality that they were allowed to build within such proximity to the wetlands, ion top of ancient

basket maker pit house sites. This is similar to the proposed zink access road, that would greatly affect

the view shed and habitat of the at-risk wetlands. Also a priority not mentioned is the ability to have

home based farm operations and be able to subsist from the land and honor the traditions of

sustainable farms and land management practices.

2/9/2018 10:12 AM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 53

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Maintaining the individual characteristics of junction creek is important. The unique/quirkiness of the

corridor is what draws people to want to live in the area. Rd safety for both foot & bike travel is

becoming increasingly dangerous. There is no shoulder and people drive fast. There is no need for

additional trailheads to access more trails. There are plenty of trails to access public land. No need to

draw additional traffic onto already busy rds.

2/8/2018 8:52 PM

Maintaining open space and the rural character of the neighborhood are most important. I do not

want to see any commercial development or more dense residential development. I would support a

bike/walking path because of the amount of foot and bike traffic already on 205.

2/8/2018 8:12 PM

Do you mean question 9? If so, those I have indicated as very important all should have top priority.

2/8/2018 4:05 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 54

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q12 Please elaborate on the ranking in Question 11, including any

additional topics not listed above.


Question 11? Short-term rentals okay, but wouldn't want it to become too busy.

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

The current land-use codes seem adequate.

2/16/2018 9:27 AM

The trees, the hills, the valley. Wide open space... Picturesque views .Water usage. Over

population.Weed control, Maintaining water rights Dead tree control

2/15/2018 7:35 PM

this is a great place to live, I'd like to see land use continue as it currently is, giving land owners ability

to have home-based businesses of many kinds.

2/12/2018 8:47 AM

There is little I would change to the Junction Creek District. I prefer to maintain existing

developmental restrictions in an effort to maintain the rural character of the district.

2/12/2018 7:34 AM

1. Establishing codes/guidelines that prevent new development from impacting the rural atmosphere

and scenic beauty of the area, especially along ridge lines. 2. Establishing and preserving scenic

corridors. 3. Traffic safety on CR 204 - road needs paved shoulders for biker/pedestrian.

2/10/2018 12:28 PM

Water resources area primary concern

2/10/2018 9:17 AM

Again, slower traffic speeds and a road made much SAFER by having a bike lane!

2/10/2018 9:07 AM

the ability to use the private county land to farm and subsist in a sustainable manner is a priority that

residents outside the city limits of durango greatly value.

2/9/2018 10:12 AM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 55

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

We don’t need more big homes on ridge lines. Such a shame to have a beautiful high ridge line with

big houses obstructing the beauty. There is no need for additional trailheads or major trail projects in

the junction creek district. There is enough trail access already. Small home offices are fine, no major

commercial development though.

2/8/2018 8:52 PM

I would support of bike path. I do not support any attempt to have the Colorado trail come through

this valley.

2/8/2018 8:12 PM

Question 11? As the Hidden Valley is neither zoned or subject to covenants, it would appear that

owners are pretty good at living and letting live. I'm more concerned for maintenance of the public

lands and access to the contiguous areas.

2/8/2018 4:05 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Q13 Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?


Would like to be put on your email list for further updates. Thanks!

2/21/2018 7:03 PM

Concern about impact of commercial growth of marijuana in Junction Creek district...primarily from a

community safety point of view

2/13/2018 9:44 AM

I have seen the road design for (CR204) and while I support road improvements and bike lanes, feel

the road widening, straightening, and the large scale tree cutting and road cuts not in alignment with

the spirit of the area plan. Surely, bike lanes could be addressed without the new roadway resembling

a freeway on ramp.

2/12/2018 6:29 PM

Many people in the community have concerns about Durango Estates, the large platted subdivision on

the ridge next to Log Chutes. There has been a steady increase of illegal camping and squatting over

the last couple of years, which raises safety and fire issues. There are also concerns that houses may

be built along the ridge, which would significantly impact the views from the valley.

2/10/2018 12:28 PM

The growing popularity of the falls creek trailhead needs to be addressed. some things can could be

done : Provide signage! 1. Encouraging tail users to use the pullouts further down the road to ease the

use of the first trail head by the big boulders. 2. Slow down cars near the trailhead. 3. provide doggy

bags for poop and a trash receptacle for dog waste. 4. encourage trail users to stay on the existing

made trails so as no to make multiple paths/trails.

2/9/2018 10:12 AM

None at this time, Thanks.

2/8/2018 4:05 PM

5.1.d

Packet Pg. 57

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n S

urv

ey R

esu

lts

2-22

-18

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

DurangoDurango

ÛÛ250

ÛÛ208

ÛÛ203

ÛÛ124

ÛÛ243

ÛÛ502

ÛÛ240

ÛÛ207

ÛÛ205

ÛÛ245

ÛÛ234

ÛÛ201

ÛÛ246

ÛÛ204

ÛÛ252

ÛÛ250C

ÛÛ202

ÛÛ249

ÛÛ253

ÛÛ247

ÛÛ248

ÛÛ240A

ÛÛ251

ÛÛ254

ÛÛ240

ÛÛ124

ÛÛ204

£¤550

£¤160

La Plata CountyDistrict Plans

Junction Creek District PlanSheet No.

Drawn By: Robby Overfield

Checked by: Planning

Date: 2-1-181 of 1

0 1 20.5Miles¯US Highways

State HighwaysCounty Roads

Address PointsPublic LandsLakes and Rivers

ParcelDurangoAg/Rural ResidentialAg/Timber/Recreation

City Adjacent ResidentialPublic and Community FacilityResidential 3-6 acres

Durango

ÛÛ205

ÛÛ204

ÛÛ203

ÛÛ204Durango

BayfieldDurango

Ignacio

See Inset Map

INSET MAP

5.1.e

Packet Pg. 58

Att

ach

men

t: J

un

ctio

n C

reek

Map

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.f

Packet Pg. 59

Att

ach

men

t: S

pea

ker

Sig

n In

Sh

eet

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.g

Packet Pg. 60

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 1

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.g

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 1

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 63

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 64

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 65

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 66

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 67

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 68

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 69

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 70

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 71

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 72

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 73

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 74

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 75

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 76

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 77

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 78

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 79

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 80

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 81

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 82

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 83

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 84

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 85

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 86

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 87

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 88

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 89

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 90

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 91

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 92

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 93

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 94

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 95

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 96

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 97

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 98

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 99

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 100

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 101

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 102

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 103

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 104

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 105

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 106

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 107

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 108

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 109

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 110

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 111

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 112

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 113

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 114

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 115

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 116

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 117

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 118

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 119

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 120

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 121

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 122

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 123

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 124

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 125

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 126

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

5.1.h

Packet Pg. 127

Att

ach

men

t: E

xib

it 2

(39

48 :

PR

OJE

CT

#20

17-0

160

DIS

TR

ICT

PL

AN

UP

DA

TE

)

Final For a Regular Meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION

Documents

Transcript of Final For a Regular Meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION