City of Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission May 2, 2017 6:30 P.M

CITY OF CORTEZ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2017 6:30 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2017

3. BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION

a. Public Hearing and the Review of a Site Plan Application to Construct an Addition to an Existing Building at 10194 Highway 491, as Submitted by Owners Billy and Kathy Sanchez , and Review of P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017. (Associate Planner Connolly)

b. Motion to Nominate P&Z Representative to the Historic Preservation Board

4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

5. P&Z DISCUSSION ITEMS

a. Discussion Regarding Montezuma County Public Facilities PUD Listed Uses and Bridge Shelter (City Planner Hughes) b. Land Use Code Update: Discussion on Subdivision Standards with Regards to Floodplains (City Planner Hughes) c. Review of 3-Mile Plan (City Planner Hughes)

6. FYI a. Cortez City Council Minutes: Workshop and Regular Meeting of March 14, 2017 b. Building Permits Issued: April 1-27, 2017.

7. OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS

8. PREVIOUS BUSINESS

9. ADJOURNMENT

Individuals with disabilities needing auxiliary aid(s) may request assistance by contacting City Hall: address – 123 Roger Smith Avenue, Cortez; phone – 970-565-3402; fax – 970-565-8172; e-mail – [email protected]. We would appreciate it if you would contact us at least 48 hours in advance of the scheduled event so arrangements can be made to locate requested auxiliary aid(s).

j:\pwadmin\p&z\agendas\2017 agendas\05-02-2017.doc

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017

1. The regular meeting was called to order in the City Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. Commission members present were Chairman Danny Giannone, Vice-Chairman Ken Brengle, Tom Butler, Tim Kline, and Rebecca Levy. City staff present included Councilmember Tim Miller, Mayor Karen Sheek, Associate Planner Neva Connolly, City Planner Tracie Hughes, Director of Public Works Phil Johnson, Director of Planning and Building Sam Proffer, City Manager Shane Hale, and City Clerk Linda Smith. There were 39 people present in the audience.

2. Commissioner Kline moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 7, 2017. Commissioner Butler seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Brengle Butler Giannone Kline Levy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3. BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION

a. Public Hearing and the Review of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a K-8 School at 2306 and 2310 East Empire Street, in the Residential Single Family Zone (R-1), as Submitted by Stacey Weyand, Agent to Cortez Partners LLC, and Review of P&Z Resolution No. 5, Series 2017. City Planner Hughes stated that the Children’s Kiva Montessori School is proposing to establish a K-8 school at 2306 and 2310 East Empire Street in the R-1 zoning district. She stated that the properties are located on the northwest corner of Empire Street and Highway 145 right next to each other. She stated that the property includes an existing church building and an existing gym. She stated that the church was built in 1965 and is 5,703 square feet and the gym was built in 1997 and is approximately 9,000 square feet. She noted that the church would be used for classrooms and the gym would be used for classrooms, an activity room, and offices. She noted that the church does not meet side and rear setbacks; however, the church was constructed prior to the existing Land Use Code. She reviewed the Conditions of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit from Land Use Code Section 6.10 (f). She noted that 56 parking spaces would be provided with only 23 spaces required. She stated that landscaping would be provided between the school and the properties to the north. She spoke about the pick-up and drop-off plan for the children and noted that a portion of the current parking lot would be turned into a playground. She stated that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will not require a CDOT access permit because there is no direct connection to a State Highway and the change/increase in traffic impacts at the intersection of Empire and State Highway 145 are well below 20% of the existing traffic impacts. City Planner Hughes stated that the Public Works Director and City Engineer were in favor of one way only ingress from Empire Street to the site, with all egress coming off of Cherry Street. She stated that the school will require a Change in Occupancy Permit and construction documents be prepared by a Colorado licensed design professional. She noted that a phone call was

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 PAGE 2

received prior to the meeting from a neighbor of the property stating concerns for fencing, easements, and property values. She stated that staff recommends approval of the proposal with five conditions. In answer to a question from Chairman Giannone, Director of Planning and Building Proffer spoke of the items that would be involved in the school receiving the Change in Occupancy Permit which include life/safety requirements and sanitary facilities (bathrooms). Director of Planning and Building Proffer stated that he did not know if the building would be required to be sprinkled as it would be based upon how the building is configured.

Nate Seeley, Chairman of the Kiva Board, and Stacey Weyand, Kiva boardmember, spoke to the Commission about the opportunity of moving the Kiva school to the new location. Commissioner Kline asked if the school would be willing to put up a fence to help screen the school from the neighbors. Discussion was held on the type of fence that the applicants are proposing and it was noted the limit would be eight feet. It was noted that landscaping would be proposed to help with the noise issue. Chairman Giannone asked why the school is not requesting a school zone on Highway 145 and also asked about sidewalks in the area. It was noted that the area is a high traffic area and there is concern for safety of the children noting a need for a school zone. Director of Public Works Johnson stated that the City would do everything they could to help make the area as safe as possible and would mark the area the same as other schools with signage for the crosswalks, etc. In answer to a question from Chairman Giannone, Ms. Weyand stated that the conceptual plan has been reviewed by Colorado Code Consultants and that bids are now being received for the remodel. Mr. Seeley spoke about items that would be completed for the exterior of the building and stated that the gym building is proposed as two stories. Ms. Weyand explained how the drop-off and pick-up plan would work for the property and stated that the property would be bought, not leased. In answer to a question from Commissioner Levy, Ms. Weyand stated they would be required to follow State regulations and that Colorado Code Consultants reviewed the plans looking at both the education guidelines and building requirements. Chairman Giannone opened the public hearing.

Katie Butt, 770 Cherry Street, stated that she uses the access between the school and the gym to get to her back yard and she would not like to lose that access. She also spoke for her neighbor at 774 Cherry Street about concerns for access to their backyard. Discussion was held on easements for the property and Ms. Weyand stated that the school would work with the neighbors on their concerns. Mike Lavey, 491 Coronado Avenue, asked if the move to the location on Empire Street would replace the Kiva School located on Beech Street. Ms. Weyand stated that the school would move to the new location from the Beech Street buildings for the first through eight graders and the preschool/kindergarten school would remain at its current location at 1204 East Empire Street. Mr. Lavey commented that he feels the new location is a good idea. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Butler commented that he served on City Council when the Kiva School presented their application to be located at the Beech Street location and he had concerns for the safety of the children in the area; however, he is much more amenable to the new location. He stated that there

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 PAGE 3

are some concerns that need to be worked out, but he likes the new proposal. Commissioner Kline stated that he knows the City will do their best to help the school with safety issues and he suggested that the school continue communicating with the neighbors. In answer to a question from Commissioner Kline, Ms. Weyand stated that someday in the future they would like to add onto their property at 1204 East Empire Street; however, the funding is not available at this time.

Commissioner Butler moved that Planning and zoning approve the Conditional Use Permit to establish a K-8 school at 2306 and 2310 East Empire Street, in the R-1 Zoning District, as submitted by Stacey Weyand, agent for Cortez Partners LLC, through Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 5, Series 2017, with five conditions. Commissioner Kline seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Brengle Butler Giannone Kline Levy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

b. Public Hearing and the Review of Draft Ordinance No. 1222, Series 2017, to Amend the Land Use Code to Allow for Day Care Facilities in the Industrial Park. City Planner Hughes stated that at the March 7, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed a request to allow child care facilities in the Industrial Zoning District. She stated that under the current Land Use Code, child care facilities are neither a permitted nor a conditional use in the Industrial Park. She stated that during the March 7, 2017, the Commission generally felt that a day care center could be compatible as an accessory use with an approved primary use. She reviewed proposed language that could be added to the Land Use Code to address the regulations. She noted that one of the regulations would state that the child care could only be provided for the dependents of employees of the principal business (primary use). Several Commissioners stated that they feel 25% of the floor area of the primary use was too much to request for the accessory child care facility. Commissioner Levy stated that she does not feel a child care facility is compatible with the Industrial zone due to many reasons including noise, obnoxious odors, hazardous chemicals, etc., that are allowed in the Industrial zone. She pointed out that the reason for having an Industrial zone is to encourage industrial type uses and child care facilities do not fit with those uses. Discussion was held on what other communities have done in regard to allowing child care facilities in the Industrial zone. Commissioner Levy noted that any conditions that are placed on the business with the child care facility would be through a Conditional Use Permit; however, the conditions could not be applicable to the surrounding businesses who could have an effect on the day care facility. Discussion was held on what the State may require for the facility and it was noted that safety is of most concern. Chairman Giannone stated that childcare is needed in the community and that companies across the country are providing day care in their facilities now. Commissioner Levy pointed out that children are more susceptible to smells, toxins, and other items that are hazardous. Commissioner Kline suggested that staff receive information on certification of a child care facility from the State so that could be reviewed by the Commissioner. Chairman Giannone opened the floor for public comment.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 PAGE 4

Dave Waters, 16415 CR 21.4, stated that he opposes a day care being allowed in the Industrial zone as it will affect future development of his lots located in the Industrial Park. He stated that future development will be based on the knowledge that a day care center is located in the area which would change what would be allowed. He stated his concern for hazardous items that are located in the area and how that could affect children. Discussion was held on the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit and the difference of a permitted use in the Industrial Zone. Nathan Barton, 11501 CR 34, stated that he is an environmental engineer and has done a lot of work with hazardous material over the years. He stated that the Industrial zone is not an appropriate place for a child care facility for several reasons including exposure for the children/child care providers to hazardous materials and safety risks in regard to equipment that is located in the area. He noted that a child care facility would have an impact on surrounding properties in many ways including what could be allowed knowing children are in the area. Lisa Bunker, representing Osprey Packs, thanked everyone for their concern for the children. She stated that the State has been to the building and has noted that they feel the facility would be a good fit with some small changes. She stated that Osprey Packs would like the opportunity to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for the day care facility in the Industrial Park and present their case through that process. Tamara Hamilton, 12330 Road 33.75, stated that she feels having a day care at an employee’s work is delightful; however, the Industrial Park is not compatible for child care facilities. She stated that she has spent four years in early child care education and noted that children are easily prone to lung diseases (asthma etc.) and industrial activities produce pollutants which would be bad for children. Lana Waters, 16415 CR 21.4, stated that she would not support a change to the Land Use Code to allow a child care facility in the Industrial zone. She stated that it is not a place for sensitive uses and would ultimately limit what they could do with their lots located in the Industrial Park. She stated that she travels the road daily and sees the large trucks that use the streets and she is concerned for the safety of the children. She noted that when the KIVA school located in the Central Business District there was a question with allowing a brewing business close to the school and she feels that would be the same problem with allowing a daycare in the Industrial zone. Chairman Giannone closed the floor to the public comment. Commissioner Kline stated that he feels the suggestion was a good idea when it was first brought up; however, after the public comment and discussion there is the possibility that there could be negative effect with the approval.

Vice-Chairman Brengle moved that the Commission deny the approval of Ordinance No. 1222, Series 2017, due to the health, safety and welfare of the children, the ability for child care facilities to be located in other more compatible areas, and for the possibility that land owners in the Industrial Park could not use their property for an industrial use if a child care facility was located in the area. Commissioner Levy seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Brengle Butler Giannone Kline Levy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 PAGE 5

4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION – None.

5. P&Z DISCUSSION ITEMS

a. Review of Montezuma County High Impact Permit for 35-Acres, Zoned INDHZ, Located at 25716 Road L, Submitted by Owners Dave and Lana Waters. City Planner Hughes stated that the City received the packet for a request for a High Impact Permit for Dave and Lana Waters on March 31, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. She stated that the packet was received from the applicants, not the County, as the City is an adjacent land owner. She noted that the County Planning and Zoning Commission will review the packet at their April 13, 2017, meeting. She stated that staff would like to recommend that the City Planning and Zoning Commission draft a letter addressing any concerns they may have regarding the proposal. She noted that after staff review of the proposal, there is ambiguity as to what the property would be used for and concern regarding traffic from the site. She also spoke about buffering the property from the residents due to dust, noise, and visual issues. She spoke of a secondary access thought it is not clear what that would entail. Chairman Giannone stated his concern as to why the City is just now getting the information as the Montezuma County High Impact Permit Application states the date the application was submitted is February 28, 2017; however, it is stamped received on March 31, 2017. Nathan Barton, 11501 CR 34, stated that he is an environmental and civil engineer, and has been working with the Waters on the project. Dave Waters stated that the property is already zoned for everything that is included in the packet; however, they are going through the High Impact Permit process because things have worked out well and they are exceeding the 15 trips a day currently allowed. He stated that they would like to do what the City has done in their own yard and noted that recently they finished crushing concrete and asphalt material on the City’s property and the material is being recycled. He stated that they would like to continue the recycling efforts as the material is needed for projects in the area. He stated that an asphalt plant is included in the packet; however that is not planned immediately but they want to leave the option open for the future.

Commissioner Brengle commented that having someone local to offer material for the roads helps save tax payers dollars. He stated that he is big supporter of property rights and the property is congruent with the same type of activities. Chairman Giannone opened the floor for public comments. Lisa Bunker, representing Osprey Packs, stated that their biggest concern is the ambiguity of what the property will be used for. She stated that one of the items that would be allowed is a hot mix asphalt plant and they are concerned for fumes that would be emitted from that type of business. She read a letter from Diane Wren, co-owner of Osprey Packs, noting that the company has had to send people home because they have become sick from the fumes when Four Corners Gravel was in operation. The letter continued to state that Osprey is concerned for the health of their employees and questions the location for this type of use. Mike Lavey, 491 East Coronado Avenue, stated that he was asked to represent a couple that live near by the Waters property as they wanted to express their opposition to the odors that would be released should an asphalt plant be allowed. In answer to a question from Chairman Giannone, Mr. Lavey stated that he is speaking on behalf of David and LeAnn Ramsey who live on Road L. Mr. Lavey stated that

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 PAGE 6

the property is so close to the trails and City limits and he has concerns for the air quality should some uses be allowed on the property. Commissioner Brengle wanted to emphasize that the approval of the permit would be done by the County. Mr. Waters stated that there is no asphalt plant proposed for the property though it is a permitted use in the zone. He stated that if that becomes something that would be done in the future, a new application would have to be processed with the County.

City Planner Hughes noted that rezoning for the property was done some time ago and a letter was sent to the County from the City asking for light industrial zoning rather than heavy industrial. Discussion was held on the mitigation of the impacts that would be allowed on the property and how that could be handled. It was noted that the Geer Natural Area is on two sides of the property. Mr. Waters stated that they would prefer not to screen the area unless necessary. City Manager Hale stated that when the City spoke at the County’s review of the property to have Light Industrial versus Heavy Industrial, the City was told not to worry about the zoning as the High Impact Permit process would be when the uses would be determined. He stated that this is the opportunity for the Commission to make comments on how the use would impact the neighborhood. He commented that a heavy truck is calculated much different than a car in regards to impacts to the road and noted there is concern for sight distance from the property. He also noted that visual screening should be considered for future uses on the property. He stated that he does not have any objections for what the property is being used for today; however, it is of concern what could be placed on the property in the future because the application is not clear as to what the property will be used for. Commissioner Levy asked if there is a vested right involved with the application and City Manager Hale stated that he does not know how the process works with the County. After further discussion, the Commission agreed that a letter be sent to the County noting concerns for screening and traffic for the property located at 25716 Road L.

6. FYI

a. Cortez City Council Minutes: Workshops and Regular Meetings of February 14, 2017.

b. Building Permits Issued: March 1-30, 2017.

7. OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS

a. May Planning and Zoning Meeting. City Planner Hughes stated that at the May 2, 2017, meeting, the Commission would view a training video and she asked that the Commission note that the Planning and Zoning Commission would meet earlier than usual on that date.

8. PREVIOUS BUSINESS – None.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2017 PAGE 7

______Danny Giannone, Chairperson ATTEST:

______Linda L. Smith, City Clerk

Business of the Commission

City of Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission

Agenda Memorandum

Item No: 3.a.

Meeting Date: May 2, 2017

MEMO TO: Members of the Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission

FROM: Neva Connolly, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 10194 HIGHWAY 491, AS SUBMITTED BY OWNERS BILLY AND KATHY SANCHEZ, AND REVIEW OF P&Z RESOLUTION NO. 6, SERIES 2017

ATTACHMENTS: P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017; Application; Narrative; Site Plan; Floor Plans; Vicinity Map; Aerial Photo; Comment Letter and attachments

BACKGROUND

The City of Cortez has received a site plan application from property owners Billy and Kathy Sanchez to construct an addition to a structure at 10194 Highway 491. The applicants propose to add a 40-foot by 90-foot extension to an existing 40-foot by 70-foot metal structure, for a total of 6400 square feet. The building is intended to house a marijuana grow-out operation for Herbal Alternatives. There will be no public access or retail sales from the building. No signage is proposed for the expansion. The applicants expect six employees onsite for the grow operation. The Land Use Code requires 12 total spaces for the addition, however the applicants are requesting a special exception to allow for 10 spaces, including one ADA-accessible space.

The 6.7 acre property contains several existing buildings, including Herbal Alternatives at the north end of the property (accessed off of Lebanon Road) and Sanchez Excavation at the southeastern portion of the property (accessed off of Highway 491). The setback requirements for this zoning district are 10-feet for the front yard, seven-feet for the rear yard, and zero-feet for the side yard. These requirements will be satisfied with the addition.

ISSUES

The proposed facility is subject to all local and State marijuana licensing requirements. At the time of the initial inquiry by the applicant, the proposal met the distance requirements from other marijuana facilities as well as public, private, or charter school; licensed day-care facility; licensed pre-school but did not meet the requirements from other marijuana businesses (Herbal Alternatives). The City of Cortez Code Section 15-312 requires a 1500-foot distance between marijuana operations. The distance is determined by pedestrian access, measured as a person would walk safely and property without trespassing. The owner of Herbal Alternatives has proposed a locking gate and fence across the unimproved dirt road connecting the 10194 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SITE PLAN REVIEW – 10194 HWY 491 SANCHEZ MAY 2, 2017 Page 2

Highway 491 and 1531 Lebanon sites, preventing pedestrians from accessing either site from the dirt road and complying with the 1500-foot requirement. Both marijuana operations are otherwise inaccessible to pedestrians due to the steep topography of the overall site.

The Land Use Code has a specific procedure for the review of site plans as set out in Section 6.14(d). The following list contains items that must appear on the plan and should be reviewed by the Commission:

1) Drives, streets, and rights-of-way; 2) Easements; 3) Location and dimensions of structures and signs; 4) Typical elevations of such buildings; 5) Access ways, including points of ingress, egress; 6) Parking, loading, and refuse areas; 7) Common open space; 8) Landscaping and open spaces; 9) Topography; 10) Specific areas proposed for specific types of land use; 11) Lots or plots; 12) Area proposed for dedication; 13) Parks and parkways; 14) School sites; 15) Wetlands; and 16) In addition, a narrative describing the proposed development, Lot and Block and subdivision description, and name(s), address and phone number of the property owner(s) must be attached to the plat. 17) A copy of the warranty deed and title commitment current within thirty days of submittal. 18) Five copies of the drainage plan. 19) Five copies of the landscape plan. 20) Five copies of building elevations of all sides to include rooftop mechanical structures and showing screening of rooftop mechanical devices. 21) Surface and subsurface soils report. 22) Additional copies may be requested for the referral process 23) Certification of notification of mineral estate owners as described in Section 6.04(b)(19).

Section 6.14(f), Action of the Commission, states: “The Planning Commission in its consideration shall use the standards set forth in Chapter 5.00 and shall include paving and layout of streets, alleys and sidewalks; means of ingress and egress, provisions for drainage, parking spaces, protective screening and open spaces; areas designated for landscaping; and other aspects deemed by the Planning Commission necessary to consider in the interest of promoting the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare. If during the course of considering the site plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission is of the opinion that proper approval or disapproval cannot be granted without a detailed design drawing, the Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized to request the applicant to submit detailed design drawings and further authorized to withhold action on the site plan until the submission of acceptable design drawings.”

The table in Section 3.06, “non-residential area regulations” shows that the proposal can meet the requirements for the Land Use Code. According to the plans, the building height, lot coverage, setbacks, and minimum lot size meet the LUC requirements.

NONRESIDENTIAL AREA REGULATIONS Development Standard Zone District CBD C NB I O PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SITE PLAN REVIEW – 10194 HWY 491 SANCHEZ MAY 2, 2017 Page 3

Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) 2,500 3,000 6,000 10,000 -- Min. Front Yard (ft.) 10’ 10’ 20’ 15’ 20’ Min. Side Yard (ft.) 0’ 0’ 7’ or less by Cond. Use Permit 7’ 20’ Min. Rear Yard (ft.) 7’ 7’ 20’ 7’ 20’ Max. Lot Coverage -- 50% 50% 50% 10% Minimum Floor Area/non-residential use (sq ft.) -- -- 500’ -- 500’ Max. Height (ft.) 50’ 50’ 35’ 35’ 28’

In addition to the requirements for a site plan review, the parking requirements of the Land Use Code must also be analyzed. The Land Use Code indicates that this use generally falls under “commercial nurseries and greenhouses” as a retail commercial use. Section 5.02 Parking, Loading, and Access details the off-street parking requirements for this type of facility, as shown in the following table:

Parking Requirements for Off-Street Loading Use Type Usable Floor Area Requirement Retail Uses All other retail uses 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Schedule B

The Land Use Code stipulates in Section 5.02(b) (2) “Any building expansion or change of use that results in an increase over the number of parking spaces that would be required under this section for the lot shall provide additional parking spaces only for that increment of the expansion, as if it were a separate development. Only the expanded portion of the parking area shall be required to comply with the provisions of this section.” At one space for every 300 square feet of structure, 12 parking spaces are required for the 3600 square foot expansion. The building is under 10,000 square feet and does not require an off-street loading berth. An existing concrete pad in front of the existing building is sufficiently sized to accommodate 3 parking spaces, however, these spaces cannot be counted toward the 12 needed for the expansion. The applicants are requesting a Special Exception for parking to reduce the requirement to 10 spaces, including one ADA compliant space. A similar exception was granted to Herbal Alternatives in 2013 for a marijuana grow-out expansion, which included retail onsite. The applicants have stated that the proposal is for an industrial building with no retail, and have indicated the parking requirements are excessive for such use.

The criteria for granting a Special Exception to the off-street parking requirements is found in Section 6.18 of the Land Use Code, as shown below:

(b) The planning commission shall have the power to hear and decide special exceptions to the height of fences, the number of required off-street parking spaces and the sizes and locations of signs where all of the following conditions in so far as applicable are met: (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions such as irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot, or exceptional topographical or other conditions peculiar to the affected property; (2) That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; (3) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this code; PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SITE PLAN REVIEW – 10194 HWY 491 SANCHEZ MAY 2, 2017 Page 4

(4) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant; (5) That the exception, if granted, is a minimum exception that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the provisions of this code which are in question; and (6) That the exception, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property.

Staff believes the exception can be accommodated as the primary focus is growing, and not selling on site, although it is up to the Commission to make the final determination on the parking requirements. Any change of use for the structure would require compliance with parking standards.

Staff reviewed the project for compliance with the landscaping per Land Use Code Section 5.05. The applicants have proposed to landscape 10 percent of the developed site. The applicants have calculated the existing building, proposed addition, and parking area will total 9600 square feet, and has proposed 960 square feet of landscaping. The landscape plan proposes xeriscaping with several low-grow shrub species. The plants will have drip irrigation.

AGENCY REVIEW

In accordance with regulations pertaining to development of commercial property, this proposal was forwarded to the required City departments and affected agencies and utilities for their responses and concerns:

Building Official The property currently is using several 911 addresses for the site. Should the Site Plan be approved, our offices will review the addressing layout, and applicable changes to the addresses at the site will be forthcoming. Staff has visited with the applicants during the planning process and have made them aware of this need.

Should the plan be approved, construction documents prepared by appropriate Colorado licensed design professionals will be required for the new addition.

Empire Electric EEA provides service to that building, and will be able to for the new expansion however some system upgrades to lines/transformer at that building may be necessary for the new load/use.

GIS Coordinator The expanded facility is in the Commercial zone and is not within the Federal Drug Free school zone or within 1500 ft walking distance of a school. The proposed facility is within the 1500ft distance of the current Herbal Alternatives retail location.

Staff response: The 1500-foot walking distance requirement will be met with the closure of the “back road” to pedestrians.

Public Works No comments or concerns.

City Engineer PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SITE PLAN REVIEW – 10194 HWY 491 SANCHEZ MAY 2, 2017 Page 5

Please see attached comment letter)

General Services No comment related to fiber services.

Cortez Sanitation District In discussion with Kyle Schreckenback, District Supervisor at the Sanitation District, staff was informed that a small tributary to Hartman Draw would need to be crossed in order to connect the structure to the sewer line. The existing building is currently served by a septic system. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to comply with any state and federal regulations concerning the floodway and floodplain crossing.

Applicant’s Response: The applicant’s engineer, Cap Allen, has been in discussion with the Sanitation District, and is aware of the need to cross the drainage and will pursue any permits necessary.

No other comments have been received to date. The above comments were shared with the applicants, and they have indicated they are willing to meet all requirements of the affected agencies, districts, and departments.

ALTERNATIVES

1. The Commission can recommend that Council approve the site plan for 10194 Highway 491;

2. The Commission can recommend that Council not approve the site plan and state their reasons;

3. The Commission can table the request and ask for any additional information that may be needed to satisfy the requirements of the Land Use Code sections noted above; or

4. The Commission can recommend that Council approve the site plan and state any conditions they feel are necessary to mitigate any concerns that might arise from the public hearing or review of the criteria in the Land Use Code.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff has reviewed the criteria from the Land Use Code regarding the site plan review process and would note that all requirements have been or can be met with specific conditions of approval in place. As such, Staff is recommending “4.” above, approval of the site plan review through P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017, with eight conditions.

If the Planning and Zoning Commission so chooses to follow the recommendation of Staff, the Commission can make the motion to recommend approval of the site development plan for the expansion of the building at 10194 Highway 491, as submitted by property owners Billy and Kathy Sanchez, through P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017, with eight conditions.

a. All requirements of utility providers, City departments, and affected districts must be satisfied, as outlined in adopted City Codes and other regulatory documents. Specifically, all public improvements shall comply with the minimum requirements of the 2009 City of Cortez Construction Design Standards and Specifications. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SITE PLAN REVIEW – 10194 HWY 491 SANCHEZ MAY 2, 2017 Page 6

b. All requirements of the Sanitation District Rules and Regulations shall be met.

c. The appropriate construction drawings and reports for the project, signed and stamped by a Colorado-licensed architect or engineer, must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer and a building permit obtained prior to any construction on site.

d. The landscaping improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that construction of the building is completed prior to installation of the landscaping, the applicants shall provide an assurance bond, letter of credit, or other financial security agreed to by both Parties, providing a guarantee of installation of the landscaping within a time frame approved by the City of Cortez.

e. The applicants must comply with the required 1500-foot distance between marijuana establishments by ensuring pedestrian access is blocked between the marijuana operations located at 1531 Lebanon Road and 10194 Highway 491.

f. The off-street parking shall be constructed as a durable, dust-free surface, in accordance with the requirements of Land Use Code Section 5.02(e)(2).

g. Any additional exterior lighting shall be contained on the property, as per Land Use Code Section 5.07 – Performance Standards.

h. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants a Special Exception to the number of required off-street parking spaces, from twelve (12) to ten (10).

D:\Users\nconnolly\Documents\Documents\Herbal Alternatives growhouse\Sanchez-Herb Alt Site Plan PZ 5-2-17.doc

CITY OF CORTEZ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6, SERIES 2017

A Resolution Recommending Approval of a Site Development Plan for the Expansion of a Structure at 10194 Highway 491, Located in the Commercial Highway (C) Zoning District

WHEREAS, Billy and Kathy Sanchez, P.O. Box 1263, Cortez CO 81321, (hereinafter “Owners”), have applied for review of a site development plan for an expansion to a building, located on property at 10194 Highway 491, Cortez, Colorado, 81321 and more particularly described as:

S: 22 T: 36 R: 16 - 2 TRS NE1/4SE1/4 E HWY 6.70A B668 P694 B693 P90 Clerk and Recorder’s Office, Montezuma County, State of Colorado

WHEREAS, the Owners have applied to the City for review of a site development plan for an expansion to an existing building on said property; and,

WHEREAS, the Owners presented a site plan and necessary submittal items for review by the City Planning and Zoning Commission at a regular meeting held on May 2, 2017; and,

WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 6.14, Site Plans, indicates that plans for all commercial development on property located in the Commercial Highway (C) Zoning District must be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the commercial site plan for the same property and is recommending approval of the expansion for commercial development on said property, as evidenced in the adoption of P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017; and,

WHEREAS, the Owners have held legal ownership of the property subsequent to the adoption of said P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017, and is interested in further development of this property; and,

WHEREAS, based on the evidence and testimony presented at said meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Owner have agreed to certain conditions of approval for the development; and,

WHEREAS, it appears that all requirements of Chapters 5.00 and 6.00 of the City’s Land Use Code for development of this site have been or can be met.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF CORTEZ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:

THAT, P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series 2017, establishes the conditions of approval for the expansion of commercial development on the afore-mentioned property; and,

THAT, the site plan and full application for said property are hereby recommended to Council for approval, subject to the following conditions: CITY OF CORTEZ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6, SERIES 2017 2 COMMERCIAL EXPANSION 10194 HYW 491

b. All requirements of the Sanitation District Rules and Regulations shall be met.

f. The off-street parking shall be constructed as a durable, dust-free surface, in accordance with the requirements of Land Use Code Section 5.02(e)(2).

g. Any additional exterior lighting shall be contained on the property, as per Land Use Code Section 5.07 – Performance Standards.

h. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants a Special Exception to the number of required off-street parking spaces, from twelve (12) to ten (10).

AND THAT, the Owners are to coordinate with City staff to ensure that these conditions are fully met.

MOVED, SECONDED, AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd DAY OF MAY 2017.

______Danny Gionnone, Chairman ATTEST:

______Linda L. Smith, City Clerk

d:\users\nconnolly\documents\documents\herbal alternatives growhouse\herbal alternative pz6 5-2-17.doc

10194 Highway 491 Location Map

10194 Highway 491 Aerial Map

P&Z Discussion Items City of Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Memorandum

Item No. 5a.

Meeting Date: May 2, 2017

MEMO TO: Members of the Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission

TITLE: DISCUSSION REGARDING MONTEZUMA COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES PUD LISTED USES AND BRIDGE SHELTER

FROM: Tracie Hughes, City Planner

ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photo; Deeds

BACKGROUND

The Bridge Shelter is seeking to construct a new facility at 735 N. Park Street. This property was conveyed to Cortez recovery center from Montezuma County in 2007, and was subsequently quit claimed from Cortez Recovery center to the Bridge Emergency Shelter. The property has a provision in both deeds that the property is to be owned and used by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity and is to be used as a detox or shelter facility (see attached deeds).

However, the property is located within the Montezuma County Public Facilities PUD, and is subject to the PUD agreement. This document spells out the uses for the land within the PUD area in Section 111. With regards to Block Two, which is where 735 Park St. is located in the Minor Subdivision of Lot one Block two of the Montezuma County Public Facilities Planned Unit Development, Section 111 Development regulations, subsection (A) Permitted Land Uses in this Planned Unit Development Zone District of the PUD agreement states:

a. Block Two, Lots to be determined by need

(1) This area will be used for further development by Montezuma County for future expansion of County administrative functions. These shall include conference facilities, institutional, governmental, community, and public facilities such as courts and libraries.

(2) Parking and parking structures and perhaps public transportation facilities. Parking use will be accessory only.

(3) Parks and open space including parks, community and recreational facilities.

Staff is making the interpretation that a shelter facility would fall under the institutional or public facility categories above, and as the County has deeded the land for specific purposes, that the shelter facility would meet the use requirements outlined in the PUD agreement.

Staff is bringing this discussion forward to the Planning Commission to hear any feedback on the above information and Staff’s interpretation of the language in the PUD document in advance of a request for approval of a site plan for the proposed facility. j:\pwadmin\planning\p&z memos\interpretations\bridge shelter montez pud use 5_2_17.docx

City of Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission

Agenda Memorandum Item No: 5.b.

Meeting Date: May 2, 2017

MEMO TO: Members of the Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission

FROM: Tracie Hughes, City Planner

SUBJECT: LAND USE CODE UPDATE: DISCUSSION ON SUBDIVISION STANDARDS WITH REGARDS TO FLOODPLAINS

ATTACHMENTS: 100 Year Floodplains in Cortez and Vicinity Map; Figure 6-3 from Additional Regulatory Measures; Industrial Park Draft Lots Map

Discussion

The draft land use code has language to address floodplain development through the subdivision process. The draft language would require that lots have a buildable area outside of a 100 year floodplain or floodway. The advantages for a community to keep development out of a floodplain are many, including the reduction of property loss, reducing the need for emergency management services, and protection of the environment. Keeping floodplains in a natural state is a benefit to water quality and enhances riparian ecosystems.

The draft language in the land use code is found under lot standards for subdivision. New lots would need to be created such that a buildable area would need to be outside of certain regulatory floodplains. Specifically, the regulatory 100 year floodplain or a floodway.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines “flood hazard areas” as follows:

“Flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2- percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded).”

For the purposes of this discussion, the term 100 year floodplain will be used; however, this term may be updated to the latest terminology that FEMA uses. The 100 year floodplain is the area proposed to be restricted as opposed to moderate flood hazard areas.

A floodway is defined as follows:

“A "Regulatory Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Subdivision Lot Standards- Floodplains May 2, 2017 Page 2 of 3

cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), but no floodway has been designated, the community must review floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate information is available.”

FEMA encourages local jurisdictions to “manage to a higher standard” than the National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Among ways that FEMA encourages the higher standard, is through zoning and planning. The document “Floodplain Management Requirements Study Guide and Desk Reference” designed for local officials and used to explain requirements to the community, includes a chapter on “Ordinance Administration.” Within this chapter, FEMA states:

“Subdivision regulations govern how land will be divided into single lots…Subdivision regulations offer an opportunity to keep buildings out of the floodplain entirely with cluster developments. They can also require that every lot have a buildable area above the BFE [base flood elevation], include dry land access, and meet other standards that provide more flood protection than a building code can.” (pg. 7-7)

Another option noted by FEMA is through zoning. Areas in a floodplain can be zoned to a lower lot density that would prevent higher density development from being located in areas with flood hazards. However, for the purposes of the land sue code update, the city is not looking at rezoning property. Future annexations and subsequent rezoning are different topic areas that the city can consider when those activities occur, and this would also be addressed through future land use maps, the three mile plan, and comprehensive plan policies.

Additionally, Unit 6: Additional Regulatory Measures, of the “Floodplain Management Requirements Study Guide and Desk Reference” discusses mechanisms for restricting the location of structures in the floodplain. The document notes that restricting the location of structures to areas outside of the floodplain has the advantage of preventing the structure from needing the additional structural requirements, as well as reducing the need for emergency response by not putting the structures or their occupants out of the path of the floodwater.

Clustering building lots to areas of a property outside of the floodplain or floodway, with dedicated open space or drainage easements along the floodway or floodplain is a common method of accomplishing the goal of limiting development to non-flood prone areas. The attached Figure 6-3, found in “Floodplain Management Requirements Study Guide and Desk Reference” Unit 6, depicts clustering. Also, a preliminary draft of the Industrial park expansion (see attachment titled “Industrial Park Draft”) shows how lots can be configured to include areas of the floodplain and also to have enough buildable area.

The draft Cortez Land Use code contains a provision under the section building lot standards that addresses these concerns. The proposed code language is as follows:

Sec. 5.02.04 Building Lots: G. Drainage Ways. 1. Principal buildings shall not encroach into a regulatory 100-year floodplain or floodway. 2. Drainage ways and regulatory floodplains may be platted as: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Subdivision Lot Standards- Floodplains May 2, 2017 Page 3 of 3

a. Open space or common area lots; or b. As a drainage easement where development, with the exception of passive recreation improvements, is prohibited.

The draft language would apply to lots being platted through a subdivision process. All new lots would need to be created with a buildable area and drainage ways and regulatory floodplains would be restricted on the plat through a plat note or other dedication statement indicating that those areas are restricted from development. Also included in the same section is the following language:

A. (3) The lots shall provide an adequate buildable area for the development contemplated, as set out in Table 3.03.04, Residential Lot and Building Standards, and Table 3.04.03.01, Nonresidential and Mixed Use Standards.

Therefore, any lots created must be buildable. The plat could either depict drainage ways as the required dedication of open space, show drainage ways as areas of a lot that could not be built upon, or could use building envelopes that are identified as the only location where a principal building and any accessory building could be built with the envelope being located outside of the restricted floodway or 100 year floodplain.

Staff is working with the consultant to add additional language that would exempt existing platted lots, and potentially subdivisions with under approximately 5 acres from being subject to these provisions. The intent is for the proposed language to generally only apply to new subdivisions. If there was an identified hardship, then in that particular situation, the applicant would apply for a variance to the lot standards.

Staff would like to hear from the Planning and Zoning Commission on whether or not the commission is generally in support of these provisions so that the draft code can reflect appropriate language to require new subdivisions to verify buildable areas outside of the floodplain or floodway.

j:\pwadmin\planning\p&z memos\luc re-write\flood plain development 5_2_17 final.doc 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet 100 year Floodplains in Cortez and Vicinity µ 1 inch = 3,000 feet VUL.5 28.1 UV27.1 UV27.5 UVUV28.3 VUL.4 UV27.3 n

L VUL.4 145 rs e

s VU26 r u r

o D

C 24.3 r

f VUL UV a l

P o VU24 n

L 25.4 d

y VU25 UV R Conquistador Golf Course

K.8 d g VU a

n K.7 h

i VU d

23 S VU l R

o SPC George Raymond Geer Natural Area r s 24.4 Lp R

D 23.5 491 e C UV 23.7 e rs n r

v a UV t r UV t o o o

i l A w S

n d

h o C s a

R c

m a D e

o n r K.3 a d VU e y N o s C

o L l l

n r 29 a Carpenter Natural Area e VU

d t

l B

i n VUK.3 o d Ridge Dr M dridge R 28.2 Lp K Al

VU M t

N S K Legend y o UV im n D VU r S raw en P VUK.2 t H a 100 Year Floodplain t K.3 E E S mp t VU S ire St N S t t

t o t a

City Limits e h t n S e

k s

r S t y Centennial ParkParque de Vida o S A

t a a t g S t 24.3 i

l w N

M UV d m S

l a Cortez Dog Park

N t

o E E Montezum a Ave N Trinity Ave r Denny Lake Park 22.7 B d Plaza Park N UV E J.6 VU raw N D E Main St N E Hawk 160 n ins St rs 29.2 a W 1st St E 1st St UV29.UV1 tm r d a E 2nd St t

J.3 R VU H Can yon Dr S

W 3rd St

S l

E 4th St g l

l W 5th St a

t L

S S 27 W 7th St s S VU E 7th St W 7th Street Sidewalk

e t 7th Street Sidewalk t a h e y S t

y S C

a a S H.6 U V a p C S H.8 w k VU l d e M a

a a t d

O S o a r a

r B C S

S S t

k e e r

C VU25 o lm cE 26.5 M UV VUH UV26.65

McElmo 26.1 Lp Creek UV VU23 VUG.5 160/ rs 491 VUG.2 SoVUGu.t3h Broadway Ballfields UV24.3

City of Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Memorandum

Item No. 5c.

Meeting Date: May 2, 2017

MEMO TO: Members of the Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission

TITLE: DELIVERY OF DRAFT THREE MILE PLAN FOR REVIEW

FROM: Tracie Hughes, City Planner

ATTACHMENTS: Draft Three Mile Plan

BACKGROUND

As you are all aware, the Land Use Code contract included provisions for a Three Mile Plan for Cortez. The consultant has provided a draft. This draft does have some changes to be recommended by staff at the present time; however, the project consultant wanted to make all of the changes at one time, so the draft being distributed is as is without staff’s recommendations. Staff does feel that this document is adequate for review by the Planning Commission, and is distributing it so that the Planning Commission can read it over the next several weeks. We are not discussing the document in detail at the May 2, 2017 meeting. Also, next steps with be forthcoming. At this time, you may review this document at your convenience.

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION County Jail Horse Stables August 2, 2016 Page 2

j:\pwadmin\p&z\scanned packets\may 2017\three mile plan cover sheet.docx 1

Cortez, Colorado 3 Mile Plan

Contents

1.0: Introduction...... 2

2.0: Statutory Requirement...... 4

3.0: Methodology...... 4

4.0: Study Area ...... 5

5.0: Annexation Eligibility and Processing ...... 7

6.0: City Annexation Policy...... 8

7.0: Three Mile Area Cooperation...... 9

8.0: Planning Quadrants...... 12

9.0: Conclusion and Recommendations...... 18

10.0 Future Land Use...... 19 2

1.0 Introduction In a general sense, the Three Mile Plan is a long- range planning document that initiates the process of Plan: Purpose and Description identifying lands that may be subject to annexation The City of Cortez’ Three Mile Plan provides policy at some point in the future. This is important for the direction and general planning guidance concerning the City’s general planning, particularly with respect types, patterns, and character of land use; future growth to coordinating its major thoroughfare plan and issues or constraints; and transportation and utility subsequent capital investments immediately outside infrastructure needs for lands within three miles of the of its municipal limits. By understanding the existing current corporate boundaries of the City (refer to Figure and intended uses of the lands that surround it, the City 1.1, City of Cortez Three Mile Area of Influence and One Mile may better plan for providing infrastructure and other Urban Service Area). This Plan identifies broad issues urban-level services. Without such a plan, the City may that warrant being addressed prior to any parcel of land grow in an uncoordinated, haphazard manner that may being considered for annexation into the City, but does not be fiscally prudent or responsible. As stated in the not propose the annexation of any land into the City at City’s Comprehensive Plan (2008), “By using a realistic this time. Finally, this Plan addresses requirements for and planned approach to development, (good planning) the Three Mile Plan, as outlined in the Colorado Revised will help reduce sub-rural sprawl, facilitate adequate Statute 31-12-105 (1) (e), as amended. and efficient infrastructure, conserve critical lands and view sheds, provide appropriate residential and mixed As will be discussed in Section 4.0, Study Area, the use opportunities, appropriately locate commercial three mile Area of Influence is subdivided into four, and industrial development, encourage pedestrian equal-sized study areas, or quadrants, which are used movement and neighborhood interaction, and make the to further characterize the lands based on several best uses of existing buildings and land.” categories, which are further described in Section 8.0, Planning Quadrants. This Plan is meant to complement, rather than replace, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The composition of

Figure 1.1, Cortez Three Mile Area of Influence and One Mile Urban Service Area 3 this Plan is similar to the format of the comprehensive services, and to equitably distribute the costs for services plan, but its focus is only on the peripheral three mile among those who benefit from them. Annexations are area outside of the corporate limits. While not required generally initiated by private landowners who seek to by state law, it remains the City’s intent that future develop or access urban facilities and services, or who annexations be consistent with this Plan. may desire protections and predictable development The Three Mile Plan was developed with the intention through the Cortez Land Use Code (LUC). The City is of identifying those areas that relate to the goals and largely precluded from unilaterally annexing land, with objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Those goals the exception of long-standing enclaves or City-owned and objectives reflect the fact that the World Heritage land. Site, Mesa Verde National Park, is located in close Annexation must be consistent with the current and proximity to the City, and that two national scenic future interests and needs of the community and should byways, designated by The Colorado Department of balance business, residential, and industrial land uses, Transportation (CDOT), bisect the City; the Trail of to the greatest extent possible, with parks and open the Ancients National Scenic Byway and the San Juan space, and scenic views. Skyway National Scenic Byway. The proximity of According to Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) 31- additional prehistoric resources, including Hovenweep 12-105 (1) (e), as amended, prior to completing any National Monument, Yucca House National Monument, annexation, property proposed to be annexed must be Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, and identified in a Three Mile Annexation Plan. The Three the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Park, were additional Mile Annexation Plan must be updated annually and considerations. upon completing any annexation. The principal purpose Future Growth Preferences of these requirements is to ensure that cities annually engage in a thorough planning process to examine their It is not the City’s policy intention to greatly expand extraterritorial areas and determine which of those areas its corporate limits into the outlying, unincorporated are poised for incorporation into the City. areas of Montezuma County. As articulated in the Comprehensive Plan, the preference is to manage the Successful annexation applications to the City should timing and pattern of future development and to grow evaluate how any particular annexation conforms with methodically and in a fiscally responsible manner, with the “Land Use Goals, Objectives, and Policies” of the an emphasis on infill development, redevelopment, City’s Comprehensive Plan, and affirmed through the and use or reuse of existing, vacant or underutilized Heart and Soul planning process; as described in Section buildings and properties. However, annexation remains 6.0, City Annexation Policy, of this Three Mile Plan. an essential consideration, particularly for those who Annexation is a discretionary act available to the City, petition the City for annexation in order to receive as set out in C.R.S. 31-12. The submittal of an annexation municipal services for future urban development. petition by a landowner does not guarantee that the As of 2016, there were approximately 88 acres in two ar- subject property will be annexed into the City. Similarly, eas within the unincorporated Montezuma County that the inclusion of property in this Plan should not be were encompassed within the City limits. As discussed construed to express the intent of the City to annex within this Plan, these areas are referred to as “county any particular property or within any certain time. The enclaves.” These two enclaves are subject to the Coun- purpose of this Plan is to evaluate the characteristics of ty’s land use and other regulations, as well as County areas subject to annexation within the three mile Area emergency services. One enclave is located in Quadrant of Influence, and to put forth a preferred pattern of 2 and the other is in Quadrant Four. Each is depicted on annexation. Figure 8.1, Planning Quadrants, of this Three Mile Plan. Rural to Urban Transition Enclaves are undesirable due to the inefficiencies in providing services and the potential for misunderstandings The City intends to coordinate and work closely with caused by the provision of services by different govern- Montezuma County to ensure that there is a smooth mental jurisdictions and service providers. Water rights transition of land uses within the areas of highest and distribution systems also pose obstacles to annex- annexation potential identified within this Plan. Key ation, which warrants coordination and cooperation areas of mutual concern to each government were with and by the Montezuma Water Company to facili- identified. This Plan was developed using a visual tate the City’s continued growth. survey of the area and maps provided by the City’s Planning Department. Annexation: Requirements and Process Pursuant to a joint meeting between the City and County Annexation is an important land use planning tool (held on March 01, 2016), elected and appointed officials intended to ensure continued and orderly growth discussed the prospect of an urban growth boundary in coordination with the provision of facilities and framework, within which a coordinated review of 4

development applications would occur. Areas of mutual 3.0 Methodology concern were identified, and included the four entrances into Cortez (U.S. Highway 491/160 South, U.S. Highway Criteria 491 North, U.S. Highway 145, and U.S. Highway 160), As outlined within the Comprehensive Plan, criteria to and the two enclaves within the City limits, located in be considered when determining which lands might be Quadrants Two and Four. desirable for annexation include the following: 3.1 Areas close to the City that can readily be served 2.0 Statutory Requirement by City services and utilities with limited physical In 1987, the Colorado State Legislature made significant or economic impacts on the community. changes to the state’s annexation laws (C.R.S.) 31-12- 3.2 Areas that have adequate, buildable land so that 105. One of these changes was to limit the annexation all desired land uses can be accommodated to of land into municipalities to no more than three miles help grow and sustain the local economy and to beyond the current corporate limits in any given year, provide areas for future population. with some exceptions. An annexation master plan for 3.3 Areas that help strengthen the economies of the three mile area (a.k.a., Three Mile Plan) was also Cortez and Montezuma County. required through this legislation prior to the completion of any annexation. At the time of annexation, a separate, 3.4 Areas which will broaden the range of housing more detailed service plan must be developed that more types and levels of affordability in the City and specifically describes the proposed location, character, which expand the permanent resident population. utilities, and infrastructure of the area considered for 3.5 Areas that promote infill development and a annexation. natural progression of sustainable and feasible According to Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) 31- growth. 12-105 (1) (e), as amended, the Three Mile Plan shall 3.6 Areas that share community interests with the generally describe the location, character, and extent City and for where the residents utilize the of areas within three miles of the City boundary and community for employment, shopping, personal shall address streets, subways, bridges, waterways, services, and cultural activities. waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, other public ways, grounds, public utilities, proposed 3.7 Areas that contain historic or cultural antiquities land use, terminals for water, light, sanitation, that the City wants to protect and preserve. transportation, and power to be provided by the 3.8 Areas that contain sensitive environments municipality; some of these items will not be considered with canyons, steep slopes, arroyos, and water or addressed by this Plan, as they are not relevant to resources to maintain as open space or designated the City. Those relevant items are discussed within for active and passive recreation. each annexation category or quadrant. In addition, the 3.9 Areas with scenic vistas to, and from places such potential impact on community services, such as police, as, Mesa Verde National Park, and the La Plata fire, schools and administrative services, is contemplated Mountains. in each category analysis. 3.10 Areas ideally suited for agricultural uses to There are several requirements of annexation, as set maintain the agricultural base of the City. out in C.R.S. 31-12-105, including, but not limited to the following: 3.11 Areas that provide opportunities to link cultural and environmental resources with hike and bike 1. At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the land to be trails and routes. annexed must be contiguous to the corporate limits; 3.12 Areas along highways that are gateways into the 2. There must exist a “community of interest” between City. the area proposed to be annexed and the City; and In compliance with the requirements set out in C.R.S. 3. The land proposed for annexation is or will be 31-12-105, it is the City’s position that there is currently urbanized and is capable of being integrated into no land in the unincorporated area of Montezuma the City. County designated for annexation into the City of Cortez. The analysis that follows is for the purpose of identifying areas that may warrant consideration for future annexation based on the criteria described above, or that would will be logical for the expansion of the City’s urban area to implement Cortez’ Comprehensive Plan. Figure 4.1, City of Cortez - 3 Mile Area Slope Plan 5

4.0 Study Area Overview The City of Cortez and its three mile Area of Influence, is located within what is typically referred to as the Four Corners Area, which is within the northern portion of the Southern Colorado Plateau, a physiographic region that includes the southwestern corner of Colorado; a portion of southeastern Utah, encompassing the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; much of northeastern Arizona and the Grand Canyon National Park; extending southward, encompassing northwest-central New Mexico. The landscape of Cortez can broadly be described as characteristic qualities of a dryland ecosystem. Landforms of dryland ecosystems include deep and sparsely vegetated canyons, and extensive mesas. Limited precipitation and, in many cases, limited Surface waters within the three mile Area of Influence vegetative cover make dryland systems highly vulnerable include the McElmo Creek watershed, which extends to changes in natural disturbance and climatic regimes through Quadrant Four into Quadrant 3; the Hartman 1 and to human impacts. Draw, which extends from Quadrant 1 into Quadrant The City is located in the central portion of a broad, 3. Totten Reservoir is east of Cortez, in Quadrant 2. undulating plain, with elevations generally around The USGS 7.5 minute Quad map for the Cortez area 6,200 feet. The high desert plain is surrounded by low depicts the presence of several small wetland areas in hills, which gradually increase in stature and elevation, the northern portions of Quadrant 2. and give rise to peaks and mountains. To the south is the Mesa Verde, a large cuesta with elevations exceeding Topography 8,750 feet in some places, before gradually sloping to As depicted in Figure 4.1, City of Cortez - 3 Mile Area Slope the south. Mesa Verde’s north-facing slope is steep and Map, Cortez is located in the midst of Montezuma Valley, deeply eroded as it descends to the valley floor. Notably, a broad, undulating plain, surrounded by significant the cuesta is home to the Mesa Verde National Park and topographic relief afforded by the Mesa Verde cuesta ruins of a significant Chacoan outlier settlement and to the south; the Ute Mountain range to the southwest; outposts. and the La Plata and San Juan Mountain ranges to the east. The steepest slopes flank the McElmo Creek, which To the southwest is the Ute Mountain range, the forms the boundary between Quadrants One and Three, prominent peak of which is Ute Mountain (or Ute Peak) as depicted in Figure 9.1, Environmental Constraints. The Canyon of the Ancients National Monument form the northern terminus of the Ute Mountains and the Ute Reservation. Figure 4.2, Land Cover Classifications To the east lie the rugged La Plata and San Juan Mountain ranges. Predominant vegetation in the area of Cortez and Montezuma County is also characteristic of a dryland ecosystem which includes mixtures of pygmy conifers (Juniperus and Pinus spp.), shrub and desert grasslands, and biological soil crusts. Macrogroups include: Intermountain Singleleaf Pinyon-Western Juniper Woodland; Intermountain Dry Shrubland and Grassland; and Western North American Tall Sage Shrubland Steppe; and several introduced, cultivated plant species.2

1 National Park Service: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/scpn/about/ ecosystem.cfm#EcosystemPanels 2 NatureServe ecology, 2012. Macrogroup Ecological Classification for the Four Corner States.National Park Service. Source: http://science. nature.nps.gov/im/units/scpn/about/images/ecosystem/ns_ecological- units_4States_90dpi.pdf 6 Figure 4.3, Land Type Classifications

Land Cover As depicted in Figure 4.2, Land Cover Classifications, land within the three mile Area of Influence, is predominantly open grassland, shrubland and agricultural land; with the latter (pasture and hay) consisting of 21,323 acres, or 48 percent, of the available lands. Forested lands makeup a very small percentage of the Area of Influence and can primarily be found in low-lying areas as well as around the Area’s perimeter, where the open plain gives way to some elevation change. As clearly indicated in Figure 4.3, Land Use, 13,098 acres, or 30 percent of the Area of Influence consists of some form of development.

Land Use As depicted in Figure 4.3, Land Type Classifications , the highest intensity Figure 4.4, Subdivisions and Conservation Easements development occurs along the principal transportation corridors (U.S. Highways 160, 491, and 145). As summarized in annexation Criterion 3.3, these areas are subsequently more desireable for annexation, because they can strengthen the City’s tax base. Additionally, as per annexation Criterion 3.12, these development corridors function as gateways into Cortez and warrant enhanced land development regulations and design guidelines. Quadrant 3 is clearly the most intensively developed quadrant within the Area of Influence. The least developed is Quadrant Four.

Subdivisions and Conservation Easements As depicted in Figure 4.4, Subdivisions and Conservation Easements, residential subdivisions are scattered throughout the Area of Influence, and are principally accessed by way of east- west county roads. Intermittant streams Figure 4.5, City of Cortez Fire Districts between subdivisions provide open space corridors and recreational opportunities. As per annexation Criterion 3.4, several of these subdivisions can broaden the range of housing types and levels of affordability in the City and expand the permanent resident population. This figure also depicts federal and state- owned lands. Public lands comprise 3,599 acres, or 8.24 percent of the Area of Influence.

Services and Utilities Infrastructure As summarized in annexation Criterion 3.1, lands that can be readily served with utilities infrastructure (e.g., potable water, sanitary service, electricity) and City services (e.g., fire protection) are preferable, as municipal costs to provide services can be reduced or mini- mized. Figure 4.6, City of Cortez - 3 Mile Current Potable Water Service Areas 7 Fire Districts As depicted in Figure 4.5, City of Cortez Fire Protection Districts, most of the Area of Influence is within the Cortez Fire Protection District (FPD). Additional fire protection districts within the Area of Influence include the Lewis Arriola FPD, which extends into the northern portion of Quadrant 1; and the Dolores FPD, which extends into the northern portion of Quadrant 2.

Potable Water Service As depicted in Figure 4.6, City of Cortez - 3 Mile Current Potable Water Service Areas, with the exception of the southeastern portion of Quadrant Four, most of the Area of Influence has access to potable water, provided mainly by the Montezuma Water Company. The area within Quadrant 3 that has the most development, including the Cortez Municipal Airport, is within the Montezuma Water Figure 4.6, Cortez Sanitation District Boundary with Infrastructure Buffer District #1 (Blue Door).

Sanitation Service As depicted in Figure 4.6, Cortez Sanitation District Boundary with Infrastructure Buffer, the sanitation district primarily serves the City of Cortez. It appears that some developed areas adjacent to U.S. Highway 160/491, within Quadrant 3 has urban-level sanitation services. There are also portions of Quadrants Two and Four, immediately adjacent to the eastern municipal limits and flanking U.S. Highway 160, has access to urban-type sanitation services.

Electric Transmission As depicted in Figure 4.7, City of Cortez - EEA Electric Lines w/in 3 Mile Area, electric transmission lines predominantly follow transportation corridors within the Area of Figure 4.7, City of Cortez - EEA Electric Lines within 3 Mile Area Influence. Quadrant Four has the least amount of electric transmission coverage. 5.0 Annexation Eligibility and Processing An annexation petition must meet all of the requirements of the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act and its amendments, as well as applicable and specific City of Cortez Municipal Code criteria. In addition, a conceptual planning map must be provided that illustrates all existing and proposed streets, easements, and other right-of-way connections in the subject property to the existing City streets and right-of-way; location of the current and proposed City boundary; and proposed land use and zoning concepts, if to be developed. 8 Colorado Municipal Annexation Act. Chapter 15, Annexation and Disconnection 6.0 City Annexation Policy Sec. 15-1-50. Three-mile Limitation and Three-Mile Plan. Per the Cortez Comprehensive Plan, the annexation (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no policy of the City is “to annex lands that offer material annexation may take place that would have the effect of benefit to the City’s infrastructure and economic extending the City’s municipal boundary more than three development, while not compromising its small town (3) miles in any direction from any point of such municipal atmosphere.” While infill development affords the boundary in any one (1) year. Within the three-mile area, the contiguity required by Section 31-12-104(1)(a), potential for development within the current City C.R.S., may be achieved by annexing a platted street or boundaries, additional opportunities are available on alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private select lands in close proximity to the City. Such lands transportation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, may lend themselves to a variety of land uses, including stream or other natural or artificial waterway. Such three- commercial, industrial, and residential development, mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have the effect of dividing a parcel of property held in identical as well as open space and recreational opportunities, ownership if at least fifty percent (50%) of the property thus fulfilling several of the criteria outlined in Section is within the three-mile limit. In such event, the entire 3.0, Methodology, while maintaining the character of the property held in identical ownership may be annexed in community. any one (1) year without regard to such mileage limitation. As previously described, annexation requests must (b) The Comprehensive Development Plan, as amended, shall serve as and shall constitute the “plan in place” demonstrate favorable benefits to the existing residents referenced in Section 31-12-105(1)(e), C.R.S., unless a and taxpayers of the City and contribute to the City’s different plan, supplement or revision is expressly adopted goals for quality growth and enhanced community to serve as a plan in place. The plan in place may also be character. The City is interested in ensuring that commonly referred to as the “Three-Mile Plan” and such development outcomes within the three mile Area plan shall be deemed automatically updated annually on January 1st of each year without further action by the of Influence outside the City limits conform to the City unless a change or modification is necessary and is minimum requirements of the City; so the City can adopted by resolution or ordinance by the City Council. avoid having to devote capital and other resources The absence of a specific reference in such plan toa into bringing development into compliance with City particular parcel of land proposed for annexation shall not standards. be interpreted as a statement of intent to not annex such parcel of land; it is the plan and intent of the City Council The City intends to ensure that adequate community to evaluate and to consider for potential annexation all resources, public facilities, and services are in place or property within three (3) miles of the City’s then existing municipal boundaries upon submission of a petition or provided for at the time of new development in the as otherwise permitted by this Article and the Colorado City. Facilities and services include, but are not limited Municipal Annexation Act of 1965. The absence in the to, potable water supply, wastewater treatment, storm plan of a specific reference to any character or extent water drainage, fire protection, police protection, parks, of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, libraries, and schools. parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities The City will assess the proportionate share of costs of and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation expanding facilities and services to new development and power to be provided by the City and the proposed in areas under consideration to be annexed. As per the land uses for the area shall not be interpreted as a failure to comply with Section 31-12- 105(1)(e), C.R.S., but shall City’s Land Use Code (LUC), when applicable, new be interpreted as a plan by the City to determine the development in the City should pay its fair share of appropriate character or extent of land uses and services capital costs associated with the provision of additional through the City’s applicable processes of annexation, utilities and transportation infrastructure, services, and planning and development approvals on a case-by-case subsequent maintenance. basis. The plan in place may also be amended or modified to more specifically identify the character or extent of land The Cortez Comprehensive Plan includes an annexation uses and services at any time or contemporaneously with program comprised of the following six goals: any annexation. (Ord. 13-07 §1, 2013) 1. Establish land use patterns within the City to 6. Maximize economic opportunities within Cortez provide coordinated and responsible growth. without sacrificing quality of life. 2. Continually improve the sustainability and As discussed, in the March 01, 2016 joint meeting efficiency of new and existing land uses. between the elected and appointed officials of the City 3. Protect and enhance the visual aesthetics of the and County, several topics of mutual concern were community, including mountain views and visual identified and discussed. With respect to the Three Mile corridors. Plan, the objectives of the City include the following: 4. Expand infill and rehabilitation opportunities 1. Continue to evaluate new development within the within the City limits. three mile Area of Influence to evaluate compliance 5. Provide joint planning opportunities between the with the proposed Thoroughfare Plan. (See Figure City of Cortez and Montezuma County. 9.2, Proposed Thoroughfare Plan (2008)) And ensure adequate rights-of-way are dedicated at the time of subdivision. 9

2. Create and maintain an Area of Influence Map in official annexation and Three Mile Plan policies of the conjunction with Montezuma County to identify City. As outlined within Chapter 5, Land Use Plan - An- desired land uses within the three mile Area of nexations, in addition to efficiency and compatibility Influence. Evaluate development that is inconsistent obstacles between the unincorporated County and the with the desired land uses in terms of available City, water rights and distribution systems pose further transportation facilities and infrastructure. obstacles to annexation and corporate limit expansion 3. Continue to evaluate growth within the City and into the three mile Area of Influence. County in terms of urban sprawl, and consider developing a uniform tracking database to identify 7.0 Three Mile Area Cooperation lands within the three mile Area of Influence that It is in the interests of the City and County to work will be impacted by development in the future. cooperatively in the review of development proposals 4. Work to establish effective land use standards in the areas surrounding the City. Montezuma County within certain desribed areas of the City’s Area of provides the City with the opportunity to review and Influence (particularly within one mile); whereby comment on any development proposal within three the City assumes authority to regulate gateway miles of the City limits. Cortez has responded when corridors or draft standards for County adoption. projects warrant a response. The City and County, and Establish joint review / approval authority. neighboring municipalities should strive to adhere to a common philosophical approach to land use 5. Establish collaborative communication and work development. toward agreements with local service providers to cooperate in areas of possible City expansion. Urban Service Area Coordinate with other governmental and non- governmental organizations to identify critical Many efforts have been made for the City and County natural, cultural, or agricultural lands within the City to establish an “Urban Service Area” around the City to and the Area of Influence that shall be conserved, provide for future planning as the City grows. This Urban and encourage relatively dense development of Services Area would include portions of unincorporated non-critical lands. Montezuma County up to one mile from the corporate limits of the City. An Urban Service Area could be 6. Provide incentives and explore mechanisms for established through an Intergovernmental Agreement protection/enhancement of critical lands within and (IGA) between the City and the County. The intent of this adjacent to corporate limits. agreement would be to establish uniform standards for 7. Promote conservation easements in conjunction growth around the City, especially in areas that may be with organizations, such as the Montezuma Land annexed in the future. As stated before, the City is seeing Conservancy, to maintain open space within the increased growth along its urban fringe. It would be three mile Area of Influence. Figure 4.8, Municipal Annexations, 1996 - 2016, Cortez, Colorado 8. Advocate for “right-to-farm” legislation that preserves the local heritage of the community while providing open space in the three mile Area of Influence. 9. Support county efforts to promote (or require) clustered developments that preserve open space. 10. Adopt regulations that prohibit the provision of City services to proposed annexations not consistent with land use directions established within the one mile Urban Services Area or in other City land use planning documents. Cortez Comprehensive Plan: Annexation As depicted in Figure 4.8, Municipal Annexa- tions, 1996 - 2016, Cortez, Colorado, over the last 20 years the City annexed 2,119 acres into its corporate boundaries. The majority of this annexation consisted of contiguous lands along the City’s southern corporate limits. The City’s Comprehensive Plan continues to represent the 10

beneficial to establish an IGA with Montezuma County affordable housing shortages, school siting issues, to ensure compatible development as the City grows. A poor air and water quality, social service limitations, gradual transition from rural densities to urban uses is infrastructure inefficiencies, and much more. IGAs in the best interest of all parties involved, providing for help communities work cooperatively to solve regional the adequate provision of services, infrastructure, and problems in ways a single jurisdiction cannot achieve facilities for residents of both the County and the City. alone. Issues such as transportation, for example, must be addressed by all the stakeholders in a region to be Targeted Coordination effective. IGAs work to institute cooperative planning During the development of this Three Mile Plan, in a goals into contract form, helping communities stick to joint meeting on March 01, 2016, the staff and elected the policies they worked hard to adopt.3 leaders from the County and the City met to discuss the The State of Colorado’s Local Government Land Use concept of an Urban Sevice Area, outside the City limits Control Enabling Act, CRS 29-20-105(1), states that that reflected specific targeted coordination areas, where local governments are expressly given the authority to the City and County shared many common viewpoints cooperate with each other through IGAs; and typically with respect to land development, area aesthetics, and enter into IGAs to solve problems of mutual concern, environmental issues. The overall appearance and such as shared development review in specified areas; image of Montezuma County just outside of Cortez uniform development standards; three mile plans and was of particular concern, as was the need to improve annexation policies; and urban growth boundaries.4 coordination between the two jurisdictions to address targeted coordination areas that were most likely to There are several successful examples of counties and become urbanized in the future. cities in Colorado that have entered into IGAs to develop and implement a city’s Three Mile Plan. The IGA is The City and County staff and officials acknowledged typically focused on county lands immediately outside the need to: of a city’s municipal limits, and often within an urban 1. Meet on a regular basis to better understand the growth boundary, or, for the purposes of this Three priorities of each jurisdiction and to find areas Mile Plan, what has been termed the one mile Urban of consensus where the two jurisdictions can Sevice Area, which includes those areas where both City coordinate their efforts more effectively. and County agree that development must be connected 2. Develop a major thoroughfare plan and to public utility systems and receive municipal services. corresponding documentation that specifies Typically, the urban growth boundary or Urban Sevice elements such as thoroughfare classifications, Area is smaller than the three mile Area of Influence in rights-of-way requirements, and roadway design order to direct growth to the existing urbanized area engineering specifications, in order to improve and those areas most appropriate for future urban mobility from the City into the County and to development. In the IGA, the county agrees to adopt require developers to dedicate right-of-way and “future urbanizing standards” for unincorporated areas construct improvements accordingly. within the urban growth boundary. This requires new development to meet the city’s improvement and design 3. Consider the development of an Intergovernmental 5 Agreement (IGA) between the two jurisdictions to standards. ensure improved coordination and to potentially There are several examples in Colorado of IGAs provide the basis for the County to implement relating to a Three Mile Plan, whereby city and county specific development regulations from the Cortez governments will establish what is referred to as a Joint Land Use Code within the one mile Urban Sevice Planning Commission (JPC), consisting of six members, Area, including those areas identified in this plan. three of whom are members of the City Planning It is in the best interests of the citizens of the County Commission, and three are members of the County and the City to establish an IGA for the purposes of Planning Commission; with four members constituting establishing an effective means for joint planning; a quorum. A Joint Planning Area (JPA) is established, which will enable urbanization within their respective consisting of unincorporated lands within the Urban jurisdictions; will assure that urban development is Sevice Area, immediately adjacent to the municipal compatible with a County-wide major thoroughfare boundaries. With some cities, the JPA is intentionally plan; and consistency with the level of facilities and co-extensive with the city’s water services area, because services to be provided by the City. This atmosphere new development must be able to rely on the city’s ability of cooperation will enhance the built environment to provide an adequate supply (quantity and quality) of surrounding Cortez, with regard to community character water. The JPC reviews new development applications and design quality; and will promote economic growth and either approves, denies, or conditionally approves and development. applications that meet the standards of the City’s Land Use Code. The impacts of growth do not respect political 3. 2006. Planning for Growth: Intergovernmental Agreements in Colorado. boundaries. Growth impacts include traffic congestion, Colorado Office of Smart Growth. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 4. 2006. Planning for Growth. Page 16. 5 2006. Planning for Growth. Page 26. 11

In an IGA, the county agrees to adopt “future urbanizing potential Urban Sevice Area be inextricably tied to a standards” for unincorporated areas within the urban County-wide Thoroughfare Plan. A mid-term objective growth boundary or Urban Sevice Area. This requires of the Comprehensive Plan is to develop a Master new development to meet the city’s improvement and Transportation Plan to provide access throughout the design standards. community and the region as a whole. To advance this Additionally, to avoid inconsistencies, a county and city objective, Policy 7.1.17 states, “work with Montezuma may desire to maintain consistency between the county’s County to establish an agreement for road development district plans and the City’s Comprehensive Plan and and improvement, commercial land use, and arterial other plans for areas within the JPA. In this case, both street access in the three mile Area of Influence to city and county concurrently request amendments to reduce and prevent congestion on City arterial streets the county’s district plans and the City’s Comprehensive and to provide compatibility between the transportation Plan for those areas affected in the JPA. systems.” Based on the location of targeted coordination areas Cortez Comprehensive Plan: Transportation while acknowledging areas identified within Map 7.1, As outlined within the Transportation element of the Environmental Constriants, the Urban Sevice Area would City’s Comprehensive Plan, collaboration between likely be prioritized for annexation into the City of the City and County on transportation planning Cortez. in the City’s growth areas will help to maintain a functional transportation network with connectivity and compatibility between City streets and County roads. It is critical that the City’s Three Mile Plan and

Figure 7.1, 2016 CDOT Street and Highway Classifications

County Roads E (Local Road), and F (Local Road) provide east-west access within the quadrant. County Road G (Minor Arterial) provides access to Cortez from areas to the west. Additional roads are present but are primarily local in nature. 12

8.0 Planning Quadrants 4. Utility provisions; Introduction 5. Community services; and To adequately address the lands within a three mile 6. Open space, parks, and recreation. periphery of the corporate limits, this Plan divides the The lands within these four quadrants are subject to the area into four quadrants. The delineation of these areas City’s Three Mile Plan, and are eligible for annexation were established by the City, each of which with readily under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes. identifiable boundaries that divide each quadrant into Inclusion in this Plan does not assume that any property proportionately equal-sized study areas. County Road will be annexed into the City or guarantee annexation 25 (Lebanon Road / Oak Street) forms the North / South into the City, should it be requested by property owners. axis of the study area. Empire Street (east of North The total Area of Influence is 43,660 acres; or 68 square Dolores Road, Main Street (U.S. Highway 160), and miles. the reach of McElmo Creek west of U.S. 491 forms the East-West division between Quadrants One and Three Enclaves within the study area. The Comprehensive Plan cites that in 2007 there Each of the quadrants are described in the following were three parcels of unincorporated land that were subsections. The four quadrants are identified inFigure surrounded by the City. Referred to as “encalves,” these 8.1, Planning Quadrants, below. Within this section, the parcels comprised just over 90 acres and included the general character of each of the quadrants is described Flaugh Enclave (five acres); the Hooten Enclave (35 and classified according to the following six categories: acres); and the Ptolemy Enclave (51 acres). The Flaugh 1. General description; Enclave was annexed in November 2009. The remaining two enclaves are subject to Montezuma County land 2. Land uses; use regulations and services and include the Hooten 3. Transportation improvements; Enclave, which is located in Quadrant 2, and the Ptolemy Enclave, which is located in Quadrant 4. It is advisable Figure 8.1, Planning Quadrants 13 for these existing two enclaves to be incorporated into U.S. Highway 491 makes the land along the corridor the City limits within a reasonable timeframe. more ideally suited for commercial and industrial uses, particularly if the City makes investments in water and Quadrant 1 sanitary sewer improvements in this area. The regional location of Cortez to highway networks in all directions General Description makes this area ideally suited for regionally-oriented Location / Boundaries: Quadrant 1 is principally defined business. If the City desires such business, the U.S. by north-south County Road (CR) 25 (Lebanon Road) to Highway 491 corridor offers ideal opportunities in those the east; and McElmo Creek to the south; and extends areas where the topography is suitable. westward to the three mile boundary line. Table 8.1, Quadrant 1 Land Uses Size / Area: Quadrant 1 is 11,031 acres, or 17.2 square miles. Land Use No. of Parcels No. of Acres Vegetation: Vegetation in Quadrant 1 is composed of Agricultural: 198 5,495 a mix of pinyon, juniper and other arid climate trees Commercial: 25 105 and brush. The northern portion of this quadrant is Exempt (publicly-owned) 5 1,682 1 composed of agricultural fields, irrigated with water Industrial 4 8 from the McPhee and Narraguinnep Reservoirs. Mixed Use 38 805 Topography: The topography over most of the area is Residential 301 2,101 generally one of an undifferentiated, uneven ground Vacant Land 31 118 plane bisected by numerous streams and draws which (1) Vacant Land is composed of 670 acres: BLM and 92 acres:State of Colorado. flow to the southwest. Several of these draws form low canyons and areas with steep slopes, which significantly Transportation Improvements impede access and opportunities for nonresidential U.S. Highway 491 (Expressway, Major Bypass) is a North- development at approximately 6,200 feet in elevation. South U.S. highway, which extends from its southern Streams, creeks, and arroyos cut through the area, terminus at Interstate 40 in Gallup, New Mexico, 194 forming canyons. The rise of Ute Mountain to the west miles north to U.S. Highway 191 in Monticello, Utah. U.S. of this area provides dramatic relief, sleep cliffs, slopes Highway 491 is one of four U.S. highways that provide and canyons. access to the City, with U.S. Highway 491 providing Land Uses access from the north and south. As depicted in Figure 7.1, 2016 CDOT Street and Highway Classifications, County Rural residential homesteads and dry and irrigated ag- Roads L (Minor Collector/Arterial), M (Major Collector / ricultural fields are the primary land uses west of U.S. Minor Collector), and N (Major Collector) provide east Highway 491. As summarized in Table 8.1, Quadrant 1 / west routes across the area. Beyond U.S. Highway 491, Land Uses, almost half of Quadrant 1 is composed of ag- County Road 23 (Local Road) is the only thoroughfare ricultural lands. Approximately 28 percent (3,019 acres) that provides north-south access. Additional roads are of the quadrant is developed (residential, commercial, present but are primarily local in nature. mixed-use, and industrial land uses). The remaining 1,800 acres is either publicly owned (1,682 acres) or Utility Provisions vacant (117 acres). This area provides a reasonable lo- Potable Water: As depicted in Figure 4.6, City of Cortez - 3 cation for agricultural pursuits, though irrigation will Mile Current Potable Water Service Areas, most of this area be required. In keeping with one of the Cortez Com- lacks municipal utilities and receives domestic water prehensive Plan’s long-term objectives to develop and services from Montezuma Water Company (MWC); maintain a network of passive and active greenbelts and though the water volume and pressure is generally greenways consisting of park facilities, open space, con- inadequate to provide fire protection for businesses servation easements, and trails, the canyons and draws and residences. This is a universal problem in all of may be best utilized for recreational activities (e.g., rec- the quadrants composing Cortez’ three mile Area of reational trails for hiking and mountain biking). Influence. This lack of adequate service has limited the Existing uses along U.S. Highway 491 include a mix ability of the City to recruit new businesses to the area of commercial, distribution, warehouse, contractor, and has prevented the City from annexing many of the and retail uses. Single-family residential development prime areas where the City would consider expansion (one acre and less) and manufactured housing parks of its boundaries. flank U.S. Highway 491 through town, extending to the Electric Power: Quadrant 1 has sufficient access to north. Steep grades associated with the Hartman Draw Empire Electric Association (EEA) electric transmission immediately west of U.S. Highway 491 diminish the full lines. potential of the corridor and area to accommodate nonresidential uses. 14

Community Services Land Uses Fire Protection Services: As depicted in Figure 4.5, As summarized in Table 8.2, Quadrant 2 Land Uses, rural Fire Districts, the majority of Quadrant 1 is within the residential homesteads, irrigated agricultural fields, and Cortez Fire Protection District. The northern third of low density single-family development are the primary the quadrant is within the Lewis Arriola Fire Protection land uses of this quadrant. As with Quadrant 1, approxi- District. Within this area of Quadrant 1 is the Lewis mately 50 percent of Quadrant 2 is composed of agricul- Arriola Fire Station #4. tural land uses; and 30 percent (3,790 acres) is composed Police Protection Services: Quadrant 1 is served by the of large-lot residential development. Nonresidential de- Montezuma County Sheriff’s Department. In the event velopment composes approximately three percent of the of annexation, police protection would be provided by quadrant (432 acres). Approximately 12 percent of the the City of Cortez Police Department. quadrant is publicly-owned land. This area is well-suited for all of these uses. School District: Quadrant 1 is within the Cortez- Montezuma County School District RE-1 School District. East of this area are foothills with more significant slopes. A drainage ditch bisects this quadrant and Open Space, Parks and Recreation generally extends from the northwest to the southeast, The southeastern portion of this area along Hartman to County Road M. The area to the east of this quadrant Draw, and in the western areas of the quadrant, including is primarily owned by the Bureau of Land Management land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), (BLM) and not available for residential development. offer opportunities for open space preservation and Table 8.2, Quadrant 2 Land Uses passive recreation. Land Use No. of Parcels No. of Acres As outlined within the Cortez Comprehensive Plan, Agricultural: 164 6,034 there are trail development opportunities to the south Commercial: 9 38 and west of this quadrant, with trail links from the City 1 heritage resources such as the Canyon of the Ancients Exempt (publicly-owned) 42 1,106 National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park. Industrial 1 9 Mixed Use 24 385 Summary Residential 573 3,790 Though the Hartman Draw creates a significant divide Vacant Land 72 242

between the lands within Quadrant 1 and the western (1) Vacant Land is composed of 612 acres: BLM. portions of the City, transportation infrastructure is fairly well-developed and can support additional residential Hooten Enclave: Surrounded by the municipal boundaries and nonresidential development. The Hartman Draw, of Cortez is Hooten Enclave, a 35 acre parcel that is as well as the publicly-owned lands, can support the undeveloped. Much of the terrain of the enclave does City’s objective regarding providing additional areas not lend itself to development. for recreational pursuits. Transportation Improvements Quadrant 2 Colorado Highway 145 provides the principal north / south access within this area, connecting Cortez to Tel- General Description luride, Montrose, Grand Junction, and other areas in Location / Boundaries: Quadrant 2 is defined by north- northwest Colorado. As depicted in Figure 7.1, 2016 south County Road (CR) 25 (Lebanon Road) to the CDOT Street and Highway Classifications, Empire Street west; follows the City limits to N. Dolores Road; and (Minor Arterial), County Roads L (Minor Arterial), M runs southward to E. Empire Street, which forms the (Major Collector / Minor Arterial), N (Major Collector), quadrant’s southern boundary. and P (Minor Collector) provide east / west routes across Size / Area: Quadrant 2 is 12,412 acres, or 19.4 square the area. Additional roads are present but are primarily miles. local in nature. Vegetation: The quadrant is largely devoid of native Utility Provisions vegetation, with the exception of native plant material Potable Water: Most of this quadrant lacks municipal (e.g., deciduous trees, such as Cottonwood) growing in utilities, as it is outside of the City’s jurisdiction; shallow washes in the midst of irrigated fields. particularly east of Dolores Road and north of County Topography: The topography over most of the area is Road L. Montezuma Water Company provides domestic generally a wash of gently undulating ground plane, water service to most properties in this quadrant. The approximately 6,200 – 6,400 feet in elevation; which lack of adequate water volume and pressure results in ultimately gives way to deeply eroded, low hills to the fire protection limitations. east, just beyond the three mile Area of Influence. 15

Because of these factors, the City would need to The rolling hills, mountain backdrops, limited access, determine whether to pursue an Intergovernmental limited utility services, and the presence of sensitive Agreement with Montezuma County to establish an environmental resources make Quadrant 2 ideal for urban services area around the City to provide for very low intensity residential uses. Consequently, from future planning as the City grows, and whether it a financial standpoint, annexation within Quadrant 2 wants to extend utility services into this quadrant. The may provide for limited expansion of the City’s urban expense of such extensions and potential environmental area though the requirements for extending services impacts of providing utility service in this area must into this area may outweigh the benefits. be determined. At a minimum, it would be desirable to improve fire protection in areas where there are higher Quadrant 3 concentrations of development. General Description The Cortez Water Treatment Plant is located along Location / Boundaries: The northern limits of Quadrant 3 County Road N within this quadrant. are delineated by Hartman Draw, west of U.S. Highway Electric Power: As depicted in Figure 4.7, with the 160/491 and the Cortez City limits, to its confluence with exception of Quadrant 4, all quadrants have sufficient McElmo Creek, which continues westward to the limits access to Empire Electric Association (EEA) electric of the three mile Area of Influence. The eastern boundary transmission lines. is composed of a draw that extends in a southeasterly orientation and forms the terminus for County Roads Community Services F and G. Fire Protection Services: As depicted in Figure 4.5, Fire Size / Area: Quadrant 3 is 9,335 acres, or 14.6 square Districts, the majority of Quadrant 2 is within the Cortez miles. Fire Protection District (FPD). Located just inside the Cortez municipal limits is the Cortez Fire Station #3. The Vegetation: Vegetation in Quadrant 3 is composed of a northeastern fringe of Quadrant 2 is within the Dolores mix of pinyon, juniper, and other arid climate trees and FPD. brush. Police Protection: The unincorporated areas of this Topography: The topography over most of Quadrant 3 quadrant are served by the Montezuma County generally consists of a gently undulating ground plane Sheriff’s Department. In the event of annexation, police associated with high desert mesas, approximately 6,000 protection would be provided by the City of Cortez – 6,400 feet in elevation. Quadrants 3 and 4 function Police Department. as major drainage outfalls for the Mesa Verde cuesta, which slopes northward, toward the City. This area School District: Quadrant 1 is within the Cortez- is composed of rugged terrain, prominent bluffs, and Montezuma County School District RE-1 School District. major drainageways prone to seasonal flash floods. Open Space, Parks and Recreation Land Uses The northern and eastern portions of this quadrant The northern portion of Quadrant 3 is delineated by the offer opportunities for many forms of recreational City limits and U.S. Highway 491 to the east, and the activity. Conquistador Golf Course and Totten Lake are Hartman Draw to the west. Within this narrow ‘panhan- significant recreational amenities within this quadrant. dle’ are small pockets of residential development. Fur- There are opportunities to increase recreational ther south, the Hartman Draw flows into McElmo Creek, improvements around the lake. which becomes the northern boundary of Quadrant 3. One option for the Hooten Enclave would be to develop South of McElmo Creek, the developed area widens and it as a park / open space or for higher density residential is composed of a variety of low-intensity uses, including use at the development portions of the property. a sports complex, a feedlot, an auto salvage / scrap metal yard, warehousing, interspersed with manufactured Summary home parks and low-density residential development. Quadrant 2 is not a prime area for growth due to the As summarized in Table 8.3, Quadrant 3 Land Uses, ap- terrain limitations, limited access to primary highways proximately 35 percent of the quadrant is composed of and the need for thoroughfare improvements, and the agricultural land uses. An additional 36 percent (3,355 expense of extending utilities. The scenic vistas and rural acres) of the quadrant is composed of residential devel- nature of this quadrant make it ideal for unincorporated opment; and four percent (439 acres) is nonresidential large lot, ranch, and agricultural development. While development. The remining 21 percent (1,458 acres) of Quadrant 2 offers the City opportunities to achieve the quadrant consists of either publicly-owned land major objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including (1,458 acres), or four percent as vacant land (485 acres). the preservation of farmland, open space, and creation South of County Road G and interupting County Road F of recreational opportunities, these objectives may be is Cortez Municipal Airport, several manufactured home achieved through means other than annexation. 16

parks, and other commercial uses. South of County Road Open Space, Parks and Recreation F, and nestled in between Ute Peak and Rocky Ridge / While the Hartman Draw is a natural barrier that Mesa Verde National Monument, is a narrow valley of impedes the develop-ability of lands within the western irrigated fields, bisected by U.S. Highway 160/491 as it portions of this quadrant, the Draw and landforms heads south. like it, should be evaluated for their value as potential Table 8.3, Quadrant 3 Land Uses recreational amenities. As recommended within the Cortez Comprehensive Plan, “Pursue private Land Use No. of Parcels No. of Acres dedications and other land banking opportunities along Agricultural: 75 3,299 natural boundaries, such as Hartman Draw and McElmo Commercial: 27 109 Canyon, and irrigation ditch banks, to create open space Exempt (publicly-owned) 34 1,458 1 and trail opportunities.” Industrial 10 91 Summary Mixed Use 32 239 As indicated under Section 3.0, Methodology, of this Residential 400 3,355 plan, lands located in Quadrant 3 generally meet the Vacant Land 24 485 criteria for annexation to the City. Annexation of certain (1) Vacant Land is composed of 670 acres: BLM and 92 acres:State of Colorado. lands within the Urban Service Area would be logical for the expansion of the City. The proximity to utilities Transportation Improvements infrastructure and municipal services can meet current U.S. Highway 491 is classified by CDOT as an obligations, while supporting future needs. Additionally, Expressway, Major Bypass, and is the principal north- annexation would fulfill key criteria outlined in Section south highway that provides access to Cortez from the 3.0, Methodology, with respect to annexing lands along south.As depicted in Figure 7.1, 2016 CDOT Street and transportation corridors that function, in part, as Highway Classifications, County Roads E (Local Road), significant gateways in to Cortez (3.12); as well as the and F (Local Road) provide east-west access within the importance of promotimg sustainable infill development quadrant. County Road G (Minor Arterial) provides (3.5). With the presence of the Cortez Municipal Airport access to Cortez from areas to the west. Additional roads development within this quadrant, particularly along are present but are primarily local in nature. the U.S. Highway 491/160 corridor, is likely to continue.

Utility Provisions Quadrant 4 Potable Water: Montezuma Water Company provides domestic water service to most properties in this General Description quadrant. The lack of adequate water volume and Location / Boundaries: The northern limits of Quadrant pressure results in fire protection limitations. 4 are generally delineated by E. Empire Street and the Cortez City limits. To the west and southwest, the Electric Power: As depicted in Figure 4.7, with the quadrant is delineated by the Cortez City limits and a exception of Quadrant 4, all quadrants have sufficient draw that extends in a southeasterly orientation and access to Empire Electric Association (EEA) electric forms the terminus for County Roads F and G. transmission lines. Size / Area: Quadrant 4 is 10,832 acres, or 17 square Wastewater: The Cortez Sewage Treatment Plant is miles. located within Quadrant 3. Vegetation: Vegetation within this quadrant is primarily Community Services composed of pinyon-juniper trees and other arid climate Fire Protection Services: As depicted in Figure 4.5, trees and brush. City of Cortez Fire Districts, with the exception of a Topography: The topography over most of Quadrant 4 small portion of its southeastern fringe, the majority of generally consists of a gently undulating ground plane Quadrant 3 is within the Cortez Fire Protection District. associated with high desert mesas, approximately 6,000 Cortez Fire Station #2 is located within this quadrant. – 6,400 feet in elevation. As with Quadrant 3, Quadrant Police Protection: The unincorporated areas of this 4 serves as a major drainage outfall for the Mesa Verde quadrant are served by the Montezuma County cuesta, which slopes northward, toward the City. The Sheriff’s Department. In the event of annexation, police Towaoc Highline Canal extends across this quadrant protection would be provided by the City of Cortez and into Quadrant 3 to the west. The Towaoc Highline Police Department. Canal effectively divides the urbanized areas of the City from the more arid areas, and generally follows a School District: Quadrant 4 is within the Cortez- grade line that splits the slopes of Mesa Verde from a Montezuma County RE-1 School District. more level plane that composes Quadrant 4. This area 17 is composed of rugged terrain, prominent bluffs, and the northern portion of the area is located in close prox- major drainageways prone to seasonal flash floods. imity to those services.

Land Uses Electric Power: As depicted in Figure 4.7, City of Cortez - EEA Electric Lines within 3 Mile Area, the lower half of As summarized in Table 8.4, Quadrant 4 Land Uses, 60 Quadrant 4, generally south of County Road H, does not percent (6,495.5 acres) of the quadrant is devoted to ag- have access to electric power transmission. ricultural development, 19 percent (2,061.7 acres) of the quadrant is developed, and 11 percent of the lands are Community Services publicly-owned (1,220 acres). Fire Protection Services: As depicted in Figure 4.5, City of The most significant land use issues relate to U.S. 160 and Cortez Fire Districts, with the exception of a small portion the proximity of Mesa Verde National Park. Quadrant 4 of its southeastern fringe, the majority of Quadrant 4 is is clearly visible from the Park, as is U.S. 160. The County within the Cortez Fire Protection District. Fairgrounds mark the eastern edge of development. Solid Waste: As depicted in Figure 4.3, Land Type County Road (C.R.) 29 marks the beginning of the urban Classifications, the Montezuma County Landfill spans area and the boundary of more intensive development. the boundary of Quadrant 3 and Quadrant 4. Much of the U.S. 160 frontage between C.R. 27 and the Fairgrounds has significant topographic challenges. Open Space, Parks and Recreation The City may only want to consider annexing this As this quadrant consists of a generally flat to undulat- corridor to have regulatory control of its development. ing ground plane consisting of predominantly agricul- A considerable area of land between U.S. 160, 7th Street, tural land uses, the opportunities for outdoor recreation and the irrigation canal area is ideal for development are limited compared to other quadrants, such as Quad- and annexation. rants 1 and 3, that offer more topographic relief. Ptolemy Enclave: Surrounded by the municipal boundaries of Cortez is Ptolemy Enclave, a 51.13 acre Summary parcel that is undeveloped. The terrain is suitable for the Of the four quadrants, Quadrant 4 has the greatest extension of city streets and utilities and is large enough amount of agricultural land, the least amount of to allow a variety of land uses. residential and nonresidential development, and the least developed thoroughfare system within the three Table 8.4, Quadrant 4 Land Uses mile Area of Influence. As this portion of the Montezuma Land Use No. of Parcels No. of Acres Valley is susceptible to spring flooding; and to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, as seen from Agricultural: 100 6,496 the Mesa Verde National Park and other historically Commercial: 15 105 significant sites, concentrations of development should Exempt (publicly-owned) 32 1,220 1 be discouraged. Mixed Use 11 363 Residential 236 1,593 Vacant Land 85 652

(1) Vacant Land is composed of 255 acres: BLM and 370 acres: State of Colorado.

Transportation Improvements As depicted in Figure 7.1, 2016 CDOT Street and Highway Classifications, County Road H (Major Collector / Local Road) is the principal east-west thoroughfare, which provides access to Highway 27 northbound.As summarized in the Cortez Comprehensive Plan, the City Planning Commission encourages the City to explore the feasibility of a truck bypass route that may extend through Quadrant 4. The extension of East 2nd Street through the Ptolemy Enclave to South Sligo Street would open the property to additional land use alternatives.

Utility Provisions Potable Water: Much of the southern unincorporated portions of this quadrant have no City utilities; although 18

9.0 Conclusion and encourage development in areas adjacent to adequate public facilities, such as water, sewer, schools, healthcare Recommendations facilities, and police protection. With the exception According to Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) 31- of Quadrant 4, the majority of lands have adequate 12-105 (1) (e), as amended, prior to completing any access to potable water and electric transmission annexation, property proposed to be annexed must be infrastructure. Beyond the Urban Service Area, utilities identified in a Three Mile Annexation Plan. The Three and transportation infrastructure has not been developed Mile Annexation Plan must be updated annually and in Quadrant 4. Quadrant 3 has the greatest access to upon completing any annexation. infrastructure. As per the Comprehensive Plan’s Policy Land located in Quadrants 1 through 4 generally meets 5.1.11, the City should “expand its corporate limits the criteria for determining which lands within the three when adequate urban facilities and services can be mile Area of Influence might be desirable for annexation. extended in a cost effective manner if there is not an Based upon the annexation criteria listed within Section adequate supply of land within the corporate limits to 3, Methodology, of this document, the majority of lands in accommodate a proposed residential, commercial, or these areas have the potential for annexation to the City. industrial development that will benefit the City.”

Utilities Infrastructure and Public Services Transportation Infrastructure As per annexation Criterion 3.1, the degree of access Based on thoroughfare planning data provided by the to existing utilities infrastructure compared to the City, as depicted in Figure 7.1, 2016 CDOT Street and costs for the City to provide utilities and services is an Highway Classifications, minor arterial and major col- important consideration when evaluating lands that lector thoroughfares are present in Quadrants 1, 2, and 3; are deemed eligible for annexation. To advance the with the latter quadrant containing the greatest amount Comprehensive Plan’s Policy 5.1.3, the City should of local thoroughfares. Each quadrant has direct access to a principal U.S. Highway. Beyond CR H, Quadrant 4

Figure 9.1, Environmental Constraints Figure 9.2, Proposed Thoroughfare Plan (2008) 19 has the least developed thoroughfare system. As noted, the Comprehensive Plan recommends a truck route that the City Planning Commission encourages the City to explore for the possibility of a bypass route for truck traffic, as referenced in Fig- ure 9.2, Proposed Thoroughfare Plan (2008), the route could connect U.S. Highway 160 to U.S. Highways 160/491 southbound, uti- lizing portions of CR H and CR F.

Environmental Constraints As depicted on Figure 9.1, Environmental Constraints, the areas with the greatest environmental constraints (e.g., steep slopes, floodplain, “critical lands”) occur within the Urban Service Area to the west of the City, within Quadrant 1; and to a lesser degree, to the east of the City, within Quadrant 2. Quadrant 4 is the area most likely to experience flooding resulting from subsequent spring snow melt. As per Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.14, the City should identify critical lands that should be conserved within the City limits and the one mile Urban Service Area, and create a Critical Lands Plan that addresses conservation and mitigation requirements.

Preservation of Agricultural Lands Significantly, agricultural lands are present in all of 10 Future Land Use the quadrants surrounding the City and contribute to its heritage and rural character. With respect to the amount of agricultural land compared to quadrant area, the greatest concentration of agricultural lands occurs within Quadrant 4, followed by Quadrant 2. As per Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1.17, the City and County should consider establishing an incentive program to maintain the best agricultural lands around the City.

Coordination and Partnerships The City of Cortez considers this Three Mile Plan to be an important document with which to guide potential growth. It is expected that any annexation consideration, county development, or known or unknown competing interests will follow the principals of this and other community planning documents in the areas identified. As outlined within 7.0, Three Mile Area Cooperation, it is imperative that the City and County develop and execute an Intergovernmental Agreement through which to effectively cooperate in guiding and directing appropriate development within the three mile Area of Influence, and annexation of contiguous lands within the one mile Urban Service Area. 20

FYI CORTEZ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR WORKSHOP TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2017

1. The workshop began at 5:30 p.m., with dinner served. Councilmembers present were Mayor Karen Sheek, Mayor Pro-tem Ty Keel, Bob Archibeque, Jill Carlson, Orly Lucero, Shawna McLaughlin, and Tim Miller. Staff members present were Director of General Services Rick Smith, Director of Planning and Building Sam Proffer, Director of Parks and Recreation Dean Palmquist, Director of Public Works Phil Johnson, City Clerk Linda Smith, City Attorney Mike Green, and City Manager Shane Hale. New City employees Payroll Clerk Lynette Reece, Permit Technician/Receptionist Cheryl Lindquist, and Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Chris Curry were introduced. There were two people present in the audience.

2. Discussion was held on the Justice Center being sold. City Manager Hale stated that in 1995, the City and County had joint ownership of the Justice Center and the Airport. He stated that with the construction of the new Police Department, the County had fee simple interest in the Justice Center and the City received sole ownership of the Airport. He stated that as part of the IGA for the Justice Center property, the City maintained the sidewalks and all the landscaping and the County has been completing the snow plowing for the property. He stated that any maintenance issues on the site have been the joint responsibility of both parties. He noted that with the construction of the new Combined Courthouse, the County has decided to sell the Justice Building. He spoke about the proposal to sever ownership of the property with the County and noted that the County is offering to give the City 6 parking spaces, instead of the 12 requested, and a perpetual easement to the northern access instead of the City having ownership. Discussion was held on the property and Council agreed that they would like to keep 12 parking spaces (out of 112 parking spaces total on the property) and the northern access as City property; however, the City would grant a perpetual easement to the County and future owner of the facility to the northern access; the City would grant a perpetual easement to the County and future owner of that facility to the secured area of Justice Center; the City would grant the probation department to use the eastern six parking spots until they move to the new combined courts; and the City would grant a perpetual easement for the driveway access to the south for the Justice Building so that the secured space can be utilized. Discussion was held on having a survey on the property so everyone knows what will be the City and the County’s.

3. City Manager Hale spoke about the proposal from the Cortez Fire Protection District offering an abandoned house that was donated to the Fire District in exchange for building permit fees for their new building. He spoke about the property located at 928 South Broadway which has been used by the Fire Department for training purposes and noted that the building needs to be demolished. He stated that the property has huge potential for the City with a gateway sign possibly located on the property as well as a future pull-out area with a trail to the Hawkins Preserve. Discussion was held on the cost for demolishing the property and the need to complete an abatement cost for any environmental concerns. In answer to a question from Mayor Pro-tem Keel, Director of Public Works Johnson stated that there is an access to the property, though the access process would need to be re-applied for with the Colorado Department of Transportation because it would be a change in use for the property. City Manager Hale noted that there is an Empire Electric pole that may need to be relocated on the property. Council agreed that they would like to know what the abatement costs would be for the building and Director of Planning and Building Proffer stated that he knew of a local firm that may be available to complete the assessment.

4. Discussion was held on Inspire Coalition, Business Landscaping, and Home Landscaping Makeover. Director of Parks and Recreation Palmquist stated that the Montezuma Inspire Coalition Steering Committee is starting to formulate a project plan for the GOCO Inspire Initiative Grant which is mainly being created to get kids outside. He spoke about the coalition organization and the role the City may play in the process and how the City’s programs can be enhanced by the Inspire Coalition if the project is funded. Director of Parks and Recreation Palmquist stated that he recently was informed that the City will be receiving a GOCO grant to complete the outdoor pickleball courts and he spoke on the planning process for the project. Discussion was held on the future of offering help to businesses who would like to add landscaping to their property with up to a $500 match from the City (up to $5,000 total). It was noted that the landscaping items must be purchased in Montezuma County. Also, discussion was held on helping residents with landscaping their yards. City Manager Hale stated that Youth Works will be in Cortez for approximately seven weeks to help the community with a variety of projects and along with the faith based community there could be help for residents to clean up their yards. Discussion was held on the litter around the community and City Manager Hale spoke about the City’s Clean-Up Day which will be held on April 29, 2017.

5. Discussion was held on a proposed State bill regarding firearms in the classroom. Resident Chris Wolfe spoke about his concerns and Chief of Police Lane stated that he and the Sheriff have spoken with the School Superintendent about their concerns of having teachers carrying firearms in the classroom. He stated that he does not see the School Board allowing the schools in town to have firearms in their classrooms. Chief Lane spoke about the police officers that are located in the schools now and the fact that they are trained to deal with a variety of situations. It was noted that the schools are now locked and no one is allowed to enter without going through the office of each building.

6. Director of Public Works Johnson spoke about the City completing a Data Sharing Agreement with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to provide information from the City’s master meter on the Ute Tribe’s usage of water using a line of sight antenna mounted on the treatment building. He stated that the proposed agreement would provide for real time data to both entities from the master meter location with the Ute Tribe cost-sharing the project. Discussion was held on the median plan for downtown and Director of Public Works Johnson spoke about the public outreach that was done for the project and noted more public outreach would be done prior to implementation. Director of Public Works Johnson spoke about how the snow removal would work with the medians and it was noted that the street lanes would not be smaller.

A request was made for tennis rackets for the High School and if anyone has an extra to donate, it would be appreciated. The workshop was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2017

1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., and was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmembers present were Mayor Karen Sheek, Mayor Pro-tem Ty Keel, Bob Archibeque, Jill Carlson, Orly Lucero, Shawna McLaughlin, and Tim Miller. Staff members present were Chief of Police Roy Lane, Airport Manager Russ Machen, Director of Planning and Building Sam Proffer, Director of Parks and Recreation Dean Palmquist, Director of General Services Rick Smith, City Clerk Linda Smith, City Attorney Mike Green, and City Manager Shane Hale. There were 18 people in the audience. Mayor Sheek thanked everyone for coming to the first City Council meeting in the new City Council Chambers.

2. The Consent Agenda items acted upon by Council were as follows:

a. Approval of the Worksession and Regular Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2017.

b. Approval of the payment of the Expenditure Vouchers of March 14, 2017.

c. Approval of a renewal Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License for Seven Meadows Farm LLC, DBA The Farm Bistro, located at 34 West Main Street, Cortez.

d. Approval of a renewal Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License for Rudosky Golf LLC, DBA Conquistador Golf Course, located at 2018 North Dolores Road, Cortez.

e. Approval of a Special Events Permit for the High Desert Devo to host a fundraiser at Kokopelli Bike and Board, located at 130 West Main Street, on April 7, 2017.

Councilmember Lucero moved that Council approve the Consent Agenda, with the additional expenditure list totaling $140,764.67. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3. PRESENTATION

a. Ag Expo Proclamation. Mayor Sheek read the Ag Expo Proclamation proclaiming the third week of March as Ag Expo Week and presented the proclamation to the Ag Expo Committee. An invitation was extended to the public to attend the 35th Four States Ag Expo which would be held March 16-18, 2017, at the Montezuma County Fairgrounds.

4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

a. Blue Ribbons for Child Advocacy Center. Matt Keefauver, 226 Market Street, spoke to Council CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 2

about the Child Advocacy Center plans for April which is Child Abuse Awareness Month. He asked if the center could place blue ribbons on the trees on Montezuma Avenue in honor of the awareness campaign and also have a proclamation read by the City Council at the March 28, 2017, meeting. Council stated they were in support of both the blue ribbons and the proclamation. Mr. Keefauver stated that the Child Advocacy Center will sponsor the Business After Hours on April 13, 2017, at the Child Advocacy Center and he invited everyone to attend.

b. Display of Art in New City Hall. Sonja Horoshko, 30 North Maple Street, congratulated City Council on the beautiful new City Hall building. She spoke about her pastel art piece that was donated to the City many years ago and thanked the City for hanging it in the new Council Chambers. She also spoke about the art that was requested by the City to be hung in the new City Hall on loan from professional artists who live in the community. She stated that after many emails and communication through Facebook, she decided to approach Council about support on artists’ behalf to offer alternative approaches to public art in Cortez. She spoke about the value of Stephen Hanson’s stained glass that is located in the reception room of the new building and noted that it is a step forward to shed respect on other artists in the City and noted it is appreciated. She spoke about different alternatives to the loan concept for the art displayed at the City and how a long-term sustainable approach could be created for public art funding. She spoke how other communities have accomplished their art programs which have flourished. She stated that members of the Arts and Culture Resource Advisory Council (ACRAC) request that the City revisit the public arts programs and call on members of the group to consult on setting policy and procedures. She stated that the ACRAC believe that the arts enhance and activate public places and increase enjoyment for citizens who chose to celebrate the vibrant cultural diversity found in the community. She noted that it is possible for the City to be like blue bears, to “see what we mean” – a prospering time in the future when the City revenues, citizens and visitors benefit from the steps that Council would take in 2017 to develop a richer, deeper civic pride and identity with the arts and artists living and working in Cortez. She thanked Council for the opportunity to speak on the issue. Barbara Grist, 923 Balsam Street, stated that discussion came about when the City was speaking to her about the new building and decorating the walls with donated art. She spoke about the leasing proposal and stated that it gives Council an idea on how the artists can receive some revenue and the City can own the art. She stated that the ACRAC group would be interested to visit with Council about different options. Mayor Sheek noted that the art has made the beautiful building into something warm and inviting.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None.

7. NEW BUSINESS

a. Airport Land Lease Assumption Agreement with Joe and Twila Moore. Airport Manager Machen stated that presently Noel Boykin has an airport hangar with a 40-year land lease and Mr. Boykin is selling the hangar to Joe and Twila Moore. He stated that the Moore’s will assume the remaining 37 years 9 months. He noted that all lease provisions remain unchanged and the Moore’s will be storing their own private aircraft in the hangar. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 3

Councilmember Archibeque moved that Council approve an Airport Land Lease Assumption Agreement with Joe and Twila Moore. Councilmember Lucero seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

b. Letters of Support to Increase the Passenger Facility Charge User Fee. Airport Manager Machen stated that the current Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) was started in the 1990’s at $3.00 an hour and was boosted to $4.50 per ticket about 17 years ago. He stated that the fee is based on re- imbursement of past matching funds to FAA grants received to be used for future grant matching funds. He noted that the construction inflation rate has far outpaced the permissible revenue rate and without increasing the fee to bring it back into alignment with current airport construction costs, the City would be forced to draw on other revenue sources that are presently allocated to other line item expenditures. He stated that under the current passenger volume projected over a full year, the City would accrue roughly $34,242 in 2017. He stated that if Congress allows airports to double the rate of collection, the amount would double. City Manager Hale stated that Council would be authorizing the Mayor to send letters of support to the Senate and Congress.

Mayor Pro-tem Keel moved that Council authorize Mayor Sheek to send letters of support for raising the Passenger Facility Charge User Fee. Councilmember Archibeque seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

c. 2017 Fertilizer Bid. Director of Parks and Recreation Palmquist stated that the Parks and Recreation Department bids out its fertilizer product each year for the Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Divisions. He stated that an organic blend fertilizer was bid as well as granular fertilizer and liquid fertilizer. He stated that three companies submitted bid proposals and staff recommends that Crop Production Services Professional Products be awarded the granular fertilizer bid at an amount of $33,018.50 for the Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Divisions and Mile High Turfgrass, LLC, be awarded the liquid fertilizer bid of $10,990.10 for the Golf Course Maintenance Division. He noted that Greenskeeper Russ Grover has supported the use of both granular and liquid fertilizer for the greens which has seen tremendous results. Mayor Pro-tem Keel spoke about just using liquid fertilizer in the future due to the cost and Director of Parks and Recreation Palmquist stated that staff feels that using both types of fertilizer is still preferred due to the different ways in which the fertilizer is released.

Councilmember Lucero moved that Council award the 2017 Fertilizer Bid to Crop Production Services Professional Products for the granular fertilizer bid at the amount of $33,018.50 for the Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Divisions and Mile High Turfgrass, LLC, for the liquid fertilizer bid at an amount of $10,990.10 for the Golf Course Maintenance Division. Councilmember Archibeque seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 4

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

d. 2017 Refuse Truck Bid. Director of General Services Smith stated that the 2017 Refuse Budget provides for the purchase of a new 20-yard refuse truck. He stated that Unit #721, a 2009 IHC with a Heil body is planned to be traded-in on the new unit. He stated that traditionally the oldest units become back-ups to the primary refuse trucks. He stated that eight responses were received from three dealers. He stated that two units were rejected because they proposed a different chassis. He stated that the low bidder was for a New Way body which has a smaller hopper opening and hydraulic rams located on the outside of the body where the refuse staff ride on the side of the truck. He stated that the City has had the Leach body on previous units and they have performed well and the Refuse Department and the Shop recommended the Leach body over the New Way body. Staff is recommending that the bid be awarded to the second low bidder – Elliot Equipment for the IHC Chassis with the Leach body at the purchase price of $111,780.00 after trade-in of Unit #721. In answer to a question from Councilmember Lucero, Director of General Services Smith stated that the truck takes approximately 200 days to receive.

Councilmember Archibeque moved that Council award the 2017 Refuse Truck Bid to the second low bidder Elliot Equipment for the IHC Chassis with the Leach body at the purchase price of $111,780.00 after trade-in of Unit #721. Councilmember Lucero seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

e. 2017 Aerial Fiber and Underground Splicing Bid Results. Director of General Services Smith stated that recently the City awarded the construction contract to expand the Cortez Community Network along Road L to Mildred and south along Mildred to Empire Street. He stated that the award provides the development of the fiber splice plan, head end splicing of all the fibers, and all field splicing. He stated that three bids were received with Apex Telecom, owner Mike Smith, as the low bidder at a bid amount of $18,280.00. He stated that Apex Telecom has done several projects for the City and was instrumental in completing the fiber repair at the Service Center a few years ago. He spoke about the difference in the three bids and stated that Advanced Fiber is out of Denver and he is not sure why their bid was so high compared to the others.

Mayor Pro-tem Keel moved that Council award the 2017 Aerial Fiber and Underground Splicing bid to the low bidder – Apex Telecom at the bid amount of $18,380.00. Councilmember Lucero seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

f. Ordinance No. 1220, Series 2017. City Attorney Green stated that Ordinance No. 1220, Series 2017, regulates mobile food vendors within the City of Cortez. He stated that the original mobile food vendor regulations had a sunset of December 2016 and Planning and Zoning and staff felt that the regulations were effective in regulating mobile vendors and are recommending that the CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 5

regulations be adopted without a sunset date. He noted that the mobile vendors are allowed City wide except in the Central Business District so as not to compete with the brick and mortar restaurants. He noted that the food vendors have to comply with the City’s sales tax regulations and have a certificate from the Montezuma County Health Department. Discussion was held on what constitutes a mobile vendor and it was noted that a food vendor continues to be located at Notah Dineh on a regular basis. In answer to a question from Mayor Sheek, City Attorney Green stated that the food vendor located at Notah Dineh is a different situation as they are renting space from the Leighton’s.

Councilmember Lucero moved that Council approve on first reading Ordinance No. 1220, Series 2017, regulating mobile food vendors within the City of Cortez, and set for public hearing on March 28, 2017. Mayor Pro-tem Keel seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

g. Ordinance No. 1221, Series 2017. City Attorney Green stated that Ordinance No. 1221, Series 2017, makes certain corrections to the Cortez City Code Section 18-2(c) possession of liquor, wine, or fermented malt beverage, Section 18.3 Liquor License – Special Events, and Section 19-6(i) intoxicating beverages rules and regulations generally - Cortez Municipal Golf Course. He stated that the golf course now has a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License and there was language in the City Code that needed to be updated noting the change in liquor license. He stated that language also needed to be changed noting the City approves Special Event Permits now without State approval. He stated that staff recommends approval of the ordinance on first reading and that it be set for public hearing on March 28, 2017.

Councilmember Lucero moved that Council approve on first reading Ordinance No. 1221, Series 2017, making certain corrections to the Cortez City Code Section 18-2(c) possession of liquor, wine, or fermented malt beverages, Section 18.3 Liquor Licenses – Special Events, and Section 19- 6(i) intoxicating beverages rules and regulations generally – Cortez Municipal Golf Course, and set for public hearing on March 28, 2017. Mayor Pro-tem Keel seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:

Archibeque Carlson Keel Lucero McLaughlin Miller Sheek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

8. DRAFT ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS – None.

9. OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS – None.

10. ADDITIONAL CITIZEN PARTICIPATION – None.

11. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT – None.

12. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 6

a. New City Hall Open House. City Manager Hale stated that on Friday, March 17, 2017, the City will be hosting an open house of the new City Hall with tours being offering all day and a ribbon cutting at 5:00 p.m. He stated that the ribbon cutting will be held on the exact day that the City went to DOLA in 2016 to request a grant for the remodel. He requested that everyone wear green in honor of St. Patrick’s Day.

b. Move Day Thank You. City Manager Hale thanked all the City staff that worked on President’s Day (February 20, 2017) to move the old City Hall to the new City Hall. He noted that it was all hands on deck from Public Works, Airport, General Services, Parks and Recreation, and staff that are now located in the new building to move everything over. He specifically thanked Building Maintenance employees Tim Crites, Nathan Hofmann, and David Rucker for their hard work in getting all the art up and Chris Burkett for working with the public to get the art for the new building. He stated that Airport employees Russ Machen and Efrain Vaquera have given many extra hours to help with the art hangings and shelf building. He noted that Dawn Lightenburger organized all the moving plans and ordered all the new furniture. He thanked the IT staff for all their work on the new building bringing it forward with new technology. He thanked Rick Smith for being the City Owner’s Representative on the project and thanked current Council and past Councilmembers Jim Price and Tom Butler for support of the project. Mayor Sheek thanked City Manager Hale for being the leader of the project and noted that everyone is very proud of the beautiful building.

13. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

a. Mayor’s Report on Workshop. Mayor Sheek stated that during the workshop new employees Payroll Clerk Lynette Reece, Permit Technician/Receptionist Cheryl Lindquist, and Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Chris Curry were introduced. She stated that discussion was held on the sale of the Justice Center and division of the property. Also, discussed was a possible trade with the Fire Department for property they own in exchange for building permits for their new building. Mayor Sheek stated that Director of Parks and Recreation Palmquist spoke about Inspire Coalition and a business and home landscaping makeover, and Director of Public Works Johnson spoke about a Data Sharing Agreement with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. A brief discussion was held on the possibility of legislation being passed in the State regarding firearms in the classroom.

b. Cortez Historic Preservation Meeting. Councilmember Carlson stated that it the Montezuma County Historic Society may have a place for their museum. She stated that the old grange building located by the Lakeview Elementary School may be offered for the group to use. The building is being checked out to see if it will work.

c. Mesa Verde Tourism Partners Meeting. Councilmember Carlson stated that discussion at the Mesa Verde Tourism Partners Meeting included first quarter information and it was noted that all the agencies are wanting to advance their programs towards the 21st Century. She stated that a new printed map from the Forest Service was discussed. She stated that the Birding Festival will be held May 14–17, 2017.

d. Montezuma Community Economic Development Association (MCEDA). Councilmember Miller stated that discussion at the MCEDA meeting including the County fiber broadband project CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 7

and the Annual Meeting that will be held on April 19, 2017. He stated that discussion was held on Osprey applying to have a daycare as part of their building located in the Industrial Park. City Manager Hale explained that discussion has been held with the Planning and Zoning Department about the possibility of allowing the request as a conditional use permit as long as it is a part of the primary use that is allowed in the Industrial Zone.

14. Council adjourned to Executive Session at 8:40 p.m. to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a). Mayor Sheek recused herself from the Executive Session due to a possible conflict-of-interest.

No decisions were made in Executive Session and the regular meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

______Karen W. Sheek, Mayor

ATTEST:

______Linda L. Smith, City Clerk