• Section I - Agriculture and Open Space Element
• Section II - Transportation Element
• Section III - Environmental Issues Element
• Section IV - Recreation and Tourism Element
• Section V - Three Mile Planning Element
• Section VI - Housing Element
• Section VII - Economic Development Element

 Appendices of the Plan include:

• A  --  Results from the 2002 Community Survey;
• B  --  Economic and Demographic Profile
• C  --  Focus Group Implementation Matrices
• D  --  Focus Group Opinions on Snodgrass Development
• E  --  Three Mile Planning Area Focus Group - Commercial Development Findings
• F  --  Additional Data and Policy Resources

The Planning Process

Land use planning is generally defined as the process by which members of the community reach decisions and implement policies to define the future of the environment in which they live.  Local and regional planning typically includes a combination of interrelated roles and processes that include both the public and private sectors. Through the interplay of these relationships, the planning process forms the basis for decisions, policies, processes and actions traditionally focused on land development in the region.

The term “land use planning”, when used in an appropriately broad sense, includes both physical and social dimensions.  The use of land and natural resources may shape and control the aspects of life within the County.  Conversely, the social aspects, including regionally significant economic and political processes, shape and control the use of land and natural resources.  The Plan attempts to provide both socio-economic and environmental aspects to assist those decisions, as well as clearly defining implementation measures to respond to issues related to the long-term sustainability of the quality life in the Corridor.


Land Use Planning in Colorado

Colorado has a strong tradition of local government control with respect to land use planning.  Unlike some other states, Colorado does not have a statewide land use plan.  Land use planning regulations, like zoning, sign codes and building codes, are, for the most part, locally designated.

The land use regulatory authority of counties emanates from the “police power” of the state.  That is, the state delegates this authority to local governments through enabling legislation.  The exercise of this police power, be it the enactment of land use controls or decisions enforcing such regulations, must bear a rational relationship to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.  This police power must be exercised in a manner consistent with federal and state constitutional rights.

The Colorado Legislature has passed many bills with implications for land use planning and regulation.  It has placed the majority of land use responsibility and control at the local (county or municipality) level of government.  The following brief discussion is primarily limited to those statutes that address master/comprehensive planning and specific regulatory tools available to counties in Colorado.  All of the statutes citied below, unless otherwise noted, are enabling legislation only.  This means that these are tools for local governments to use at their prerogative in planning; they are not mandated, funded or enforced by the state.

• Counties are required to prepare and adopt a master plan (often referred to as a comprehensive plan) for the physical development of their jurisdictions (30-28-106).  In 2001, legislation was adopted requiring the more populous and faster growing counties to formally adopt their master plans.    This legislation also requires that master plans adopted pursuant to this section include a recreation and tourism component.  Gunnison County met the legislative threshold based on current growth rates, and a recreation and tourism component is included in this document.  This document represents Gunnison County’s first master plan for the Corridor.
• Land use regulations through zoning are available to counties (30-28-111).
• The adoption of subdivision regulations has also been required of counties since 1972 (30-28-133).
• In 2001, broad impact fee authority was granted to counties, enabling them to better control growth, and permitting that, to the extent practical, certain costs of growth will be paid by new development (29-20-104.5).
• The Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act (29-20-101, from HB74-1034) granted counties broad authority to plan for and regulate the use of land, with no restrictions, conditions, or procedures prescribed for local governments.  According to statute, each local government within its respective jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and regulate the use of land by: 

• Gunnison County Planning Commission
• Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners
• The Sonoran InThe Sonoran Institute (Ben Alexander)
• Western State College (Dr. Dan Howard, Sociology Department)
• California State Polytechnic University Urban and Regional Planning Department
• County Employees (40 total pre-tested the survey)
• Gunnison, Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte and Gunnison County Planners

Survey Results

The survey instrument and graphic representations (histograms) of the survey results are contained within Appendix A.    A summary of key findings are presented below:

• The County is blessed with a very educated population, with nearly 50% of residents with a college degree, far surpassing state and national averages;
• Nearly 30% of respondents considered themselves under-employed, which suggests a significant gap between the skills and education of the workforce and the current job market;
• Over 20% of respondents considered their personal situation as “economically insecure”, further supporting the need for viable economic diversification and development efforts;
• Over 40% of respondents felt that regulations should be changed to “direct” growth in the East River Valley;
• Over 40% of respondents felt that development should be clustered near existing towns and over 60% felt that future development should be designed to avoid environmental constraints;
• Over 40% of respondents felt that historic and state-generated projected growth is “too fast, too much” and over 35% felt it was “just right”, and less than 15% felt it was “too slow, not enough.”
• When asked what future development should provide within proposals, over 60% said “public access to public lands”, 60% said “open space, over 50% said “affordable housing”, and nearly 50% said “trails”;
• The highest components that residents valued include “scenery”, “clean air”, “open space”, “rural lifestyle”, “vistas and view sheds”;
• When asked what the community values most in Gunnison County, the predominant values included “rural lifestyle”, “recreation” and “vistas and viewsheds”.  The business climate was pointed out as predominant weakness in the local economy;
• When asked to rate issues in terms of importance to the community, the issues that rose to the top included “environment/opens space”, economic diversity”, “develop a master plan” and “affordable housing”.
• When asked to rate the relative importance of criteria to determine the location and densities of future land uses, the most important were “wildlife impacts”, “scenic viewsheds”, “water and sewer service”, and “environmental constraints.”

County Snapshot

The entire plan integrates a great deal of existing and projected environmental, social and economic data (both numerical and geographic), which are included within this, section and throughout the document.  Detailed census and economic data can be found in Appendix B.

Table 1 summarizes basis demographic data based on the 2000 Census, comparing Gunnison County to the State of Colorado.    Some very basic observations based on this comparative approach include the following:

• Persons below the poverty level was nearly 6% higher than the State of Colorado;
• Median value of owner-occupied housing is higher than either the State or the country as a whole;
• The population percent change from 1990 to 2000 in the County was nearly three times the national average, and 5% above the state of Colorado.  Although the pace of growth slowed during the period of 2000 – 2002, early building permit data for the spring of 2004, the sale of the ski area and the subsequent speculative real estate market suggests that the growth rate may be accelerating;
• Gunnison County has a relative young demographic profile, with persons over 65 significantly lower than either the State or the nation;
• The percentage of high school graduates and those with bachelor degrees is significantly higher than the State;
• Homeownership rates are below State levels, pointing to the gap between wages and housing costs; and
• Median values of owner-occupied housing units are above State levels, while median household and per capita income lag behind.

Population Projections and Growth Trends

State and County population projections have been produced by the State Demographer, which uses an economic demographic projection system that models the relationship between demographic and economic change at the county, region and state level.  The procedures can be summarized as follows:  the supply of labor is projected in two steps.  A cohort-component model survives the resident population forward in time, based on a specified fertility and mortality assumptions.  Assumed age-specific labor force participation rates are then applied to this population to create the indigenous supply of labor.  The demand for labor is projected by an econometric model, which relates the region’s industrial structure to demand for that sector’s output at the state and national level.  Where demand for labor exceeds supply, equilibrium is restored by migrating people into a region.  Where the supply exceeds demand, out-migration is assumed to occur.  Thus, the amount of migration to or from a given region is determined by projected labor supply and demand at each period.

These projections are based on an economic forecast completed in May 2003.  Given the on-going (albeit slow) economic recovery in Colorado and the new stronger economic long-term forecast for the Nation, these resulting population forecasts (2030) are somewhat higher than previous forecasts.  The results are shown on Chart 1, and the corresponding growth rate projections are shown on Chart 2.

The most telling aspect of the state-generated projections is the deviation of growth rates over time. Several assumptions are important to understanding how the model is portraying the future for the County.  First, the state is assuming a significant state-wide economic rebound from the moderate recession following September 11, 2001.  In addition, as the economy rebounds, in-migration will respond to the improved job market.  As these jobs are filled, in-migration slows, and the employment ages.  Secondly, the state is projecting that a great deal of the growth in the 2015 – 2030 timeframe will be retirees and second-home growth, as opposed to in-migration for employment opportunities.  The state provides updated growth rate projections on an annual basis. 


Background Mapping

Planning staff has also collected a wide variety of geographic and spatial data appropriate for a complete understanding of the physical and environmental attributes of County.  Secondly it provides the basis for modeling the implications of future land use alternatives.

Existing Ownership Patterns – Existing ownership patterns (also referred to as a “Land Status Map”) are shown on Figure 1.  Nearly 83% of the County is owned and managed by public entities, including the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, State of Colorado and conservation agencies.  All areas shown on Figure 1 in grey represent private property.  This has important implications for the future development of the County.

First, a large majority of private lands are located in the valley floor, which could create a scenario where future development will be highly visible, could impact or eliminate agricultural uses and, if not done carefully, has a high potential for sprawl development simply because of geography.  Secondly, the County must continue to coordinate land use and management policies with and between the County and federal and state agencies.   A tabular summary is shown on Table 2 and is graphically depicted on Chart 3.

Private property is further broken down by land status by the percent of acreage on Chart 4.  As shown, private land in the County is relatively undeveloped.  Nearly 82% of private lands have no significant improvements.

Existing Land Use – Figure 2 (3.0 MB) graphically portrays the existing land uses patterns in unincorporated Gunnison County, excluding federal lands.  This map is somewhat deceiving due to the methodology used by County to determine land use.  Figure 2 (3.0 MB) depicts a significant amount of lands classified as agricultural, however many of these parcels are not lands that generate significant income primarily associated with agricultural uses, and in a real sense are used for large-lot residential uses.  With that said, the long-standing agricultural heritage of Gunnison County is still evident along the State Highway 50 corridor, the State Highway 135 corridor, Ohio Creek and areas south of Blue Mesa Reservoir.  A tabular summary is shown on Table 3.  Chart 5 depicts the percent by acreage of private lands (public lands excluded).  As shown, 77% of private lands are considered to be in agricultural production.

Topographic Profile – A topographic profile is shown Figure 3 (1.7 MB).  Elevation ranges are dramatic in Gunnison County, ranging from 5,880 (Somerset area) feet to 14,285 feet (Castle Peak at the Gunnison/Pitkin County border).

Vegetation Profile – The wide variety of ecosystems in the County are graphically depicted in Figure 4 (9.2 MB).  The County includes semi desert shrub lands, pinion juniper woodland, sagebrush shrub land, ponderosa pine forest, Douglas fir forest, aspen forest, lodge pole pine forest, limber-bristlecone pine woodland and sub alpine Engelmann spruce forest.

Three Mile Planning Areas – An issue that dominated discussion among several Focus Groups was the future development within the three mile planning areas, which are shown on Figure 5 (2.4 MB).  These areas are somewhat of a public policy anomaly because the county has jurisdiction over these areas, but municipalities have the ability to develop three mile plans which are advisory only.  Gunnison County has adopted an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Gunnison to support the adoption of the city’s land use goals, but the County has not adopted IGA’s with either Crested Butte or Mt. Crested Butte.  For clarification, although Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte’s three mile planning areas overlap, state statute defined the border as half way between the two jurisdictions.

Status Quo Future Build-Out – In response to request from members of the public and the Planning Commission, long range planning staff developed an approach to define what the county might look like spatially if past land use policies and trends continued into the future.  Staff began with population density data derived for the 1990 U.S. Census, the results of which are graphically depicted on Figure 6 (5.0 MB).  As shown, the development patterns at that time were held relatively tight to the existing jurisdictions, with relatively low-density patterns on the valley floors.

Next, staff developed a density map for 2000 based on census data, which are shown on Figure 7 (2.2 MB).    Increased densities occurred within the three mile planning areas, Crested Butte South and the Marble area.  The State Highway 135 and 50 corridors where left relatively unchanged.  Staff next undertook a linear extrapolation effort to arrive at 2020 status quo build out.  The methodology was based on the following factors: