The Upper Crystal River Valley Master Plan has been developed to provide a general statement of direction for land use in the Upper Crystal River watershed in unincorporated Gunnison County. This plan is designed, as a tool for citizens, County staff and elected officials, and focuses on responding to both the immediate and long-term needs in the watershed.
The Plan provides the foundation for decisions and policies that guide and direct the physical, social, economic and spatial development for the area. The Plan is long-term in nature and will require periodic updating as needs and issues arise in the area. Therefore, it will be necessary for the Plan to remain flexible and subject to change and modification within the public and political process. In addition, changes to the land use review process suggested by the Plan will need to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The plan is divided into the following sections:
- Section I - Introduction and Background Data
- Section II - Implementation Matrices
- Appendix A - 2004 Community Survey Results
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 Plan is designed to serve as the foundation for land use decisions over a 5 to ten-year timeframe.
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 Upper Crystal River Valley.
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 second master plan for the County and the first of the Upper Crystal River watershed.
- 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 would 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 retrictions, 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:
|
|
1
|
Regulating development and activities in hazardous areas; |
|
|
2 |
Protect lands from activities which would cause immediate or foreseeable material danger to significant wildlife habitat and would endanger a wildlife species; |
|
|
3 |
Preserving areas of historical or archaeological importance; |
|
|
4 |
Regulating with respect to the establishment of roads, and public lands administered by the federal government; this includes authority to prohibit, set conditions for, or require a permit for the establishment of any road authorized under the general right-of-way granted to the public, but not for the establishment of any road authorized for mining claim purposes or under any specific permit or lease granted by the federal government; |
|
|
5 |
Regulating the location of activities and developments which may result in significant changes in population density; |
|
|
6 |
Providing for phased development of services and facilities; |
|
|
7 |
Regulating land use on the basis of the impact thereof on the community or surrounding areas; |
|
|
8 |
Otherwise planning for and regulating the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional rights.
|
Relationship to Existing Regulations
The Plan is considered as one source of comprehensive planning, and is generally held to be advisory only, and not the equivalent of zoning, nor binding on the zoning discretion or land use authority of the legislative body. In general terms, a master or comprehensive plan is a guide, or a compass to direct land use and future refinement of zoning or the existing land use regulations. Considered alone, a master plan is merely a general policy directive, and, if revisions are not made to the applicable land use regulations, does not affect legally protected interests or property owners.
Approval of the Plan
The statutory scheme in Colorado does not mandate the adoption of a comprehensive plan by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), but rather by an appointed Planning Commission. Actual code changes that would implement the plan are recommended by the Planning Commission and formally adopted through resolution by the Board. Both the deliberations and approval of the Plan and any changes to existing land use regulations must occur within formal public hearings consistent with State statutes governing the public review and approval process of land use regulations.
Process
The process began in the Fall of 2003 with a Community Survey that is discussed in detail below, and the complete results are summarized in Appendix A (10 MB). Staff produced large-format display posters and a public kick-off meeting was held in Marble in February of 2004. The meeting was held to allow the community to comment and discuss the survey results and to become familiar with the planning process.
Description of Survey Methodology and Findings
The County sponsored a community survey to gauge a wide range of opinions from citizens of the Upper Crystal River watershed. The survey was distributed to 100 percent of landowners of all property within the watershed, including the Town of Marble. In addition, volunteers identified all rental properties, and surveys were hand-delivered to all households. In addition, display ads where run in the Valley Journal and the local Marble paper alerting residents to contact the County if they had not received a survey. Requests for additional surveys were matched with both the Assessor’s database and the mailing list to ensure no duplicate surveys were distributed. Of the 847 surveys mailed, 343 were returned, representing a return rate of 41%. For comparative purposes, a typical response rate for a mail-out survey response rate is typically between 10 and 15%.
The data was inputted into an excel spreadsheet. Random samples of each survey was extracted and reviewed for accuracy. No significant data input errors were discovered. Further data integrity verification was conducted using Excel DataAnalysis ToolPak to insure that each response fell within the acceptable data range for each question. When discrepancies were discovered, the suspect survey forms were hand-checked and corrected if necessary.
The purpose of a community-based survey in support of master planning is very different in terms of intent and content when compared to traditional surveys associated with public opinion or census efforts. The survey distributed for the Upper Crystal River Master Plan was but one means of public input.
It has been well known throughout the field of planning that opinion surveys provide a broad opportunity for members of a community to express perceptions regarding planning issues. At the same time, the master planning process is stochastic in nature. Simply stated, issues combine, separate and converge upon each other throughout the process, and the findings of community surveys are rarely referred to independently from the debates and discussions of nearly a one-year process, but rather form a beginning point for addressing community issues.
A primary purpose of the survey was to introduce, encourage and foster discussion concerning issues facing the Upper Crystal River Drainage. Only simple, descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings of the survey.
The survey was drafted and reviewed by the following entities and project participants:
- Gunnison County Planning Commission
- Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners
- The Sonoran Institute (Ben Alexander)
- Western State College (Dr. Dan Howard, Sociology Department)
- California State Polytechnic University Urban and Regional Planning Department
- County Employees (10 total pre-tested the survey)
- Steering Committee appointed by the Upper Crystal River Caucus
Survey Results
The survey instrument and graphic representations (histograms) of the survey results are contained within Appendix A (10 MB). A summary of key findings are presented below:
- Nearly 50% of property owners have land that is currently undeveloped;
- Over 40% of respondents have a college degree, far surpassing both state and national averages;
- Over 40% of respondents considered their personal situation as “economically secure and improving”;
- Over 65% of respondents felt that the historic and projected growth rates in the Upper Crystal River Valley has been and will be “too fast/too much”;
- When asked what amenities should be included in future development proposals, access to public lands, open space and trails, land for public parks and public fishing access were favored by the majority of respondents. Affordable housing gained little if any support;
- When asked what the community values most about living in the Upper Crystal River Valley, nature/environment, clean air, water quality, vista/viewsheds, rural lifestyle and open space had overwhelming responses;
- A majority (52%) felt that future development patterns should generally be designed to minimize environmental impact, and 32% felt development should be clustered near existing development;
- When asked to rate the relative importance of a range of criteria in determining the location and density of future development of future development, wildlife impacts, scenic viewsheds, adjacent land uses and environmental impacts had significant support;
- When asked what amenities the County should develop in the future, hiking trials, unimproved parks and public fishing access had significant support;
- When asked to rate issues or needs in terms of importance facing the Upper Crystal River Valley over the next five years, water quality, air quality, wildlife habitat and environmental protection were primary concerns.
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 statewide 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. Based on these expected growth rates for the County, staff has projected growth for the study area, which are presented later in this section.
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 Gunnison County.
Study Area Boundary – The Study Area Boundary applicable to this Plan is shown on Exhibit 1. The area was defined based on the watershed of the Crystal River. It is important to note that the Town of Marble is included within Study Area, but this Plan has no jurisdiction within the Town boundaries. The Town currently has an adopted Master Plan for its boundaries. The entire study area is approximately 70,400 acres, of which private lands accounts for 10,465 acres (14.85%) of the study area.
Existing Ownership Patterns – Existing ownership patterns (also referred to as a “Land Status Map”) are shown on Exhibit 2. Nearly 85% of the Study Area is owned and managed by public entities, primarily the United States Forest Service. All areas shown on Exhibit 2 in grey represent private property. Table 1 and Chart 3 and Chart 4 show a tabular and graphic summary of the existing ownership patterns.
The Forest Service manages nearly 85 percent of the Study Area, and nearly 15 percent is private property that would be directly impacted by the findings of the Plan. This proportion closely mirrors the County landmass in terms of proportion of public lands. As shown on Chart 4, over 30 percent of privately held acreage is currently undeveloped. The location of undeveloped land is shown on (Exhibit 3). Exhibit 3 and Table 2 graphically portrays the existing land use patterns in unincorporated Gunnison County, excluding federal lands. This map is somewhat deceiving due to the methodology used by Gunnison County to determine land use. Exhibit 3 (8.2 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 in isolated areas of the Upper Crystal River Valley.
Vegetation Profile – The wide variety of ecosystems in the Upper Crystal River Valley are graphically depicted in Exhibit 4 (3.9 MB). The Valley 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.
Slope Profile – A slope profile of the Study Area is shown on Exhibit 5. The topography of the Upper Crystal River Valley is a challenge for future development from the perspective of access, fire response and visual impacts.
Geologic Constraints – The Upper Crystal River Valley is characterized by some of the most challenging geological constraints in the State of Colorado. These constraints are shown on Exhibit 6 (2.5 MB), and include debris fans, landslides, mudflows, rock falls, and unstable slopes.
Floodplain Constraints – Floodplain hazards are shown on Exhibit 7 (2.9 MB). The Marble area has been prone to significant floodplain impacts, with two historic events nearly wiping out the townsite. The data is derived from two sources: a site-specific study undertaken by Wright Water Engineers and data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Wildfire Hazards – In response to issues raised by the Focus Group, County planning staff updated a wildfire model for the area based on the following characteristics: Slope, Aspect, Vegetation, Insect and Disease, and Ladder Fuels. The methodology was approved the Colorado State Forest Service and the model output is shown on Exhibit 8. As shown, the Upper Crystal River Valley has significant areas of both extreme and high risk for wildfire.
Wildlife Habit – The Upper Crystal River Valley has some of the most important wildlife habitat in Gunnison County, and future development must be sensitive to this important resource. The location of Elk habitat is shown on Exhibit 9, and Mountain Goat and Bighorn Sheep habitats are shown on Exhibit 10.
Transportation – Traffic counts by Gunnison County for County Road 3 are shown on Exhibit 11 (2.6 MB). Traffic on County Road 3 has remained relatively static from 1990 to 1997. Counts have not been taken since 1997 due to frequent vandalism of the counters. The County has no plans to reinstate the counting program.
Status Quo Future Build-Out – In response to request from members of the Steering Committee and the Planning Commission, long range planning staff developed an approach to define what the study 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 Exhibit 12. The population of the entire study area, including the Town of Marble according to the U.S .Census Bureau was 323 residents.
Staff next undertook a linear extrapolation effort to arrive at 2020 status quo build out. The methodology was based on the following factors:
|
1
|
Grouping future population growth in areas with similar densities;
|
|
2
|
Controlling for areas with slopes over 30%, within the 100 year floodplain, and with significant natural hazards (geology, avalanche, etc);
|
|
3
|
Channeling growth into areas with significant growth potential, access to existing road networks, and a high level of desirability based on prior development trends;
|
|
4
|
2020 population projections where based on projections from the Colorado State Demographer's Office.
|
The results of this effort are shown on Exhibit 13. The projections indicate that a status quo scenario would include further build out of existing subdivisions and existing lots.
Steering Committee Recommendations
The Steering Committee met over a six month period to review background information provided by staff, define broad goals and objectives, and make concrete recommendations to the Gunnison County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. A general theme was to ensure that the findings of the Community Survey were followed. An initial step was to formalize a set of “Core Values” based on the wishes of the Community. These values are shown on page 27, and were used as a filter for all the recommendations to ensure consistency with these values.
The elements that the Steering Committee decided to focus on are as follows:
- Environmental Issues
- Transportation
- Recreation and Tourism
- History
- Housing
- Open Space
- Quality of Life
Please refer to Implementation Matrices for Goals and Objectives of each element.
Upper Crystal River Master Plan Common Community Core Values
Core
“The innermost or most important part of anything.”
Value
“A principle, standard or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.”
|
|
1
|
We value our independence, individuality, and the challenge & responsibility of living in the Upper Crystal River Valley.
|
|
2
|
We value our open spaces, our pristine environment, and our access to natural lands.
|
|
3
|
We value our children and the educational opportunities we have developed for them.
|
|
4
|
We value the unique scale and architectural diversity of the valley.
|
|
5
|
We value the rural nature of existing development patterns, and wish to see it continue in the future.
|
|
6
|
We value the quiet solitude and safety of living in a small, rural alpine environment and the responsibility (i.e. awareness of climate, stewardship, history) that comes with living here.
|
|
7
|
We value the fact that we respect, help, assist and cherish our neighbors.
|
|
8
|
We value the Upper Crystal Valley is place to grow, fulfill and share our dreams and aspirations.
|
|
9
|
We value the concept of “home-based” governance whereby we can address community issues independent of other government agencies through thoughtful debate and compromise.
|
|
10
|
We value the diversity of our people, their talents, their backgrounds and their opinions.
|
|
11
|
We value our commitment to community involvement and our ability to solve problems, create opportunities and have a positive impact on the future of the valley.
|
|
12
|
We value the fact that tourism is a component of our community, but it should not alter the character or the attributes that attract visitors to the Valley.
|
|
(return to top)
|
|
|
