Gunnison County passes land use resolution amendments

Almont development discussion to come later

By Katherine Nettles

Gunnison County commissioners held a public hearing on some land use resolution (LUR) amendments last month before approving the amendments as recommended by county staff with one modification. 

The bulk of the amendments were recommended based on a recent court order that came from a lawsuit between the county and a property owner in Crested Butte South (Gunnison County vs. Tyzzer)  challenging the county’s LUR appeals process. The amendments bring the LUR into compliance with the court order for the process of appeals to be handled by the Gunnison County board of adjustment instead of strictly by county commissioners. At the same time, the Gunnison County community and economic development department made other minor changes to the LUR. 

The Gunnison County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended the amendments in early November, and Gunnison County assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano presented the changes for the second time at the public hearing on December 19. 

The amendments included removing some restrictive barriers and creating “more equitable regulatory standards” around mobile and manufactured homes; accommodating state regulatory updates; allowing digital submission documents; and eliminating the requirement of an administrative review LUR application for secondary residences to make it slightly easier for people to add secondary dwellings to their primary residences and possibly help improve the long-term rental inventory. 

“It’s a very small bar to lower to try to make that creation of those secondary or smaller residences more feasible for folks,” said Pagano. “By no means do I think it is a panacea and that we will have a bunch of folks applying for secondary residences. The majority of what we see in the county do not appear to be for rentals, they appear to be for family or occasional use. But we want to take the opportunities where we can.” 

The amendments also allow people to take longer periods of time to build a residence as they are able to finance and permit it in phases, such as building a driveway one year, then getting a septic system a few years later and a building permit after that.

“Previously we had only issued driveway permits when somebody had applied for septic and or building permit,” said Pagano. “This allows for that opportunity.” 

The public hearing brought some pushback as Almont resident Mark Schumacher and county resident Marcus Lock took exception to another change proposed in the amendments that removed Almont, Somerset and Ohio City from a list of existing population centers for the purpose of how future development is considered. This led to a lengthy discussion about Almont, population centers, and how to determine what makes an area qualify for easier development versus additional processes. That topic will be considered more deeply in the county’s upcoming corridor planning, and in the meanwhile led to an ultimate modification to the LUR amendment.  

Public comment: Almont a city center?

Schumacher expressed concern during public comment that staff recommended removing Ohio City, Somerset and Almont from a clause that identifies them as city centers in the LUR. Areas not considered city or population centers must undergo an additional requirement for development applications, referred to as  “locational standard review.”  

“I’ve lived in Almont for 40 years and I believe it’s a population center. I’m not sure why it won’t be considered that,” said Schumacher. He recalled that in the 1990s, residents and business owners determined that they wanted the area to be a mix of residential and commercial uses and have acted accordingly with two commercial businesses, three restaurants, tourism, workforce housing, a post office, storage units and bus stops as well. 

He said the last land use change in Almont was his own, in the early 2000s. “The rate of growth has been really slow in Almont,” he said, but said it is entirely platted with established water supply and he has been required to set aside some of his property for an expanded wastewater treatment plant when he has gone through a land use change in the past. “What’s the problem with Almont that makes us not a city center?” he asked.

Pagano said she disagreed with Schumacher’s statement that all of Almont is platted and there is no room for additional development. “There are certainly parcels that may be redeveloped or changed and we may receive applications for subdivisions of existing parcels. There is future opportunity,” she said. She also noted that not everyone in Almont has access to the wastewater treatment plant.

County commissioner chair Jonathan Houck asked to clarify what the area’s removal as a city population center in the LUR means for future development there, and if existing uses would remain protected. Pagano said they would, and that development not adjacent to an existing city center would have to demonstrate that it has no significant adverse impact to the neighborhood. Pagano said the applicant would have to submit a written statement explaining that there would be no adverse impacts; then the planning commission and commissioners would have to evaluate the statement. This could include public comment, staff comment or agency review supporting or disputing the submission.  

Commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels said she recognized the additional barrier this could create, having served on the county’s planning commission for four years and understanding that evaluating for adverse impacts tends to make up the bulk of what the commission does, and people don’t always agree—especially as it relates to wildlife.

“It would be another burden for development to happen, I just want to be clear about that,” Puckett Daniels said. “I feel like there’s a wider community conversation to be had like the one that was had in the ‘90s about what do we want the future of Almont to look like…is Almont where development should be happening in the future? I feel ill-equipped to have a conversation about that right now. I feel like the community would want to participate in that. And I would love to see some of those documents that were created before in that community conversation so we could ground it in historical context.”

“I’m going to be hesitant to use the word burden,” said Houck of Schumacher’s argument. “Because our rules and regulations reflect the community’s values and standards. And so does it require more work? Yes, but it is it a burden to say we’re going to protect our water, to protect our air, that we have concerns about wildlife impacts?”  

Houck said there has also been a significant community discussion around keeping the corridors as open as possible and concentrating development near the population centers. He acknowledged that the variety of what is in Almont does look different than what is in Ohio City or Somerset. “But it is also significantly different than CB South, the town of Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte or the city of Gunnison.”

“This adds a layer for consideration, but it is not a stop or a denial of future development in Almont, or any of these other areas,” said Pagano.

“It would be used as a justification at the end for a denial or limiting factor. It’s just one more hurdle to make things more expensive and less affordable, and all the things that happen when you have more rules and regulations,” said Schumacher. “It’s just another tool to stop things.”

Houck added that grocery stores, doctors, dentists and hardware stores are still missing from Almont. 

Commissioner Liz Smith asked to review the distinction about population centers in the LUR. “Is it appropriate for greenlighting a lot of growth? I think that’s the distinction that we’re getting at.” She wondered if they should use more specific terminology to identify “the need for responsible due process” in places such as Almont, Somerset, Marble and Pitkin.

Ultimately, Pagano suggested that commissioners could leave Almont in the LUR as a city center and discuss it more later as the county continues a larger corridor discussion expected to start in earnest in 2024.

Local attorney Marcus Lock also commented on his own behalf and said he could have clients who might want to develop in Almont at some point. Lock spoke in favor of leaving Almont in the LUR as a city center, and suggested removing Almont from the LUR clause would potentially become an impediment to adding workforce housing in the county.

“To the extent that you want to maintain flexibility in terms of the model for workforce housing potential development in that area, I’d say that’s another reason to leave it in. But more importantly, you all are about to engage in this year-long corridor planning process. Almont is going to be a part of that discussion, so why not at least wait until you’ve had that process before making a change?” 

Commissioners discussed the issue at length before agreeing that it was appropriate to leave the Almont discussion for the upcoming corridor planning process in 2024 and 2025. They approved the LUR amendments as presented and included the modification of retaining Almont in the list of existing population centers for locational standards.