Land Use Element

“The trouble with land is that they're not making it anymore.”

- Will Rogers

Vision: Guide future land use decisions to ensure that growth occurs in appropriate locations and that our rural mountain character is maintained.

Background and Existing Conditions

Imagine Summit County 200 years ago. Large valleys with running streams, forests, and meadows, flanked by high snow-covered peaks. Herds of deer and buffalo roaming the valley floors and grazing on the area’s plant life. In the summer, small groups of Ute Indians making their way through the valley to hunt the area’s wildlife. In short, a high mountain paradise.

Times have changed. Yet, in many ways today’s Summit County maintains much of this appealing character. The mountain environment is, after all, the primary reason thousand of visitors come to our County and why so many of us have made this place our home. But over 150 years of settlement has also altered some of the landscape. Mining, ranching, transmountain water diversions/reservoirs, ski resort development, and accompanying residential and commercial construction have all left their marks on the landscape. Land use will continue to shape our County’s character in the future.

Federal, state, and local laws limit the extent to which use of land can be controlled. For example, property that is zoned for a certain use (e.g., single family residential) can be developed for that use, provided the property owner adheres to applicable laws, such as building codes. This right to develop the land cannot be “taken” from the property owner, unless compensation is provided to the owner. There are certain avenues that a local government has (e.g., condemnation) that could potentially take away the right to develop. However, these avenues come at a cost and are typically used very sparingly for exceptional situations. Government can also in some cases enact temporary measures to stop growth (e.g., moratorium on building permits while an upgrade to the sewer system is being completed) but these are short-lived growth management strategies. The bottom line is that land that is zoned for a purpose can be built for that purpose. In Summit County, about 70 percent of our zoned land is already built (see the Build-out Analysis discussion later in this section). That leaves about 30 percent still to be built. In other words, our landscape will experience a substantial additional amount of growth, regardless of whether a single parcel of land is ever rezoned for more density or different uses. Future rezonings and annexations could increase the amount of land available for development beyond the current buildout information.

Thus, our landscape will continue to change. The way it changes, however, is something that we can to a certain extent control. Our land use polices and regulations can shape the appearance and location of development. They can also affect the functionality of development, shaping livable communities. This Land Use Element was developed with these goals in mind.

A key theme heard from the community is that we need to retain the character of our rural valleys, ranchlands, river corridors, and mountainsides. In order to limit impacts of development in those rural areas, this plan attempts to focus new development within or adjacent to existing urban areas. Infill development (i.e., development on vacant in-town parcels) and redevelopment (i.e., demolition and reconstruction) in existing urban areas are two focuses that need to be emphasized. Infill ensures that we are most efficiently using our urban landscapes, where a full range of facilities and services are already in place to serve development. Redevelopment occurs as real estate values reach a point where it economically works to remove old structures and replace them with higher value (i.e., generating greater revenues) structures. Some redevelopment has already occurred in the County. As the availability of vacant land continues to decline, it is anticipated that redevelopment will occur at an increasing rate.

There are currently six major locations of urban growth in the County: Breckenridge, Frisco, Dillon, Silverthorne, Keystone, and Copper Mountain. This plan anticipates that future higher density and higher intensity development will continue to be focused in these locations.

Because of the County’s limited land supply there are concerns that some uses may not be adequately accommodated in the County. Examples of such uses are affordable or employee housing and possibly some types of light industrial uses (e.g., equipment storage areas). Although this plan in itself does not resolve these potential deficiencies, it does set up mechanisms to initiate intergovernmental discussions for the purpose of ensuring that land uses required by the community are adequately accommodated.

This Land Use Element is intended to establish the County’s overall direction on land use issues. For example, several policies focus on the need to identify urban areas and rural areas in the County. However, that specific identification is a task delegated to each basin master plan. Basin master plans will continue to provide the primary guidance on the location of different types of land uses.

Land use is an issue that the County cannot deal with in isolation. Land use decisions on national forest lands and within town limits can have a direct impact on County land use and vice versa. Impacts can include increased traffic, more demands for public infrastructure such as sewer and water service, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and disruption of wilderness resources. In order to avoid these impacts this plan encourages cooperative planning with the towns and the US Forest Service to minimize land use conflicts and to promote a coordinated approach to land use planning throughout all of Summit County.

Transfer of Development Rights

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) are a tool that have been successfully used by some jurisdictions as a means of redirecting growth from areas poorly suited for development to areas that can readily accommodate development. Summit County has made extensive use of TDRs in the Upper Blue Basin with an active program and also has a TDR program in the Snake River Basin.

Rural backcountry areas, ranchlands, and environmentally sensitive areas are examples of resources the community values that can potentially be protected through a TDR program. TDRs provide a vehicle where the rights to develop in a rural “sending area” can be transferred to an urban “receiving area”, an area that can more appropriately accommodate the development. TDRs provide a way of preserving important rural and environmental resources by compensating landowners who might otherwise develop their properties.

The TDR programs Summit County utilizes are currently restricted to within the basin affected by the program: both the sending area and receiving area are in the same basin. However, there may be opportunities to explore regarding using TDRs between different basins. Such an approach could provide more flexibility in the use of TDRs.

Extractive Natural Resources

Extractive natural resource uses, such as mining, are often viewed by the general public as a nuisance because of noise, dust, truck traffic, etc. associated with the activities. Despite these potential impacts, some of these activities are essential to continued economic health of the County. For example, gravel pits and often-associated concrete/asphalt batch plants provided needed materials to build roads and to construct buildings. The economies of such type of uses require relatively close proximity between the source material and the market (i.e., construction location).

This element recognizes that some level of extractive natural resource uses will need to continue in order to sustain the well-being of the County. At the same time, such uses should be undertaken only when care is taken to protect the environment and the character of our neighborhoods. Commercial mining is currently an outright allowed use in some of the County’s zoning districts (i.e., A-1 zone). Policies in this element suggest that commercial mining should be regulated through a conditional use permit. Such a permitting process would allow the basin planning commissions to review mining proposals and condition the proposals to address impacts caused by mining and associated activities.

Build-out Analysis

How much development has occurred in Summit County? How much development remains to be built? These are the questions that the Build-out Analysis attempts to answer. The Buildout Analysis evaluates the existing zoning on every parcel of private land in unincorporated Summit County and determines the maximum potential development allowed by that zoning. By subtracting the number of existing units we are able to determine what remains to be built. Added to this analysis are buildout numbers supplied by each of the towns.

Table 1. Build-Out Analysis for Summit County (1993-2002)
Area	Year - 1993¹ (Units)	ResidentialBuild-Out	% Built-Out	Year - 2002 (Units)	Residential Build-Out	% Built-Out	Comm. Sq. Ft. Build-Out (2002)	Comm. Sq. Ft. Built	% Built-Out
Basins²
Lower Blue⁷	3,664	9,204	39.8%	7,947	11,054	71.9%	1,579,000	1,104,000	69.9%³
Snake River Basin⁷	5,120	11,626	44.0%	7,396	10,535	70.2%	449,905	192,739	42.8%⁴
Ten Mile Basin⁷	3,586	7,092	50.6%	4,363	5,511	79.2%	2,553,840	1,288,099	50.4%⁵
Upper Blue⁷	6,779	15,044	45.1%	9,891	14,526	64.1%	391,615	208,884	53.3%⁶
Subtotal	19,149	42,966	44.6%	29,597	41,626	71.1%	4,974,360	2,793,722	56.2%

¹ Data taken from the 1994 Countywide Comprehensive Plan.

² Includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

³ Includes commercial for Town of Silverthorne.

⁴ Commercial does not reflect Town of Dillon or Montezuma.

⁵Includes commercial for Town of Frisco.

⁶Commercial does not include Town of Breckenridge.

⁷ Several relative anomalies can be observed in the data when comparing 1993 to 2002 numbers. Total buildout numbers for the Snake River and Ten Mile basins have decreased while buildout for the Lower Blue basin has increased. The reason for these changes is uncertain because there were no major changes in zoning that occurred in these areas in the last nine years. However, one explanation is that the 1993 data was not as accurate because technologies used to perform today’s analysis (e.g., computer access to data, Geographic Information Systems) were not available in 1993.

A number of observations can be made from the build-out data presented above. Probably most apparent is that we are rapidly moving towards build-out in Summit County. In 1993 the County (including towns) was at 44.6 % build-out for residential uses. In 2002 the County was at approximately 71.1% residential build-out. Thus, about 25% of the County’s total residential capacity has been absorbed in the last ten years. At that same rate of growth we would consume another 25% of the capacity by the year 2011 and be at residential build-out by the year 2013.

In the last couple years, development activity throughout the County has slowed down. This slowdown has been largely tied to an overall nationwide economic slowdown. If these trends continue, the timeframe until ultimate build-out is reached will be prolonged. However, even under a slower growth scenario it is very likely that build-out will be reached within the next 20 years.

It is unlikely that full build-out will be achieved because of a number of factors, including preferences of individual property owners and constraints to development. For example, many properties are located in the backcountry and are not readily accessible or are in locations not suitable to development because of steep slopes or other environmental factors. Other factors affecting ultimate build-out include: private property owners electing to keep large tracts of land intact because of a desire to maintain a large land area; properties that in the future are placed in conservation easements (existing conservation easements have been deducted from the current numbers listed above), and private properties acquired by the public (e.g., open space tax dollars), etc. Thus, ultimate build-out may be less than indicated above.

However, other factors may act to increase ultimate build-out in the County. These factors include potential annexations and upzonings by towns of lands that are currently unincorporated. Policies in this Plan restrict the creation of new density in unincorporated lands, as a means of controlling ultimate build-out. However, to date only two of the town’s six municipalities have embraced this limit on new density (e.g., the towns of Blue River and Breckenridge). Policies in the Plan urge cooperative planning with the other towns to encourage them to adopt similar policies limiting ultimate build-out.

Density Limitations

Unlimited growth in Summit County could have unacceptable impacts on the character of our County. The Buildout Analysis indicates that more growth will occur in Summit County based on existing zoning. In addition, other factors (i.e., retirees permanently occupying second homes) may act to further increase the County’s population. This Land Use Element includes several policies aimed at limiting growth to acceptable levels, consistent with maintaining the County’s character. One such policy restricts the creation of new density in the County. This policy is intended to recognize existing zoning and property rights, but to not allow for rezonings that would increase the amount of density allowed by today’s zoning. Exceptions are provided when Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) are used because a TDR typically does not increase density, but instead allows density to be moved from one location to another. Another exception is provided for deed-restricted affordable housing projects to ensure that the County’s work force has adequate access to affordable housing.

This restriction on new density does not affect existing zoning. If a property is zoned for 10 units, then development up to the ten units should be allowed (provided the applicant can comply with other applicable master plan policies and land use regulations). It should furthermore be recognized that some properties could be redeveloped or resubdivided in a manner that achieves a higher density than currently is developed on the property. For example, a one acre parcel in the R-2 zoning district could be subdivided into two lots, consistent with the existing zoning. It is also recognized that the County needs to retain the ability to enact certain programs that promote development practices consistent with important goals of the Plan, and that some of these programs may include some type of density bonus as an incentive for landowners to participate. An existing example of such programs is the Rural Land Use Subdivision regulations, which provide a density bonus for projects in rural areas that cluster and sensitively locate development sites in subdivisions. The policies in this Element restricting creation of new density provide an exception for such programs. To ensure that the additional density allowed by these programs does not adversely affect the County’s character, a policy requires that potential impacts of any new density created through such programs are thoroughly analyzed before such programs are implemented. A final consideration in the density discussion relates to the “phantom density” issue. “Phantom density” can be defined as density that is assigned to a site but which cannot actually be built. An example is a property that has zoning for 45 units but has been developed for only 30 units. Under the example, the site is effectively built-out at 30 units and there is no room to locate the remaining 15 units of density. In this case, the 15 units of density are considered “phantom density”. The primary concern with the remaining phantom density is that a party would at some point request to transfer that density to another development site through TDRs and essentially resurrect the density from a built-out site at another location. Future redevelopment of the site to accommodate additional zoned density is appropriate. However, this Plan contains policies targeted towards ensuring that phantom density is not transferred off-site to other properties.

Goals, Policies, and Actions

Urban Land Use

Goal A. Focus development within existing urban areas.

Policy/Action 1. Urban areas shall be identified in basin master plans. [Proposed mandatory provision]

1.1 When determining the location of urban areas, the basin planning commission shall consider the following factors: [Proposed mandatory provision]

1.1.1 Areas with existing or planned public sewer and water facilities.

1.1.2 Areas zoned for higher density uses.

1.1.3 To the greatest extent possible, urban areas should be located in areas that avoid the following:

· Environmentally sensitive areas

· Productive agricultural lands

1.1.4 Community input and support

Policy/Action 2. Future urban development should be focused within existing urban areas.

Policy/Action 3. Expansions of urban areas into rural landscapes should be avoided.

Policy/Action 4. Urban areas should have densities high enough to support provision of urban services and facilities in a cost-efficient manner and to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment.

Policy/Action 5. Encourage infill and redevelopment in urban areas.

5.1 Develop appropriate incentives (e.g., density increases, variances from certain development standards) that encourage infill and redevelopment.

Policy/Action 6. Lead an initiative to develop intergovernmental agreements with the towns, identifying appropriate areas for future urban development and annexation.

Policy/Action 7. A mix of commercial and residential uses should be promoted in new urban development to facilitate pedestrian movement and access to services.

7.1 Commercial uses in mixed use developments should be focused on providing for the service or employment needs of residents.

Policy/Action 8. Public spaces, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas should be maintained within urban areas to provide connection to the outdoor environment.

Policy/Action 9. Encourage mixed residential densities to create a diversity of housing types and sizes.

Rural Land Use

Goal B. Future land use decisions in rural areas should be consistent and harmonious with the rural character of the land.

Policy/Action 1. Rural areas shall be identified in basin master plans. [Proposed mandatory provision]

1.1 When determining the location of rural areas, the basin planning commission shall consider the following factors: [Proposed mandatory provision]

· Areas not provided with public sewer and water facilities

· Existing zoning and associated densities

· Areas with agricultural lands, visually important lands, and environmentally sensitive areas

· Backcountry areas

Policy/Action 2. Urban services (e.g., public sewer and water) should generally not be extended into rural areas.

2.1 In some circumstances, extension of certain urban services may be appropriate in rural areas (i.e., provision of public sewer in areas where septic systems could cause environmental degradation).

Policy/Action 3. Rural areas should have low residential densities that serve to minimize conflicts with traditional uses (e.g., ranching, recreation, resource extraction) and maintain compatibility with existing uses.

Policy/Action 4. Encourage the clustering of housing in rural areas to maintain the areas’ character and to protect sensitive lands (e.g., environmentally sensitive areas).

Policy/Action 5. Land uses in rural areas should be low-density residential development, resource-related uses (e.g., agriculture, lumbering), and recreation-oriented uses.

Policy/Action 6. Recognize the need for mineral extractive uses in the County to continue to supply needed materials for construction and road building.

Policy/Action 7. Preserve the undeveloped character of rural backcountry areas.

7.1 Amend the Land Use and Development Code to allow the Backcountry Zoning district to be utilized countywide for backcountry mining claims.

General Land Use

Goal C. Maintain the current level of density in Summit County.

Policy/Action 1. Rezonings of land to higher residential densities or to uses that change the intensity of uses (e.g., increased vehicle trips, increased square footage) beyond that allowed by existing zoning shall not be allowed in the County, except when either of the following are proposed: [Proposed mandatory provision]

1.1 Transfer of development rights (TDRs) are used to move density to the site proposed for rezoning.1.2 The higher density is allocated to deed-restricted affordable housing units.

Policy/Action 2. When in the interest of implementing other important goals and policies of this Plan, the County may adopt regulations or programs that provide some type of density bonus as an incentive for participation in the program (e.g., existing rural land use subdivision regulations).

2.1 When such density bonus programs are proposed, the potential impacts of additional density created should be disclosed and evaluated as part of the review process (e.g., development code amendment) adopting the new program.

Policy/Action 3. Implement procedures to ensure that leftover density on properties that are physically built-out is not transferred to other properties.

3.1 Where a development project utilizes the entirety of a site and the project does not utilize all the available density allowed by zoning, appropriate restrictions determined acceptable by the County should be enacted to ensure that any remaining density on the project site is not transferred to other sites.

3.2 Work with property owners to voluntarily extinguish leftover density from project sites that have been physically built-out.

Policy/Action 4. Work with the towns to implement the above policy within incorporated areas of the County, with particular emphasis on establishing such requirements for all annexations.

Goal D. Guide the appropriate development of land through the County’s master plans and development regulations.

Policy/Action 1. Basin plans shall provide specific guidance for the development and use of land.
[Proposed mandatory provision]

1.1 Each basin plan shall contain a future land use map, indicating appropriate land uses within the different locations in the basin. [Proposed mandatory provision]
1.2 Designate, at a minimum, types of appropriate land uses and general intensities of use in basin plans.
1.2.1 When designating appropriate land uses, ensure that a balanced range of land uses is represented to meet the divergent needs of the community.

Policy/Action 2. To the greatest extent possible, basin master plans should include similar land use terminology to avoid use of conflicting terms.

Policy/Action 3. Initiate rezonings of lands where existing zoning is significantly inconsistent with master plans.

Policy/Action 4. Rezonings and subdivisions should, to the extent practicable, be designed to avoid the following:

·         Environmentally sensitive areas

·         Agricultural lands

·         Visually prominent landscapes

4.1 To the extent practicable, retain trees and forested areas while providing protection of the resources listed above.

4.2 Amend the Land Use and Development Code to require building envelopes and site disturbance envelopes that avoid the above listed resources and limit overall site disturbance for all new subdivisions and subdivision exemptions.

Policy/Action 5. Emphasize separation between existing communities through uses of buffers and open space, to maintain an individual identity for each community.

Policy/Action 6. Amend the Development Code to allow the Rural Land Use Subdivision Regulations to be utilized countywide.

6.1 Restrict Rural Land Use Subdivision bonus densities to deed-restricted affordable housing units only in the Upper Blue Basin.

Policy/Action 7. Amend the Land Use and Development Code to modify the uses permitted in the A-1 zone district to ensure that the uses are appropriate and compatible with rural agricultural lands, and to ensure that adequate conditions are imposed where needed to address impacts of uses. As part of this amendment, an evaluation should occur to determine uses appropriate to be allowed outright, uses that should be allowed only through conditional use permits, and uses that are inappropriate for the A-1 zoning district. Examples of uses that should be re-evaluated include: commercial mining, certain commercial lumbering activities, elementary and middle schools, motor vehicle storage yards, athletic facilities, fish farms and hatcheries, and small scale hydro facilities.

Policy/Action 8. Establish new rural zoning district classifications to apply to lands currently zoned A-1 which are not suitable for agricultural purposes.

8.1 The new zoning districts should allow uses and densities consistent with the Rural Area and policies established in basin master plans.

8.2 Initiate a rezoning of A-1 zoned lands not used for agricultural purposes to the new rural zoning districts.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)

Goal E. Encourage the use of TDRs as a means of protecting sensitive lands and directing growth to areas appropriate for accommodating growth.

Policy/Action 1. Each basin master plan shall identify areas appropriate as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) receiving areas and sending areas. [Proposed mandatory provision]

Policy/Action 2. Lands protected as TDR sending areas and TDR receiving areas will vary between different basins, depending on the preservation priorities and characteristics of each basin.

2.1   The following are examples of resources that could be designated as TDR sending areas:

·         Rural backcountry areas

·         Agricultural lands

·         Environmentally sensitive areas

·         Areas of high visual importance

·         Historically significant properties

2.2   The following are examples of characteristics that could be used to determine appropriate TDR receiving areas:

·         Availability of public water and sewer

·         Adjacency to higher density development

·         Ability of the area to accommodate additional development density

·         Master plan designations supporting higher densities or intensities of use

Policy/Action 3. Amend the Development Code to ensure that each basin has detailed standards for use of TDRs.

Policy/Action 4. Amend the Land Use and Development Code to allow for Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) between different basins as a means of increasing creative opportunities for the use of TDRs.

4.1 When interbasin TDRs are proposed, the proposal to transfer density from another basin shall be disclosed to the basin planning commission as part of the rezoning application for the TDR receiving site. The proposed transfer may be denied based on master plan policies or regulations that conflict with the proposed interbasin transfer.

Joint Planning

Goal F. Coordinate land use issues so that planning between different jurisdictions and agencies is consistent.

Policy/Action 1. Enter into intergovernmental agreements with the towns regarding coordination of land use planning.

Policy/Action 2. Wherever possible, attempt to develop jointly-adopted comprehensive plans with the towns to further the goal of coordinating land use issues.

Policy/Action 3. Maintain consistency between town three mile plans and basin master plans.

Policy/Action 4. Work with each of the towns to identify areas that are appropriate for future urban growth and annexation, as well as those areas that should remain in a rural character and unincorporated.

Policy/Action 5. Work with the towns to inventory land supply for various land uses needed in the County and develop countywide strategies to adequately accommodate any deficiencies in land use identified.

5.1 Advise the towns and basin planning commissions of any land use needs that should be incorporated into town and basin master plans.

5.2 Incorporate information provided by the state demographer on relationships between economic growth and growth in various land use sectors.

Policy/Action 6. Work with adjacent counties to ensure that development patterns are generally consistent across county boundaries and that potential impacts of land use decisions are minimized and mitigated.

Policy/Action 7. Work with the towns to implement policies prohibiting the creation of new density on a countywide basis.

Policy/Action 8. Cooperatively work with the towns to explore the use of town lands as receiving areas for TDRs.

Policy/Action 9. Where appropriate, establish intergovernmental agreements with the towns regarding TDRs.

Policy/Action 10. Work cooperatively with the U.S. Forest Service and other federal and state agencies to accomplish the following:

10.1 Use basin master plans as a guide for federal and state permitting and planning decisions.

10.2 Ensure that basin planning commissions are consulted, with adequate notice, on all significant use permits and plan decisions on federal and state lands, including land trades and adjustments to the Land Ownership Adjustment Analysis (LOAA) boundary.

10.3 Focus Forest Service land use decisions in areas within and adjacent to designated wilderness areas on preserving the area’s wilderness values.

Sustainability Measures

Buildout

Buildout numbers provide an indication of the level of growth that has occurred in our community over time. Completion of a buildout analysis is an arduous and resource-intensive process. As such, it cannot be performed on a constant basis. However, it is expected that with the required five-year update to this plan that the buildout numbers will be updated. Because the rate of build-out could potentially differ between unincorporated areas and areas within municipalities, the data has been separated for future reference. The data below will help identify not only units built, but also will help gauge whether ultimate buildout has changed or been kept steady in different areas.

Table 2. Residential Build-Out Analysis for Summit County
Area	Year 2002 (Units)	Residential Build-Out	2002 % Built-Out	Year 2008 (Units)	Residential Build-Out	2008 % Build-Out
Basins
Lower Blue Unincorporated	3,419	4,987	68.6%
Silverthorne	4,528	6,067	74.6%
Lower Blue Total	7,947	11,054	71.9%
Snake River Unincorporated	5,836	8,838	66.0%
Dillon	1,523	1,623	93.8%
Montezuma	37	74	50.0%
Snake River Total	7,396	10,535	70.2%
Ten Mile Unincorporated	1,769	2,613	67.7%
Frisco	2,594	2,888	89.8%
Ten Mile Total	4,363	5,511	79.2%
Upper Blue Unincorporated	2,978	5,385	55.3%
Breckenridge	6,320	8,300	76.1%
Blue River	593	841	70.5%
Upper Blue Total	9,891	14,526	64.1%
Total	29,597	41,626	71.1%

Table 3. Commercial Build-Out Analysis for Summit County
Area	Year 2002 (Square Footage)	Commercial Build-Out	2002 % Built-Out	Year 2008 (Square Footage)	Commercial Build-Out	2008 % Build-Out
Basins
Lower Blue Unincorporated	-----------	------------
Silverthorne	1,104,000	1,579,000	69.9 %
Lower Blue Total	1,104,000	1,579,000	69.9 %
Snake River Unincorporated	449,905	192,739	42.8 %
Dillon¹	N/A	N/A
Montezuma¹	N/A	N/A
Snake River Total	449,905	192,739	42.8 %
Ten Mile Unincorporated	66,223	244,540	27.0 %
Frisco	1,221,876	2,309,300	52.9 %
Ten Mile Total	1,288,099	2,553,840	50.4 %
Upper Blue Unincorporated	208,884	391,615	53.3 %
Breckenridge¹	N/A	N/A
Blue River¹	N/A	N/A
Upper Blue Total	208,884	391,615	53.3 %
Total	2,793,722	4,974,360	56.2 %

¹Commercial data not available.

Population

The chart below should be updated as Census data becomes available.

Source: US Census Bureau, Colorado State Demographer’s Office

Development—Urban vs. Rural Areas

One of the goals of this element is to focus growth within designated urban areas. A good way to gauge success at such a goal is to track the location of development in upcoming years. The following table outlines the locations of new residential units throughout the unincorporated County and documents whether they are located in urban or rural land use master plan designations.

Table 4. Urban and Rural Development in Unincorporated Summit County¹
Basin	Urban Units²	Rural Units²
2002
Lower Blue	55	11
Snake River	50	1
Ten Mile	75	0
Upper Blue	44	35
Total Year 2002	224	47

¹Based on issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for new residential units in unincorporated Summit County.

² Differentiation between urban and rural units is based on basin master plan designations.

Transfer of Development Rights

This element promotes the use of TDRs as a means of protecting valuable resources (e.g., backcountry lands) in the County while directing density to areas appropriate for accommodating it. The following table outlines TDR transactions occurring from 2000-2002. The table should be updated as new TDR transactions occur in order to monitor progress in the use of TDRs.

table 5. Transfer of Development Right (TDR) Transactions since 2000 ¹
Basin	Year	Transaction Name	Units Transferred	Backcountry Acreage Protected	Receiving Location
Upper Blue>	2000	Theobald Annexation	4.00	80.00	Town of Breckenridge
Upper Blue		Alonso Annexation	6.00	120.00	Town of Breckenridge
Snake River	2000	North Fork	2.00	14.09	Unincorporated County
Upper Blue	2001	Baldy Ridge Estates	3.03	60.61	Unincorporated County
Upper Blue	2002	Storm Residence	0.17	3.40	Town of Breckenridge
Upper Blue	2002	Southside Estates	.60	72.00	Town of Breckenridge
Upper Blue	2002	Maggie Building	<0.12	2.40	Town of Breckenridge

¹ Only TDR transactions involving backcountry mining claims as TDR sending sites are recorded in the above table. There have also been numerous density transfers within areas such as Keystone and Copper Mountain where the intent was merely to move density from one location to another, as opposed to moving density to protect sending area resources.

Implementation Strategies

Many of the policies and actions identified in this element require some future work, such as an amendment to the Development Code, in order to see their successful implementation. The table below identifies specific strategies needed to fully implement the element. Priorities are identified to give an indication of the current relative importance of a particular implementation strategy. These priorities are provided as guidelines only.

Table 6. Land Use Element Implementation Strategies
Goal, Policy/Action	Project/Description	Timeframe	Priority
A.6, E.1-E4	Undertake efforts to provide for heightened levels of communication with all of the towns regarding land use issues. A goal should be to establish intergovernmental agreements with each of the towns regarding coordination of land use planning, particularly within the unincorporated Three Mile Plan areas of each town. Joint efforts between the County and towns should establish the extent of urban growth boundaries, the location where towns are expected to annex within the next 20 years. Areas that are intended to remain rural should also be identified in this process. Where possible, the towns and County should attempt to develop joint plans for these areas.	1 to 2 years	High
F.5	Initiate a coordinated work program between the County and the towns to evaluate the land supply available for different land uses in Summit County. As part of the analysis, information from the state demographer should be incorporated regarding relationships between the economy and growth in different land use sectors. The result of the analysis should include recommendations on strategies that can be incorporated by the towns and the County to address any deficiencies in land supply.	1 year	High
E.3, E.4	Amend the Land Use and Development Code to 1) further delineate procedures for the use of TDRs in the Ten Mile and Lower Blue Basin; and 2) allow for the transfer of density between basins. As part of the amendment, establish rules that allow density transfers to be rejected by the receiving basin where the TDRs would conflict with adopted master plan policies.	4 months	High
A.5.1	Establish a work group to review and develop a list of incentives that enourage infill and redevelopment in existing urban areas. Examples of incentives that could be utilized include density bonuses and variances from certain standards (e.g., building setbacks from roads).	6 months	Medium
D.3	The County should initiate rezoning applications for parcels of land that have zoning that is significantly inconsistent with land use designations for the land identified in adopted basin master plans. The intent of these efforts will be to increase the consistency between zoning and adopted master plans.	Ongoing	Medium
D.4.2	Amend the Land Use and Development Code to require that building envelopes and site disturbance envelopes are established for each new lot created in all new subdivisions and subdivision exemptions. The envelopes should be required to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, important resources identified in D.4 and D.4.1.	4 months	Medium
D.6	Amend the Land Use and Development Code to authorize the Rural Land Use Subdivision regulations to be utilized on a countywide basis. As part of the amendment, establish provisions for the Upper Blue Basin to ensure that overall density in the basin is not increased.	3 months	Medium
D.7	Amend the Land Use and Development Code to require conditional use permits for certain uses in the A-1 zone district that are currently allowed outright. As part of the amendment, a list of uses currently allowed in the A-1 zone would be reviewed to determine which uses need a conditional use permit to mitigate potential impacts of the use. Examples of uses that should become conditional uses include commercial mining and certain types of commercial timber harvesting. Examples of other uses that should be evaluated include elementary and middle schools, motor vehicles storage yards, athletic facilities, fish farms and hatcheries, and small scale hydro facilities.	4-6 months	Medium
D.8	Prepare an analysis of A-1 zoned parcels and identify parcels that are not (or cannot be) used for agricultural purposes (i.e., the intent of A-1 zoning). Examples of such parcels include small mining claims, large parcels in valley floors of the Upper Blue Basin, and small 20 acre residential properties. Develop alternative zoning classifications that could apply to these lands, with the intent of maintaining consistency with uses and densities applied to rural areas. Amend the Land Use and Development Code to include these new zoning district classifications. Initiate rezonings of lands that meet the above descriptions to the new zoning classifications.	6 months	Medium

Click here to download this file in PDF format