In response to proposed state legislation and the White House’s approach to land management, Pitkin County is looking to activate a previously unused zone district in its land-use code to protect public land from development.
The county’s community development staff are readying a zone-district-change application for all federal- and state-owned land currently in non-development use outside of the urban growth boundaries. The application would ask to change the lands’ current zoning to resource-government, or RS-G. The new zoning would make the process to approve development on the land even more arduous than under their current zone districts. The county is planning the zone-change request in the event of a land sale or exchange.
“This is not changing the state. It’s actually zoning that’s more reflective of the state that’s been there,” said Deputy County Manager Kara Silbernagel. “It’s not going through (planned unit development process) and subdividing at all. It’s actually just putting the zoning on that reflects how the land has been used.”
County staff plan to present the proposal in June to the Planning and Zoning Commission. If approved, it would then go to the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners for a vote and public hearing. Caucuses will be able to weigh in and submit recommendations.
The intent of RS-G is to “control the future use of lands currently owned by the federal, state, or local governments and currently used for non-development purposes, and to avoid inappropriate development of such lands in the event they are sold, exchanged or otherwise made available for use by an entity other than the federal, state or local government.”
Nearly all of the land within Pitkin County’s borders, around 90%, is owned by the federal or state government. According to Geographic Information System (GIS) data, the U.S. Forest Service owns 498,399.2 acres, the state of Colorado owns 814.3 acres and the Bureau of Land Management owns 26,373.9 acres of land in the county. Mining claims or any parcel of land could be sold or leased or otherwise change use from resource to something that would involve development.
The county does not need authorization from owners to rezone large swaths of land, according to county attorney Ry Neiley. Community Development Director Suzanne Wolff said the county has not yet begun outreach with the state and federal partners to inform them of the county’s intent.
Currently, that land is zoned differently across the Pitkin County map. Some land is zoned rural remote, some is RS-160, some is AR-10 and so on. RS-G would not be an overlay, but a different zone district for the land.
County code discourages housing outside of the UGBs in part because of its distance from utilities and services, but it may be allowed in some instances like employee dwelling units.
The only exception to the RS-G rezoning pursuit would be the SKI-REC zones, where ski areas may operate on federal land.
If a private entity gained control of RS-G land or if it was put to non-resource use, it would then need to pursue a rezone on the property and then compete in the county’s Growth Management Quota System to win an allotment for residential, commercial, tourism or civic development.
The scoring system includes categories like environmental effects or achievement of community goals like open space preservation and low density.
The RS-G district cannot generate transferable development rights, nor can it be the “landing” site for TDRs from other zone districts, unlike other rural zone districts.
“That’s always been in the code. If something’s coming out of public lands, it’s going to need to acquire a development right,” said Wolff. “I think having it zoned RS-G adds a greater level of reliance and clarity on that.”
Land use planner Glenn Horn of Davis Horn Inc. said he sees the prospective zoning change as somewhat redundant, as the land-use code is already onerous for anyone looking to develop in rural areas of the county. He said he recommends clients instead pursue GMQS exemption for projects, when applicable, because of the shorter turnaround time.
“The way the growth management system is set up, for the rural areas you score a lot of points for development below allowable density. That’s a big scoring criteria,” Horn said. “It makes it really hard for small parcels to be competitive.”
He could recall only a couple of instances in which land formerly owned by the federal government was sold to private owners that then won a GMQS allotment or exemption.
With the RS-G zone, Wolff said a new owner or new use on the land would need to prove compliance with area master plans and the county’s comprehensive plan for a rezoning — a difficult but not impossible task given the county’s tilt toward rural preservation.
“I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but, sure, it’s going to be harder depending on where the property is,” Wolff said.
RS-G first appeared in 2006 after the major land-use code revision, but the county never applied anywhere. According to special meeting minutes from April 13, 2006, the then-BOCC and P&Z board discussed the RS-G district at the request of the public, then recommended adoption with no changes to the language.
Horn said he attended every meeting in that 2006 process, and he doesn’t recall RS-G making much of a splash in the discussions.
“The county’s so far ahead of most jurisdictions in regulatory development standards,” he said. “It’s one of the leading counties in the whole country in land-use regulations intended to preserve rural lands and rural living.”
The State Trust Lands Conservation & Recreation Work Group bill, or HB25-1332, was introduced in the House on April 17. Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Garfield County, is a co-sponsor of the bill.
The county points to it as a major reason behind pursuing the RS-G district implementation.
The bill aims to create a group to study possible revenue sources from state trust lands, potentially for public schools, while balancing conservation efforts. It passed the House on April 30 and is now in the Senate.
The most recent version of the draft bill states it is “reasonable to encourage the state board of land commissioners” to consider options including “conservation and recreational opportunities, renewable energy siting and energy transmission, housing, and broadband infrastructure,” leaving room for something the county may welcome like selling conservation easements, but also offering a housing development option, which the RS-G zone would aid in blocking.
Kelly Flenniken, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc., said in an email to Aspen Daily News that she has not heard of any zoning decisions from counties related to the bill. Colorado Counties currently has an amend position on the bill, but will continue to monitor it.
President Donald Trump has also signaled interest in opening up federal land for housing, according to the New York Times. In March, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner announced a joint task force on federal land for housing.
The BOCC is scheduled to discuss “State Land Board property interest acquisition discussion with counsel” privately in executive session today.
Silbernagel said because it’s a tool that already exists in the county code with support from multiple master plans within the county, it’s sensible to implement.
No matter how stringent the code is that the county applies, Wolff and Silbernagel said, there is usually development interest in even the most rural stretches of Pitkin County given its proximity to Aspen.
“Even if it doesn’t seem developable, people will still try,” Silbernagel said. “I think the reason we feel comfortable going ahead and doing this — and that it’s not retribution or preemptive or anything — is this is a tool that we’ve already had in the land-use code, and we’re applying it now.”
The county is in the midst of a comprehensive plan overhaul, Vision 2050. The work is a continuation of the Community Growth Advisory Committee, which laid out community goals and priorities for land use, code updates and other recommendations for addressing growth and intensity of use in the county.
