Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for clearer tree-preservation rules amid Miller Ranch and pipeline-of-applications concerns
Summary
Planning commissioners urged more robust tree-preservation regulations after identifying an existing but rarely applied forest/tree provision and expressing concern about the Miller Ranch proposal and how future or pending applications would be treated under revised rules. Staff set tree-preservation for fuller review at the December meeting and clarified legal limits on retroactive application.
A planning-commission discussion on tree preservation highlighted concerns that existing forest/tree language has not been consistently applied and that major projects — notably the proposed Miller Ranch subdivision — could be affected if a stronger tree-preservation regulation is adopted.
A commissioner raised long-standing concerns about tree protection and said some proposals (citing Miller Ranch) previously did not show preservation of mature forest on preliminary schematics. Commissioners and staff agreed that a more robust regulation could have significant consequences for development proposals and discussed timing for any change.
County staff said there is language that applies to forested areas but that it is limited and may not be the robust standard some commissioners want. Lance, the county attorney, explained legal constraints and timing differences between subdivision and zoning reviews: “For subdivision applications under Colorado law, it is absolutely black and white. The regulations that are in effect at the time of the application will control,” he said. He added that for zoning the pending-ordinance doctrine can complicate whether a new regulation may be applied to a pending application and that application of a change could ultimately be a BOCC determination.
Commissioners discussed Miller Ranch specifics in general terms: the earlier concept plan proposed significantly higher density (the speaker referenced “originally they proposed 1,400 homes”) and included extensive forested acreage that commissioners said should be examined in the context of tree-preservation rules. Staff indicated Miller Ranch is an active application and that correcting and clarifying the county’s tree/forestation language is on the planning commission’s December agenda for fuller review.
Next steps: the commission agreed to use the second December meeting to take up tree-preservation and related forestation elements and asked staff to supply comparison materials (existing language vs. proposed drafts) so commissioners can consider redline text and timing implications for pending applications. One commissioner said they may recuse from votes involving Miller Ranch and will consult staff on recusals and conflicts.
Attribution and limits: the commission discussed these issues in general terms and deferred detailed project-level discussion to avoid prejudicing pending applications; no regulatory text was adopted on tree preservation at this meeting.
