HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse To Constituent Letter - Mail Packet - 6/16/2020 - Letter From Mayor Wade Troxell To Land Conservation And Stewardship Board Re: Northern Integrated Supply Project (Nisp) V. Fort Collins Natural AreasMayor
City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2154
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
June 11, 2020
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
c/o Zoe Shark
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing City Council and me with the June 10, 2020
memorandum regarding “Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) v. Fort Collins Natural
Areas” wherein the Board urged Council to actively oppose NISP under Federal and State
permitting processes.
We appreciate the time you took to create the Analysis document as well as attachment of the
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations document created for the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs in 2017.
These are complex and important matters and we appreciate the Board sharing its perspective
with the Council.
Best Regards,
Wade Troxell
Mayor
/sek
Cc: City Council Members
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Natural Areas Department
1745 Hoffman Mill Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416-2815
970.416-2211 - fax
fcgov.com/naturalareas
naturalareas@fcgov.com
Memorandum 10 June 2020
To - City Council
From - Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB)
Subject - Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) v Fort Collins Natural Areas
he people of Fort Collins and Larimer County highly value their natural areas and open lands. So
much so that in 2014 the citizens taxed themselves in support of continued land conservation, by a
margin of 82% to 18%. This is an overwhelming mandate for conserving nature in Fort Collins and
Larimer County.
Fort Collins taxpayers have invested tens of millions of dollars to conserve unmatched ecological
resources running through the heart of the City. There are 18 Natural Areas that either border on the
Poudre River or are connected to it by riverside forests and wetlands; they encompass 1800 acres, nearly
three square miles. Riverside forests and wetlands do not drink primarily from rainfall; they drink from
the river. NISP’s removal of water from the river will, quite simply, dehydrate our Natural Areas’
ecological resources and degrade them; hundred-year-old trees will die, understory plants will shift to
more drought tolerant species, biodiversity will decrease, and forest- and wetland-dependent animals will
disappear.
The citizens of Fort Collins, as they have invested in Natural Areas, have believed that those areas and
their ecological resources and recreational opportunities would be protected in perpetuity. In the opinion
of this Board, perpetuity ends on the day that NISP bulldozers arrive to divert water from the Poudre
River.
NISP brings no benefits to the City of Fort Collins, and City Staff previously identified dozens of risks to
the physical river, its biota, and its surrounding ecosystems. We have watched, over many years, as
Northern Water has proposed mitigations and how these mitigations have then required further
mitigations. Continuing this pattern, the recent 1041 application to Larimer County proposes heretofore
unseen details for which Staff and this Board have identified numerous unaddressed mitigation
requirements (see attached analysis). By now it is clear that the cascade of mitigations is unending. The
impacts of NISP on the river and adjacent Natural Areas cannot be mitigated. Our Natural Area assets,
assembled with decades of effort and tens of millions of dollars investment, will, under NISP, suffer
devastating permanent harm.
Thus far, City leaders have opted to provide Staff’s technical comments to regulatory authorities at
Federal, State, and County levels in lieu of comprehensively defending our Natural Areas or expressing
unequivocal opposition to NISP. If these regulatory authorities issue NISP the required permits, then the
only defenses that we have left are derived from City land use code, which does not in any way address
the elephant in the room: the damage to Natural areas caused by the loss of water from the Poudre River.
atural Area conservation and stewardship are duties of City Council and the City Manager, and these
duties call for a change of position on NISP. Active opposition, led by City Council, is urgently
needed. If there is no change in position, and if NISP is implemented, then ecological and recreational
treasures will be injured beyond repair. Fort Collins can join other entities in opposing NISP under
Federal and State permitting processes, and this Board urges Council to do so without delay.
T
N
1
Analysis
by the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
City of Fort Collins
Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP):
Proposed Infrastructure in the City
and Deficiencies in Environmental Analysis
Executive Summary
he Fort Collins Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) continues to have deep concerns
about the proposed NISP project and its effects on the Poudre River and on our City’s Natural Areas.
In particular:
• The 1041 Permit Application proposes construction of multiple industrial water transmission
facilities within Fort Collins Natural Areas (a new concern)
• There has been no resolution of dozens of unacceptable insufficiencies in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, as documented in the City’s earlier response to the FEIS.
NISP planners continue to demonstrate insensitivity to environmental values of the City of Fort Collins.
NISP’s selection of a preferred pipeline route running through Natural Areas is cogent demonstration of
this tone deafness (particulars are shown on pages 2 and 3). There are alternative pipeline routes that
would have little adverse impact on Natural Areas, yet NISP prefers the route that maximizes
environmental and aesthetic injury.
The LCSB anticipates continued identification of certain or potential NISP-induced injuries to the Poudre
and to our Natural Areas, and a continued pattern of insufficient plans for NISP’s monitoring, mitigating,
and compensating for those injuries.
herefore, the LCSB recommends to City Council that City policy be changed from “no opposition” to
active opposition to NISP. The 1041 permit review by Larimer County is a current opportunity to
exercise opposition. More effective, though, would be to exercise rights under Federal and State
permitting processes, by joining other groups in their opposition to NISP.
T
T
2
Specific new concerns about NISP water conveyance infrastructure
NISP’s preferred route in the 1041 Permit Application uses Natural Areas to accommodate the
infrastructure that supports NISP’s augmentation of river flows through most of Fort Collins. This
infrastructure is comprised of:
• A new diversion structure within
Homestead Natural Area (this is
necessary to recapture flow
augmentations)
• 100-foot-wide easements for 1.1 miles
of underground pipeline through
Homestead, Williams, Kingfisher, and
River Bend Ponds Natural Areas, as
shown in Figure 1.
• 77,000 square feet of land at Kingfisher
Natural Area for a pump station,
sedimentation basin, and associated
above-ground infrastructure, shown in Figure 2.
The LCSB supports the proposed flow augmentation, but only under the dire assumption that earlier
proposals for NISP infrastructure and operation come to pass. We do not accept any siting of NISP
infrastructure in Natural Areas, with the possible exception of the diversion structure just upstream of the
Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility—and for that, we have seen no designs that would indicate
acceptable ecological or aesthetic design.
Figure 1. Cross-section of pipeline rights-of-way for construction
(100’) and permanent (60’)
Figure 2. Site plan for sedimentation basin, pumping station, and pipelines in Kingfisher Point Natural Area
3
We also observe that the proposed diversion structure will cause upstream sediment accumulation (this
happens above ALL dams). That will decrease river gradient and widen the river channel, which will
have further impacts on the Homestead Natural Area. There are absolutely no evaluations of these
physical effects, or their consequent ecological or recreational impacts. These concerns were identified
by the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and were not addressed previously in City Staff’s
memorandum to Larimer County under its 1041 permitting review for NISP.
hese observations are indicative of a never-ending series of (1) NISP-introduced damages, (2)
proposed mitigations of those damages, (3) recognition of new damages caused by the mitigations,
(4) proposed mitigations of these new damages, (5) recognition of new problems…ad infinitum. This has
been going on for far more than a decade. NISP cannot be mitigated because its effects are too serious
and too far reaching.
T
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations
Audrey Dakan
A Project for the
Colorado Department of Local Affairs | Community Development Office
May 11, 2017
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations
Acknowledgements
John Cumming, Ph.D., Jefferson County Public Schools and University of Colorado Denver
Barbara J.B. Green, Esq., Sullivan Green Seavy
Andy Hill, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Community Development Office
Anne Miller, AICP, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Community Development Office
Jennifer Steffel Johnson, Ph.D., University of Colorado Denver
Special Thanks to the Local Government Participants
Arapahoe County
Boulder County
Clear Creek County
City of Golden
Otero County
Park County
Routt County
Town of Silt
Town of Silverthorne
Summit County
City of Superior
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND | CONTEXT | PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................................. 1
OUTLINE OF REMAINDER OF REPORT .......................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 2
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2
AASIA AND 1041 REGULATIONS................................................................................................... 4
LEGAL CHALLENGES TO AASIA AND 1041 REGULATIONS ............................................................... 5
THE LAND USE COMMISSION ....................................................................................................... 9
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 10
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 12
THE DATA .................................................................................................................................. 12
THE SAMPLE .............................................................................................................................. 12
COLLECTING THE DATA ............................................................................................................... 12
ANALYZING THE DATA ................................................................................................................ 12
THE RESPONSE RATE .................................................................................................................. 14
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 14
QUESTIONNAIRES ...................................................................................................................... 14
INTERVIEWS .............................................................................................................................. 20
LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................................... 23
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 24
CASE STUDIES ...................................................................................................................... 26
ARAPAHOE COUNTY .................................................................................................................. 26
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations
CLEAR CREEK COUNTY ................................................................................................................ 28
OTERO COUNTY ......................................................................................................................... 30
ROUTT COUNTY ......................................................................................................................... 32
TOWN OF SILT ............................................................................................................................ 34
TOWN OF SILVERTHORNE........................................................................................................... 36
SUMMIT COUNTY ...................................................................................................................... 38
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 40
APPENDIX A, ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX B, COUNTIES WITH 1041 REGULATIONS ............................................................... 47
APPENDIX C, MUNICIPALITIES WITH 1041 REGULATIONS ..................................................... 48
APPENDIX D, PARTICIPANTS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE SAMPLE ............................... 50
APPENDIX E, ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES, QUESTION 1 ......................................... 51
APPENDIX F, ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES, QUESTION 3 ......................................... 52
APPENDIX G, ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES, QUESTION 8 ......................................... 53
APPENDIX H, ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES, QUESTION 9 ......................................... 54
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In 1974, House Bill 74-1041 was introduced to address issues surrounding land
use planning in Colorado (Warner, 1977, p. 1731). Later that year, the bill was
enacted as the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act (AASIA) (Panos, 1994, p.
1309). AASIA defines a set of activities and areas of state interest and delegates
power to local governments to regulate the development of such areas or such
activities (C.R.S. §§ 24-65.1-101, et seq., 2016). The delegated powers are
commonly referred to and known as “1041 Powers,” and the regulations as
“1041 Regulations,” and primarily consist of area-and/or activity-designation,
adoption of development guidelines, and permit issuance (C.R.S. §§ 24-65.1-
101, et seq., 2016).
Though 1041 Powers have existed since 1974, information about how they are
being used by Colorado local governments has never been assembled. In 2016,
during an examination of web traffic to their site, the Community Development
Office (CDO) of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), Division of
Local Government, discovered numerous people looking to their office for
information on 1041 Regulations. The CDO currently shares some basic
information about 1041 Regulations and recognized an opportunity for its office
to fill the gaps in the current understanding and provide more comprehensive
information.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project was to research how local governments are using
1041 Regulations by assembling case studies and lessons learned that can be
accessed by Colorado local governments interested in learning more about 1041
Powers. To uncover how local governments are using 1041 Regulations,
questions about the experience of using 1041s, the effectiveness and usefulness
of 1041s, and when 1041s should be used needed to be answered.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF 1041 REGULATIONS
The desire for state-level oversight in local planning decisions in the early 1970s
led to the creation of the Land Use Act (LUA), the Land Use Commission (LUC),
and 1041 Regulations. As support for state control waned, the LUC’s role was
changed, from oversight and approval to guidance and support. Throughout the
evolution of the LUC, the authority delegated to local governments remained
intact. Challenges to AASIA and the authority delegated to local governments
confirmed the validity and constitutionality of 1041 Powers and 1041
Regulations. The abolishment of the LUC ultimately removed all state oversight
from the 1041 Regulation process, and solidified local governments’ authority to
enact 1041 Regulations. See also Figure 1.
METHODOLOGY
THE DATA. The data that needed to be collected for this study was, broadly,
about how local governments are using 1041 Regulations. To obtain more in-
depth information from local governments, the researcher and the CDO crafted
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations ii
a series of closed-ended and open-ended questions. The questions were sorted
into two different collection instruments: closed-ended questions (plus two
open-ended questions) were used in an online questionnaire and open-ended
questions were asked during telephone interviews.
THE SAMPLE. Communities known to have 1041 Regulations were identified
for participation in the study. The goal was to have a representative sample of
communities from across Colorado, such that any community interested in
learning about 1041 Regulations could find information with which they could
identify and from which they could gain insight: the communities identified for
inclusion represented different areas of the state, different population sizes,
and were a mix of counties and municipalities. Forty communities were
identified for inclusion in the sample. Eleven local governments responded to
the online questionnaire and seven governments participated in telephone
interviews.
RESULTS
KEY FINDINGS
• All respondents adopted 1041 Regulations pro-actively because they
desired local control and the ability to regulate projects and developments in a
manner that protected their communities.
• Most respondents have found their 1041 Regulations to be effective
because of the ability to control large-scale projects at the local level. Many of
the development types designated in AASIA are not subject to local control
through other regulatory tools.
• Most respondents would recommend 1041s to other local governments
because of the additional authority granted to local governments, the ability to
regulate and mitigate adverse impacts, and ensure project coordination.
LESSONS LEARNED
1041s expand local government authority. It is the expanded authority to
oversee and review projects and entities that are not subject to other local
controls that helps explain why a community would elect to use 1041s. The
authority to coordinate with landowners, project developers, and other
agencies is key. Additionally, 1041 designations enable counties with large areas
of federal land to regulate development therein, an authority they do not have
with other land use regulations.
1041s are customizable to suit specific needs and unique circumstances.
The ability for local governments to adopt more stringent criteria than is
described in AASIA makes these regulations incredibly useful and powerful.
With the same regulation, the respondent communities have each made
designations and incorporated criteria that enable them to address needs
specific to their community.
1041s enable coordination between the public and private realms. 1041s
also enable a local government to regulate development on private land to
protect the public welfare. 1041s cover all affected land or activities within the
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations iii
local government’s boundaries and apply regardless of the existing uses or who
owns the land. This is especially helpful with activities such as pipelines or
transmission lines that cross miles of land, private and public, because it enables
the local government to regulate the entire project in a coordinated and
consistent manner.
1041s connected to legitimate community concerns are unlikely to be
opposed. While one might expect that property owners would be reluctant to
support regulations that could interfere with their own use of their land, the
respondent communities’ experiences demonstrate that community members
will support the adoption of 1041 Regulations when the benefits of adoption are
reasonable and protect resources or assets of special value to the community.
1041s are working as intended to protect natural assets and resources.
The intent of AASIA is to protect “the utility, value, and future of all lands within
the state” (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-101, 2016) and, as opined by Panos (1994) and
Warner (1977), and echoed by one respondent, 1041s are an environmental
regulation. Though AASIA does not require it, all the interviewed communities
require submission of an environmental impact analysis from any applicant (not
just CDOT or other agencies), and many require it regardless of the
development type or impacts. Despite the state no longer overseeing this
process, 1041 Regulations provide a means for enacting broad environmental
regulations through voluntary and context-specific adoption at the local level.
CONCLUSION
In the years since 1041 Powers and 1041 Regulations were authorized through
AASIA, many local governments adopted and used the regulations. AASIA and
some governments’ 1041 Regulations were challenged in the courts but
emerged intact, with important confirmations made about the constitutionality
and validity of the powers and authority conferred to local governments.
Despite their use and court rulings over the years, the information about how
1041s are being used has never been collected from the various sources and
made easily available. The CDO recognized an opportunity for their office to
assemble and share in-depth information about 1041 Regulations. Thus, the
objective of this project was to research the use of 1041 Regulations by local
governments and assemble and package that information for easy access by
other local governments interested in learning more.
The background research assembled in this project provides important
contextual information about the history of 1041 Regulations and provides a
short breakdown of the most important elements of AASIA. Summaries of the
legal opinions published about AASIA and 1041 Regulations highlight the most
important and relevant—for planners and land managers—decisions and
findings from the courts. The case studies developed from the questionnaire
data, interviews, and review of each local governments’ 1041 Regulations
provide useful information about the experience of using 1041s, the
effectiveness and usefulness of 1041s, and when 1041s are appropriate for use.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND | CONTEXT | PROBLEM STATEMENT
In 1974, House Bill 74-1041 was introduced to address issues surrounding land
use planning in Colorado (Warner, 1977, p. 1731). Later that year, the bill was
enacted as the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act (AASIA) (Panos, 1994, p.
1309). AASIA defines a set of activities and areas of state interest and delegates
power to local governments to regulate the development of such areas or such
activities (C.R.S. §§ 24-65.1-101, et seq., 2016). The delegated powers are
commonly referred to and known as “1041 Powers,” and the regulations as
“1041 Regulations,” and primarily consist of area-and/or activity-designation,
adoption of development guidelines, and permit issuance (C.R.S. §§ 24-65.1-
101, et seq., 2016).
Though 1041 Powers have existed since 1974, information about how they are
being used by Colorado local governments has never been assembled. The
Community Development Office (CDO), located within the Colorado Department
of Local Affairs (DOLA), Division of Local Government, collected data from local
governments in 2015 that showed many across the state have adopted 1041
Regulations (DOLA, 2015(a), p. 31-33; DOLA, 2015(b), p. 11). That data showed
the areas and/or activities designated by some local governments, but did not
include any other information about the communities’ 1041s. Over the years,
lawyers have written about the regulations, and various provisions of AASIA and
local governments’ 1041 Regulations have been challenged and upheld in the
courts. So while there is a wide range of information and knowledge available
about local governments’ use of 1041s, it has never been pulled together and
made available for reference in one place.
In 2016, during an examination of web traffic to their site, the CDO discovered
numerous people looking to their office for information on 1041 Regulations.
The CDO currently shares some basic information about 1041 Regulations, and
recognized an opportunity for its office to fill the gaps in the current
understanding and provide more comprehensive information. In particular, local
governments need case studies and lessons learned about how to effectively
and successfully use 1041 Regulations.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project was to research how local governments are using
1041 Regulations by assembling case studies and lessons learned that can be
accessed by Colorado local governments interested in learning more about 1041
Powers. To uncover how local governments are using 1041 Regulations,
questions about the experience of using 1041s, the effectiveness and usefulness
of 1041s, and when 1041s should be used needed to be answered. The case
studies and other findings will provide guidance on developing and adopting
1041 Regulations, and might inspire local governments to consider modifying or
adopting regulations in ways not previously considered or thought feasible.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 2
OUTLINE OF REMAINDER OF REPORT
What follows next is a summarization of background research on AASIA and
1041 Regulations. This will include the historical context in which House Bill 74-
1041 was born and ultimately enacted, a narrative summary of AASIA, and legal
decisions about 1041 Powers and local 1041 Regulations. The background
research will conclude with a brief discussion of the Land Use Commission, a
body that was charged with oversight of the 1041 process when AASIA was first
enacted, but which is no longer in existence (and, thus, no longer plays a role in
the implementation of AASIA). Following the background research, the
methodology for collecting data will be briefly discussed, including the data
collection instruments, sampling method to identify communities for
participation, methodology for data analysis, and the response rate. The results
section will describe, both generally and specifically, the findings from the
questionnaires and interviews. The findings will be analyzed and discussed in
the section on lessons learned and case studies detailing the communities’
experiences with 1041s will complete the paper.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
The purpose of reviewing the existing literature was to understand the history
of AASIA and 1041 Powers and how they have been understood and viewed
over the years. The existing literature was written primarily by lawyers and the
courts and is approached from a legal perspective. The literature provides
historical information about AASIA and 1041 Powers, as well as confirmation of
the validity of the regulation, but does not include any research on the use of
1041 Regulations by local governments.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
After World War II, states across the U.S. began looking for ways to assert some
control over local land use planning decisions, motivated in part by President
Nixon’s National Land Use Policy Act (Bosselman and Callies, 1971). Nixon’s act
was never adopted but it would have required states to oversee development in
sensitive environmental areas, to ensure that regional planning efforts were not
thwarted by local governments, and to manage the development of large-scale
projects and land use around “key facilities,” all in order to receive certain
federal funds (Bosselman and Callies, 1971, p. i).
Colorado’s population boomed in the post-WWII era. The state’s population
grew by 32 percent during the 1950s and by another 26 percent in the 1960s,
growing from 1.3 million to 2.2 million people in just 20 years (State
Demographer’s Office, n.d.; Warner, 1977; Wickersham, 1977). The influx of
people had politicians and Coloradans, both long-time residents and new
transplants, worried about how the state was changing (Wickersham, 1977). In
Denver, the rapid population growth and development of the 1950s, 1960s, and
1970s had transformed the capital city from a “Cow Town” to an urban city, but
not without negative effects (Wickersham, 1977). Traffic congestion and
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 3
pollution worsened, development sprawled outward, and taxes were raised to
fund the construction of utilities (Wickersham, 1977). Older residents saw their
way of life disappearing and new residents worried that their “Colorado
lifestyle” was being destroyed (Wickerhsam, 1977, p. 1780). To address the
concerns of Coloradans about the rapid development taking place, and in order
to introduce state oversight into the planning process,1 the Colorado Land Use
Act (LUA) was enacted in 1970 (Green and Seibert, 1990). The LUA’s legislative
declaration read, “’the rapid growth and development of the state and the
resulting demands on its land resources make new and innovative measures
necessary to encourage planned and orderly land use development’” (Warner,
1977, p. 1731, quoting C.R.S. § 24-65-102(1), 1973 (repealed)). The LUA created
a “statewide system of land use” (Warner, 1977, p. 1731), with the intent to
develop a “state land use map” (Dischinger, 2005, p. 80), a project that was to
be coordinated and overseen by the Land Use Commission (Dischinger, 2005).
In 1974, House Bill 74-1041 was introduced in the Colorado legislature to
address issues surrounding land use planning in Colorado (Warner, 1977). The
intent of HB 74-1041 was to protect the environment and lifestyle of the state.
Panos (1994) writes, “The clear objective of H.B. 1041 is to assure that
environmental impacts of new development are considered and mitigated” (p.
1311). Warner (1977) writes, “The intent of … H.B. 1041 is distinctly
environmental” (p. 1732).
Beginning in January and continuing through April of 1974, House Bill 74-1041
moved through House and Senate Committees (Colorado State Archives, n.d).
As enacted, it became the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act, as part of
the LUA (Dischinger, 2005). AASIA granted “broadened authority and a permit-
type procedure to local governments, yet reserve[d] to state level decision-
makers the ability to ensure responsible action at the local level” (Kurtz-Phelan,
1977, p. 1719). Essentially, AASIA introduced a layer of state oversight to certain
local planning and development decisions—those of “state interest”—that had
not previously existed (Kurtz-Phelan, 1977; Panos, 1994; Warner, 1977). At the
same time, AASIA granted to local governments express control of the impacts
of development (Panos, 1994) and was “a distinct shift from the traditional
zoning methods by which local governments exercise[d] their police power over
land development (White and Petros, 1977, p. 1697). Control at the state level
was exercised through the Land Use Commission and a few other state
agencies, and at the local level through the delegated authority to local
governments to designate matters of state interest, adopt development
guidelines, and issue permits. However, as explained further below, state-level
control would disappear over the years as the Land Use Commission’s role and
responsibilities were amended and minimized, ultimately leading to its
1 Dischinger (2005), quoting the Commentary on Article 7 of the Model Land
Development Code, writes “‘Most of the states are now giving serious study to a
variety of proposals to reform land use regulation, and almost all these
proposals involve some new powers for state or regional agencies’” (p. 80).
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 4
Local governments
are authorized to
adopt regulations
stricter than the
minimum standards
set out in AASIA.
abolishment. Despite the evolving nature of state-level control under AASIA,
local control remained in full effect; 1041 Regulations have been adopted by
many local governments as an effective land-use planning tool.
AASIA AND 1041 REGULATIONS
The legislative declaration of AASIA reads, “The protection of the utility, value,
and future of all lands within the state, including the public domain as well as
privately owned land, is a matter of public interest. . .Local governments shall be
encouraged to designate areas and activities of state interest” (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-
101, 2016). AASIA defines “areas” of state interest as those that contain
“mineral resources … natural hazards … significant impact upon historical,
natural, or archaeological resources … [and are] around key facilities” (C.R.S. §
24-65.1-201, 2016). “Activities” include the selection, construction, and/or
development of water supply and treatment systems, waste disposal sites,
airports, highways and transit infrastructure, utilities, new communities, and
geothermal resource use (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203, 2016). It establishes a set of
criteria for each of the four areas and ten activities, describing the minimum
standards for development that must be met to be in compliance with AASIA.
For example, “[a]irports shall be located or expanded in a manner which will
minimize disruption to the environment of existing communities, minimize the
impact on existing community services, and complement the economic and
transportation needs of the state and the area” (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-201(3), 2016).
If a local government wishes to invoke its 1041 Powers and adopt 1041
Regulations, it must first hold a public meeting (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-401(1), 2016),
providing notice of such meeting between 30 and 60 days beforehand (C.R.S. §
24-65.1-404(2), 2016). If the designation includes designation of an area, the
designation must describe the physical boundaries of the area. AASIA also sets
forth the necessary findings that a local government must make prior to
designation of an area or activity of state interest (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-401(2),
2016). Once a designation is made, development in an area of state interest or
the conduct of an activity of state interest is prohibited (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-404(4),
2016) until the local government “develop[s] guidelines” that are consistent
with the minimum standards set forth in AASIA (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-402(1), 2016).
The designation and guidelines also may be made and adopted in a single
hearing. No less than 30 days following the public meeting, the local
government “may adopt, adopt with modification, or reject the particular
designation and guidelines” (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-404(3), 2016). Importantly, local
governments are authorized to adopt regulations stricter than the minimum
standards set out in AASIA (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-402(3), 2016).
Once an area or activity of state interest has been designated, and regulations
have been adopted, the local government can issue permits for development in
a designated area of state interest or for an activity of state interest. The
government must hold a public meeting (with notice) where a “decision, and its
findings and conclusions” are made (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-501(1)(a), (2)(a), (5), 2016).
The local government “shall” deny a permit for any development or activity that
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 5
A local government
can make 1041
designations upon
receiving an
application for
development.
does not meet the statutory guidelines or the local regulations adopted by the
government (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-501(3), (4), 2016). If a permit is sought for an
activity or development in an area that has not yet been designated, the local
government still has time to act; it can hold a public meeting “for determination
of designation and guidelines and granting or denying the permit” (C.R.S. § 24-
65.1-501(2)(b), 2016).
LEGAL CHALLENGES TO AASIA AND 1041 REGULATIONS
A number of court cases have been decided that challenged different aspects of
AASIA and 1041 Regulations adopted by local governments. The following cases
represent published opinions of the Colorado Court of Appeals or Supreme
Court of Colorado.
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. Board of County Com’rs of
Lincoln County, 600 P.2d 103 (Colo.App. 1979): site selection and construction
of public utilities (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(f), 2016) designated as an activity of state
interest. In a 1979 case brought by Tri-State Generation against Lincoln County,
the Court of Appeals held that Lincoln County could designate an activity of
state interest and enforce its 1041 Powers even when there was a “vested
property right” (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. Board of
County Com’rs of Lincoln County, 600 P.2d 103, p. 104). Importantly, the court
found that the county’s application of its newly adopted 1041 Regulations to the
activity in question (construction of power lines) was not an unconstitutional
taking because, while money had been expended for right-of-way acquisition,
plan making, and site studies, construction had not yet begun when the 1041
Regulations were adopted in accordance with AASIA. Further, the court ruled
that the county’s denial of Tri-State’s permit was not an abuse of discretion
because it was based on the plan submitted by Tri-State; the county was under
no obligation to consider an alternative that was not presented to it.
City & County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners of Grand County,
760 P.2d 656 (Colo.App. 1988): site selection and construction of major new
domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing
domestic water and sewage treatment systems (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(a), 2016),
and the efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects (C.R.S. §
24-65.1-203(h), 2016) designated as activities of state interest. In 1988, Denver’s
Board of Water Commissioners (Denver Water) filed a facial challenge2 to AASIA
and the 1041 Regulations adopted by Eagle County and Grand County. Denver
first argued that AASIA’s delegation of authority to local governments to
designate matters of state interest was unconstitutional because the delegation
granted too much discretion to local governments. The Court of Appeals did not
rule on the constitutionality of AASIA itself, but found that, as adopted, the
counties’ regulations were well within their authority and, thus, valid (City &
County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, 760 P.2d
2 A facial challenge alleges that a statute is unconstitutional and, thus, void.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 6
The provision of
AASIA that
authorizes local
governments to
adopt stricter
requirements for
approving permits is
a constitutional
delegation of
authority.
Regulation of
matters of state
interest supersedes
Denver Water’s
local interest in
water projects
outside its
boundaries.
656, p. 660-61). Second, Denver Water claimed that it was exempt from the
1041 Regulations adopted by the counties because of its home rule status under
the state Constitution, arguing that it had a right to construct water projects
wherever it holds water rights. Specifically, Denver Water believed “it [was]
empowered to construct or add to its water works facilities outside its territorial
limits free from regulatory interference by the Counties” (City & County of
Denver v. Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, 760 P.2d 656, p.
660-62). The court disagreed and ruled that regulation of matters of state
interest supersedes Denver Water’s local interest in water projects outside its
boundaries, and thus, Denver must comply with the counties’ 1041 Regulations.
Third, Denver Water argued that the 1041 Regulations interfered with its
constitutional right to water access and use. The Court disagreed, finding that
the county regulations did not deny Denver Water its right to use its water, the
regulations only required that Denver Water seek a permit and comply with the
adopted regulations (City & County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners
of Grand County, 760 P.2d 656, p. 662). Denver Water’s last claim, that it was
exempt from complying with the counties’ 1041 Regulations based on “the
express provision of the Act” (City & County of Denver v. Board of County
Commissioners of Grand County, 760 P.2d 656, p. 662) was denied because: 1)
Denver Water met the definition of a “person” as defined in AASIA; and 2)
because the counties’ regulations simply addressed the manner in which Denver
Water could appropriate water (City & County of Denver v. Board of County
Commissioners of Grand County, 760 P.2d 656, pp. 662, 663).
City and County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners of Grand County,
782 .2d 753 (Colo. 1989). Unhappy with the Court of Appeals’ decision, Denver
brought the case before the Colorado Supreme Court. In 1989, the Supreme
Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ rulings. The Supreme Court also held that
the provision of AASIA that authorizes local governments to adopt stricter
requirements for approving permits was “an understandable provision” and a
constitutional delegation of authority (City and County of Denver v. Board of
County Commissioners of Grand County, 782 .2d 753, p. 760). It also ruled that
the overall authority delegated to local governments through the Land Use Act
was constitutional (City and County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners
of Grand County, 782 .2d 753, p. 766).
City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County,
895 P.2d 1105 (Colo.App. 1994): site selection and construction of major new
domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing
domestic water and sewage treatment systems (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(a), 2016),
and the efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects (C.R.S. §
24-65.1-203(h), 2016) designated as activities of state interest. In this case,
Eagle County denied a permit for a water project proposed by the Cities of
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 7
“…if a proposed
project fails to
satisfy even one
criterion, the Board
must deny the
requested permits.”
Once a designation
of state interest has
been made, AASIA is
the controlling
statute, regardless
of which statute is
newest.
1041 Powers and
1041 Regulations
apply to projects on
federal land.
ruled on the case, and upheld the decision of the Eagle County Commissioners
to deny the permit. First, the court referred to the provision of AASIA that
requires the local government to deny a permit if all criteria of regulation are
not met, concluding that “if a proposed project fails to satisfy even one
criterion, the Board must deny the requested permits” (City of Colorado Springs
v. Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, 895 P.2d 1105, p. 1110
(emphasis added)). The court, relying on City & County of Denver v. Board of
County Commissioners of Grand County ruled and agreed that AASIA, and any
1041 Regulations adopted by a local government, authorize a local government
to regulate home rule city water projects located outside of the cities’
jurisdictional boundaries (“…the regulations enacted by the Board are applicable
to development of water diversion projects which are located within Eagle
County even if the end users of the water are not” (City of Colorado Springs v.
Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, 895 P.2d 1105, p. 1113)). The
court also ruled that when a conflict between AASIA and another statute exists,
AASIA controls once a designation of state interest has been made, regardless of
which statute is newest (City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County
Commissioners of Eagle County, 895 P.2d 1105, p. 1118). The court made
additional rulings on claims similar to those made in City & County of Denver v.
Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, relying upon the Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals determinations about constitutionality and the
delegation of authority. The Eagle County case is uniquely important because it
is the only challenge to a denial of a 1041 permit and the only case that
confirms that 1041 authority applies to projects on federal land.
Dill v. Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County, 928 P.2d 809
(Colo.App. 1996): site selection and development of solid waste disposal sites
(C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(b), 2016) designated as an activity of state interest. In
1982, Lincoln County adopted 1041 Regulations addressing solid waste disposal
sites. In 1994, Dill notified Lincoln County that it intended to build and operate a
landfill. Before receiving any application from Dill, the county received
complaints from citizens about the proposed development and adopted two
resolutions, effectively preventing Dill from proceeding with its development
plan. Dill sued the county, in part, on the basis that it had exceeded its authority
by adopting a moratorium. The Court of Appeals ruled that, based on the
language of AASIA, a local government has the authority to revise its 1041
Regulations as it sees fit and to cease approving permits “for a reasonable time
such that regulations can be updated” (Dill v. Board of County Commissioners of
Lincoln County, 928 P.2d 809, p. 814).
Board of County Com’rs of the County of Douglas v. Gartrell Inv. Co., LLC, 33
P.3d 1244 (2001): site selection and development of new communities (C.R.S. §
24-65.1-203(1)(g), 2016) designated as an activity of state interest. AASIA
defines new communities as “the major revitalization of existing municipalities
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 8
1041 Regulations
are not preempted
by state highway
regulations because
they “advance
compatible goals.”
in Douglas County when located outside the MPAs [municipal planning areas] as
identified on the Douglas County Master Plan Land Use Map, as amended’”
(Board of County Com’rs of the County of Douglas v. Gartrell Inv. Co., LLC, 33
P.3d 1244, p. 1247, quoting Regulations, Areas & Activities of Douglas County
Designated as Matter of State Interest). The County argued that a developer in
an urbanized growth center needed a 1041 permit before the land could be
annexed into Aurora. The court disagreed with the county’s contention, noting
that AASIA “did not expressly list annexation as an activity of state interest”
(Board of County Com’rs of the County of Douglas v. Gartrell Inv. Co., LLC, 33
P.3d 1244, p. 1248) and thus, the county could not define an urbanized growth
as an annexation. The court further noted that the developer did not need a
1041 permit from Douglas County because the land would not be developed
unless or until it was annexed into Aurora, thereby removing the land from
unincorporated territory. Under AASIA, county 1041 Regulations only apply in
unincorporated areas of a county.
Department of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo.App. 2008):
site selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways
(C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(1)(e), 2016) designated as an activity of state interest. The
City of Idaho Springs adopted 1041 Regulations governing highways in
anticipation of the widening of I-70. The Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) sued Idaho Springs claiming that it was not subject to
Idaho Springs’ 1041 Regulations because CDOT was not a “person” under AASIA.
The court disagreed, finding that “[b]ecause the site selection of arterial
highways is an activity often conducted by CDOT (under the provisions of Title
43), the context suggests that the legislature intended to subject CDOT to some
degree of local regulatory control under the AASIA” (Department of Transp. v.
City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490, p. 493). CDOT also argued that AASIA and
Title 43 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which “places CDOT in charge of
developing the state transportation plan” (Department of Transp. v. City of
Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490, p.492), conflict with one another, thus relieving
CDOT from being controlled by AASIA or 1041 Regulations because Title 43 is
newer and more detailed. The court disagreed with CDOT, noting that there was
no conflict between AASIA and Title 43 “because the schemes advance
compatible goals” (Department of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490,
p.494). The court held that the Idaho Springs 1041 Regulations could be applied
harmoniously with state highway regulations and thus, were not preempted by
state regulations.
With these seven rulings, the courts confirmed that the authority delegated to
local governments to adopt 1041 Regulations, and the provision authorizing
local governments to adopt more stringent development guidelines than those
outlined in AASIA, are constitutional. The courts also confirmed that a local
government reserves the right to deny a permit if all criteria under the statute
has not been satisfied, to update its 1041 Regulations as it deems necessary,
and to hold off on approving permits during the updating process. The courts’
rulings in City and County of Denver and City of Colorado Springs confirmed that
1041 Regulations can be successfully implemented with regards to water
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 9
The Land Use
Commission’s most
significant and
meaningful
contributions came
in the form of
providing
advisement,
support, and
guidance to local
governments.
projects that have multi-jurisdictional impacts and that originate from home-
rule municipalities. The City of Colorado Springs case also importantly provides
confirmation that 1041 Regulations can be used to control development on
federal lands and that AASIA is the controlling statute when conflicts between
statutes might exist.
THE LAND USE COMMISSION
The Land Use Commission (LUC) was established in 1970 through the Land Use
Act (Dischinger, 2005), and, initially, “was charged with developing a statewide
land use plan” (Wickersham, 1977, p. 1780). At its inception, the LUC was
housed in the governor’s office and consisted of nine appointed members
serving four-year terms (Evans and Stafford, 2011). The LUC’s responsibilities
changed during its first few years (Dischinger, 2005); by the time AASIA went
into effect, instead of engaging in land use planning, the LUC had become an
organizing body, “coordinating and unifying policies in planning for growth and
development” (Dischinger, 2005, p. 80).
Through AASIA, the LUC was initially given a broad range of powers. It had the
authority to pro-actively trigger the designation process simply by requesting a
local government make a designation, even if the local government had no
intent to do so (Panos, 1995; Warner, 1977). It could temporarily block
development, by making the request for designation (Dischinger, 2005), or halt
development already underway by issuing “a cease and desist order” if it feared
that a development might cause harm (Warner, 1977, p. 1735). For designations
being made by a local government, the LUC had “authority to approve or
suggest modifications to local rules” (Dischinger, 2005, p. 80). The LUC also
issued model regulations and enforced minimum development standards
(Kurtz-Phelan, 1977). And, it had the authority to bring lawsuits or initiate de
novo3 review (Kurtz-Phelan, 1977; Warner, 1977). It did not have the power,
however, to overrule a local government’s decision not to make a designation if
the government followed the established guidelines in making its determination
(Kurtz-Phelan, 1977; Panos, 1994; Warner, 1977). According to Dischinger
(2005) and Warner (1977), the LUC’s most significant and meaningful
contributions came in the form of providing advisement, support, and guidance
to local governments.
The Land Use Commission was not without controversy. In 1977, the LUC made
itself unpopular by flip-flopping on its request to Morgan County about power
plant construction. Initially, it voted against requesting the county to designate
the Pawnee power plant as an activity of state interest. It reversed itself shortly
thereafter and requested Morgan County to make such designation, then
modified its request to exclude the Pawnee power plant from designation
3 Dischinger (2005) explains, “The trial de novo is to evaluate the legality of the
county’s proceedings and to determine whether there has been an abuse of
discretion, not to judge the merits of the county’s decision” (p. 82).
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 10
(Dischinger, 2005; Warner, 1977). The LUC’s authority was modified by the state
legislature shortly thereafter; it was no longer allowed to stop ongoing
construction activity simply by requesting that a designation be made (Warner,
1977). That same year, staffing for the LUC was moved from the Governor’s
Office to DOLA (Warner, 1977).
After being moved to DOLA in 1977, the state legislature cut the LUC’s budget
by almost 75 percent in 1978, and by 1983 it was no longer being funded
(Dischinger, 2005; Panos, 1995). Despite having no dedicated staff or funding
(Panos, 1995), the LUC continued to minimally function through much of the
1990s in an emergency capacity, invoking its authority to halt ongoing
construction and hold public hearings upon request only (Panos, 1995). By 1998,
the LUC “had ceased meeting altogether” (Dischinger, 2005, p. 82). Despite the
requirement under AASIA that the LUC review all designations of state interest,
such review no longer took place.
It was not until 2004 that the LUC’s vanished existence became a problem. That
year, the Boulder County District Court ruled that Boulder County’s designation
of both an area and activity of state interest was invalid “because there was no
review and comment by the LUC” (Dischinger, 2005, p. 83). The state legislature
responded to the ruling by reconvening the LUC, “approv[ing] Boulder County’s
1041 regulations,” and then eliminating the LUC (Dischinger, 2005, p. 84). House
Bill 05-1063 amended AASIA; it removed all references to the LUC—its authority
and responsibilities—and officially delegated all authority under AASIA to local
governments (Dischinger, 2005; Pommer and Entz, 2005).
SUMMARY
The desire for state-level oversight in local planning decisions in the early 1970s
led to the creation of the LUA, LUC, and 1041 Regulations. As support for state
control waned, the LUC’s role was changed, from oversight and approval to
guidance and support. Throughout the evolution of the LUC, the authority
delegated to local governments remained intact. Challenges to AASIA and the
authority delegated to local governments confirmed the validity and
constitutionality of 1041 Powers and 1041 Regulations. The abolishment of the
LUC ultimately removed all state oversight from the 1041 Regulation process,
and solidified local governments’ authority to enact 1041 Regulations. See also
Figure 1.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 11
Figure 1. Timeline of 1041 Events.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 12
METHODOLOGY
With the objective of researching how local governments are using 1041
Regulations, the data collected from the research participants was intended to
fill a gap in the understanding of 1041s and provide guidance to interested local
governments about 1041s.
THE DATA
The data that needed to be collected for this study was, broadly, about how
local governments are using 1041 Regulations. To obtain that information, the
researcher and the CDO crafted a series of closed-ended and open-ended
questions. The questions were sorted into two different collection instruments:
a mix of closed- and open-ended questions were asked in the online
questionnaire and additional open-ended questions asked during the telephone
interviews. See Text Box 1; Appendix A, Online Questionnaire.
THE SAMPLE
Communities known to have 1041 Regulations were identified for participation
in the study. The goal was to have a representative sample of communities from
across Colorado, such that any community interested in learning about 1041
Regulations could find information with which they could identify and from
which they could gain insight: the communities identified for inclusion
represented different areas of the state, different population sizes, and were a
mix of counties and municipalities. Forty communities—18 counties and 22
municipalities—were identified for inclusion in the sample. See Map 1, Local
Governments Selected for Inclusion in the Sample; Appendix D, Participants
Selected for Inclusion in the Sample.
COLLECTING THE DATA
The data was collected in two stages. The first stage of data collection was
conducted by online questionnaire. The second stage of data collection was
conducted by telephone interview. The sample for the second stage was
assembled from the respondents to the questionnaire. A combination of
structured and unstructured telephone interviews were conducted: the
interview questions were asked in order (as they had been provided to each
participant) and additional questions not on the questionnaire were asked at
the end.
ANALYZING THE DATA
Analysis was focused on answering the overarching research questions—How
are the 1041 Regulations being used? What are the lessons learned?—and
developing case studies. The questionnaire and interview data were analyzed
and compared to ensure consistency of the emergent concepts, and was
combined to develop short case studies.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 13
Text Box 1. Research questions.
Online Questionnaire Questions
1. Which areas and/or activities do you have designated in your 1041 Regulations?
2. What year were your 1041 Regulations first adopted?
3. What prompted the development of the 1041 Regulations (e.g., pro-active, in response to an
anticipated development, etc.)?
4. Have you updated or changed your 1041 Regulations over time?
a. If yes, when?
5. Did you adopt development guidelines that were more stringent than the minimum criteria set
in the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act?
a. If yes, on which areas or activities did you adopt more stringent guidelines?
6. How many permit applications for designated areas or activities have you approved since
adopting your 1041 Regulations?
7. What is your current permit fee(s)? (If you have more than one, list by type.)
8. Have your 1041 Regulations been an effective tool for regulating development in your
community?
a. Why or why not?
9. Based on your experience, would you recommend other communities use 1041 Regulations?
a. Why or why not?
Telephone Interview Questions
1. Why did you elect to use 1041 Regulations instead of another regulatory tool (e.g., special
review permits, etc.)?
2. Who were the parties involved in developing and adopting your 1041 Regulations?
3. Where are your 1041 Regulations codified (e.g. land use code, county code, or other
regulation)?
4. Were there parties opposed to your 1041 Regulations? Who were they? Why were they
opposed?
5. What types of challenges (for instance, from developers, community members, or elected body)
did you have to respond to get the 1041 Regulations adopted?
6. Did you seek any outside guidance, advice, or expertise in the process of developing your 1041
Regulations?
a. If so, from who or where? In what form?
b. If so, did you include any specific procedure or technical language that was recommended to
you? Please describe.
7. Have there been any legal challenges made related to the adoption or application of your 1041
Regulations?
8. If applicable, why did your community decide to update or change your 1041 Regulations after
they were first adopted?
9. In what ways have your 1041 Regulations been effective for regulating development in your
community?
a. Is there anything about the way your 1041 Regulations are written that you believe help
them to be effective?
10. What advice and strategies/tips do you have for other communities interested in adopting 1041
Regulations?
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 14
Map 1.
THE RESPONSE RATE
Questionnaire. Forty communities were identified for inclusion in the sample
and 37 were contacted successfully (defined as e-mails sent that did not get
returned as undeliverable). In all, 11 questionnaire responses (out of a total of
37 potential responses) were received.
Interviews. All 11 questionnaire respondents were asked to participate in the
second stage of data collection. Seven agreed to participate in the interviews
(63.6% response rate). Two declined (Golden and Superior) and two (Boulder
County and Park County) did not respond.
RESULTS
QUESTIONNAIRES
Eleven local governments responded to the questionnaire: Arapahoe County,
Boulder County, Clear Creek County, City of Golden, Otero County, Park County,
Routt County, Town of Silt, Town of Silverthorne, Summit County, and City of
Superior. See Map 2, Questionnaire Respondents. Overall, their responses
indicate that 1041s are an effective land use regulation because they grant
greater oversight and control over development than other regulatory tools.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 15
Map 2.
Text Box 2. Areas and Activities for Designation.
Areas of State Interest (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-201)
(a) Mineral resource areas;
(b) Natural hazard areas;
(c) Areas containing, or having a significant impact upon, historical,
natural, or archaeological resources of statewide importance; and
(d) Areas around key facilities in which development may have a material
effect upon the key facility or the surrounding community.
Activities of State Interest (C.R.S. §24-65.1-203)
(a) Site selection and construction of major new domestic water and
sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing domestic
water and sewage treatment systems;
(b) Site selection and development of solid waste disposal sites;
(c) Site selection of airports;
(d) Site selection of rapid or mass transit terminals, stations, and fixed
guideways;
(e) Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector
highways;
(f) Site selection and construction of major facilities of a public utility;
(g) Site selection and development of new communities;
(h) Efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects;
(i) Conduct of nuclear detonations; and
(j) The use of geothermal resources for the commercial production of
electricity.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 16
Question 1: Which areas and/or activities do you have designated in your 1041
Regulations? Site selection and construction of water and sewage treatment
systems is the most designated matter of state interest, with nine communities
having such 1041 designation. Site selection and construction of public utilities
and efficient utilization of water projects are each designated by seven
communities. Areas of significant impact on historical, natural, or archaeological
resources and the site selection of highways are each designated by six
communities. Five communities have 1041 designation of airport site selection.
Natural hazard areas and site selection and development of new communities
are each designated by four communities. Areas around key facilities, site
selection of rapid transit, and site selection and development of solid waste
disposal sites are all designated by three communities. Two communities have
mineral resource areas under 1041 designation, and only one community
regulates the conduct of nuclear detonations. None of the respondent
communities have designated the use of geothermal resources. See Table 1. To
see each of the respondents’ designated areas and activities, refer to Appendix
E, Online Questionnaire Responses, Question 1. For a complete listing of
available areas and activities, see Text Box 2.
Table 1. Ranked Designations by Local Government Respondents.
Site Selection/Construction of Major New or Expanded Domestic
Water/Sewer Treatment Systems
9
Efficient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial Water Projects 7
Site Selection/Construction of Major Facilities of a Public Utility 7
Historical, Natural or Archaeological Resource 6
Site Selection of Arterial Highways/Interchanges/Collector Highways 6
Site Selection of Airports 5
Natural Hazard 4
Site Selection/Development of New Communities 4
Areas around key facilities… 3
Site Selection of Rapid/Mass Transit Facilities 3
Site Selection/Development of Solid Waste Disposal Sites 3
Mineral Resource 2
Conduct of Nuclear Detonations 1
Use of Geothermal Resources for Commercial Production of Electricity 0
Question 2: What year were your 1041 Regulations first adopted? 1041s were
adopted by the respondent communities at different times based on their
individual needs. Summit County was the first of the respondents to adopt
1041s, putting theirs on the books on July 1, 1974. Clear Creek County adopted
their 1041s two years later, in 1976. None of the respondent communities
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 17
The communities
adopted their 1041s
pro-actively, in
response to
identified
development
pressures and with a
desire for more local
control.
adopted 1041s during the 1980s, but during the 1990s Boulder County (1994),
Park County (1997), and Golden (1999) all adopted 1041s. Six of the respondent
communities adopted their 1041s in the 2000s: Arapahoe and Otero Counties in
2004, Silverthorne in 2005, Routt County and Silt in 2007, and Superior in 2010.
Question 3. What prompted the development of the 1041 Regulations (e.g.,
pro-active, in response to an anticipated development, etc.)? None of the
respondent communities adopted their 1041 Regulations in response to an
application for development in an area or activity that was not previously
designated, as permitted under AASIA (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-501(2)(b)). All
communities4 adopted their regulations pro-actively, either shortly after being
authorized to do so, as in the case of Summit County and Clear Creek County, or
in response to identified development pressures and a desire for more local
control. Silverthorne adopted theirs with the specific objective of regulating
water pipelines, and Silt adopted theirs to control the development of gravel
mines. Park County was responding to an increase in subdivision development
and Golden to pressure it was facing from adjacent communities to allow for
completion of a beltway. Both Arapahoe County and Routt County saw the
benefits, and necessity, of being able to interact with and oversee major
developments and projects. Otero County wanted to protect its natural
resources and Clear Creek County wanted to control development in
environmentally sensitive areas. Overall, these communities desired local
control and the ability to regulate projects and developments in order to protect
their communities. See Appendix F, Online Questionnaire Responses, Question
3.
Question 4: Have you updated or changed your 1041 Regulations over time? If
yes, when? Five of the respondent communities have updated their 1041
Regulations since they were first adopted. Summit County updated theirs in
1988, 1995, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2013. Clear Creek County has also updated
theirs a number of times, adopting revisions in 1989, 1998, 2006, 2007, 2009,
and 2012. Boulder County has made three updates to their 1041s, in 1998,
2001, and 2011. Arapahoe County and Otero County both updated their 1041s
in 2006, and Otero County just recently (in April of 2017) revised theirs again.
Golden, Park County, Routt County, Silt, Silverthorne, and Superior have not
made any changes to their 1041s since adoption.
Question 5: Did you adopt development guidelines that were more stringent
than the minimum criteria set in the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act?
If yes, for which areas or activities did you adopt more stringent guidelines?
Most of the respondent communities were unsure if their regulations went
beyond the minimums described in the statute, but many have adopted
submittal and approval criteria that go beyond the statutory minimums.
Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Routt, and Summit Counties, and the Town of
4 Boulder County did not respond to this question; thus, the reference to all
communities here is applicable to the respondents to this question.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 18
Arapahoe, Clear
Creek, Routt, and
Summit Counties,
and the Town of
Silverthorne all
follow a similar
template for their
1041 Regulations.
Silverthorne all follow a similar template for their 1041 Regulations, and require
environmental impact statements, socioeconomic impact statements, traffic
studies, or mitigation plans (and many other documents) for all applicants
regardless of which area or activity will be impacted by development, and have
additional submittal and approval criteria specific to each area or activity
(Arapahoe County, 2006; Clear Creek County, 2012; Routt County, 2007; Summit
County, 2013, Town of Silverthorne, 2005). Otero County requires much of the
same documentation, but applicants must also submit a revegetation plan for
development in natural resource areas (Otero County, 2006).
Question 6: How many permit applications for designated areas or activities
have you approved since adopting your 1041 Regulations? Neither Silt nor
Silverthorne has received any applications since adopting their 1041
Regulations, and, so far, Golden’s only applicant was itself. Routt County has
had two or three applicants, but all were approved through a less restrictive,
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) administrative approval. Arapahoe
County has approved between six and 12 1041 permit applications and Clear
Creek County between 15 and 20. Park County has approved 10, Summit County
has approved 47, and Boulder County approved 53 1041 permit applications.
Question 7: What is your current permit fee(s)? (If you have more than one,
list by type.) Permit fees varied greatly between the respondent communities.
See Table 2.
Question 8. Have your 1041 Regulations been an effective tool for regulating
development in your community? Why or why not? Most respondent
communities have found their 1041s to be effective. Park County’s are effective
because of local development control. Arapahoe County points to the ability to
ask for multiple documents and an expansive list of information for projects that
they would not otherwise be able to require. Clear Creek County appreciates
the ability to review and regulate projects and large-scale activities that would
not otherwise be applicable to zoning authority. Otero County has used theirs to
ensure that historically irrigated lands continue to be vegetated, something they
could not do with any other regulatory tool. Summit County notes that their
1041s have enabled them to control growth and development to ensure
consistency with their goals and priorities, to protect the public welfare, and to
regulate developments that are normally outside of their authority. While
Silverthorne has not processed any 1041 applications, they believe they will be
effective for regulating development because they have a lengthy list of
requirements and criteria. Similarly, Silt has not received any applications but
believes theirs will be effective for regulating any proposed mineral extraction.
Overall, these communities have found their 1041s very effective for expanding
their authority to control development. Many of the development types
designated in AASIA are not subject to local control through any other
regulatory tool. See Appendix G, Online Questionnaire Responses, Question 8.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 19
Table 2. 1041 Permit Fees
Arapahoe County $10,000 initially with a draw down based upon
planners and hours
Boulder County Application fee $750, then $103.83 per hour
Clear Creek County Permit fees are based on staff's hourly rate
Golden (City of) Application Fee per state regulations
Otero County The applicant pays all costs associated with
permit. Legal fees, publication costs, employees
hourly wage plus fringe costs and hours (Paralegal,
Land Use Administrator)
Park County $5,000
Routt County Since there is a corresponding County approval
required (SUP, PUD, etc.), the project is billed out
at $120 per hour for planner time spent. At this
time, no additional base fee for 1041.
Silt (Town of) $1,000
Silverthorne (Town of) As determined by the Community Development
Department and in accordance with rates set in
Appendix A in Charter and Municipal Code
Summit County $1,870 for the pre-application fee, which is the
first step in the process to cover costs associated
with determining the level of permit review. If the
project is determined to be a "Minor" permit
review, the fee is $9,415; if it is going to be
processed as a "Major" permit, the fee is $28,300.
Both the Minor and Major permit fees are "initial
deposits" that are required to be paid at the time
of permit submittal. Staff then tracks the actual
time it takes to review the application, as well as
other costs, such as adjacent property owner
notification, mailing costs, etc., and will determine
the final fee at the end of the approval process.
The difference between the actual costs and the
initial deposit will then be determined and a
refund will be given or supplemental fees will be
assessed.
Superior (City of) Would depend on scope of project, but range from
$5,000 to $10,000
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 20
1041s are highly
recommended as an
effective regulatory
tool that allows for
additional authority
and control.
Question 9. Based on your experience, would you recommend other
communities use 1041 Regulations? Why or why not? All but two5 of the
respondent communities would recommend 1041s to others. Arapahoe County
highly recommends 1041s and believes that all local governments should adopt
them. Clear Creek County recommends them based on the additional authority
1041s give to local governments. Park County points to the ability to regulate
developments to prevent adverse impacts on the economy and local area. Routt
County recommends them because 1041s provide an extra layer of protection
for unincorporated areas in rural counties. Summit County has found their
1041s powerful, allowing them to review significant projects for potential
impacts. Superior notes that their 1041s have been effective not only for
regulating and controlling against adverse impacts, but also for ensuring that
projects are being appropriately coordinated. Otero County, Silt, and
Silverthorne recommend them because 1041s are a valuable and effective tool
for regulating development. Overall, 1041s come highly recommended by
almost all of the respondent communities as an effective regulatory tool that
allows for additional authority and control. See Appendix H, Online
Questionnaire Responses, Question 9.
INTERVIEWS
Interviews were conducted with seven communities: Arapahoe County, Clear
Creek County, Otero County, Routt County, Town of Silt, Town of Silverthorne,
and Summit County. Ten questions were asked of each community and their
responses are briefly summarized below. Additional questions were also asked
of each community to help clarify responses. For more detailed information,
case studies detailing each community’s experience with 1041 Regulations can
be found starting on page 26.
Question1. Why did you elect to use 1041 Regulations instead of another
regulatory tool (e.g., special review permits, etc.)? Overwhelmingly, each
community adopted 1041s because of the authority they confer to the local
level to control development. This has been particularly important to these
communities because of the types of development they are able to control and
the fact that no other regulatory tools grant them this type of oversight.
Question 2. Who were the parties involved in developing and adopting your
1041 Regulations? Unsurprisingly, 1041s were developed by planning staff,
county and city attorneys, retained attorneys with 1041 expertise, boards of
county commissioners, and town councils.
Question 3. Where are your 1041 Regulations codified (e.g., land use code,
county code, or other regulation)? See Table 3.
5 Boulder County did not respond to this question and Golden did not believe
their experience provided a basis to recommend or not.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 21
Table 3. Codified 1041 Regulations
Arapahoe County A separate set of regulations under the Land
Development Code
Clear Creek County A distinct set of guidelines and regulations
Otero County A separate set of regulations under the Land Use Code
Routt County A separate set regulations under the Zoning &
Subdivision Regulations
Silt (Town of) A set of regulations under the Zoning Code
Silverthorne (Town of) A set of guidelines and regulations under the
Municipal Code
Summit County A set of regulations under the Land Use and
Development Code
Question 4. Were there parties opposed to your 1041 Regulations? Who were
they? Why were they opposed? Overall, most communities did not face any
opposition to their 1041s. When there was opposition, it was in the form of
concern from community members that the 1041 Regulations were not doing
enough to regulate development or that the types of development that would
be allowed would be detrimental to their community.
Question 5. What types of challenges (for instance, from developers,
community members, or elected body) did you have to respond to to get the
1041 Regulations adopted? Most communities did not have to respond to any
challenges to get public approval or get their elected body to adopt the
regulations. Clear Creek County had to respond to concerns from residents
about noise pollution from wind turbines and one of Summit County’s updates
responded to concerns over the complexity of the process.
Question 6. Did you seek any guidance, advice, or expertise in the process of
developing your 1041 Regulations? If so, from who or where? In what form? If
so, did you include any specific procedure or technical language that was
recommended to you. Clear Creek County retained a sound consultant to
address community concerns over noise pollution, reviewed other communities
1041s for guidance (Golden, Idaho Springs, and Douglas County for highways;
Eagle County for water; and Weld County for wind and solar), and borrowed
language from others’ 1041 Regulations that they knew had survived legal
challenge. Otero County retained an attorney with expertise in 1041s and land
use who gave them legal advice and a template for their regulations. Routt
County had a staff member with 1041 experience, and they looked to and
borrowed language from other communities’ 1041s. Silt sought guidance from
geologists, biologists, and water and air quality professionals for expertise,
commissioned a traffic study, and referred to Frederick’s 1041s because that
town had recently revised their 1041s after losing a case that challenged their
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 22
procedural language. Summit County hired a land use attorney and an attorney
with expertise in water quality to rewrite their 1041s in 2002.
Question 7. Have there been any legal challenges made related to the
adoption or application of your 1041 Regulations? None of the communities
interviewed were aware of any legal challenges to their 1041s.
Question 8. If applicable, why did your community decide to update or change
your 1041 Regulations after they were first adopted? Only four communities
interviewed have updated their 1041s since they were first adopted. Arapahoe
County updated theirs in 2006 simply to make some technical updates to new
water and sewage developments to better serve growth. Clear Creek County
updated their 1041s six times since first adopted, to add new designations to go
along with zoning changes and to strengthen their language around highway
development. Otero County made an important update to their regulations in
2006, adding an Historically Irrigated Acreage Map to support their objective of
keeping land vegetated, and is in the process of making another update to
clarify verbiage. Summit County has updated their 1041s six times, most
significantly in 2002 when they substantially rewrote their regulations and
added a designation.
Question 9. In what ways have your 1041 Regulations been effective for
regulating development in your community? Is there anything about the way
your 1041 Regulations are written that you believe help them to be effective?
Many pointed to the level of control and authority they can assert over projects
and entities they would not otherwise be allowed to oversee. Others to the
ability to tailor the regulations to meet their community’s unique and specific
needs. As to how the regulations are written, many pointed to the broad, clear
language of their 1041s, as well as their incorporation of other communities
tested 1041 language. A couple of communities pointed to their tiered permit
review processes which they believe effective for streamlining the process. And,
one community pointed to its incorporation of construction impacts, in addition
to project impacts, as effective for protecting their community members from
adverse effects during the construction phase of a project.
Question 10. What advice and strategies/tips do you have for other
communities interested in adopting 1041 Regulations? More than one
community has emphasized the importance of identifying the unique needs and
circumstances of a community and designating only those areas or activities
that are best suited to address them. One suggested getting professional advice
and devising a fee schedule that adequately covers the time and expense of
approving a permit application. Another warns that if all local elected officials,
planning staff, and county or town attorneys are not on the same page,
enforcement of the 1041s can become a challenge.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 23
LESSONS LEARNED
1041s expand local government authority. It is a given that 1041 Regulations
confer control to local governments to regulate development and nearly every
community identified this as key to their interest in using them and critical to
their effectiveness. But, it is the expanded authority to oversee and review
projects and entities that are not subject to other local controls that helps
explain why a community would elect to use 1041s. Local governments do not
have authority over CDOT or Denver Water, and without 1041s are not
guaranteed an opportunity to review or negotiate how those entities expand or
develop in their communities. Thus, the authority to coordinate with
landowners, project developers, and other agencies is key. Additionally, 1041
designations enable counties with large areas of federal land to regulate
development therein, an authority they do not have with other land use
regulations.
1041s are customizable to suit specific needs and unique circumstances. The
ability for local governments to adopt more stringent criteria than is described
in AASIA, a power upheld by the Supreme Court in City and County of Denver v.
Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, 782 .2d 753 (Colo. 1989),
makes these regulations incredibly useful and powerful. The list of designations
in AASIA, while not exhaustive of all development types, is expansive and broad,
and the ability to add application and approval criteria, to require assessments,
management plans, or impact studies, gives a local government the ability to
control development in a context sensitive manner. Otero County uses the
natural resource area and water system activity designations to prevent the loss
of top soil while Silverthorne uses their water system activity designation for the
sole purpose of negotiating with Denver Water about the potential placement
of water pipelines. With the same regulation, the respondent communities have
tailored their designations to address needs specific to their community.
1041s enable coordination between the public and private realms. 1041s also
enable a local government to regulate development on private land to protect
the public welfare. 1041s cover all affected land or activities within the local
government’s boundaries and apply regardless of the existing uses or who owns
the land. This is especially helpful with activities such as pipelines or
transmission lines that cross miles of land, private and public, because it enables
the local government to regulate the entire project in a coordinated and
consistent manner.
1041s connected to legitimate community concerns are unlikely to be
opposed. While one might expect that property owners would be reluctant to
support regulations that could interfere with their own use of their land, the
respondent communities’ experiences demonstrate that community members
will support the adoption of 1041 Regulations when the benefits of adoption are
reasonable and protect resources or assets of special value to the community.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 24
1041s are working as intended to protect natural assets and resources. The
intent of AASIA is to protect “the utility, value, and future of all lands within the
state” (C.R.S. § 24-65.1-101, 2016) and, as opined by Panos (1994) and Warner
(1977), and echoed by one respondent, 1041s are an environmental regulation.
Though the minimum criteria in AASIA does not require it, all the interviewed
respondent communities require submission of an environmental impact
analysis from any applicant (not just CDOT or other agencies), and many require
it regardless of the development type or impacts. Despite the state no longer
overseeing this process or land use planning at the local level, 1041 Regulations
provide a means for enacting broad environmental regulations through
voluntary and context-specific adoption at the local level. Otero County’s use of
1041s to enforce revegetation to minimize the loss of top soil (a local
environmental and economic concern as well as a concern for the state as a
whole) demonstrates the effectiveness of 1041s for addressing unique
environmental concerns.
CONCLUSION
In the years since 1041 Powers and 1041 Regulations were authorized through
AASIA, many local governments adopted and used the regulations. AASIA and
some governments’ 1041 Regulations were challenged in the courts but
emerged intact, with important confirmations made about the constitutionality
and validity of the powers and authority conferred to local governments.
Despite their use and court rulings over the years, the information about how
1041s are being used has never been collected from the various sources and
made easily available. The CDO recognized an opportunity for their office to
assemble and share such in-depth information about 1041 Regulations. Thus,
the objective of this project was to research the use of 1041 Regulations by local
governments and assemble and package that information for easy access by
other local governments interested in learning more. The need for this project
was confirmed in feedback from local governments who participated in this
study, most of which relied on dispersed sources—outside experts and other
local governments’ 1041 Regulations—when developing their own.
The background research assembled in this project provides important
contextual information about the history of 1041 Regulations and provides a
short breakdown of the most important elements of AASIA. Summaries of the
legal opinions published about AASIA and 1041 Regulations highlight the most
important and relevant—for planners and land managers—decisions and
findings from the courts. The case studies developed from the questionnaire
data, interviews, and review of each local governments’ 1041 Regulations
provide useful information about the experience of using 1041s, the
effectiveness and usefulness of 1041s, and when 1041s are appropriate for use.
Of course, the information gathered in this study about the experience of using
1041 Regulations is specific to the respondent communities and may not be
shared by every other local government with 1041s. To continue to build and
develop the information about 1041s, further study is needed. Additional case
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 25
studies should be developed to more fully understand the experience of using
1041s. To gain an understanding about why a local government would not want
to use 1041s, those that have considered them but ultimately opted not to
adopt them should also be interviewed. And, to get an outsider’s perspective,
agencies such as CDOT and Denver Water should be interviewed for their
experience with the 1041 process. Finally, the expertise and practical knowledge
of the attorneys with 1041 experience should also be gathered.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 26
CASE STUDIES
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
Population: 608,310 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)
Location: Eastern metro-Denver and into the
Eastern Plains
1041 Designations:
▪ Site Selection of Arterial
Highways/Interchanges/Collector Highways
▪ Site Selection of Rapid/Mass Transit
Facilities
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major
Facilities of a Public Utility
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major New
Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment
Systems
▪ Major Extensions of Existing Domestic
Water and Sewer Treatment Systems
▪ Site Selection/Development of Solid Waste Disposal Sites
▪ Site Selection/Development of New Communities
▪ Site Selection of Airports
Year of 1041 Adoption: 2004; Amended 2006
Number of Permits Approved Since 2004: 6-12
1041 Story
Arapahoe County is the third most populated county in Colorado with a mix of urban, suburban, and
rural elements. As a part of the metro-Denver region, Arapahoe County faces a wide array of
development pressures and leading up to 2004, bigger developments started appearing in the County.
The County needed more tools to address these new developments and regulate growth, and adopted
1041 Regulations because of their depth and flexibility. In 2006 they amended and readopted their 1041
Regulations, refining the language of the requirements for new water and sewage projects to more
effectively address growth.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
Development of Arapahoe County’s 1041s was done in-house. The county attorney’s office drafted and
reviewed the regulations for compliance with the enabling legislation. The planning commission and
county commissioners reviewed the regulations and, after the public hearing process, the Board of
County Commissioners adopted them as a separate set of regulations under their Land Use Code.
Some Key Features of Arapahoe County’s 1041s
The County has a three-tiered permit review process: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), minor
permit review, and major permit review. If a FONSI determination is made, a permit is not required for
the project to move forward (Arapahoe County, 2006). Major permit review is triggered when “a
significant adverse impact” of two or more approval criteria, or a “severe adverse impact” of one
approval criteria is likely (Arapahoe County, 2006, p. 12).
Source: http://www.villagerpublishing.com/67715/free-
articles/centennial-airport-faces-future-putting-lid-airport-noise/
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 27
The County drafted their 1041s to require multiple different documents from applicants. All
applications, regardless of the type of development, require documentation addressing compliance with
all applicable regional water quality management plans, an environmental impact analysis, a traffic
impact analysis, a socio-economic impact study, and engineering studies (Arapahoe County, 2006),
amongst other broad requirements. Additional application requirements are also outlined for each
designated activity of interest (Arapahoe County, 2006). Similarly, for a permit to be issued, the project
must comport with both “General Approval Criteria” (Arapahoe County, 2006, p. 28-30), and additional
criteria established for each designated activity of interest (Arapahoe County, 2006).
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Arapahoe County needed more tools to effectively address its growth. The County’s regulations are
effective because they are straight-forward and clearly written, and because the county can ask more
questions and get more answers from developers at the outset of a project.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Arapahoe County
All local governments should adopt 1041s. 1041s give a planning agency the authority to get information
from developers that other regulatory tools do not. The regulations are flexible and adaptable, allowing
for as much or as little regulation as is needed.
Takeaways
When a community is facing wide ranging development pressures, 1041s provide a layer of control and
protection over development that are not offered in other regulations. Arapahoe County exercises its
control, in part, by requiring the submission of documents and studies that they are not otherwise
necessarily authorized to require.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 28
CLEAR CREEK COUNTY
Population: 9,136 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)
Location: Eastern Slope of mountains along I-70
1041 Designations:
▪ Natural Hazard Areas
▪ Historical, Natural or Archaeological
Resource Areas
▪ Areas around key facilities in which
development may have a material effect
upon the key facility or surrounding
community
▪ Site Selection of Arterial
Highways/Interchanges/Collector Highways
▪ Site Selection of Rapid/Mass Transit Facilities
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major Facilities of a Public Utility
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major New or Expanded Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment
Systems
▪ Efficient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial Water Projects
▪ Site Selection/Development of New Communities
▪ Site Selection of Airports
Year of 1041 Adoption: 1976; Amended 1989, 1998, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Number of Permits Approved since 1976: 15-20
1041 Story
Clear Creek County has a rich mining history, with gold and silver mining booming in the mid-1880s
before busting in the 1930s (Clear Creek County, n.d.). Today, Clear Creek County attracts tourists and
skiers, interstate travelers and outdoors enthusiasts, and is home to the Henderson molybdenum mine
(Clear Creek County, n.d.). Through its history, mining has been a significant factor in the growth and
development of the County. In 1976, the County was facing development pressure and grew concerned
that residential development could interfere with mineral extraction in adverse ways. The County first
adopted 1041s to help resolve the conflict between future mining and future development, to preserve
their hard rock mineral resources and ensure that mineral interest holders could continue to access
those resources, and to regulate development in natural hazard areas as well as environmentally
sensitive areas. Clear Creek County has updated their regulations several times since 1976, to add
designations, to clarify and strengthen the criteria for approval, and to respond to increased and
changing development pressures.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
The Board of County Commissioners adopted the 1041 Regulations and the updates over the years as a
distinct set of guidelines and regulations. The County looked to other communities’ 1041 Regulations for
guidance and borrowed the language from others’ 1041s that they knew had survived legal challenge.
In the mid-2000s, the County completed a zoning update to allow for the development of wind and solar
energy facilities. Around the same time, they updated their 1041s to incorporate large wind and solar
facilities as public utilities. Some residents were opposed to allowing such facilities because of potential
Source: http://www.denverpost.com/2015/12/10/looming-henderson-
mine-closure-stokes-big-fears-in-clear-creek-county/
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 29
adverse impacts to the natural environment. Residents were also concerned about noise pollution from
wind facilities, so the County retained a noise control expert to help them respond to the community’s
concerns with specific noise standards.
Some Key Features of Clear Creek County’s 1041s
The County’s 1041s are written to address not only the impacts of a proposed project, but the impacts
of the construction of the project. Applicants must provide plans for vehicular circulation and detours,
the impacts of circulation and detours on community members, and detail what time of day
construction will occur.
Clear Creek County allows applicants to request a FONSI evaluation during the pre-application process in
order to get an early determination of the applicability of 1041 Regulations to a particular project (Clear
Creek County, 2012)
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Clear Creek County’s 1041s have given them a larger seat at the table when dealing with large-scale
activities that are not otherwise applicable to local zoning authority. This has enabled the County to
effectively review projects for potential impacts on its communities and neighborhoods and allows them
to require additional information and considerations.
Their 1041s are also effective because their permit approval process is similar to the NEPA process,
requiring much of the same documentation and information for review. For applicants such as CDOT,
this has made Clear Creek’s permit process predictable and has helped reduce incomplete application
submittals.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Clear Creek County
Before adopting 1041s, make sure you have identified clear goals and objectives for their use. Do not
adopt 1041 Regulations for the sake of adopting them for their authority; ensure that the designations
support your priorities and address development issues specific to your community. Be careful not to
adopt designations in a way that might deter or prevent the types of development that you want to
encourage or allow. Finally, make sure 1041s are the most appropriate regulatory tool for addressing
your community’s needs; there could be more effective tools depending on the need.
Takeaways
Clear Creek County’s 1041s started out as a means to negotiate between mineral interest holders and
their rights to access those minerals and the pressure to grow and develop. Over the years, their 1041s
have evolved to incorporate more protections for the public’s benefit. Their 1041s have given them a
voice and a seat at the table that has enabled them to negotiate with developers and agencies to ensure
that their communities are not adversely impacted by large-scale projects. This is of particular
importance to the County as CDOT continues to look for ways to address congestion issues along I-70
through the County. Without the highway activity designation, the County would have less negotiating
power or authority to work with CDOT and ensure CDOT’s plans will not adversely impact Clear Creek
County’s residents and economy.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 30
Source: Lex Nichols, Otero County
OTERO COUNTY
Population: 18,572 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)
Location: East of Pueblo County on Colorado’s
Eastern Plains.
1041 Designations:
▪ Historical, Natural or Archaeological
Resource Areas
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major
Facilities of a Public Facility
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major New
or Expanded Domestic Water/Sewer
Treatment Systems
▪ Efficient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial
Water Projects
Year of 1041 Adoption: 2004; Amended 2006, 2017
Number of Permits Approved since 2004: 4
1041 Story
Otero County is a right-to-farm county and agriculture is their primary economic activity. Water is a
necessary and sustaining resource in Otero County, and having seen the devastating effects from the
loss of irrigation water in Crowley County (also, Sanchez, n.d.), knew it was important to take steps to
protect their land and keep it vegetated. There are also miles of oil and gas pipelines running through
the county and construction of pipelines disturbs the rangeland. The County was looking for more local
control and chose to adopt 1041 Regulations because of the ability to tailor the regulations to their
specific needs.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
Otero County’s 1041 process was started by the Board of County Commissioners. An attorney was
retained to provide legal advice and provided the county with a template to follow for drafting their
regulations. The county attorney and paralegal reviewed the regulations for compliance with the
enabling legislation. The county commissioners also reviewed the regulations and, after the public
hearing process, adopted them as a separate set of regulations under their Land Use Code.
The County updated their 1041s in 2006 to add a map of historically irrigated acreage in support of their
requirement for revegetation plans. Otero County updated their 1041s again in 2017 to refine and
clarify some language.
There were no direct challenges to Otero County’s 1041 Regulations. The County made the case for why
these regulations were necessary and community members were on board.
Some Key Features of Otero County’s 1041s
The County drafted their 1041s to include provisions that specifically address one of their most pressing
concerns: preventing the loss of top soil. The language in their designations on natural resource areas
and water systems ensure that landowners cannot sell or transfer water rights from, or simply stop
irrigating, historically irrigated land without plans to revegetate. The map added in 2006 is reviewed
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 31
upon receipt of a 1041 permit application to determine if the proposed project will impact acreage
irrigated as of 2004, providing an important baseline of irrigated land in the County and justification for
requiring revegetation plans. The County’s 1041 Regulations also give them the ability to impose fines
and force compliance with the 1041 process even after water rights have been transferred or sold
(Otero County, 2004).
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Otero County was looking for a way to protect and preserve its agriculture-based economy. Specifically,
it was looking for a way to prevent the loss of top soil and ensure that future generations could continue
to farm the land. Their 1041 Regulations have given them the ability to regulate the way property
owners manage their land and are a tool the County uses to ensure that revegetation of the rangeland is
done, and done correctly.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Otero County
It is important that everyone—commissioners, administrators of the regulations, and the county
attorney—is on board and in agreement about the 1041 Regulations. If everyone does not have the
same goals for the use of the 1041s, then enforcement can become difficult. Public input is also an
important and critical component for developing the regulations.
Takeaways
The County was looking for a tool that would enable it to protect its most valuable resources—top soil
and water. Though they cannot prevent a landowner from selling or transferring their water rights away
from irrigated land, they were able to craft development guidelines that enable them to regulate the
treatment of irrigated land in such an event. Because the enabling legislation allows a local government
to enact guidelines that are more stringent than the statutory criteria, Otero County was able to
incorporate language regarding irrigation and revegetation in its 1041s, making the 1041s extremely
effective for addressing their specific needs. 1041 Regulations gave the County a degree of local control
that other regulatory tools could not.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 32
ROUTT COUNTY
Population: 23,606 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2015)
Location: Northwest Colorado
1041 Designations:
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major
Facilities of a Public Utility
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major New
Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment
Systems
▪ Major Extensions of Existing Domestic
Water and Sewer Treatment Systems
▪ Efficient Utilization of
Municipal/Industrial Water Projects
▪ Site Selection of Airports
Year of 1041 Adoption: 2007
Number of Permits Approved since 2007: 2-3
1041 Story
Routt County is a rural, mountainous county in Northwest Colorado. It is a tourist destination, attracting
visitors from around Colorado and across the globe, contributing to the state’s tourism economy (Routt
County, 2007). Around 50 percent of land in the County is U.S. Forest Service land and the County is
home to “one of the last river basins in Colorado in which water is not fully appropriated or over-
appropriated” (Routt County, 2007, p. 2). Because of the desire to maintain their rural character, to
protect or have a say in trans mountain diversion of water, to protect their natural amenities, and
continue to be a tourist destination, the County was looking for a way to regulate development that
would match those development pressures and priorities, especially water. The County wanted to
ensure they could control the development of new water infrastructure because of anticipated demand
for water from the Front Range and the Board of County Commissioners elected to adopt 1041s because
of their ability to control developments from governmental entities, which other regulations do not
allow them to do.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
Planning staff, county attorneys, and the planning commission helped to draft the regulations. The
Board of County Commissioners adopted the 1041s as a set of separate regulations under their Zoning &
Subdivision Regulations.
Some Key Features of Routt County’s 1041s
Like other respondent counties, Routt County’s 1041s require documentation on compliance with
regional water quality management plans, an environmental impact analysis, transportation impact
analysis, and engineering studies, amongst other items (Routt County, 2007). Routt County also includes
additional submittal requirements and approval criteria for all five designated activities. The County’s
1041s also explicitly invoke the right to deny a 1041 application if it is determined the application has or
could fail to “comply with any one of the approval criteria” (Routt County, 2007, p. 24).
Source: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/colorado-
hunting-retreat-in-routt-county-back-on-market-as-smaller-parcels
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 33
The County also has a three-tiered permit review process: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), Level
1 permit review, and Level 2 permit review. If a FONSI determination is made by the Planning Director, a
permit is not required for the project to move forward (Routt County, 2007). Level 2 permit review is
triggered when “a significant adverse impact” of two or more approval criteria, or a “severe adverse
impact” of one approval criteria is likely (Routt County, 2007, p. 14). Naturally, Level 1 permit review is
triggered when the impacts are less substantial than Level 2, but more substantial than FONSI (Routt
County, 2007).
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Routt County wanted to protect its rural character and adopted 1041 designations that would help them
meet that goal. Routt County’s 1041 Regulations explicitly connect the activities designated with real
development pressures or potentials, connecting them clearly to the goals and objectives outlined in
their master plan. The County has a special use permit process in place for most land use applications
but they chose to add 1041s to strengthen their special use process and because of the expanded
authority that could be exercised using 1041s that they do not get with other permitting processes.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Routt County
When developing 1041s, keep in mind that not all proposed projects will be large-scale or have major
impacts. Create a FONSI review process to make sure smaller projects can be reviewed quickly and less
expensively than the process for reviewing the bigger projects that require more regulation.
Takeaways
Routt County has made maintaining its rural character a priority. This included controlling the
development of water pipelines and reservoirs that could negatively impact their landscape. The County
also made a connection in their 1041s between the local contribution to the tourism economy of the
state and the need to protect that economy. In so doing, the County makes the case that the public
benefit of regulating these types of developments outweigh the private rights to develop without
oversight.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 34
TOWN OF SILT
Population: 2,976 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)
Location: 68 miles east of Grand Junction along
I-70 in Garfield County
1041 Designations:
▪ Mineral Resource Areas
▪ Natural Hazard Areas
▪ Historical, Natural or Archaeological
Resource Areas
Year of 1041 Adoption: 2007
Number of Permits Approved since 2007: 0
1041 Story
Silt is a bedroom community of Aspen and other ski towns and provides a lot of the more affordable
housing in the area. It sits along the Colorado River and is home to a 132-acre river preserve and other
natural resources that need to be protected. It is also in an area where there are a number of gravel
deposits. In 1999 Garfield County approved an application for a gravel pit mine along Silt’s borders
without giving any notice to Silt. In 2004, Silt received an application for a gravel pit mine near the
Colorado River and was working with the applicant to include provisions to protect a blue heron rookery
and other wildlife habitats near the river. The applicant abruptly pulled its application, applied to the
County, and the gravel mine was approved without the protections Silt was attempting to put into place.
In 2005, Silt became a home rule municipality. The Town wanted to control its destiny and chose to
adopt 1041 Regulations because of the control that those regulations give to the local government.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
Silt’s 1041 process began in the Town’s Community Development Office with a review of other
communities’ 1041 Regulations (specifically, Frederick’s). Air and water quality professionals were
consulted and a biologist, geologist, and traffic engineer were retained to provide expertise and
guidance. Town attorneys reviewed the regulations for compliance with the enabling legislation. Town
council adopted the regulations within their zoning code.
There was no opposition or direct challenge made to Silt’s 1041 Regulations, though some in the
community were concerned that the regulations were not strict enough, particularly with protecting the
environment and regarding oil and gas extraction. Silt responded to these concerns and assured the
community that they would be good stewards of the land and would work to protect their resources.
Some Key Features of Silt’s 1041 Regulations
The application requirements under its mineral resource areas designation include a fire protection
plan, identification of water sources and use rights, and a traffic plan that includes “the numbers and
types of vehicles entering and exiting the site” (Silt, 2017, § 17.77.070(J)). Applicants must also submit a
wildlife study demonstrating their compliance with all “regulations and standards concerning wildlife
and endangered species” (Silt, 2017, § 17.77.210). Silt’s 1041s also establish setback requirements from
all buildings and public roads for extraction sites or processing plants (Silt, 2017).
Source: http://www.townofsilt.org/silt_river_preserve.
Photo by M. Lundeen.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 35
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Silt was looking for a way to control the development of mineral extraction activities and 1041s are an
effective tool for that objective. There are very critical commercial areas directly across the Colorado
River from the 2004 gravel pit and nearby property owners appreciate that there is a level of control
that can be exercised that helps protect their properties against any adverse impacts from mineral
extraction activities. While Silt has not had any applications for development under its 1041 Regulations,
the regulations are in place if and when an application is received.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Silt
Be pro-active and utilize 1041 Regulations to address areas of high community priority and concern.
Take an inventory of the properties, land uses, assets, and resources in your community to identify
which types of areas or activities are most pressing. Make 1041 designations that address those pressing
issues first.
Takeaways
The two gravel pit applications approved by Garfield County made Silt realize that they had no
regulations in place should they receive an application for such development within their borders.
Though their regulations will not impact development outside their boundaries, there is now a
mechanism in place that protects their natural areas and minimizes adverse impacts for their
community members when such applications are received. By taking an inventory of their existing
conditions, the Town was able to identify specific areas of potential development, prioritize those that
they were most likely to see, and develop regulations that specifically addressed those needs without
adding other, unneeded regulations.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 36
Source: http://www.denveraerialphoto.com/denver-aerial-photography-
gallery/residential-real-estate-denver-aerial-photography/
TOWN OF SILVERTHORNE
Population: 4,117 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)
Location: 67 miles west of Denver along I-70 in
Summit County
1041 Designations:
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major New
or Expanded Domestic Water Treatment
Systems
▪ Efficient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial
Water Projects
Year of 1041 Adoption: 2005
Number of Permits Approved since 2005: 0
1041 Story
Silverthorne sits north of I-70 near the towns of Frisco and Dillon. The town attracts tourists rear-round
to its outlet mall and because of its proximity to several ski resorts and natural areas. It is surrounded by
U.S. Forest Service land and sits below Dillon Reservoir, Denver Water’s “largest water storage facility”
(Town of Frisco, n.d.). In the early 2000s, Silverthorne heard of a potential transmountain water
diversion project aiming to bring more water into Dillon Reservoir. Silverthorne was concerned that new
water pipelines would need to come through their town and go through private property. Silverthorne
wanted to control the construction and placement of any new water pipelines and adopted 1041s for
that purpose.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
Silverthorne’s 1041s were drafted and developed by the town attorney and adopted by the town council
under their municipal code.
Some Key Features of Silverthorne’s 1041s
Silverthorne’s 1041s go far beyond the minimum statutory criteria, requiring from all applicants an
environmental impact analysis, socioeconomic impact analysis, and mitigation plan, amongst other
documents. Additional submittal requirements are described for both 1041 designations. The criteria for
approval is also expansive, and aimed at preventing adverse impacts to their land use patterns,
economy, the use and enjoyment of outdoor recreational areas, and air and water quality, amongst
others. Permit approval hinges on whether the benefits of the project outweigh any losses the town
might experience.
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Silverthorne needed a means to control the construction of any new water pipelines feeding into Dillon
Reservoir and 1041s were the best tool for that objective. While Silverthorne has not yet had any
applications since they adopted their 1041s, the regulations are in effect when or if they are needed.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Silverthorne
Select the areas and activities for designation based on the needs of your community and the
development pressures being faced. Adopt the areas and activities that are best suited to addressing
your needs. Do not designate an area or activity that is not needed.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 37
Takeaways
The construction of new pipelines through Silverthorne could have a significant impact on the town, its
residents, and its continuing prosperity. Without 1041s, Silverthorne would be unable to control where
new pipelines or other attendant structures would be placed or how they might adversely impact their
residents. This concerned Silverthorne because of the potential significant impact to private property,
over which they would have less control without 1041s. With their 1041s, Silverthorne will be included
in any negotiations between private property owners and water providers should the latter decide to
expand their water systems.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 38
SUMMIT COUNTY
Population: 28,940 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)
Location: Central mountains along I-70, east
side of Vail Pass
1041 Designations:
▪ Site Selection of Arterial
Highways/Interchanges/Collector Highways
▪ Site Selection of Rapid/Mass Transit
Facilities
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major
Facilities of a Public Utility
▪ Site Selection/Construction of Major New
Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment
Systems
▪ Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Sewer Treatment Systems
▪ Efficient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial Water Projects
▪ Site Selection/Development of Solid Waste Disposal Sites
▪ Site Selection of Airports
Year of 1041 Adoption: 1974; Amended 1988, 1995, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2013
Number of Permits Approved since 1974: 47
1041 Story
Summit County first adopted their 1041s on July 1, 1974, not long after the enabling legislation was
passed. The County adopted their regulations pro-actively because they wanted to control their destiny
and saw the advantages of exercising this new level of delegated authority. The White River National
Forest occupies over 80% of the total land area in Summit County. Without 1041s, the County
government did not previously have authority to regulate development within these federal lands. 1041
Regulations gave the County the authority to review development that would otherwise be outside their
control, greatly expanding the County’s ability to regulate growth and development within the
designated areas and activities. Summit County’s 1041s have been updated over the years, to clarify
language or add additional designations, and were substantially rewritten in 2002.
Developing and Implementing their 1041s
When Summit County updated their 1041s in 2002, the County hired an attorney with expertise in land
use and 1041 Regulations and another attorney with expertise in water quality issues. The Board of
County Commissioners reviewed and adopted the amended regulations in July of 2002 under the
County’s Land Use and Development Code.
There have been no legal challenges to Summit County’s 1041 Regulations, though over the years some
applicants expressed concern over the complexity of the process. The County responded to this concern
by amending the regulations in 2002 to clarify and simplify the provisions. The key changes included
allowing for a coordinated approach with other regulatory agencies, improvements to the permit
application, review, and hearing procedures; clarifying, expanding, and improving the definitions,
applicability, exemptions, financial guarantee, and permit administration and enforcement sections of
the Code.
Source: https://summitcountyvoice.com/tag/summit-county-
wildflowers/
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 39
Some Key Features of Summit County’s 1041s
Like other respondent communities, Summit County’s 1041s require substantial submittal
documentation for all applicants, additional documentation specified for each designated activity, and
compliance with approval criteria that go beyond the minimum criteria set in AASIA. The County’s
streamlined permit review process provides for an early determination of the impacts of a proposed
development or project. Like other communities, the County has a three-tiered permit review process:
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), minor permit review, and major permit review (Summit
County, 2013, pp. 12-13). FONSI determinations are most often made for proposed revisions or changes
to previously approved permits or completed projects. A minor permit review designation allows the
project to skip review by the planning commission and go straight to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Effectiveness of the 1041s for Regulating Development
Summit County adopted their 1041s to ensure that growth and development in the County occurs in a
safe, efficient, and coordinated manner that is consistent with legitimate environmental concerns, and
to ensure that adequate community services and facilities are provided to serve the community’s needs
(Summit County, 2013, p.4.) 1041s gave Summit County authority to review and regulate developments
that were not otherwise previously within their jurisdictional authority. In particular, Summit County
successfully uses their 1041s to review projects on U.S. Forest Service land, exercising a level of
oversight of development that did not otherwise exist.
The County’s 1041s have been effective for controlling development to protect and preserve
environmental resources, public lands and welfare, and the rights of property owners. Summit County’s
1041s have given the County the ability to ensure that development of designated areas or activities of
state interest is not in conflict with the community’s goals or the County’s duties to manage and
coordinate growth and development.
Advice | Tips | Strategies for Adopting 1041s from Summit County
Seek the advice of knowledgeable professionals so you can be confident your 1041s are consistent and
fully comply with the enabling legislation. Also, make sure you have permitting fees that adequately
cover the staff time and costs incurred by your office to process a 1041 permit approval.
Takeaways
Summit County was an early adopter of 1041 Regulations and has used them successfully for over 40
years to regulate development that would not otherwise fall under their jurisdictional purview. The fact
that 1041s are applicable to projects on U.S. Forest Service land is critically important because over 80%
of the land in Summit County is in the White River National Forest. Without 1041s, the County would be
unable to regulate development or projects over large swaths of its land area, areas that are critical
tourist destinations (ski resorts) and natural resource areas.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 40
REFERENCES
Arapahoe County, Colorado. (2006). Regulations Governing Areas and Activities of State Interest in
Arapahoe County (1041 Regulations) [data file]. Retrieved from
http://arapahoegov.com/index.aspx?NID=619.
Areas and Activities of State Interest Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-65.1-101, et seq. (2016).
Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of Methods
and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6 (1), 14-29. Retrieved from
http://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jmmss/article/view/18772.
Bosselman, F. and D. Callies. (1971). The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, Council on Environmental
Quality [data file]. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED067272.pdf
City and County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, 760 P.2d 656 (Colo.App.
1988).
City and County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners of Grand County, 782 .2d 753 (Colo. 1989).
City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, 895 P.2d 1105 (Colo.App.
1994).
City of Superior, Colorado (2010). Municipal Code. Chapter 16 – Land Use. Article XXXIV – Areas or
Activities of Statewide Significance. Retrieved from
https://www.municode.com/library/co/superior/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CH16LAUS_AR
TXXXIVARACSTSI.
Clear Creek County, Colorado. (n.d.). History. Experience Clear Creek County. Retrieved from
http://www.co.clear-creek.co.us/Index.aspx?NID=175.
Clear Creek County, Colorado. (2012). Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest (1041
Regulations) [data file]. Retrieved from http://www.co.clear-creek.co.us/index.aspx?NID=431.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (n.d.(a)). 1041 Regulations. Local Government | Community
Development & Planning. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/1041-
regulations.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (n.d.(b)). Community Development & Planning. Local Government.
Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/community-development-planning.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (2015(a)). 2015 Colorado Municipal Land Use Survey Results
(Tabular results) [data file]. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/colorado-
land-use-survey.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (2015(b)). 2015 Colorado County Land Use Survey Results (Tabular
results) [data file]. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/colorado-land-use-
survey.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 41
Colorado State Archives. (n.d.). House Bill 1041 (1974) Concerning Land Use [data file]. Retrieved from
http://cdm16924.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/myfirst/id/407.
Dill v. Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County, 928 P.2d 809 (Colo.App. 1996).
Dischinger, J. (2005). Local Government Regulation Using 1041 Powers. Colorado Lawyer. 34 (12), 79-88.
Evans, J. and D. Stafford. (2001). Senate Bill 01S-003 [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.leg.state.co.us/2001s/inetcbill.nsf/billcontainers/3DF38C2C182F227387256A48007
059CA/$FILE/003_01.pdf.
Green, B.J. and B. Seibert. (1990). Local Governments and House Bill 1041: A Voice in the Wilderness.
Colorado Lawyer. 19 (11), 2245-2249.
Kurtz-Phelan, J. (1977). H.B. 1041: A Step Toward Responsible and Accountable Land Use Act Decisions.
Colorado Lawyer, 6 (10), 1718-1729.
Otero County. (2006). Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest, County of
Otero, State of Colorado [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.oterogov.com/departments/land-use/state-interest-1041-regulations.
Panos, N.P. (1994). H.B. 1041 as a Tool for Municipal Attorneys. Colorado Lawyer, 23 (6), 1309-1313.
Pommer, J. and L. Entz. (2005). House Bill 05-1063 [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.statebillinfo.com/bills/bills/05/1063_rev.pdf.
Routt County, Colorado. (2007). Resolution No. 2007 -P-059 [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.co.routt.co.us/index.aspx?nid=439.
Sanchez, R. (n.d.). High + Dry. 5280 The Denver Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.5280.com/crowley/.
Summit County, Colorado. (2013). Summit County Land Use and Development Code. Chapter 10: Areas
and Activities of State Interest [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.co.summit.co.us/255/Land-Use-Development-Code.
State Demography Office | Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (n.d.). Historical Census Data –
Counties and Municipalities [data files]. Retrieved from
https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/data/historical_census/.
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. Board of County Com’rs of Lincoln County, 600 P.2d
103 (Colo.App. 1979).
Town of Frisco, Colorado. (n.d.). Dillon Reservoir. Play. Retrieved from
https://www.townoffrisco.com/play/dillon-reservoir/.
Town of Silt, Colorado. (2017). Code of Ordinances, Title 17 – Zoning. Retrieved from
https://www.municode.com/library/co/silt/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO.
Colorado Local Governments’ Use of 1041 Regulations 42
Town of Silverthorne, Colorado. (2005). Charter and Municipal Code. Chapter 4 – Community
Development. Article XII – Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest. Retrieved
from
https://www.municode.com/library/co/silverthorne/codes/charter_and_municipal_code?nodeI
d=CD_CH4CODE_ARTXIIGUREMASTIN.
United States Census Bureau. (2015). Community Facts | 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates. American Fact Finder. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
Warner, C.J. (1977). Of Growth Controls, Wilderness and the Urban Strip. Colorado Lawyer, 6 (10), 1730-
1755.
White, M.D. and R.L. Petros. (1977). Land Use Legislation: H.B. 1034 and H.B. 1041. Colorado Lawyer,
6(10), 1686-1717.
Questionnaire: Local Government Use of 1041 Regulations
Form description
1. Which areas and/or activities do you have designated in your 1041 Regulations? Check
all that apply.
Mineral Resource Areas
Natural Hazard Areas
Historical, Natural or Archaeological Resource Areas
Areas around key facilities in which development may have a material effect upon the key facility or surrounding community
Site Selection of Arterial Highways/Interchanges/Collector Highways
Site Selection of Rapid/Mass Transit Facilities
Site Selection/Construction of Major Facilities of a Public Utility
Site Selection/Construction of Major New or Expanded Domestic Water/Sewer Treatment Systems
E£cient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial Water Projects
Site Selection/Development of Solid Waste Disposal Sites
Site Selection/Development of New Communities
Site Selection of Airports
Use of Geothermal Resources for Commercial Production of Electricity
Conduct of Nuclear Detonations
Questionnaire: Local Government Use of 1041 Regulations
QUESTIONS RESPONSES 11
WW E/y͕KE>/E Yh ^d/KEE/Z
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϯ
2. What year were your 1041 Regulations ¡rst adopted?
Long answer text
3. What prompted the development of the 1041 Regulations (e.g., pro-active, in response to
an anticipated development, etc.)?
Long answer text
4. Have you updated or changed your 1041 Regulations over time?
Yes
No
Don't know or unsure
4a. If yes, when?
Long answer text
5. Did you adopt development guidelines that were more stringent than the minimum
criteria set in the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act?
Yes
No
Don't know or unsure
5a. If yes, for which areas or activities did you adopt more stringent guidelines? Check all
that apply.
Mineral Resource Areas
Natural Hazard Areas
Historical, Natural or Archaeological Resource Areas
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϰ
Areas around key facilities in which development may have a material effect upon the key facility or surrounding community
Site Selection of Arterial Highways/Interchanges/Collector Highways
Site Selection of Rapid/Mass Transit Facilities
Site Selection/Construction of Major Facilities of a Public Utility
Site Selection/Construction of Major New or Expanded Domestic Water/Sewer Treatment Systems
E£cient Utilization of Municipal/Industrial Water Projects
Site Selection/Development of Solid Waste Disposal Sites
Site Selection/Development of New Communities
Site Selection of Airports
Use of Geothermal Resources for Commercial Production of Electricity
Conduct of Nuclear Detonations
6. How many permit applications for designated areas or activities have you approved
since adopting your 1041 Regulations?
Long answer text
7. What is your current permit fee(s)? (If you have more than one, list by type.)
Long answer text
8. Have your 1041 Regulations been an effective tool for regulating development in your
community?
Yes
No
Other
8a. Why or why not?
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϱ
Long answer text
9. Based on your experience, would you recommend other communities use 1041
Regulations?
Yes
No
Other
9a. Why or why not?
Long answer text
10. Your Name *
Long answer text
10a. Organization *
Long answer text
10b. Job Title *
Long answer text
10c. Email *
Long answer text
10d. Phone Number
Long answer text
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϲ
County Population Location # of AAs
ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬ ϵ͕ϭϱϯ DŽ ϵ
'ŝůƉŝŶ ϱ͕ϴϯϬ DŽ ϭϯ
,ƵĞƌĨĂŶŽ ϲ͕ϰϮϴ ^ ϱ
:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ ϭ͕ϯϴϴ DŽE Ϯ
<ŝŽǁĂ ϭ͕ϯϴϱ W ϭ
WŚŝůůŝƉƐ ϰ͕ϯϴϬ WE ϭ
^ĂŐƵĂĐŚĞ ϲ͕ϮϬϲ DŽ^ ϵ
^ĂŶDŝŐƵĞů ϳ͕ϴϮϯ t^^ ϳ
^ĞĚŐǁŝĐŬ Ϯ͕ϯϯϭ WE Ϯ
ůĂŵŽƐĂ ϭϱ͕ϴϳϬ ^ ϭ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĚĞƐ
ƌĐŚƵůĞƚĂ ϭϮ͕Ϯϰϵ DŽ^ ϭ DĞсDĞƚƌŽ
ŚĂĨĨĞĞ ϭϴ͕ϰϱϰ DŽ ϰ DŽсDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ
'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ ϭϱ͕ϲϲϬ DŽ ϭϯ ^с^ŽƵƚŚĞŶƚƌĂů
>ĂƐŶŝŵĂƐ ϭϰ͕ϬϲϬ ^ ϴ Wс ĂƐƚĞƌŶWůĂŝŶƐ
KƚĞƌŽ ϭϴ͕ϯϴϬ W^t ϴ t^сtĞƐƚĞƌŶ^ůŽƉĞ
WĂƌŬ ϭϲ͕ϯϴϯ DŽ ϯ EсEŽƌƚŚ
WƌŽǁĞƌƐ ϭϭ͕ϵϴϱ W^ ϰ с ĂƐƚ
zƵŵĂ ϭϬ͕ϭϯϮ WE Ϯ ^с^ŽƵƚŚ
tсtĞƐƚ
ůďĞƌƚ Ϯϰ͕ϭϰϰ ϯ сĞŶƚƌĂů
&ƌĞŵŽŶƚ ϰϲ͕Ϯϵϰ DŽ ϯ
DŽƌŐĂŶ Ϯϴ͕Ϯϱϰ WEt ϳ
ZŽƵƚƚ Ϯϯ͕ϴϵϲ t^E ϰ
^Ƶŵŵŝƚ Ϯϵ͕ϯϵϵ DŽ ϵ
dĞůůĞƌ Ϯϯ͕ϯϵϰ DŽ Ϯ
ĚĂŵƐ ϰϴϬ͕ϯϭϳ DĞ ϭϬ
ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞ ϲϭϴ͕ϯϰϭ DĞͮ Wt ϭϰ
ŽƵůĚĞƌ ϯϭϯ͕ϳϬϴ DĞ ϴ
ƌŽŽŵĨŝĞůĚ ϲϭ͕ϴϮϲ DĞ ϯ
ĞŶǀĞƌ ϲϲϰ͕ϮϮϬ DĞ Ϯ
ŽƵŐůĂƐ ϯϭϰ͕ϱϵϮ DĞ ϱ
ĂŐůĞ ϱϮ͕ϴϯϭ DŽ Ϯ
ůWĂƐŽ ϲϲϱ͕ϬϳϬ ^ ϱ
'ĂƌĨŝĞůĚ ϱϳ͕ϱϰϴ t^ ϱ
:ĞĨĨĞƌƐŽŶ ϱϱϴ͕ϱϯϮ DĞͮDŽ ϭϬ
>ĂƌŝŵĞƌ ϯϮϯ͕ϴϲϯ DŽ ͮE ϳ
WƵĞďůŽ ϭϲϭ͕ϳϴϮ ^ ϵ
tĞůĚ Ϯϳϲ͕Ϭϳϵ WtͮE Ϯ
Counties with 1041 Regulations
WW E/y͕KhEd/ ^t/d,ϭϬϰϭZ 'h>d/KE^
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϳ
Municipality Population Location County # of AAs
ůĂĐŬ,ĂǁŬ ϭϮϱ DŽ 'ŝůƉŝŶ ϭ
ƌŽŽŬƐŝĚĞ Ϯϰϰ DŽ &ƌĞŵŽŶƚ Ϯ
ĞŶƚƌĂůŝƚLJ ϳϮϮ DŽ 'ŝůƉŝŶ ϲ
ŚĞƌĂǁ Ϯϰϱ W^t KƚĞƌŽ ϭ
ŽŬĞĚĂůĞ ϭϭϳ ^ >ĂƐŶŝŵĂƐ ϭ
ƌĞƐƚĞĚƵƚƚĞ ϭ͕ϱϰϭ DŽ 'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ ϱ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚ ϭ͕ϯϵϱ ůďĞƌƚ Ϯ
'ĞŽƌŐĞƚŽǁŶ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ DŽ ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬ ϭ
,ƵĚƐŽŶ ϭ͕ϱϳϬ E tĞůĚ ϭ
/ŐŶĂĐŝŽ ϳϭϵ DŽ^ >ĂWůĂƚĂ Ϯ
<ĞƌƐĞLJ ϭ͕ϱϰϭ E tĞůĚ Ϯ
>Ă:ĂƌĂ ϴϬϳ DŽ^ ŽŶĞũŽƐ Ϯ
>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ ϯϳϬ DŽ^ ,ŝŶƐĚĂůĞ ϭ
>ŝŵŽŶ ϭ͕ϵϬϵ W >ŝŶĐŽůŶ ϲ
Dƚ͘ƌĞƐƚĞĚƵƚƚĞ ϴϬϲ DŽ 'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ ϭ
EƵŶŶ ϰϰϭ E tĞůĚ ϰ
KĂŬƌĞĞŬ ϴϴϲ DŽE ZŽƵƚƚ ϭ
KůŶĞLJ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ ϯϯϮ W^t ƌŽǁůĞLJ ϭ
KƵƌĂLJ ϭ͕ϬϬϳ DŽ^ KƵƌĂLJ ϯ
WĂŐŽƐĂ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ ϭ͕ϳϲϲ DŽ^ ƌĐŚƵůĞƚĂ ϱ
ZŽĐŬǀĂůĞ ϰϵϳ DŽ^ KƵƌĂLJ ϱ
sŝĐƚŽƌ ϯϳϱ DŽ dĞůůĞƌ Ϯ
tŝŶƚĞƌWĂƌŬ ϵϰϰ DŽ 'ƌĂŶĚ Ϯ
ĞŶŶĞƚƚ Ϯ͕ϰϱϰ Wt ĚĂŵƐͮƌĂƉĂŚŽĞ ϯ
ĂĐŽŶŽ ϰ͕ϰϲϵ E tĞůĚ ϭ
ĂƚŽŶ ϰ͕ϴϭϬ E tĞůĚ ϭ
>ĞĂĚǀŝůůĞ Ϯ͕ϲϬϬ DŽ >ĂŬĞ Ϯ
DĞĂĚ ϯ͕ϵϬϴ E tĞůĚ ϭ
DĞĞŬĞƌ Ϯ͕ϰϭϭ DŽt ZŝŽůĂŶĐŽ ϰ
DŽŶƚĞsŝƐƚĂ ϰ͕Ϯϵϱ DŽ^ ZŝŽ'ƌĂŶĚĞ ϰ
EĞǁĂƐƚůĞ ϰ͕ϱϳϳ DŽt 'ĂƌĨŝĞůĚ ϰ
^ŝůƚ ϯ͕Ϭϭϯ DŽt 'ĂƌĨŝĞůĚ ϱ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŚŽƌŶĞ ϰ͕ϭϭϲ DŽ ^Ƶŵŵŝƚ ϭϬ
^ŶŽǁŵĂƐƐsŝůůĂŐĞ Ϯ͕ϴϴϵ DŽ WŝƚŬŝŶ ϭ
dĞůůƵƌŝĚĞ Ϯ͕ϰϱϳ DŽ^t ^ĂŶDŝŐƵĞů Ϯ
ƐƉĞŶ ϲ͕ϴϰϬ DŽ WŝƚŬŝŶ Ϯ
ǀŽŶ Ϯ͕ϰϳϴ DŽ ĂŐůĞ Ϯ
ƐƚĞƐWĂƌŬ ϲ͕ϭϵϳ DŽ ͮE >ĂƌŝŵĞƌ ϯ
'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ ϱ͕ϵϯϱ DŽ 'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ ϱ
'LJƉƐƵŵ ϲ͕ϳϵϳ DŽ ĂŐůĞ ϭ
Municipalities with 1041 Regulations
WW E/y͕DhE//W>/d/ ^t/d,ϭϬϰϭZ 'h>d/KE^
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϴ
Municipality Population Location County # of AAs
Municipalities with 1041 Regulations
>Ă:ƵŶƚĂ ϲ͕ϵϬϯ W^t KƚĞƌŽ ϭ
DĂŶŝƚŽƵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ ϱ͕ϯϱϳ DŽ^ ůWĂƐŽ Ϯ
DŝůůŝŬĞŶ ϲ͕ϬϳϮ E tĞůĚ ϵ
ZŝĨůĞ ϵ͕Ϯϴϵ t^ 'ĂƌĨŝĞůĚ ϭ
ĂŶŽŶŝƚLJ ϭϲ͕Ϯϯϱ DŽ^ &ƌĞŵŽŶƚ ϴ
ƵƌĂŶŐŽ ϭϳ͕ϴϭϴ DŽ^t >ĂWůĂƚĂ Ϯ
&ƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬ ϭϬ͕ϵϬϴ E tĞůĚ Ϯ
&ƌƵŝƚĂ ϭϮ͕ϲϵϭ t^ DĞƐĂ ϭϬ
'ŽůĚĞŶ ϮϬ͕Ϭϵϲ DĞͮDŽ :ĞĨĨĞƌƐŽŶ ϯ
>ĂĨĂLJĞƚƚĞ Ϯϲ͕ϳϴϲ DĞ ŽƵůĚĞƌ Ϯ
>ŽƵŝƐǀŝůůĞ ϮϬ͕Ϭϰϳ DĞ ŽƵůĚĞƌ ϭ
^ƚĞĂŵďŽĂƚ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ ϭϮ͕Ϯϵϭ t^E ZŽƵƚƚ ϯ
^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ ϭϮ͕ϴϱϳ DĞ ŽƵůĚĞƌ ϭϬ
tŝŶĚƐŽƌ Ϯϭ͕ϳϯϮ E tĞůĚ ϰ
ƵƌŽƌĂ ϯϱϬ͕ϳϳϯ DĞ ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞ ϭϭ
ƌŽŽŵĨŝĞůĚ ϲϭ͕ϴϮϲ DĞ ƌŽŽŵĨŝĞůĚ ϯ
ĞŶƚĞŶŶŝĂů ϭϬϳ͕ϱϬϭ DĞ ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞ ϭ
ĞŶǀĞƌ ϲϲϰ͕ϮϮϬ DĞ ĞŶǀĞƌ Ϯ
'ƌĂŶĚ:ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ ϲϭ͕ϴϰϳ t^ DĞƐĂ ϭ
'ƌĞĞůĞLJ ϵϴ͕ϲϲϲ E tĞůĚ ϱ
WƵĞďůŽ ϭϬϴ͕ϭϳϳ ^ WƵĞďůŽ ϰ
dŚŽƌŶƚŽŶ ϭϮϵ͕ϰϬϯ DĞ ĚĂŵƐ Ϯ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϰϵ
Name of County Location Population Category # of AAs
'ĂƌĨŝĞůĚ t^ >ĂƌŐĞWŽƉ ϱ
^ĂŶDŝŐƵĞů t^ ^ŵĂůůWŽƉ ϳ
ZŽƵƚƚ t^E DĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϰ
DŽƌŐĂŶ WE DĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϳ
^ĞĚŐǁŝĐŬ WE ^ŵĂůůWŽƉ Ϯ
^Ƶŵŵŝƚ DŽ DĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϵ
KƚĞƌŽ W^ ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϴ
WƌŽǁĞƌƐ W^ ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϰ
ůWĂƐŽ ^ >ĂƌŐĞWŽƉ ϳ
>ĂƐŶŝŵĂƐ ^ ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϴ
ŽƵůĚĞƌ DĞ >ĂƌŐĞWŽƉ ϯ
ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞ DĞͮ Wt >ĂƌŐĞWŽƉ ϭϰ
:ĞĨĨĞƌƐŽŶ DĞͮDŽ >ĂƌŐĞWŽƉ ϭϬ
&ƌĞŵŽŶƚ DŽ DĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϯ
'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ DŽ DĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϭϯ
WĂƌŬ DŽ ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵWŽƉ ϯ
ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬ DŽ ^ŵĂůůWŽƉ ϵ
'ŝůƉŝŶ DŽ ^ŵĂůůWŽƉ ϭϯ
Name of Municipality Location Population Category # of AAs
>ŝŵŽŶ W ^ŵĂůů ϲ
ĞŶŶĞƚƚ Wt ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϯ
EƵŶŶ E ^ŵĂůů ϰ
DŝůůŝŬĞŶ E DĞĚŝƵŵ ϵ
WƵĞďůŽ ^ >ĂƌŐĞ ϰ
^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ DĞ DĞĚŝƵŵͲ>ĂƌŐĞ ϭϬ
ƵƌŽƌĂ DĞ >ĂƌŐĞ ϭϭ
'ŽůĚĞŶ DĞͮDŽ DĞĚŝƵŵͲ>ĂƌŐĞ ϯ
ƐƚĞƐWĂƌŬ DŽ ͮE DĞĚŝƵŵ ϯ
ĞŶƚƌĂůŝƚLJ DŽ ^ŵĂůů ϲ
ƐƉĞŶ DŽ DĞĚŝƵŵ Ϯ
ƌĞƐƚĞĚƵƚƚĞ DŽ ^ŵĂůů ϱ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŚŽƌŶĞ DŽ ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϭϬ
'ƵŶŶŝƐŽŶ DŽ DĞĚŝƵŵ ϱ
WĂŐŽƐĂ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ DŽ^ ^ŵĂůů ϱ
ZŽĐŬǀĂůĞ DŽ^ ^ŵĂůů ϱ
DŽŶƚĞsŝƐƚĂ DŽ^ ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϰ
ĂŶŽŶŝƚLJ DŽ^ DĞĚŝƵŵͲ>ĂƌŐĞ ϴ
DĞĞŬĞƌ DŽt ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϰ
^ŝůƚ DŽt ^ŵĂůůͲDĞĚŝƵŵ ϱ
&ƌƵŝƚĂ t^ DĞĚŝƵŵͲ>ĂƌŐĞ ϭϬ
^ƚĞĂŵďŽĂƚ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ t^E DĞĚŝƵŵͲ>ĂƌŐĞ ϯ
Participants Selected for Inclusion in the Sample
WW E/y͕WZd//WEd^^ > d &KZ/E>h^/KE/Ed, ^DW>
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϱϬ
DŝŶĞƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ
EĂƚƵƌĂů,ĂnjĂƌĚ
,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů͕EĂƚƵƌĂůŽƌ
ƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ
ƌĞĂƐĂƌŽƵŶĚŬĞLJĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͙
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƌƚĞƌŝĂů
,ŝŐŚǁĂLJƐͬ/ŶƚĞƌĐŚĂŶŐĞƐͬŽůůĞĐƚ
Žƌ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJƐ
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨZĂƉŝĚͬDĂƐƐ
dƌĂŶƐŝƚ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶͬŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ
DĂũŽƌ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽĨĂWƵďůŝĐ
hƚŝůŝƚLJ
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶͬŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ
DĂũŽƌEĞǁŽƌ džƉĂŶĚĞĚ
ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐtĂƚĞƌͬ^ĞǁĞƌ
dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ^LJƐƚĞŵƐ
ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚhƚŝůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ
DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůͬ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůtĂƚĞƌ
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶͬĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ
^ŽůŝĚtĂƐƚĞŝƐƉŽƐĂů^ŝƚĞƐ
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶͬĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ
EĞǁŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ
^ŝƚĞ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨŝƌƉŽƌƚƐ
hƐĞŽĨ'ĞŽƚŚĞƌŵĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
ĨŽƌŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ
ŽŶĚƵĐƚŽĨEƵĐůĞĂƌ
ĞƚŽŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞŽƵŶƚLJ dždždždž dždždž
ŽƵůĚĞƌŽƵŶƚLJ dždždždž dždždž dž
ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬŽƵŶƚLJ dždždždždždždždž dždž
'ŽůĚĞŶ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ dž
KƚĞƌŽŽƵŶƚLJ dždž dž dž
WĂƌŬŽƵŶƚLJ dždž
ZŽƵƚƚŽƵŶƚLJ dždždž dž
^ŝůƚ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ dždždž
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŚŽƌŶĞ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ dždž
^ƵŵŵŝƚŽƵŶƚLJ dždždždždždž dž
^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ dždždždždždždždždždždždž dž
Total 24636379734501
Online Questionnaire Responses
1. Which areas and/or activities do you have designated in your 1041 Regulations? Check all that apply.
WW E/y ͕KE>/E Yh ^d/KEE/Z Z ^WKE^ ^͕Yh ^d/KEϭ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϱϭ
3. What prompted the development of the 1041 Regulations (e.g., pro-active, in response to an anticipated
development, etc.)?
ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞŽƵŶƚLJ dŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŽƵŶƚŝĞƐƚŽŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚǁŝƚŚŵĂũŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚLJƉĞƐƚŚĂƚŝŵƉĂĐƚƌĂƉĂŚŽĞŽƵŶƚLJ
ŽƵůĚĞƌŽƵŶƚLJ
ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬŽƵŶƚLJ dŽďĞƉƌŽͲĂĐƚŝǀĞŝŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůůLJƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞĂƌĞĂƐ͘
'ŽůĚĞŶ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ ŽŶĐĞƌŶĨŽƌƐƚĂƚĞŽƌƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚĞƐŝŐŶ
KƚĞƌŽŽƵŶƚLJ dŽďĞƉƌŽͲĂĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŽƵƌŶĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘
WĂƌŬŽƵŶƚLJ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ZŽƵƚƚŽƵŶƚLJ dŚĞĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĐŽƵůĚŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĂũŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽƵŶƚLJƐĂǁƚŚĞďĞŶĞĨŝƚŽĨŚĂǀŝŶŐϭϬϰϭƚŽ
ĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƐƵĐŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘
^ŝůƚ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ /ŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽĂĐŽƵƉůĞŽĨŐƌĂǀĞůƉŝƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŚŽƌŶĞ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ dŽƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƉŝƉĞůŝŶĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ͘
^ƵŵŵŝƚŽƵŶƚLJ WƌŽͲĂĐƚŝǀĞ
^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ WƌŽͲĂĐƚŝǀĞ
Online Questionnaire Responses
WW E/y&͕KE>/E Yh ^d/KEE/Z Z ^WKE^ ^͕Yh ^d/KEϯ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϱϮ
8. Have your 1041 Regulations
been an effective tool for
regulating development in your
community?
8a. Why or why not?
ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ
ŽƵůĚĞƌŽƵŶƚLJ
ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ ϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ
ĂďŽǀĞĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJΖƐnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJĨŽƌĂ
ůŽĐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ
ĐĂƵƐĞĚďLJǀĞƌLJůĂƌŐĞͲƐĐĂůĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐƚŚĂƚ
ǁŽƵůĚŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞŶŽƚďĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƚŽůŽĐĂů
njŽŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ͘
'ŽůĚĞŶ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ KƚŚĞƌ KŶůLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƐĨŽƌĂĐŝƚLJƐƉŽŶƐŽƌĞĚ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
KƚĞƌŽŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ ŵĂũŽƌƉĂƌƚŽĨŽƵƌƐŝƐŵĂŬŝŶŐƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚŝĨ
ǁĂƚĞƌŝƐƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĨƌŽŵůĂŶĚ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƐƚĞƉƐĂƌĞ
ƚĂŬĞŶƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐƌĞͲǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ͘
/ĨĂƉŝƉĞůŝŶĞŐŽĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌŽƵŶƚLJǁĞ
ŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĂůůĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƌĂŶŐĞůĂŶĚŝƐ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJƌĞͲǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ͘
WĂƌŬŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ ůŽĐĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ZŽƵƚƚŽƵŶƚLJ KƚŚĞƌ tĞƌĞĂůůLJŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŚĂĚŵĂũŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚ
ƚƌŝŐŐĞƌĂĨƵůůϭϬϰϭƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘
^ŝůƚ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ zĞƐ dŚĞdŽǁŶĚŝĚŶŽƚǁĂŶƚƚŽƐĞĞĂƉůĞƚŚŽƌĂŽĨ
ŵŝŶĞƌĂůĞdžƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŝƚŚĂƐŶΖƚ͘
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŚŽƌŶĞ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ EŽ EŽĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
^ƵŵŵŝƚŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ KƵƌϭϬϰϭƌĞŐƐĂůůŽǁƵƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚŐƌŽǁƚŚ
ĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶ^ƵŵŵŝƚŽƵŶƚLJŝƐ
ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚůĞŐŝƚŝŵĂƚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂŶĚŽĐĐƵƌƐŝŶĂƐĂĨĞ͕ĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚĂŶĚ
ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚŵĂŶŶĞƌĂŶĚ͕ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ͕ĞŶƐƵƌĞƐ
ƚŚĂƚĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ
ĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůƌŝŐŚƚƐŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͕
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉƵďůŝĐǁĞůĨĂƌĞ͘
^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ zĞƐ /ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞĚĂϭϬϰϭƉĞƌŵŝƚĚƵƌŝŶŐŵLJ
ƚŝŵĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞdŽǁŶŽĨ^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ͘
Online Questionnaire Responses
WW E/y'͕KE>/E Yh ^d/KEE/Z Z ^WKE^ ^͕Yh ^d/KEϴ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϱϯ
9. Based on your experience,
would you recommend other
communities use 1041
Regulations?
9a. Why or why not?
ƌĂƉĂŚŽĞŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ
ŽƵůĚĞƌŽƵŶƚLJ
ůĞĂƌƌĞĞŬŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ ^ĞĞĂŶƐǁĞƌŝŶϴĂĂďŽǀĞ͘
ϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ
ĂďŽǀĞĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJΖƐnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJĨŽƌĂ
ůŽĐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ
ĐĂƵƐĞĚďLJǀĞƌLJůĂƌŐĞͲƐĐĂůĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐƚŚĂƚ
ǁŽƵůĚŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞŶŽƚďĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƚŽůŽĐĂů
njŽŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ͘
'ŽůĚĞŶ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ KƚŚĞƌ KƵƌĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞďĂƐŝƐƚŽ
ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚŽƌŶŽƚ
KƚĞƌŽŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ zŽƵŶĞĞĚĂŵĞĂŶƐƚŽƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞŵĂƚƚĞƌƐŽĨƐƚĂƚĞ
ŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ͘/ĨĂůůƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐĂƌĞŽŶ
ďŽĂƌĚŝƚŝƐĂǀĂůƵĂďůĞƚŽŽů͘
WĂƌŬŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ ĐĂŶƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞƚŚŽƐĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽůŽĐĂůĂƌĞĂΘĞĐŽŶŽŵLJ
ZŽƵƚƚŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ džƚƌĂůĂLJĞƌŽĨƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƌƵƌĂůĐŽƵŶƚŝĞƐ͘
^ŝůƚ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ zĞƐ ĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞƚŽŽů͘
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŚŽƌŶĞ;dŽǁŶŽĨͿ zĞƐ ϭϬϰϭƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐĂŶďĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŝŶƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŶŐ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
^ƵŵŵŝƚŽƵŶƚLJ zĞƐ dŚĞLJĂƌĞĂǀĞƌLJƉŽǁĞƌĨƵůƐĞƚŽĨƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞůLJ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ƚŚĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƚLJƉĞƐŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞ
ƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞϭϬϰϭWĞƌŵŝƚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ;ŝƚLJŽĨͿ zĞƐ /ƚŝƐĂŶĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞƚŽŽůĨŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůůŝŶŐͬŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘
Online Questionnaire Responses
WW E/y,͕KE>/E Yh ^d/KEE/Z Z ^WKE^ ^͕Yh ^d/KEϵ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐΖhƐĞŽĨϭϬϰϭZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ϱϰ
or the establishment of urbanized growth centers in unincorporated areas”
(C.R.S. § 24-65.1-104(13), 2016). Douglas County adopted 1041 Regulations
under this provision that defined urbanized growth centers as “‘[a]ny
incorporation or annexation of an existing or proposed urbanized growth center
Colorado Springs and Aurora on federal land within the Holy Cross Wilderness
Area because the cities’ project did not satisfy the Eagle County regulations. In
particular, Eagle County decided that the cities failed to prove that the impacts
of the project to wetlands would be adequately mitigated. The cities then sued
Eagle County on a number of claims. In 1994, the Colorado Court of Appeals