Proposed Changes to Boulder County Land Use Code (Expansion of residences in unincorporated Boulder County)

• This issue has urgency and affects all homeowners in the unincorporated County who might want to add space to their residences in the future.  

• The County Commissioners asked staff to propose changes to the land use code to reduce the trend of increasing house sizes in unincorporated areas.  The Commissioners' concerns are that this trend adversely impacts affordability, neighborhood character, and sustainability.

• On January 17, 2025, the County Commissioners began a 6-month moratorium on accepting applications for houses above the median square footage for the defined neighborhood. Consideration of changes to the land use code is to occur in this moratorium period.

•  A draft of the proposed regulations and a summary of those regulations have been posted on the docket webpage (docket DC-24-0003). 

• If you have any thoughts or comments regarding the proposed regulations,  send them via email to longrange@bouldercounty.gov.

• At a March 19 hearing of the Planning Commission, about 15 members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed new regulations.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial, and also voted to recommend that the moratorium be lifted.

• The next step is a hearing and decision by the Boulder Board of County Commissioners.  Date is TBD.

• The changes proposed by staff are in Article 4 Section 800 of the County Land Use Code.  The changes would:

  • Reduce the current compatible size from 125% of the median of a defined neighborhood [our emphasis added] to just the median of a defined neighborhood;

  • Change what is currently a size presumption (that allows more floor area in certain circumstances) to a size limitation based on the median of a defined neighborhood; and

  • Clarify the regulations to improve processes, increase the public’s ability to better navigate the regulations, and provide greater certainty of outcomes for applicants.

• Our take on this:  In these regulations, the use of the "defined neighborhood" concept to determine allowable residential square footage will have results that are very different for different homes in the County.  According to the code, the defined neighborhood is "the area within 1,500 feet from the applicable parcel".  The defined neighborhood area does not include any parcels that are within municipal boundaries, or any parcels in subdivisions of 7 or more houses [Article 18 Definitions, 18-179C].  We believe this concept of the defined neighborhood is too restrictive, too inflexible, and will inherently lead to inequities throughout the County.  For example, a cluster of smaller, legacy farmhouses built in the 1950s in one area would be restricted from expanding to more realistic modern expectations simply because these houses are not within 1500 ft of any larger homes.  Even if they are right next to a subdivision having 5000 sq ft homes, they'd be unable to expand because the subdivision houses "don't count" in the definition of the neighborhood.  Yet just a half-mile down the road, there might be much larger homes, by virtue of their proximity to other larger homes.  This does not make sense to us.  Further compounding the problem, the homeowners of those legacy farmhouses might have a hard time selling their modest-sized homes in the future to families that want to consider continuing the farming traditions in Boulder County.  This could lead to a loss of working farms and ranches in the County.  A much more fair definition of "neighborhood," in our view, should take into account the median house size of a much larger area (perhaps even the entire County).  This would even out the inequities of the 1500-foot definition of a neighborhood, which in rural areas is way too "microscopic." 

• This issue needs our response!  Few County residents even know this is happening!

Action:  Write to the County with your input on these proposed regulations.  E-mail your comments to longrange@bouldercounty.gov and planner@bouldercounty.gov.  Reference "docket DC-24-0003" in your comments, and state your name and address.  Your comments will be considered at the next stage when the 3 County Commissioners will hold a hearing and make a decision.

Action:  Attend and consider speaking at the County Commissioners' hearing (date TBD, watch this space!). The meeting will be at the Boulder County Courthouse (1325 Pearl Street, 3rd floor).  Register in advance or in person at the Courthouse if you wish to speak at this hearing.  There is a 3-minute time limit for speakers (others present at the hearing can sign up to donate time to a speaker).  You can speak, or attend, either in person or virtually. 

​

Information: 

• The County's webpage for the proposed changes (docket DC-24-0003) is linked here and further information is on the docket page linked here.  

• The Staff Recommendation packet for the March 19 Planning Commission hearing, including community comments, is out!  A link is on the docket page.

• The County's draft of the proposed regulations

• The County's summary of those regulations

• Coverage in the Left Hand Valley Courier :  March 5, 2025     December 25, 2024

• Coverage in the Boulder Reporting Lab :  February 27, 2025

• Here is the link to the current Boulder County Land Use Code.  (Caution: It's a lot.  The site plan review section is in Article 4 Section 800.)

​

Major Update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP).  The BVCP will be updated in 2024-2026.  The BVCP, and the broader Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP), are the "vision" documents that set the tone for how Boulder and the County will develop and preserve the land.  This makes it an especially opportune time for us to stay informed and engaged with the process, because the decisions will affect rural Boulder County--and all of us--for years to come.

​

The BVCP guides long-range planning, development, and preservation in the City of Boulder and some Boulder County land.  See a map of the "Boulder Valley" here. The City and County jointly developed the plan.  The major update will go through approval processes with both the Boulder City Council and the County Commissioners, and there will be many opportunities for input from citizens.  

​

We've attended some of the early events for the update of the BVCP.  Our experience was that they've been largely focused on City of Boulder issues, and not so much on issues related to unincorporated County areas.  And yet, the BVCP covers a great deal of the unincorporated County... There's actually more rural unincorporated land area than there is City land area within the boundaries of the BVCP (here's the map).   We're most interested in what might happen pertaining to the unincorporated areas marked "Area III-Rural Preservation Area." 

 

We believe that in the BVCP update, the Area III-Rural Preservation Areas should continue to be marked for preservation.  We should advocate for the continued preservation of these areas during this update of the BVCP.  This simple message is important to convey. Please consider entering your comments online and/or attending their public input events.  They are not getting a lot of input from outside the City of Boulder, but they need to hear from all of us!

​

Here is the link to enter written comments: https://bouldercolorado.formstack.com/forms/bvcp_update_comments

In your comment, it is helpful if you indicate whether you live in the City or in an unincorporated area.

​

Here is the City's website for the plan update: https://a-boulder-future-boulder.hub.arcgis.com  (contains upcoming events, and links for signing up for email updates)

​

County of Boulder Website for the BVCP Update (contains links for signing up for email updates)

​

Possible Annexation and Development of the Area III Planning Reserve. (north of City limits/northeast of Highway 36)  

 The Boulder City Council voted in November to direct staff to further study the potential for urbanization of the 500-acre "Area III Planning Reserve."  It's a mix of city-owned and unincorporated County land that was designated in 1993 as an area for future consideration of development (as stated in the City/County's Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan).  If annexed, the City would have to provide roads, sewers, and other infrastructure services in the area, as well as capital improvements elsewhere in the City, likely costing $1 billion.  A mix of retail, businesses, parkland, and residential is envisioned, with possibly over 6,000 homes and likely tens of thousands of residents and 3,000 jobs in the new development.  The Area III discussion will occur within the larger context of the update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, currently in progress.  The project is the second major development project to come onto the Boulder city radar, the other being the potential decommissioning of the Boulder Municipal Airport for future housing.  Links to more information about the Area III Planning Reserve:  Daily Camera article (possible paywall)   Boulder Reporting Lab article    Biz West article   City of Boulder website on Area III study

​

355 Apartments & Mixed-Use Development Near the Sugar Factory (11386 East Rogers Road):  In January, the City of Longmont annexed ~9 acres of unincorporated land near the sugar plant, and it is slated for development into 355 apartments and mixed-use employment. Articles on this (possible paywall for access):  Longmont Leader    Longmont Times-Call

 

City/Tribal Concept Plan for Fort Chambers Open Space Property (63rd Street, south of Jay Road):  A concept stewardship plan for open space land of historical and tribal significance has been developed.  The City of Boulder worked closely with the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, the Arapaho Tribe, and the Cheyenne Tribe to develop the plan. Plan elements include ecological restoration, a healing trail,  farmstead improvements, and visitor access. Public input on the plan was gathered in April 2024.  Visit the city website for more information and to follow the concept plan as it evolves through the drafting stages.

​

Community Farmers Alliance (COFA):  A new group formed in early 2024 focused on the issues most pressing to County farmers. Right now the issues are: the County's recent decision regarding minimum wage increases; and affordable housing for seasonal farm workers. Both issues have significant implications for the future of farming in Boulder County.  The group represents about 90% of the farmers in the County.  Give the group your feedback and sign up for their contact list at this link.

​

Boulder County Weed Management Plan:  Boulder County Commissioners have postponed a decision on the Boulder County Integrated Weed Management Plan after copious public input at their April 16 meeting. Issues center around the aerial application of herbicides (via drones) versus alternative methods of weed management, and the concerning trend of weeds displacing native species.  The plan covers a variety of private and public lands in the County, including Open Space lands. See the County website about the Plan, and the Daily Camera article of 16 April 2024.

​

Multiple Annexation and/or Development Proposals  within Close Proximity,  south Longmont near Airport/Nelson Roads:

• 310-Apartment Development Proposal Adjacent to Schlagel Neighborhood (8902 Quail Road, Clover Basin/Airport Road area, 18 acres).   County land referred to annexation process for City of Longmont.  February 2025 update:  Application withdrawn by the developer at the February 4 hearing of the Longmont City Council.  Citizen input and constructive dialogue with the City Council played a big role in the outcome.

• 100-Unit Development Proposal (9308 N. 87th Street, ~8 acres that are adjacent to the above 18 acres).  County land referred to annexation process for City of Longmont.

• 172-Apartment Development Proposal Across from Schlagel Neighborhood (8809 Nelson Road, between Target and Airport Road).

• 255-Apartment Development Under Construction (9165 Nelson Road, just west of Target, 16 acres).

• 306-Apartment Development Proposal Across from Schlagel Neighborhood (3632 Nelson Road, Modern West F1 development, 20 acres).

• Development Plan (8876 Rogers Road, Modern West F2 development, 27 acres) August update: Denied by Longmont City Council

• 426 Mixed-Unit Development Proposal (near Airport Road and Diagonal Hwy, Kanemoto Estates, 40 acres)

 

Longmont: Kanemoto Conservation Easement Conditional Termination/Possible 426-unit Subdivision Development (Airport Road/Diagonal Hwy):  Discussed in our Top 3 Issues section (see above).

​

New Non-Profit, the Conservation Easement Preservation Society.  This new 501(c)(3) non-profit just formed in late March, motivated by the Kanemoto issue and the more general issues raised by the County's actions regarding Conservation Easements.  The expressed mission of CEPS is to preserve and protect conservation easements in Boulder County from residential and commercial development. The mission is to also educate the public regarding the environmental, ecological, and communal benefits of conservation easements, as well as the importance of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP) and its role in preventing urban sprawl.  Contributions to the Kanemoto opposition group are now via CEPS and are tax exempt.

​

Issues at the Nexus of Aviation and Development:  Longmont is trying to balance development plans with aviation/FAA rules in area near Vance Brand airport:  Longmont Times-Call

August Update:  The Longmont City Council denied this development on 28 August. Longmont Times-Call Story 

 

Solar Facilities Popping Up in Rural Areas:  A relatively new category of issue seems to be arising in rural areas-- applications for the installation of solar energy facilities on agricultural or rural residential lands.  See SU-24-0002 and the County's referral document (Pivot Solar Energy/Xcel Energy proposal for 4 acres, 9215 Arapahoe Rd.) and SU-23-0005 (Harvest Moon proposal for 10 acres, 9770 Isabelle Rd.)  See our Top 3 Issues item about Pivot Solar.

​

Erie Town Council Votes to Deny High-Density Residential Zoning at 111th and Arapahoe:  Upon seeing the signs posted about the zoning proposal, the community organized very quickly and effectively to research the many issues raised by rezoning to high density for the proposed 336 units on this parcel.  The Erie Town Council heard some 3 hours of testimony by over 80 residents on June 11, and continued the issue until a June 18 meeting.  At that meeting, after 3-1/2 hours of questions and discussion by the council members, staff, and the developer, the final vote was taken at about 11:15 pm:  5-1 AGAINST the rezoning.  The two main issues identified by council members as they cast their vote were: inadequacy of infrastructure for the development (especially related to traffic and drainage), and overwhelming community opposition and concern.  Articles about this issue:  June 18 meeting recap by Colorado Hometown Weekly     June 11 meeting recap by Daily Camera (paywall)    Erie Community's Victory Message

July Update: The Erie community that organized against this rezoning has remained active and will provide input in the town's  "Elevate Erie" initiative to update its Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Mobility Plan.  The impact that various proposals for high-density developments would have on open spaces, single-family residential areas, and Erie's "small-town" feel are issues of concern to residents. October/September/August Update: Individuals who led the opposition are engaging in Erie politics, and are running for Town Council.

​

Fracking Proposal Would Reach Across County Lines & Underneath Erie Homes:  

The application by Civitas/Extraction proposes extreme-length 5-mile wellbores to be drilled horizontally from the Draco Well Pad in Weld County westward into Boulder County and underneath highly populated residential developments. Vigorous community opposition mobilized and spoke/wrote against this proposal last year and at the November hearing. 

In the November hearing, the ECMC directed Civitas/Extraction to consider alternative sites for their operations.

In March 2025, Civitas/Extraction requested to resume the hearing. They reevaluated the proposed Alternative Location #4 (AL4), located north of the Vista Ridge neighborhood, west of Weld County Road 5. The reevaluation (available in Civitas/Extraction’s Prehearing Statement) concluded that Civitas/Extraction believes AL4 is an infeasible alternative to the Draco Pad location. Presuming the Commission concurs with this conclusion, the Town of Erie will be requesting that the Draco OGDP be denied unless specific Conditions of Approval are ordered by the Commission.

Hearing Date and possible ECMC decision:  March 26.  

Information:

• See Erie's website on this issue.

• All the docket information is at:

      https://oitco.hylandcloud.com/DNRCOGPublicAccess/

      Select: DNRCOG Search for Docket Related Documents

      The in the field for DNRCOG Docket Number enter 240100004

• Also see the citizen "Erie Protectors" website, which posts the Civitas/Extraction prehearing statement and some analysis.

​

Longmont City Planning/Development Dept:  Link to map and log of active projects. Note:you have to contact the assigned planner to get specific information about a project!

​

Longmont Development Link: Here’s another useful link for tracking developments in Longmont