Boulder County commissioners deny Rodriguez TDR PUD sketch plan for 6184 Niwa Road

5485886 · July 10, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Boulder County Board of County Commissioners voted 2-1 on July 10 to deny a sketch plan for a transfer-development-rights planned unit development (TDR PUD) that would have created four lots at 6184 Niwa Road; staff and the Planning Commission had recommended denial.

Boulder County commissioners voted 2-1 Thursday to deny a sketch plan for a transfer-development-rights planned unit development that proposed four lots at 6184 Niwa Road.

The denial came after staff and the Planning Commission recommended turning down the docket, SD230003. Pete Lowrance of the county’s Community Planning and Permitting division told the board that the original public hearing was held May 6, 2025, and that staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the sketch plan. "The public hearing was closed. Positions were split between the two commissioners in attendance, so the docket was held over to today," Lowrance said.

The applicant, represented by Sean Stewart of Lines Goddess on behalf of Shannon and Efrain Rodriguez, reiterated arguments made at the May hearing and asked the board not to reopen public testimony. "We stand by the arguments that we made that day," Stewart said, adding that the transfer-development-rights program is intended to move development potential from rural parcels to more densely subdivided areas.

Commissioner Stoltzmann, who moved denial, said the plan does not conform with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. "I find that the plan doesn't conform with the Boulder County comprehensive plan generally," Stoltzmann said, and added that she agreed with every inconsistency staff identified except for one: a staff finding that mitigation meant the proposal did not increase fire hazards. Stoltzmann said she disagreed with that conclusion. "I do find that there's an increase in fire hazards by this subdivision by increasing the density in this area," she said.

The motion to deny docket SD230003 was seconded and passed on a 2-1 vote. One commissioner opposed the denial; no additional public testimony was taken at the July 10 session because the hearing record had been closed at the May 6 public hearing.

The board closed deliberations on the item and adjourned the morning session, saying there were no further items on the agenda.