Grand Junction to revise landscaping code to meet state turf ban; residential controls deferred

At a Planning Commission workshop, city planning staff said Grand Junction must revise its landscaping code to comply with Senate Bill 24-5, a new state law that bans nonfunctional artificial turf and certain invasive species on commercial, industrial, public/civic and common-interest properties. City staff said the ordinance changes must be in place by Jan. 1, 2026.

The change matters because the law alters which properties can install nonfunctional and artificial turf and because Grand Junction’s current code uses a different, more restrictive definition of "functional turf." Tim Warebach, principal planner with the City of Grand Junction, said, "Senate Bill 24-5 was signed into law by the governor in early 2024 and entails that there is a ban on nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, and invasive species to be installed on commercial, industrial, and public or civic properties, as well as common interest community properties." The planning commission received staff recommendations to update local definitions and adopt voluntary, programmatic tools to encourage water-wise landscaping.

Staff described how the state and city definitions differ. The state defines functional turf as turf in recreational or civic areas regularly used for those purposes (playgrounds, amphitheaters and similar facilities) without size limits. Grand Junction’s existing zoning code requires functional turf to be at least 30 feet wide and 1,500 square feet, and the city also has a 15% cap on nonfunctional turf for nonresidential and multifamily sites. Daniella, a principal planner with the city, told commissioners that the council directed staff to pursue a compliance-only approach for now: "They did decide that for this community at this moment, we were just going to proceed with the compliance-only option." That means removing or changing city provisions that conflict with the state law for the properties covered by the state ban while leaving residential regulation unchanged.

Under the staff proposal and the council direction described in the workshop, required code changes include removing the 15% allowance for nonfunctional turf on new construction in nonresidential zones, common-interest properties, street rights-of-way, parking lots, medians and transportation corridors, and prohibiting installation of artificial turf for nonrecreational uses in those same areas. Exemptions in the state law that staff flagged include residential properties, turf used for stormwater management or water-quality purposes, existing nonfunctional turf installed prior to Jan. 1, 2026, and native or hybridized grass seed/sod where local jurisdictions approve species lists. Staff recommended updating local definitions to reflect the state language, expressly include stormwater uses, and publish an optional approved list of native/hybrid species as a voluntary resource.

Commission members and staff discussed enforcement, equity and unintended effects. Several commissioners cautioned against extending mandatory restrictions to single-family residences, citing enforcement complexity and concerns about heat-island effects if property owners replaced lawns with rock or artificial surfaces. One commissioner argued that residential rules should remain voluntary: when asked about enforcement of residential HOAs, staff said enforcement was not being pursued at this time and any residential program would be opt-in or tied to a contractual incentive. Commissioners also raised the potential for programmatic incentives (a "carrot" approach) such as utility rebates, grant partnerships with developers, and turf-conversion programs offered by the utilities department.

Staff noted existing local programs and partners. The city’s water conservation specialist, Susan Carter, runs turf-conversion programs limited to customers on the city’s potable-water system; staff said those programs could be a model to expand voluntarily. The planning staff also mentioned "Garden in a Box," a voluntary program for replacing front lawns with functional gardens, as one example of a nonregulatory option. Staff said they also will look at coordination with nonpotable irrigation providers and identified complications where water-district boundaries and irrigation systems differ across the area.

Other technical points discussed included the purpose of the city’s dimensional minimums for functional turf. Commissioners and staff said the 30-foot/1,500-square-foot minimum is intended to make functional turf large enough for active recreational uses (picnic areas, sports fields, amphitheaters) rather than small decorative strips. Some participants expressed concern that dimensional thresholds could prompt applicants to enlarge functional areas solely to qualify for an exemption. Staff said the safest near-term approach is to match the state where required while asking the Planning Commission for guidance on whether to retain or revise dimensional standards.

Staff told the commission they would prepare the mandatory code updates needed to meet the state deadline and that council had asked staff to explore voluntary incentives, outreach and an approved native/hybrid species list to help property owners transition. No formal vote was recorded at the workshop; staff said the next step is drafting code language for public hearings and possible hearings before City Council. The deadline cited in the discussion for code compliance with state law is Jan. 1, 2026.