Boulder staff propose simpler, neighborhood‑scale land‑use map as part of comprehensive‑plan update

Boulder City Council study‑session staff presented a draft restructuring of the Boulder Valley future‑land‑use map that would replace 26 granular designations with 13 broader categories grouped as neighborhoods, hubs, networks and institutions.

The proposal is part of the city’s comprehensive‑plan update, a roughly 18‑month process the planning team said is now about halfway complete. Brad Mueller, director of planning and development services, told council, “We are about halfway through an 18 month process.” The team said it has received roughly 5,000 individual community responses so far and will continue public outreach into next year.

Staff said the change aims to return the comp‑plan land‑use map to an aspirational, 20‑year vision rather than a parcel‑level zoning proxy. “The land use map in the comprehensive plan currently has tended to combine really the first 2 levels and even in some cases has bordered on the third level in terms of its level of detail,” Mueller said, explaining the motivation for broader, neighborhood‑scale designations.

Under the draft structure staff presented, the 13 designations fall into four classes: - Neighborhoods (three neighborhood types intended to allow a range of housing types from single‑family and ADUs to multiplex and “missing‑middle” forms), - Hubs (local, community, regional and an “innovation and production” hub intended to allow mixed light‑industrial, office and residential uses), - Networks (parks and greenways, open space consolidated into a single open‑space category, and rural lands in unincorporated Boulder County), - Institutions (civic institutions, a distinct university designation, and a preserved industrial category).

Sarah Horn, senior city planner, emphasized the simplification: “There are 13 total, which is half of the current 26.” Staff said the neighborhood labels intentionally avoid density adjectives and instead describe a range of appropriate building forms and uses.

Staff tested the framework on several areas. In East Boulder, land around 50th and Arapahoe previously shown as mixed‑use TOD would be mapped as a community hub supporting transit‑oriented mix; portions of the subcommunity that community members asked to preserve for industrial uses would remain industrial or be designated innovation and production hubs. At Quince and Broadway (Lucky’s Market) staff said the draft would reclassify that corner from low‑density residential to a local hub to better match current community expectations. Alpine Balsam, a site staff said had 10 current designations on a small area, would be simplified to a community hub surrounded by Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2 areas under the draft.

Council members asked a range of clarifying questions about how hubs differ by scale, whether local hubs could be introduced into new neighborhoods, how the change would affect permitting time and costs, and how the draft would interact with state transit‑oriented‑development guidance. Staff replied that the map is aspirational and does not replace zoning; it is intended to make future rezonings and site‑specific reviews more straightforward by allowing a wider set of outcomes under a single land‑use category. Christopher Johnson, comprehensive planning manager, told council the effort is intended to “reset expectations that the map describes the future of the Boulder Valley.”

Staff reiterated that no final decisions were being requested at the study session: the materials and draft definitions are “work in progress,” and names and language will evolve as staff and boards refine the approach. Next steps staff outlined in the presentation: a hands‑on workshop at Casey Middle School on September 9, a statistically valid survey planned for September 15, an online companion survey on September 22, a boards “roadshow” to eight boards in September, an information‑packet (IP) memo with engagement results in November, and a joint council‑planning‑board meeting scheduled for Dec. 11 to review staff recommendations on major land‑use policy changes.

Why this matters: the comprehensive plan guides rezoning, annexation zoning and site review consistent with comp‑plan policies. Council members and board representatives said they generally supported simplification but pressed staff for clearer rules about where small‑scale neighborhood commerce would be allowed, how wildfire risk and tree canopy expectations would be integrated, and how recent subcommunity plans (for example East Boulder and Alpine Balsam) would be preserved within a simplified map.

Staff said they would return with more detail, including mapping tests and proposed implementation procedures, and that the comprehensive‑plan timeline will include public hearings and a multi‑month review window before adoption.