Pitkin County staff propose policy path to allow limited affordable housing outside UGBs after water, infrastructure review

Pitkin County staff told the Board of County Commissioners on May 20 that updates to county land‑use policies being developed through the Vision 2050 and comprehensive‑plan process could enable new or denser affordable housing outside current urban growth boundaries (UGBs) only where practical infrastructure and environmental criteria are met.

County Manager Kara Silbernaugle and planning consultants presented an approach that starts with the Community Growth Advisory Committee’s recommendation to emphasize affordable and “middle‑market” housing and then applies a set of “enabling and limiting factors” to identify where limited development outside UGBs could be appropriate.

Shelby of Brendle/Brentel Group (planning consultant) summarized the water analysis: nearly all Pitkin County water supply is surface water or tributary groundwater; about 70% of residents receive water from public/regulatory community water systems and the remainder rely on wells. She said approximately 62% of well permits in the county are “exempt” domestic wells, and that augmenting or expanding water service outside existing systems often requires nonexempt wells and water‑court augmentation plans—complex, time‑consuming and potentially costly processes.

“Nearly all of Pitkin County’s water comes from surface and tributary groundwater sources,” Shelby said during the briefing, and staff emphasized that the question for rural housing is not technical availability alone but reliability, monitoring and the legal process required to secure junior water rights or augmentation supplies.

The land‑use guidance staff proposed: keep the primary focus for new affordable housing inside UGBs, but create a narrow set of pathways outside UGBs for (a) densifying existing subdivisions that already have reliable service; (b) small new clusters where larger community water systems with sufficient senior rights and infrastructure capacity can support development; and (c) more structured caretaker/employee dwelling units (CDUs/EDUs) where well permits and water availability permit secondary dwellings.

Staff framed an intermediate “transition zone” outside but adjacent to urban areas as the most likely place for limited, policy‑driven exceptions, because those areas are likeliest to combine proximity to services and transportation with lower wildlife/hazard conflicts. Remote/rural lands distant from services and with concentrated exempt‑well reliance were described as least suitable.

Questions and next steps: Commissioners pressed for more detail on available developable land inside UGBs, the adequacy of water supplies during dry years and whether public water providers (municipal systems, water districts and HOAs) have capacity or interest in expanding service. Shelby said the county’s study used provider surveys and state water‑data systems to estimate current and 2050 demand, and staff will bring more granular provider data and maps to the comprehensive‑plan and comp‑plan water conditions report.

Staff emphasized the work is iterative: the comprehensive plan will host updated policy language, and if the board wishes, staff will draft code changes tied to water, transportation and habitat criteria. The presentation did not change existing policy or authorize new projects; staff asked for guidance on board guardrails and indicated the next steps will include community engagement and integrating the water conditions report into the draft comp plan.

Ending: County staff said the approach intends to balance rural conservation values with targeted policies that enable affordable housing where infrastructure, legal water reliability and hazard/wildlife considerations allow it. Any changes to regulations or UGB policy would return to the board for formal action after public review and the comp‑plan update process.