Planning commissioners debate limited community housing outside urban growth boundaries

The Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission on March 10 continued a public hearing on the county comprehensive plan and devoted extensive discussion to a proposed policy that would allow limited community housing outside established urban growth boundaries (UGBs) under defined criteria.

Planning staff read the draft policy that would "enable added density to existing development and opportunities for new development to increase the supply of community housing outside of established urban growth boundaries under the following criteria," including adjacency to or inclusion within an existing municipal water provider, metro district, or community well system "with available and reliable water supply and capacity to serve additional units," proximity to transit or along Highway 82, and "site-appropriate density and scale" with cluster developments capped at 10 dwelling units. Staff member Hannah Hunt summarized the committee’s approach and said the policy carries forward recommendations from the Community Growth Advisory Committee.

Why it matters: commissioners said the provision could widen housing options for workers and households who cannot find housing inside UGBs, while caucus representatives and some commissioners warned it risks eroding UGB protections and enabling infrastructure-driven sprawl if the text is not tightly drafted.

Points of contention

- Water and other utilities: Commissioners repeatedly flagged water as the primary limiting factor. Staff emphasized that the draft ties allowable projects to existing water systems and capacity; one commissioner suggested expanding the text to list the utilities (water, sewer, roads, electricity, natural gas or renewable energy) and clarify whether all must be present. Hannah Hunt read the draft definition for close proximity to infrastructure: "immediately adjacent to or within an existing utility service area including water, electricity, natural gas and sewer," and for transit: "within a quarter-mile walking distance of a transit stop and/or along the major transportation corridor of Highway 82." (Hannah Hunt, staff member)

- Energy and renewables: Commissioners asked whether an energy source could be renewable (for example, solar with battery storage) rather than tied to an existing gas connection; some suggested rewording to "water and energy (electricity, natural gas, or renewable sources)" to avoid blocking innovative solutions.

- Location test: Several commissioners and public commenters pressed whether specifying "Highway 82" precludes other transit-served sites (for example, areas served by bus that lie off Highway 82). Staff said the Highway 82 language follows the Growth Advisory Committee’s intent to prioritize commuter corridors but noted the draft uses "and/or" to allow transit-served sites not strictly on Highway 82.

- Scale and typology: The draft lists typologies such as small single-family, small-scale attached units, or clustered development "of up to 10 dwelling units." Commissioners debated whether the "10" cap applies only to clustered typologies or to all forms; staff said the number was based on local examples and community workshops but agreed to clarify the drafting.

Caucus and public testimony

Joe Wells, Castle Creek Caucus coordinator, told the commission his caucus has limited existing infrastructure beyond a nearby music campus and that he does not "see that as being a feasible location for a cluster of affordable housing" under the draft criteria. (Joe Wells, Castle Creek Caucus coordinator)

Alan Jones, an online commenter, urged the commission to require that any limitation refer to "insufficient level of existing infrastructure," saying that without the word "existing" future buildout could be used to justify larger projects outside UGBs. (Alan Jones, public commenter)

What staff and commissioners will do next

Staff told commissioners they will return with redrafted language that tightens definitions (for example, specifying whether "existing" systems are required), aligns the community-housing policy with the utilities-extension policy, and clarifies whether numeric caps apply to all typologies or only to clustered development. Commissioners asked staff to present options on whether the plan should explicitly require existing infrastructure capacity versus allowing upgrades where capacity can be demonstrated.

The hearing remains open for written and oral comment and was continued to the commission’s March 17 meeting.

Ending: The commission did not adopt final policy language at this session; staff will prepare revisions and additional clarifications for the next hearing on March 17.