Planning Commission recommends denial of 63rd Street and Niwot Road subdivision

In a decisive 6-1 vote following a nearly six-hour hearing on Wednesday, Nov. 20, the Boulder County Planning Commission supported the staff recommendation by the Boulder County Community Permitting & Planning Division and rejected a proposed Transferable Development Rights/Planned Unit Development (TDR/PUD) submitted by the owners of the 39.5 acre parcel located at the corner of 63rd Street and Niwot Road.

The commission's near-unanimous decision to deny the application reflects the significant challenges faced by development proposals in areas designated for agricultural and environmental conservation in Boulder County.

The proposal, identified as Docket SD-23-0003, sought to subdivide a 39.5-acre parcel at 6184 Niwot Road into four residential lots. The property, which sits adjacent to several platted subdivisions, is designated as "Agricultural Land of Statewide Importance." It currently features a 5,266-square-foot residence, a 2,160-square-foot barn, and a 168-square-foot shed.

Deputy Director Kim Sanchez was present for the hearing, which was attended by a panel of Planning Commissioners that included Sam Libby, Mark Bloomfield, George Gerstle, Ann Goldfarb, Gavin McMillan, Rachel Lee (participating virtually), Rita Manna, and Bobby Umstead.

Pete L'Orange, Planner II-DRT (Development Review and Technical aspects), presented the staff analysis and recommendations during the hybrid meeting, which was open to the public and allowed for both in-person and virtual public participation.

According to the staff analysis, of the 90 criteria outlined in the Boulder County Land Use Code for sketch plan approval, 19 criteria were not met, while 52 criteria were either met, or could meet the requirements. The remaining 19 criteria were deemed not applicable to this sketch plan review.

Property owner Ifrain Rodriguez, who immigrated to the United States at age seven, presented his vision through his son Mateo Rodriguez, who read a statement written by his father. The younger Rodriguez described how through determination and hard work, his father built a life in real estate, but his true passion has always been carpentry.

The story of a man on the cusp of change unfolded with the event of his youngest son preparing for college marked a perfect moment to pursue Ifrain's long-held dream. Mateo explained that the land Ifrain had purchased held more than just soil and possibilities, it held the blueprint of his American dream. That dream was to build homes with the same care and craftsmanship he had poured into his own.

Mateo emphasized that the proposal "keeps the rural character of the area and protects the agricultural land for future generations."

The Transferable Development Rights Program – a rare mechanism in county planning – emerged as a crucial element. It was designed to preserve agriculture, rural open space, and natural resources while allowing controlled development in suitable areas according to county staff.

The staff's report validated key aspects of the proposal. The staff agreed that the property met all eligibility requirements for TDR designation, and the planned development was deemed compatible with adjoining land uses. The proposal committed to placing 35 acres under conservation easement, ensuring the preservation of open space for future generations.

The applicants' requests were modest but precise: approval for the development with conditions including an agricultural conservation easement, shared access road design, comprehensive landscape planning, and careful attention to environmental impact. The proposed homes would be limited to single-story construction, with square footage matching the median of surrounding properties.

The two-hour public comment period was a parade of passionate opposition. Speakers took turns at the podium, their speaking time minutes often pooled with many others, allowing some to speak for up to ten minutes.

Many spoke of decades and generations of families that had farmed in the area, some who even watched Niwot Road transform from dirt to pavement. Opposition also stressed the importance of maintaining rural character, projecting traffic impacts the community did not want to see.

While the staff said the proposal met eight of the nine PUD General Criteria (6-200) (A-H), staff concluded that the proposal is not in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Its failure to align with the Comprehensive Plan was its downfall

Although the panel did not agree on almost all aspects of staff recommendations, the heart of the decision revolved around two policies: NIW 1.01, which designates the subregion as primarily agricultural, and NIW 1.02, which explicitly discourages the subdivision of land outside designated community service areas.

The location in an environmentally sensitive area, combined with the lack of proposed mitigation measures, raised red flags for planning commission members. Though the development could theoretically be made compatible with the neighboring Brigadoon Glen neighborhood in terms of lot size and design, the fundamental issue of Comprehensive Plan compliance remained.

Commissioner Libby made a motion for denial with Gerstle seconding the motion. Commissioners Libby, Gerstle, Goldfarb, McMillan, Manna, and Umstead all voted in favor of denial. Commissioner Lee had to leave the hearing before a vote was taken. Only Commissioner Bloomfield's solitary "nay" stood in opposition, a small note of discord in an otherwise unified decision.

The full hearing can be seen by accessing the Meeting of the Planning Commission Agenda.