Douglas County planners recommend limits on turf, invasive plants
The 7-0 recommendation would restrict nonfunctional turf, artificial turf and invasive plants in specified developments and public spaces as the county responds to two state laws.
Published at
The Douglas County Planning Commission voted 7-0 on Sept. 28 to recommend zoning changes restricting nonfunctional turf, nonfunctional artificial turf and invasive plant species in specified developments and public spaces. The recommendation advances the proposal to the Board of County Commissioners; it does not itself adopt the rules, the county staff report says.
The proposal would apply to commercial, institutional and industrial properties; state-owned properties; common-interest-community properties and common areas; street rights-of-way, parking lots and medians; and qualifying multifamily projects. The Planning Commission packet describes the state-law context as covering certain multifamily projects with 12 or more units approved after Jan. 1, 2026.
The amendments would align county zoning rules with Colorado Senate Bill 24-005 and House Bill 25-1113, which established or expanded restrictions on nonfunctional turf, artificial turf and invasive plants in specified properties and transportation areas.
Functional turf and artificial turf would remain allowed where they regularly serve civic, community or recreational purposes. The proposal also includes exceptions for some erosion-control and civil-infrastructure uses. Landscape plans would have to identify irrigated turf and high-water-use plant species, and local water providers could impose stricter requirements.
Dominion Water and Sanitation District asked the county to align its definition of a redevelopment project with state law. The district proposed covering projects that require a building or landscaping permit, plan check or design review and disturb more than half of the aggregate landscape area. County staff modified the redevelopment definition in response.
The district also asked the county to define “regularly,” saying the term could lead to inconsistent interpretation during plan review and enforcement. The draft continues to use the term without a numeric standard.