×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.Colorado Energy Office Electric Vehicle Charging Model Land Use Code & Guidance Document
Review and Comment By February 18th!
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the draft EV Charging Model Land Use Code and Guidance Document, your input is crucial to this process and final outcomes. Below is a brief description of each document. You can toggle between the Model Code Document and the Guidance Document using the drop down menu in the upper lefthand corner of the toolbar below, or using the right/left arrows at the bottom of the page.
EV Charging Model Code: This includes EV charging specific standards for local governments to integrate into existing codes, and some limited guidance to help with code adoption.
EV Charging Model Code Guidance: This includes more in depth guidance on how to integrate the EV Charging Model Code standards into existing codes, and additional requirements for updating application and review processes outside of land use codes.
As you review, consider:
- Whether the standards and requirements are clear
- Whether the standards provide adequate structure and flexibility for local governments to appropriately regulate EV Charging
- If there may be any unintended consequences or outcomes as a result of these standards and requirements
- Whether the guidance document provides an appropriate level and quality of information for local governments to effectively implement the Model Code
If you have any questions, please email Jaxon Fagan: jaxon.fagan@state.co.us. Thank you!
Loading Glossary… Commenting is closed for this document.
James Schireman Feb 19 2025 at 12:31PM on page 20
Suggestion
A lot of local codes have their own definition of "adjacent" and I want to make sure this doesn't conflict with what the bill intends. In Aurora, public rights of way and bodies of water don't disqualify a property from being adjacent to another. Would this standard prevent a City from requiring screening to a lot separated by a street, or only to those sharing a property line?
in reply to Jeremiah Bebo's comment
James Schireman Feb 19 2025 at 12:23PM on page 17
Suggestion
I agree with Jeremiah, I think some sort of caveat needs to be included that acknowledges that siting within an easement could require conditions of approval or other city department approval that could lengthen the review timeline. License agreements for equipment in easements can often draw out the timeline.
in reply to Jack Sheehan's comment
James Schireman Feb 19 2025 at 12:07PM on page 15
Suggestion
I agree, some sort of color coding or key would make it way clearer what is required, what is optional, and perhaps what is suggested. Why list standard 4 under the required section but then say " . . . encouraged, but not required . . ."??
James Schireman Feb 19 2025 at 12:03PM on page 14
Suggestion
Perhaps a bit redundant, but I would head this column with "EV Charging Project" to make it clear this is referring to the charger thresholds defined earlier. That way it makes it clear this is meant for more impactful/intensive charging uses, and not the level 1 chargers people typically use in a garage.
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:46PM on page 24
Question
While this lighting approach makes a lot of sense, would it be impacted at all by any weather protection requirements?
in reply to Jack Sheehan's comment
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:45PM on page 26
Question
Adams County had a similar question, but feel that the point that these should be similar to a gas station makes sense.
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:43PM on page 17
Question
We also have some concerns about what is allowed in setbacks. For example, could it potentially impact on signage requirements? We only allow 1 freestanding sign per 500ft of frontage and wondering if the addition of a sign/structure in the setback might end up being a little confusing depending on the definitions of what these items in the setback qualify as.
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:35PM on page 15
This may just be confusing to us, but could use a little bit more clarify on overlap between this standard and accessibility requirements related to parking.
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:33PM on page 12
Question
Would significant change be defined in the model code or locally?
in reply to bob's comment
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:30PM on page 7
Suggestion
Similar question/issue from Adams. Between this project definition and the number of charging stations triggering a land use review we would like to simplify this to make it as clear as possible when land use review is required and focusing on use type may be more straightforward then the number of chargers.
in reply to Jack Sheehan's comment
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:28PM on page 14
Question
Adams County had a similar question!
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:27PM on page 26
Question
If no standards exist, can local government develop them?
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:27PM on page 14
Question
Would this include schools and if so, would it include private schools?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:26PM on page 26
Concern
When equipment and stations are required by the CEO to be permitted in the setback the weather cover structures will also be in the setback and thus will not comply with setback requirements.
bfulton Feb 18 2025 at 6:25PM on page 12
Question
Just seeking a little clarification and not necessarily and edit. Our planning staff was unsure if there would be a state definition for what accessory uses are available for a primary use EV project? Would that be up to the local jurisdiction to define?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:23PM on page 26
Question
Is the model code requiring that local government allow weather protection structures (precluding local government from dis-allowing these)?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:21PM on page 25
Question
Are we allowed to regulate signage based on content?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:20PM on page 21
Question
Who would be the reviewing agency to determine this compliance?
It would be helpful if the model code detailed out what this was.
It would be helpful if the model code detailed out what this was.
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:19PM on page 20
Concern
If we are required to allow the EV Stations and Equipment in the setback, it is likely this will impact the ability to require screening
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:19PM on page 20
Question
Does this section apply to both Accessory and Primary?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:18PM on page 19
Question
Is this a standard to be adopted into Land Use Codes or a directive from the CEO that local jurisdictions may not regulate the appearance, materials, and dimensions of EV Charging Equipment? A list of these specific directives would be helpful and add clarity. Codes typically include regulations for things they regulate they don't state the universe of things they don't regulate.
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:18PM on page 17
Concern
This is likely not appropriate in many instances. It would be better direction to require local governments to define when setback exceptions are appropriate.
in reply to Jack Sheehan's comment
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:17PM on page 17
**Disregard*** This was meant for "E. Siting Standards"
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:16PM on page 17
Question
Does this apply to both Primary and Accessory?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:15PM on page 17
Question
Does this apply to both Primary and Accessory?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:14PM on page 16
Concern
Who does this model code anticipate will do this review? This link is to a very lengthy web-page of recommendations covering a variety of topics, it would be helpful if the model code would spell out what is required, it will be nearly impossible for local jurisdictions to insert this entire website into their codes.
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:14PM on page 15
Suggestion
It is hard to tell what is actually required in this document when in one place is says 'must adopt' and in the next section says 'all standard are flexible'.
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:13PM on page 14
Question
In Boulder County most land is Agriculture or Forestry. How are we to interpret this table?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:13PM on page 12
Suggestion
Clarification around what the model code considers accessory to Primary EV Charging Projects would be helpful.
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:11PM on page 11
Suggestion
The development of 2 Stations on undeveloped land will have essentially the same impacts as the the development of 3 Stations. The development of any primary EV Station use should be allowed to be reviewed.
in reply to Jack Sheehan's comment
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:10PM on page 8
Question
Same comment for Primary Use (below)
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:09PM on page 8
Question
What might this be? Is this landscaping and lighting and perhaps covers for the parked cars and equipment? Or is this a 7-11 like a gas station?
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:08PM on page 7
Concern
How does this Code address projects where less than these numbers are being developed? I don't understand the differentiation between unit types. Regardless of the unit type it still requires a parking space, access to and from it, electrical utilities, etc. I don't see how the land uses of these two different types are different.. Is this language necessary? What happens if technologies change over time?
Perhaps this could be simplified to Development of EV Charging Station(s) and installation of EV Charging Equipment where the project will serve as the primary function and land use on the subject property.
Perhaps this could be simplified to Development of EV Charging Station(s) and installation of EV Charging Equipment where the project will serve as the primary function and land use on the subject property.
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:02PM on page 6
Question
Below it says all definitions are flexible, therefore it isn't required that these definition must be used. Is the intent that jurisdictions must adopt the definition for these terms and CEO is recommending the definitions given?
in reply to Jack Sheehan's comment
Jack Sheehan Feb 18 2025 at 6:01PM on page 1
Question
Is it possible to pull out the requirements into a separate document so these can be quickly understood?
Tessa Sanchez Feb 14 2025 at 5:09PM on page 21
Suggestion
Suggest referencing the NEC, not NFPA
Tessa Sanchez Feb 14 2025 at 4:51PM on page 12
Question
Need clarity on the intent of this section.
Marty Pool Feb 13 2025 at 12:53PM on page 8
Concern
Apologies for the multiple comments on this section, but I cannot figure out how to delete previous comments. I think I understand the intent here now, that any accessory use with less than 3 DCFC or less than 10 level-2 are not subject to land-use code review and allowed by-right. I still wonder if the definitions section is the best place to clarify that distinction, or if this clarification should be made elsewhere. By locking this cutoff in the definitions section, you do not allow any flexibility for accessory use review for certain zone types where it may still be useful.
Marty Pool Feb 13 2025 at 12:46PM on page 8
Concern
To clarify - remove cutoff numbers for both DCFC and level-2 requirements.
Marty Pool Feb 13 2025 at 12:45PM on page 8
Concern
Accessory use should not include a cutoff number. Otherwise you create a gap in code where projects with only stations do not have applicable code.
Marty Pool Feb 13 2025 at 12:42PM on page 7
Concern
The CEO Energy Code Board also provides a set of definitions around their EV Ready section of the Low Energy and Carbon Code. It would be extremely helpful if the definitions in the two codes matched. Please coordinate with please contact Adam Berry, Adam.berry@state.co.us, to get a draft of the recent draft code so you can align definitions.
bob Feb 13 2025 at 11:06AM on page 16
not necessary if already in the code
bob Feb 13 2025 at 11:04AM on page 8
remove number of charging stations and type of charging. accessory should simply be subordinate to the principal use or something similar
bob Feb 13 2025 at 11:03AM on page 7
remove type of charging device...I don't think this is necessary
Erin Andrews-Sharer Feb 12 2025 at 7:03PM on page 17
Support
I'll just support that we've also heard that setbacks (and restrictions on installing in setbacks) can be a big hurdle - so this would certainly be helpful to address that.
Erin Andrews-Sharer Feb 12 2025 at 6:53PM on page 13
Suggestion
I think the breakdown of required versus flexible is good, but then when you start reading the actual standards it is hard to remember - was this required or flexible and how? I wonder if there is some way to try and make this more clear. For example, in this one we both say it is required and it is flexible (in the code language). A visual reminder or maybe separating out flexible and optional? Don't have a great solution but perhaps there's a way to make required versus required but can change language versus optional more clear.
Erin Andrews-Sharer Feb 12 2025 at 6:48PM on page 7
Suggestion
I do like the concept of defining project - and leaving really small scale installations as something that don't need land use review. A "project" could be as you've described ... 3 or more stations ... but then perhaps move away from defining accessory or primary use and leave that up to the jurisdiction to determine when a "project" is an accessory or primary use. This could really resolve the "this is 1-2 chargers and doesn't need a full review" concept that would enable the quick standard projects to go through quickly.
bob Feb 12 2025 at 4:33PM on page 7
Suggestion
might need to separate EV charging station from this definition.
bob Feb 12 2025 at 4:32PM on page 7
Suggestion
I'm not sure the number of charging stations should matter but whether EV charging is the primary use of the property?
bob Feb 12 2025 at 4:31PM on page 7
Suggestion
facility vs project?
View all
Comments
Close