Commission discusses state occupancy law, proposes moratorium on implementing group-living standards

Nikki (planning department staff) told the Planning Commission the city must bring its zoning code into compliance with a new Colorado state law that says “local government shall not limit the number of people who may live together in a single dwelling based on familial relationships.” She said the city will remove the local definition of “family” and change references to rely on “household,” and will delete language that currently limits unrelated occupants to “not more than 4.”

Nikki said the revised household definition will instead link allowable occupants to “the maximum allowed by health and safety codes” or “applicable state or federal law, regulation, or affordable housing standards,” language that mirrors the state law’s exceptions. She told commissioners the code edits will also include a find-and-replace pass to make terminology consistent across sections.

As a second step, staff proposed a moratorium on implementing the city’s group-living use standards while the city waits for state-level clarification. Nikki said the moratorium would pause enforcement of group-living review procedures, notice requirements, use-specific standards for boarding or rooming houses, density calculations in certain zones, and other provisions tied to group-living classifications. She recommended pausing enforcement for “a year or so” to allow time for guidance from the state, DOLA (Colorado Department of Local Affairs), or an attorney-general opinion.

Jamie (building/code staff) and Nikki explained the practical problem behind the proposal: the city historically set occupancy limits based on numerical categories (for example, small, large, unlimited or specific ranges such as 5–9, 10–16 occupants). The new state law bans limits that differentiate people based on familial relationship; only limits tied to demonstrable health-and-safety standards or applicable affordable housing rules remain permitted. Jamie said the municipal code currently lacks a clear, defensible health-and-safety metric tied to occupancy that would hold up in court or in a dispute with a developer.

Commissioners asked whether the moratorium would leave providers subject to state licensing requirements; Nikki and Jamie said state licensing and health-and-safety regulations remain in effect and local licensing or state licensing would still apply where appropriate. They cautioned that if the city later enforces a stricter interpretation, existing group-living arrangements established during the moratorium could become nonconforming uses subject to the city’s nonconforming-use rules.

Commissioners discussed alternative approaches. Andrew (chair/commissioner) and others asked whether the city could adopt numerosity limits tied to objective measures such as number of bedrooms or square footage; staff replied those approaches may be defensible only if tied to demonstrable health-and-safety standards and clarified by state guidance. Commissioners also referenced other municipalities’ approaches: Nikki noted Fort Collins eliminated group-living provisions and re-labeled dwelling categories; other communities are handling the law differently.

Nikki said staff’s recommendation at this stage is to remove “family” references from the code, revise “household” language, and place a temporary moratorium on enforcing group-living specific provisions while the statutory interpretation is clarified at the state level. No formal vote was recorded during the discussion; staff indicated they will return with drafted code language and a proposed moratorium ordinance or resolution for formal consideration.