Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Group Living topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After House Bill 24-1007, council pauses group-living enforcement and asks staff for options
Summary
Staff told the council the city must remove the term "family" from the zoning code and may not set occupancy limits except where those limits are supported by demonstrated health-and-safety standards; council asked staff for more legal analysis and comparative examples before making a formal policy decision.
City staff told the City Council on June 16 that state legislation (House Bill 24-1007) requires changes to local land-use rules that have long used the term "family" and limits municipal authority to set residential-occupancy caps except where those caps are based on demonstrated health and safety standards.
The staff presentation described two linked steps: amending local land-use definitions to comply with the new statute and temporarily pausing enforcement of the city's group-living regulatory provisions while staff and the council consider policy options.
"The legislature has preempted us from having that designation," City Attorney John Shaverick explained, summarizing the new statute and noting a statutory provision (cited in the staff materials) that allows local occupancy limits only when supported by demonstrated health-and-safety standards or applicable state or federal regulations.
What staff proposed: planning staff and the city attorney described specific code edits included in the packet:
- Remove the code's definition of "family," and replace phrasing that referenced "family" with terms such as "household" or "unit." The packet revises the dwelling-unit and household definitions and removes references to "not more than four unrelated persons."
- Add a reserved measurement for household occupancy that would allow the city to adopt a numerical occupancy cap later if the council and staff can point to demonstrable health-and-safety standards that justify it.
- A separate, draft moratorium ordinance was discussed that would freeze (1) new application review tied to the prior group-living standards and (2) enforcement of parts of the local code that regulated group-living uses, pending further analysis and potential legislative fixes at the state level.
Council discussion covered competing policy priorities. Several council members and staff emphasized the need to balance neighborhood transparency and safety with the city's interest in increasing housing availability and respecting the limits state law imposes. Councilmembers raised questions about:
- Whether other Colorado cities that have set thresholds (for example, an eight-person threshold cited in some jurisdictions) were relying on health-and-safety licensure or other state agency rules; staff said some cities have attempted that approach but the legal basis varies and is unsettled.
- What local tools remain for neighbors to raise concerns (noise, trash, public-activity problems) and how enforcement of externalities would continue even if internal-occupancy rules are paused.
- The practical mechanics of any local permitting or community-notification process that would provide neighbors with information and with contact points when operations at a group-living residence cause off-site impacts.
Staff also said the city currently registers group-living operations and that a recent registration effort identified 37 group-living facilities of various sizes, with local categories that the city has historically treated as "small" (five to nine residents) and "large" (10 to 60 residents). The staff presentation said many of the city's existing group-living operators have worked cooperatively with staff and have annual reporting and contact requirements in place.
Council direction and next steps: several council members asked staff to gather more comparative information about how other Colorado cities are addressing the statute's limits, to examine the CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) licensure threshold that some cities cite, and to draft options for transparent neighborhood notice and operational standards that do not conflict with the state law. The mayor indicated he would pull the item from consent so the council could discuss next steps; councilmembers agreed staff should return with additional analysis before formal ordinance action.
Ending: No new local occupancy limits were adopted at the workshop. Staff will return with additional legal and comparative analysis, and council members said they want a process that provides neighbors notice and operational transparency while complying with state law.
