Council adopts code changes to remove 'unrelated persons' occupancy limits and rely on life-safety code

Boulder City Council unanimously adopted ordinance 86-51 on March 6 to update the Boulder Revised Code so residential occupancy limits no longer depend on the number of unrelated persons living together. The ordinance implements recent state legislation and relies on life-safety standards from the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) to determine maximum occupancy.

Planning and development services staff explained that Colorado’s 2024 House Bill 24-1007 prohibits jurisdictions from enforcing occupancy limits based solely on the number of unrelated persons per dwelling. The city’s ordinance replaces references to “unrelated” occupancy caps with IPMC-based standards that consider bedroom sizes, minimum square footage per occupant and living/dining space requirements to address life-safety concerns.

Carl Geiler of Planning and Development Services summarized how the IPMC calculates occupancy: minimum bedroom size of 70 square feet for a single occupant, a requirement of 50 square feet per occupant where two people share a bedroom, plus living and dining room area minimums that can lower an otherwise larger numeric limit. Staff told council that many code references and terminology (e.g., “single-family” versus “detached dwelling unit”) needed systematic revision across the code to remove conflicting language.

The ordinance also removes the city’s cooperative-housing license and makes prior approvals that restricted occupancy (for example, use review or site review conditions) null and void to conform with state law. Staff said enforcement will rely on IPMC provisions and that the city does not intend routinely to require floor plans when issuing rental licenses; instead, compliance would be verified after complaints by using floor plans or other verifiable evidence when necessary. Jen Ross, manager of code compliance, said civil penalties begin at $100 for violations and that escalating enforcement could lead to criminal summons if property owners do not correct violations.

Council members and public commenters discussed enforcement burdens and the risk of unfounded or repeated complaints. Staff said code compliance currently tracks verified and unverified complaints and will continue to investigate allegations in good faith; repeat or harassing complaint patterns are noted but the affected individual typically must initiate a police report if criminal harassment is suspected.

After public comment that included supporters who framed the change as removing a discriminatory barrier to shared living and opponents who raised neighborhood-congestion concerns, Council Member Nicole Spear moved to adopt ordinance 86-51. The motion passed unanimously by roll call.

The change replaces a numerical “unrelated persons” cap in the land-use code with IPMC life-safety standards in the structures code; it does not create a new numerical cap but applies building- and fire-code-derived thresholds for safe occupancy and relies on complaint-driven enforcement.