Commerce City council hears detailed draft of land development code update

Commerce City planning staff and consultants presented a multi‑module draft update to the city's Land Development Code and asked council for input on scope and next steps.

The planning manager, Heather Vidlock, told the council the update is intended to modernize the code, implement the comprehensive plan and make development rules more user friendly. "Limited use permits are a subset of permitted uses, and they're subject to specific design and operational standards," Vidlock said, describing a proposed shift away from the current "use by permit" structure.

The draft combines four modules: zone districts and use categories (module 1); development and design standards including parking and landscaping (module 2); subdivision standards (module 3); and development review procedures, nonconformities and administration (module 4). Consultant Brian Mambry of Kendig Kiest explained proposed changes that include: (1) new or reconfigured zoning districts aligned to the comprehensive plan, (2) building types tied to districts with tables of bulk, heights and setbacks, (3) an open/amenity‑space requirement for subdivisions, (4) a new preliminary plat process and removal of "call up" final plat hearings in exchange, and (5) a new master development plan application for large or mixed‑use phased projects.

Councilmembers focused questions on density and open space, the treatment of existing PUDs, and public engagement. "For the 0% open space, I believe the intent ... was intended for existing areas, existing neighborhoods that were already lacking in open space," Mambry said, and added that the team could revise minimums upward if council prefers. Councilmember Teeter asked for articulation and step‑backs to prevent bulky facades; Mambry pointed to proposed facade articulation rules and step‑back limits tied to building type. On PUDs, Vidlock and Mambry said there is no single automatic conversion; options include vesting existing PUDs for a fixed period, voluntary conversion to a new base district, or mapping strategies to convert built‑out PUDs to the most similar conventional zone.

Councilmembers emphasized predictability and clearer public notice. Vidlock said staff proposes more administrative approvals for narrowly defined "limited uses" (for example, a dog park with design and operational standards) while retaining public hearings for conditional uses that carry potential impacts. "If they're complying with these rules in black and white about a dog park, for example, then they are very likely to get administrative approval," Mambry said.

Next steps: staff will present the draft to Planning Commission, hold an open house and plan a joint study session with council and Planning Commission once a public draft is ready. Council members requested additional detail on density/open‑space tradeoffs, neighborhood meeting requirements, and a clearer plan for converting or mapping existing PUDs.

Ending: Staff said they would return with a public draft and a timeline for adoption and implementation. "We still have a bit of work to do to make sure that we have good visibility about the projects that we can adequately explain to property owners within the city what this means for them," Vidlock said.