Arapahoe County planning staff preview draft affordable-housing changes to land development code

Arapahoe County planning staff on Jan. 7 presented a study-session briefing on proposed changes to the county’s land development code designed to encourage development of affordable and higher-density housing along transit and arterial corridors.

The proposed package would add two new zone districts (a multifamily district and a mixed-use district), revise permitted residential uses and definitions (including manufactured, modular and tiny homes), remove minimum parking requirements for multifamily projects consistent with recent state law, and create a two-tiered incentive structure for projects that include affordable units, staff said.

Kat Hammer, Arapahoe County senior planner, told the Planning Commission that the changes are intended to provide zoning capacity rather than require construction. “Between now and 2032, Arapahoe County has a local need for 2,270 housing units,” Hammer said, and she cited larger regional estimates for the Denver area.

Why it matters: county officials said the changes aim to make it easier for developers to propose affordable units and for the county to qualify for state grant funds while preserving oversight through recorded agreements and annual reporting. Several commissioners said they supported incentives but pressed staff on enforcement, infrastructure impacts and public outreach.

Key proposals and incentives

- New zone districts: A multifamily district (13–35 dwelling units per acre, maximum building height proposed at 55 feet for multifamily) and a mixed-use district (minimum 35 dwelling units per acre, maximum 75 feet, required to be within the countys urban area and within one-quarter mile of arterial streets or transit). Staff said they are not rezoning properties now; the code would enable conventional rezonings rather than requiring planned-unit developments for each multifamily proposal.

- Two-tier incentive structure: Tier 1 (intended for smaller projects or infill) would require a minimum of 10% of units to be affordable; Tier 2 would require 50% or more affordable units. Density bonuses would be discretionary up to 10% (Tier 1) and up to 50% (Tier 2). Height increases tied to density bonuses were proposed (Tier 1: up to +15 feet; Tier 2: up to +30 feet) with an overall cap of 75 feet.

- Design and timing standards: Developers seeking incentives would need to record agreements (memoranda of agreement or similar) specifying the total number and location of affordable units, unit sizes, deed-restriction lengths and eligibility rules. Staff said annual reporting on compliance would be submitted to Community Resources rather than to planning staff.

- Expedited procedures and waivers: Affordable projects would qualify for a two-step PUD process regardless of thresholds that otherwise trigger a three-step PUD. For projects with at least 50% affordable units, neighborhood-meeting requirements could be waived and open-space or park dedication requirements could be reduced or waived; staff said open-spaces representatives supported waiving cash-in-lieu or land dedication for developments with more than 50% affordable units.

- Parking and parking law alignment: Draft regulations remove minimum parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing projects to align with recent state legislation (referenced in the briefing as House Bill 24134).

- Manufactured and mobile homes: The code would clarify and expand the definition of manufactured homes to expressly include modular homes and tiny homes (excluding recreational vehicles). For manufactured-home subdivisions, the proposed minimum access roadway requirement would be reduced from 60 feet to 45 feet, and required off-street parking per residence would be reduced from two spaces to one.

Enforcement, compliance and state funding

Hammer said developers would be required to sign recorded agreements that the county could use to enforce affordability commitments. "There would be a requirement to submit a summary of the affordable units every 12 months to the county," she said, and she described the MOA and enforcement mechanisms as still under development.

Staff also cited state programs and recent ballot funding as part of the context: Proposition 123 (an affordable-housing fund that makes grant money available to jurisdictions with housing commitments) and Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) grant rounds. Hammer said Community Resources has submitted a commitment that could make county projects eligible for Prop 123 funds.

Commissioner questions and concerns

Commissioners generally supported exploring incentives but raised recurring concerns about public outreach, infrastructure and verification of affordability. Commissioner Miller urged that neighborhood meetings not be waived, saying, “Its just one of those simple things that just makes people feel good even if it's difficult for the developer to do.”

Commissioner Brockelman raised infrastructure concerns: “Thats getting pretty dense. Thats a lot of people,” he said, urging attention to water, traffic and utilities in denser zones. Hammer and county staff said the proposed zoning is targeted to urbanized areas where water and sewer infrastructure is generally available and that traffic and right-of-way dedications would still be addressed through transportation reviews and project-level studies.

Commissioner Latsis asked how the county would verify that units remain affordable. Hammer said for-sale units would typically be deed-restricted and that the MOA would require annual reporting; she acknowledged the county is still developing penalties or remedies for noncompliance.

Staff direction and next steps

Staff said they will prepare additional materials and case-analysis examples for future study sessions, including a site-specific analysis showing how incentives could change unit counts on a proposed senior-community proposal. Community Resources will be involved in the administration of the recorded agreements and annual compliance checks, staff said. No zoning changes or rezonings were proposed or adopted at the meeting; the briefing was for discussion only.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes: The Planning Commission approved the Dec. 17, 2024 meeting minutes (motion by Commissioner Morehouse; second by Commissioner Brokleman). Roll call recorded seven ayes and the minutes were approved 7-0.

Ending

Staff said they will return with refined language, examples of how incentives would affect actual projects and further recommendations for enforcement mechanisms. Commissioners indicated they expect additional study sessions and documentation before any formal code amendments or rezonings are scheduled for public hearings.