Arvada council questions state ADU, parking and occupancy mandates; legal review ordered

At a Jan. 13 workshop, Arvada staff presented amendments to the city’s Land Development Code to align the code with recent state laws on residential occupancy limits, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and minimum parking requirements.

Rosalyn Thompson, the city’s principal planner, told the council the presentation grouped proposed changes into two categories: items required by state legislation and miscellaneous clarifications and corrections to the LDC. “The amendments to the Land Development Code, or LDC, in this presentation can be divided into 2 categories,” Thompson said.

The state statutes summarized in the presentation were HB24‑007 (residential occupancy limits), HB24‑1152 (ADUs) and HB24‑1304 (minimum parking). Thompson said HB24‑007 prohibits limits on who may live together based on familial relationship but preserves local authority to limit occupancy for health and safety under building and fire codes. On ADUs, she summarized that HB24‑1152 requires jurisdictions to allow one detached or conversion ADU, to permit administrative review, and bars requirements that the primary or ADU unit be owner‑occupied in perpetuity (with a narrow exception at the time of application). On parking, she said HB24‑1304 removes minimum parking requirements for new multifamily projects of 20+ units in applicable transit service areas after June 30, 2025, subject to reporting and other conditions.

Why it matters: council members warned the state changes could reshape neighborhood character and complicate enforcement. Council member Marriott said the owner‑occupancy change could let investors convert single‑family homes into effectively two rental units and urged resistance: “We ought to resist that, opposed to that, and refuse to implement that,” Marriott said. Council member Pfeiffer and others echoed concerns about setbacks and parking; several members called out the law’s one‑size‑fits‑all approach to communities with different transit realities.

Key details from the presentation and council discussion: - ADU rules summarized: jurisdictions must allow one detached or conversion ADU (generally 500–750 sq. ft. by statute), permit administrative review based on objective standards, and may not require owner occupancy in perpetuity; jurisdictions may allow different sizes or more ADUs under local code. Thompson noted jurisdictions may still enforce health and safety occupancy limits through the building and fire codes. - Owner‑occupancy: staff said the statute allows an owner‑occupancy exception at time of application for a permit but not as a perpetual requirement. Emily Grogg of the state attorney’s office said the law does not immediately change enforcement capacity and that the city’s deed‑restriction enforcement has been limited in practice. - Parking: HB24‑1304 applies to new multifamily projects of 20+ units within applicable transit service areas, defined in Arvada as a quarter‑mile of the G Line stations or RTD routes 51, 52, 72, 76 and 100. The statute allows the city to require a written, peer‑reviewed report (at the city’s expense) to impose a maximum parking requirement of one space per unit in limited circumstances. - Setbacks: Thompson said HB24‑1152 requires jurisdictions not to impose larger rear‑yard setbacks than a 5‑foot minimum for ADUs; council members warned this would constrain local setback rules that neighborhoods rely on. - Certification: jurisdictions can opt to be certified as an “ADU supportive jurisdiction” by DOLA to become eligible for fee reduction grants and other CHFA financing incentives; that certification is optional.

Council reaction and next steps: several council members, including Marriott, Pfeiffer and Rupert, urged the city to seek legal advice and consider refusing to change local code where the statute appears to impinge on home‑rule authority. The city attorney’s office told council the statute’s effective dates are: HB24‑007 already effective July 1, 2024; HB24‑1152 and HB24‑1304 effective June 30, 2025, and that the statutes apply to applications filed on or after those dates. Staff said a discussion on short‑term rentals will occur at the Feb. 10, 2025 City Council meeting, and the city will return in executive session to provide legal advice on the risks and options for compliance or challenge.

Clarifying technical notes recorded in the workshop: the city has about 51,000 dwelling units; staff reported the city averages roughly five to six ADU permit applications per year; local ADU construction costs were estimated to run roughly $150,000–$350,000 depending on type; the city currently requires a single off‑street parking place for ADUs under local code, and currently requires owner occupancy as a deed restriction though enforcement has been limited.

Council members also raised implementation questions about HOAs and metro districts. Staff and the city’s litigation counsel said covenants are typically enforced as private matters between a homeowner and an HOA; a homeowner could sue an HOA to enforce right to build an ADU under the new statute, and metro districts (which are local government entities) may have different litigation positions and resources than HOAs.

More council direction: no formal motion or vote occurred. Council asked staff to return with legal analysis and to coordinate outreach to affected stakeholders (HOAs, metro districts and neighborhood groups) before any code changes. The Feb. 10 agenda item on short‑term rentals will examine whether ADUs should be allowed to operate as short‑term rentals.

Ending note: council members emphasized the timeline — changes required by HB24‑1152 and HB24‑1304 take effect June 30, 2025 — and signaled they will weigh legal risk, community input and enforcement capacity before deciding which statutory requirements, if any, the city will adopt or contest.