Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County adopts land‑use text amendments to implement 2024 state laws on ADUs, parking and recovery residences
Summary
The county approved PLN‑2025‑2 to update development standards so local regulations comply with four 2024 state acts covering accessory dwelling units (ADUs), minimum parking near transit, residential occupancy, and definitions for recovery residences; vote 3–0 with two absent.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County commissioners approved text amendments (PLN‑2025‑2) to the county’s development standards and regulations to comply with multiple 2024 state laws affecting accessory dwelling units, parking minimums near transit, residential occupancy limits and definitions for substance‑use recovery residences. The board voted 3–0 with two members absent.
Planner Ella Gleason of the Community and Economic Development (CED) department presented the amendments and said the package implements four state measures passed in 2024 and modernizes local code language on family definitions, recovery residences and parking requirements. "We did present these text amendments to the planning commission on May 8. They recommended approval with 3 findings of fact and 1 condition," Gleason said.
Key changes adopted by the board include:
- Substance‑use recovery residences: The county will adopt the state definition of "recovery residence" and create two local land‑use categories: "group home" (populations protected under the federal Fair Housing Act) and "group residential facility" (uses not protected by the Fair Housing Act, such as domestic violence shelters). Each category is split by size: "small" is eight or fewer residents; "large" is nine or more. Small group homes will be permitted where single‑family housing is allowed; large group homes will be treated similarly to multifamily and permitted in R‑3 and R‑4 zones; group residential facilities will require conditional use permits.
- Residential occupancy/family definition: The county updated its definition of "family" to remove limits based on blood or marriage and to comply with House Bill 24‑1007. Building and safety codes continue to govern maximum occupant counts in homes.
- Parking minimums: Per House Bill 24‑1304, the county will not require minimum off‑street parking for most new multifamily developments and certain adaptive reuse projects located within the state's mapped "applicable transit service areas." Staff showed the state transit map, which limits the exemption largely to the southwestern portion of the county around major transit lines; developers may still provide parking voluntarily or be required in some affordable housing scenarios over 20 units under specific conditions.
- Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): Adams County opted in as a supportive jurisdiction under House Bill 24‑1152 to access housing grants. The amendments require permitting one ADU accessory to any single‑family detached unit through an administrative process. The state sets a floor size of 750 square feet for ADUs; the county will apply a 40%‑of‑primary‑dwelling rule as the starting calculation and allow an applicant to build up to 750 square feet if 40% would fall below that. Detached ADUs remain capped at 1,500 square feet to preserve neighborhood scale. Staff also clarified the county will accept manufactured or modular homes as ADUs if placed on permanent foundations and connected to utilities; RVs and motor homes are excluded.
Commissioners questioned numeric thresholds and building‑code limits. Chase Evans, deputy director for Community and Economic Development, said the International Building Code establishes a hard minimum of about 400 square feet for residential units, and the 750‑square‑foot figure reflects the state's statutory minimum. "There is a hard minimum of 400 square feet per building code," Evans said; staff explained the county adopted the state's 750‑square‑foot allowance to reduce the need for variances where applicants want slightly larger ADUs than the county's 40% formula would otherwise allow.
Gleason told the commissioners staff received one public comment opposing the changes on the basis of concerns about increased density; two members of the public attended the planning commission hearing and raised water and density concerns. Staff recommended approval with three findings of fact and one condition allowing non‑substantive corrections in consultation with the county attorney.
Commissioner Emma Pinter moved to approve PLN‑2025‑2 with staff findings and condition. The motion passed 3–0 with two commissioners absent.

