Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Executive Orders topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pueblo staff: state executive orders on ADUs, parking and occupancy could jeopardize state grants

5681154 · August 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff told councilors that two executive orders require local changes to zoning — accessory dwelling units, residential occupancy rules and parking minimums — by Oct. 6, 2025 to remain eligible for multiple state funding programs; staff said past awards total more than $15 million across departments.

City planning staff on Aug. 25 outlined proposed zoning changes tied to recent state executive orders and warned that failing to adopt conforming ordinances could jeopardize state grants administered by CDOT, the Colorado Energy Office, DOLA and the Office of Economic Development and International Trade.

The planning presentation said two executive orders identify state legislation from 2024 and 2025 that local governments must comply with to be eligible for state funding opportunities beginning Oct. 6, 2025. The staff presentation identified three categories of legislation that would require local code changes: residential occupancy limits, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and parking requirements in designated transit areas.

Planning staff said the executive‑order guidance would bar municipalities from enforcing occupancy limits that depend on blood relationship, adoption or marriage and instead would limit enforcement to health and safety standards. Staff also said the executive orders restrict local parking minimums for three development types in designated transit service areas: (1) multifamily residential developments up to 19 units, (2) adaptive reuse for residential purposes and (3) adaptive reuse mixed use. For projects of 20 units or more in those areas, staff said a municipality may require up to one parking space per dwelling unit.

Hannah, a planning staff member, described the transit service areas as those with routes running at least every 30 minutes for a minimum level of service; the city has mapped the affected “bubble” areas and will bring text amendments to Planning & Zoning in September, staff said. Staff also said the executive orders set an 800‑square‑foot cap for ADUs in the guidance they reviewed.

The presenters provided a list of recent state awards that planning and other departments used over the last three to five years. “We did reach out to Luann, and she was able … to provide a list of future grants the city is looking at currently,” staff said, and the presentation noted the examples totaled more than $15 million across 14 funding opportunities and six departments in recent years. Staff said some awards used multiple funding sources (TAP, DOLA, EIAF, GOCO) and that future EIAF and other requests could be jeopardized if the ordinances are not adopted.

Councilors expressed concern about state intrusion into local property‑use policy. Councilor Maestri said homeowners move into single‑family neighborhoods “for a reason” and voiced concern about increased rentals and parking impacts. Staff responded that the change would not force parking to disappear; developers could still provide parking but the city could not impose minimum parking requirements in the specified bubble areas for the three development types under the state law.

Staff said some Colorado municipalities (Aurora, Arvada, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette and Westminster) had sued the state over parking minimums as of last week; the city has not found lawsuits tied specifically to the ADU requirement. Planning said it will bring proposed code amendments to Planning & Zoning Commission in September and forward to council thereafter so the city can meet the Oct. 6 compliance date if council elects to proceed.

No ordinance was adopted at the Aug. 25 meeting; councilors asked staff to return with draft ordinance language, maps and an analysis of local impacts, funding consequences and legal exposure.