Commerce City staff outline land-development code changes to match 2024 state housing and land-use laws

Commerce City planning staff presented a proposed update to the city’s land development code on April 14, recommending new early public-review steps for subdivisions and master plans and changes to align local rules with several 2024 state housing and land-use laws.

The presentation, led by Heather Vidlock, planning manager, and Seung (Sam) Hahn, principal planner, summarized code changes meant to increase public input earlier in the development process and to implement state bills that affect occupancy rules, off-street parking near transit and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). “One of the key focuses for the land development code update is to add more public input to the development review process and also to add more clarity to our process for the development community,” Vidlock told the council and planning commissioners.

The most immediate procedural changes staff proposed are (1) allowing preliminary plats to go to Planning Commission and City Council so the public sees a subdivision layout before developers expend major engineering costs and (2) adding a master development plan option that would be reviewed by Planning Commission and Council. Staff said final plats and site-development plans would remain administrative if the preliminary-plat step has been completed.

Why it matters: Council members and commissioners said earlier review could give residents meaningful input before projects are finalized, but several raised concerns about how later changes would be handled and whether the city would still be able to alter uses once a limited use or conditional use has been approved.

Key state-driven changes staff said they would fold into the code update: - HB24‑1007 (occupancy): staff recommended removing the long-standing local cap on unrelated adults (the code currently references a limit of three unrelated adults) and adopting occupancy standards tied to the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). The IPMC‑based approach would require a minimum bedroom size of 70 square feet and 50 square feet per occupant, rather than limits tied to family relationships. Vidlock said the goal is to ground occupancy limits in health-and-safety standards rather than household composition. Council members pressed staff on enforcement logistics, noting inspections and privacy limits make enforcement complaint-driven and often difficult. - HB24‑1304 (parking near transit): staff described the state’s requirement that cities not impose minimum off-street parking for multifamily buildings within state-defined transit service areas. The state map applies quarter-mile buffers around qualifying transit stops (light rail stations and bus routes running at least every 30 minutes). Staff proposed setting the minimum parking requirement to zero in those transit service areas for multifamily projects while reserving the city’s option to require one space per unit for developments of 20 or more units or certain affordable projects, if the city publishes a written finding within 90 days that lack of a minimum would substantially harm pedestrian, bicycle or emergency access and that parking-management strategies would not mitigate those impacts. - Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): in line with the state law staff proposed to allow ADUs where single‑family detached homes are allowed, require administrative (non‑hearing) approval for ADUs except in historic districts, prohibit owner-occupancy requirements in most cases, and eliminate local parking minimums for ADUs. Staff proposed size limits (75% of the primary dwelling or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less, with a baseline allowance of 400 square feet) and design controls to prevent ADUs from having the street-facing appearance of duplexes. Detached ADUs would be located behind primary homes and generally share drive access. - Nonfunctional turf and invasive species: staff recommended adopting the state prohibition on nonfunctional turf and certain invasive plant species for commercial, institutional, industrial and common-interest community properties, while preserving turf for active recreation fields. - HB24‑1313 (housing near transit / housing goals): staff introduced state requirements for cities to calculate housing goals based on developable land near transit stations and to zone appropriately to meet those goals. For Commerce City, staff said the 70th & Colorado light rail station is the applicable location and noted the many implementation questions — including how to coordinate with Adams County and the private property owner of a large adjacent parcel.

What council and commissioners asked: Elected officials pressed staff on: how limited-use permits running with the land (versus running with an owner) would affect future councils’ ability to change conditions; whether occupancy rules tied to bedroom sizes would be enforceable in practice; whether ADUs should require sprinklers; and where water, sewer and other utility capacity issues would be checked against increased density. Councilmember Oscar Madera and others cited neighborhood parking pressure and questioned the state’s transit definitions (for example, routes served only once per hour in parts of the city). Staff and the city manager said enforcement will be complaint-driven, that short‑term-rental rules would still limit guest counts (two per bedroom plus two), and that a follow‑up study session would examine utility and sprinkler implications.

Next steps: staff said the code update will be posted publicly and the project team will host public meetings May 15 and 22 (rec centers), provide an online draft in late May, hold a planning‑commission open house in June and return to council for further study sessions in June–July, with Planning Commission hearings in August and a council adoption hearing anticipated in September.

Ending: Planning staff repeatedly asked for council feedback on the proposed use-by/limited-use permit changes and the thresholds for ADUs and parking exemptions. Multiple council members asked staff to return with details on enforcement, utility capacity (water/sewer), and design standards for mixed‑use and higher‑density zoning before votes on code adoption.