Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Temporary Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montrose staff to draft code to allow temporary workforce housing with two‑year cap and strict standards
Summary
Community development staff proposed an amendment to Title 11 to define and regulate temporary workforce housing: two‑year limit (one administrative one‑year extension), IBC‑certified modular units, occupancy tied to employment, operational plans, and municipal review; council asked staff to return with a revised draft in about two weeks.
City staff presented a draft code amendment to add a use definition and detailed standards for temporary workforce housing, seeking to provide a clear regulatory pathway for time‑limited modular housing that supports large regional construction projects.
Community Development Director Jace Hockwell told council the proposal would add a specific definition for temporary workforce housing, identify appropriate zone districts (proposing I‑1/light industrial) and spell out 11 use‑specific standards including safety, operational plans, and removal security. On duration, Hockwell said the use would be limited to two years with a one‑year administrative extension if needed.
Hockwell said the units would be IBC‑certified modular or pre‑engineered units, not tents, and applicants would need to submit an operational and management plan that includes occupancy limits, parking management, waste storage and shuttle/employee transport plans. He described an expectation that the city would require a financial security or escrow to ensure units are removed when the permitted period ends.
Consultant Juan Robledo described typical deployment and reuse practices: mobilization and demobilization take roughly three weeks; developers typically negotiate buy‑back or resale to manufacturers at the end of a project. Robledo estimated a peak occupancy cap for the Four Seasons example at about 215 people and noted many construction subcontractors would be unionized with wage levels that increase local spending.
Council members raised a range of questions about public safety, traffic and whether such approvals should be administrative (staff‑driven site plan review) or require council hearing. Staff said fire, building and county health reviews would be part of the site plan review and recommended keeping the approval administrative but with detailed criteria to prevent repeated cyclical use of the same parcel. One council member urged adding a provision to prevent a parcel from being cycled repeatedly into temporary workforce use.
Public commenters flagged potential pitfalls seen elsewhere — overcrowded units, maintenance and policing challenges — and urged strict occupancy limits and maintenance requirements. Staff said those concerns are why an operational plan and occupancy limitations are central to the proposal.
Next steps: staff said they would add a provision limiting repetitive reuse of a parcel and return with a revised draft for council review in roughly two weeks.
