HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230996.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL, SB23-213, LAND USE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, although the stated goal of Senate Bill 23-213 (hereinafter referred to as
"SB23-213") is to increase the stock of affordable housing, in truth the bill would authorize State
control over local land use regulation and decision making with little or no beneficial effect on the
affordability of housing in Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners agrees with the analysis of SB23-213
by the Colorado Municipal League ("CML") set forth in the attached, "CML Analysis of SB23-213,
Land Use," and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of SB23-213 would prohibit Weld County from enforcing its existing
regulations governing occupancy of residential structures based on familial relationships, and
WHEREAS, Section 9 of SB23-213 would, for the first time, require Weld County to:
1) include in its Comprehensive Plan a description of the "general location and extent of
an adequate and suitable supply of water," a "water supply element," a "natural and
agricultural land priorities in accordance with the natural and agricultural land priorities
report created in section 29-33-109," and a "greenfield development analysis that is
conducted in the same manner and on the same timeline as the greenfield
development analysis required in Section 29-33-104(4)(d)," and
2) submit its Comprehensive Plan to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division
of Local Government, for approval, and
WHEREAS, these provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of SB 23-213 would allow the State to
exercise control over the regulation of, and decisions regarding, land uses in Weld County that
have been under the sole jurisdiction and authority of the Weld County Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners since, respectively, March 30, 1939 (the effective date of
Senate Bill 278), and January 1, 1976 (the effective date of the Weld County Home Rule Charter),
and
WHEREAS, both CML and Colorado Counties, Inc., have taken the position of "Oppose"
regarding SB23-213, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners opposes SB23-213 because of its
unwarranted authorization of State control over local land use regulation and decision making
with little or no beneficial effect on the affordability of housing in Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Board hereby expresses its opposition to SB23-213 and encourages
its citizens to contact their legislators to also express opposition to the bill for the reasons stated
herein.
de: CA(88),R ,ef9,
A. Cr'P), Pio (-IF), # -
O4/tt/23
2023-0996
BC0057
EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL, SB23-213, LAND USE
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 10th day of April, A.D., 2023.
ATTEST: C/ r'• jdo:,,k
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ounty Attorney
Date of signature: o' /I I /23
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
-mli ,,,,,,,_______
Mi eman, Chair
2023-0996
BC0057
A.4.
1 s
- 1
J
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
CML Analysis of SB23 213, Land Use
► INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill 23-213 includes several subjects but primarily focuses on a central theme: municipal zoning laws caused the
housing crisis by not permitting unfettered residential construction and by trying to protect communities and resources.
The bill attempts to draw a line from local zoning laws affecting individual parcels of land in dozens of municipalities to
"regional imbalances" that "affect equity, pollution, infrastructure costs, and quality of life." The bill does not question the
state's involvement in actual statewide problems, but asserts that state regulation of hyper -local matters, imposed through
over a dozen regulatory actions with insufficient process, will improve these imbalances and presumes that there will not
be significant unintended consequences. This analysis is not a complete list of problems in the bill but represents the most
significant elements.
► CML ANALYSIS:
LAND USE BILL WOULD DO LITTLE TO MAKE HOUSING AFFORDABLE
Section 2 of SB23-213 creates a new article 33 in title 29 that imposes top -down standards on some local governments to
remove local zoning authority. Despite being titled as requirements for affordable housing, Section 2 doesn't require affordability
at all and is premised on speculation that developers will build more housing, either passing savings along to Coloradans or
causing a market -based decline in housing costs. Section 2 begins with overbroad and complex definitions and continues to
address assessments and planning before imposing mandates and preempting authority to zone land for particular uses.
An uneven strategy
The bill largely applies only to municipalities, and then only to some municipalities and in differing degrees. Municipalities
are classified into four basic groups that do not cover all municipalities. The bill's requirements apply to each category, and
then subsets of categories, to differing degrees in each part. Identifying where a municipality is classified is a complicated
process requiring reference. Whether the bill addresses actual problems in the municipalities included in each category or
causes more problems in those municipalities will be difficult to determine. See the last page of this analysis for a list of
affected municipalities, reported by Colorado Public Radio.
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page i
Geographic Classification of Municipalities
Tier 1 Urban
Municipality (T1UM)
In an MPO with a population
of at least 1 million
10% of territory in urbanized
area with population over
75,000; and
Tier 2 Urban
Municipality (T2UM)
Within an MPO
A population between
5,000-25,000; and 1,000
A population of at least In a county with a population
1,000; or of at least 250,000
In an MPO with a population
under 1 million; and
A population of at least
25,000
1,200 jobs and a
jobs -to -population ratio of at
least 64 -hundredths; and
A transit stop serviced by a
transit agency serving two
municipalities with at least
20 trips per day
The bill grants broad regulatory authority to DOLA
Rural Resort
Job Center (RRJC)
Not within an MPO
Non -urbanized
Municipality (NUM)
Not within the definition of
an urban municipality or a
rural resort job center; and
A population of at least A population of at least
5,000
The bill contemplates dozens of regulatory actions, primarily by DOLA. The bill appropriates $15 million dollars to DOLA;
however, it is not clear how that funding will be expended and whether funding for the various regulatory actions is included.
First, the Director of DOLA is tasked with issuing multiple methodologies, guidance, "menus" of strategies, statewide
strategic growth objectives, model codes, rules, and minimum standards based on the recommendation of a "multi -agency
committee" of executive appointees. Although the bill does not outline a public comment process, DOLA will undergo a
rulemaking process that may include a public comment period. The committee's recommendation only involves a limited
public process involving public comment, consultation with local governments and experts, and only two hearings, despite
having statewide impact and addressing extremely local issues (29-33-108(2)). The bill does not specify which local
governments and "local experts" will be consulted, and it is seemingly up to the committee members to choose those experts
without any guidelines. There are no requirements to ensure inclusivity, such as meetings during varying hours, meetings in
different geographic locations, or outreach to educate and explain proposed recommendations.
SIMMS
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE.
rus
Page 2
Second, the Director of DOLA is granted authority to modify statutory minimum standards relating to accessory dwelling
units (ADUs), middle housing, housing in transit -oriented areas, and housing in key corridors. Only token consideration of
process is provided.
Third, DOLA is tasked with a substantial amount of new oversight and enforcement responsibility with the receipt, review,
and approval of various reports, codes, and draft and final plans.
In addition to DOLA, the Office of Climate Preparedness is directed to develop a natural and agricultural land priorities
report that MPOs should apply to achieve connectivity of open space and natural lands and preservation of agricultural
land and open space. Counties and municipalities must include natural and agricultural priorities in their master plans in
accordance with the state's mandate.
Ambiguous mandates for housing needs assessment & planning
The bill asserts that "assessing and planning for housing needs" is a matter of mixed state and local concern. DOLA will issue
methodologies for developing state, regional, and local "housing needs assessments" and then create the assessments every
5 years, beginning December 31, 2024. DOLA will allocate shares of statewide housing needs to regions defined by DOLA and
local governments. DOLA will also use local housing needs assessments to mandate "net residential zoning capacities" for key
corridors in tier 1 urban municipalities and rural resort job centers (see below for a more detailed analysis).
TiUM, T2UM, and RRJC municipalities must use DOLA's local and regional assessments to inform any required "housing
needs plans." DOLA will create guidance for these plans, but the bill includes procedural and extensive, but ambiguous,
substantive mandates for their development and adoption, including requirements to describe compliance with the bill's
mandates and a "greenfield development analysis." The greenfield development analysis relies on undefined "statewide
strategic growth objectives" also developed by DOLA. The bill's limited direct connection to affordability and displacement
includes requirements to include a varying number of strategies regarding those issues from state -created "menus" (also
developed by DOLA), although RRJC are not required to address displacement. None of the items in the menus provide
additional authority to municipalities beyond existing law and given the bill's other restrictions, may inhibit existing authority
to plan communities and ensure affordability.
Housing needs plans, a greenfield development analysis, and a concept of natural and agricultural land priorities consistent
with state requirements must be included in master plans for TIUM, T2UM, and RRJC.
Counties and municipalities that DOLA groups into rural resort regions are required to participate in "regional housing
needs planning process" resulting in a report and commitments that DOLA must review and approve. The bill suggests that
this process will encourage participants to address needs through individual or regional strategies, including strategies from
"menus" and locations where reduced parking requirements can reduce housing needs. The process will map locations where
Article 33's minimum standards for middle housing, transit -oriented areas, and key corridors could meet needs, but later the
bill actually indicates that this map would dictate where middle housing standards apply in RRJCs.
Burdensome reporting standards
Ti UM, T2UM, and RRJC must collect, track, maintain, and report to DOLA an overwhelming amount of data beginning
December 31, 2026. These municipalities must report both the number of permits for new housing and the number of housing
construction starts each categorized by structure type, time frames to complete residential permit reviews by housing type,
workforce assigned to development review by position time, implementation status of strategies identified in a housing needs
plan mandated by the law, zoning information specifying zone districts, allowed uses and densities and "other data," and
regional efforts to address housing needs.
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 3
"Use by right" would supersede local control
In removing the legislative discretion of municipal governing bodies in making zoning decisions, the bill removes a traditional
elements of zoning authority to consider — in their best legislative judgment — consistency with plans, compatibility
or harmony of surrounding land uses and development, and strategies for mitigating project impacts. Each of the zoning
preemptions also includes a concept of a "use by right," meaning the development approval relies only on "objective
standards" that lack any discretionary component. Objective standards prohibit any personal or subjective judgment by a
public body or official and must be "uniformly verifiable or ascertainable by reference to an external or uniform benchmark
or criterion" that is known before filing of the proposal. Not only does this inhibit local officials from exercising traditional
authority, but it also potentially prevents municipalities making critical changes to land use laws to protect their communities
that might apply to a pending project.
Zoning preemption No. is
Accessory dwelling units — TiUM, T2UM, RRJC, NUM
The bill declares "an increased supply of housing through accessory dwelling units" to be a matter of mixed state and local
concern but reflects inadequate study of how ADUs are treated in all subject jurisdictions or what the supply would look
like if the bill is enacted. Under the bill, an ADU is an internal, attached, or detached "dwelling unit" providing complete
independent living facilities for at least one person that is located on the same lot as a primary residence with provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
By December 31, 2O24, a TiUM, T2UM, and RRJC must change their local laws concerning ADUs to meet the bill's minimum
standards (as may be modified by DOLA) or adopt DOLA's model ADU code. The municipalities must report their compliance
by that date, subject to DOLA review and approval. Failure to adopt meet the minimum requirements by June 3O, 2O25, or
DOLA's rejection of the jurisdiction's report, means the model code goes into effective immediately; no provision is made
for who makes this determination or whether it can be disputed. If the model code is adopted, it must be implemented using
"objective procedures" and the municipality cannot have any "local law" that would contravene it. The bill does not account
for potential citizen referendum and expressly seeks to preempt local zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to Article XX,
Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution.
Developed by June 3O, 2O24, DOLA's model ADU code will allow ADUs as a "use by right" anywhere a municipality allows
single -unit detached dwelling units as of January i, 2023. The code will provide "objective standards" for approval of the units,
so that officials cannot evaluate local conditions to determine if the ADU will cause an unfair burden or be incompatible. The
model code cannot require new off-street parking in any subject jurisdiction, even if the ADU is in an area without adequate
parking or transit. The model code is not subject to the same minimum standards that apply to municipalities that do not
adopt the model code.
The bill establishes minimum standards that attempt to preempt local law if the model code is not voluntarily adopted. DOLA
can update minimum standards through rulemaking under an ambiguous "public hearing and comment process."
ADUs are not required to be permitted on the same lot or parcel as middle housing.
Other exemptions apply for parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, short-term rental rules, and
historic districts.
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 4
Minimum Standards for ADUs
ADUs of the greater of
800 square feet or 50% of
the primary residence must
be allowed as a "use by right"
anywhere the municipality
allows single -unit, detached
dwelling units as of January
1, 2023.
Only "objective standards
and objective procedures
can apply," meaning that
officials cannot evaluate local
conditions to determine if
the ADU will cause an unfair
burden or be incompatible.
Zoning preemption No. 2:
"Middle housing" — TiUM and RRJC
Municipalities must allow
additions to, or conversions
of, existing single detached
dwelling units and must
apply the same design
standards that apply to single
detached dwelling units.
Municipalities cannot have
local laws that treat ADUs
more restrictively, "create
unreasonable costs or delays
or make ADUs "infeasible,"
require that primary resi-
dences be owner -occupied,
require new off-street park-
ing (in T1UM and T2UM), or
require side or rear setbacks
of more than 5 feet unless
needed for health or safety
standards.
1.
The bill declares "an increased supply of housing through middle housing" to be a matter of mixed state and local concern
but reflects inadequate study of how "middle housing" is treated in all subject jurisdictions or what the supply would look
like if the bill is enacted. Under the bill, "middle housing" is either a single structure with 2-6 separate dwelling units (duplex
through sixplex), a townhome, or cottage cluster. A townhome is a dwelling unit in a row of 2 or more attached dwelling units
on individual lots with common walls. A cottage cluster is a grouping of at least 4 detached units with a common courtyard,
with each unit being smaller than 901 square feet.
By December 31, 2024, a TiUM, and by December 31, 2026, a RRJC, must change their local laws concerning middle
housing to meet the bill's minimum standards (as may be modified by DOLA) or adopt DOLA's model middle housing
code. The municipalities must report their compliance by that date, subject to DOLA review and approval. Failure to
adopt the minimum requirements by June 30, 2025, for a TiUM, or by June 30, 2027, for a RRJC, or DOLA's rejection of
the jurisdiction's report, means the model code goes into effect immediately; no provision is made for who makes this
determination or whether it can be disputed. If the model code is adopted, it must be implemented using "objective
procedures" and the municipality cannot have any "local law" that would contravene it. The bill does not account for
potential citizen referendum and expressly seeks to preempt local zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to Article XX, Section
6 of the Colorado Constitution.
Developed by June 30, 2024, DOLA's model middle housing code will allow middle housing as a "use by right" anywhere the
municipality allows single -unit detached dwelling units as of January 1, 2023. The code will provide "objective standards" for
approval of the units, so that officials cannot evaluate local conditions to determine if the housing will cause an unfair burden
or be incompatible. The model code cannot require new off-street parking in any subject jurisdiction, even if the housing is
in an area without adequate parking or transit. The model code is not subject to the same minimum standards that apply to
municipalities that do not adopt the model code.
The bill establishes minimum standards that attempt to preempt local law if the model code is not voluntarily adopted.
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 5
Minimum Standards for Middle Housing
Middle housing of at least 125% of
the building area of a single -unit
detached dwelling must be allowed as
a "use by right" anywhere the T1UM
allows single -unit detached dwell-
ing units as of January 1, 2023, or
wherever designated in the RRJC's
regional housing needs plan (even if
the RRJC did not approve it).
Municipalities must allow
properties to be subdivided using
objective standards and procedures.
Only "objective standards and
objective procedures can apply,"
meaning that officials cannot evaluate
local conditions to determine if the
middle housing type will cause an
unfair burden or be incompatible.
Municipalities cannot have local
laws that treat middle housing more
restrictively, "create unreasonable
costs or delays" or make middle
housing "infeasible," apply minimum
setbacks, lot widths, lot depths, lot
size standards, or maximum height
standards that are more restrictive
than single -unit detached dwellings
on the same property, require new
off-street parking, or impose foot-
print restrictions differently than
single -unit detached dwellings.
Municipalities must allow additions
to or conversions of existing single
detached dwelling units and must
apply the same design standards that
apply to single detached dwelling
units.
DOLA can update minimum standards through rulemaking under an ambiguous "public hearing and comment process."
Middle housing is not required to be permitted on the same lot or parcel as an ADU. Other exemptions apply for parking
spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, short-term rental rules, and historic districts. Middle housing
requirements will not affect an inclusionary zoning ordinance unless it renders the "development of middle housing
financially infeasible." The bill does not define "financially infeasible" and does not explain how a developer must prove that
the ordinance makes said development financially infeasible. This could make inclusionary zoning ordinances moot.
Zoning preemption No. 3:
Housing in "transit -oriented areas" — TiUM with fixed rail
The bill declares "an increased supply of housing in transit -oriented areas" to be a matter of mixed state and local concern
but reflects no study of how any of the subject jurisdictions treat the topic or what the supply would look like if the bill is
enacted. Under the bill, a "transit -oriented area" is a one-half mile boundary from some part of a fixed -rail transit station,
including parcels that have at least 2,5% of their area within the boundary. Unincorporated parcels are not included.
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 6
The focus of this part of the bill is on multifamily housing (one or more buildings on one lot with separate living units for 3
or more households) and mixed -income multifamily housing (at least io% of units are set aside for households earning no
more than 8o% AMI). Although municipalities with inclusionary zoning ordinances can establish their own threshold and set
asides, the bill interferes by setting density standards and inconsistently restricts local inclusionary zoning ordinances based
on the financial effect on developers.
By December 31, 2024, a TiUM with a transit -oriented area must change their local laws concerning housing in transit -
oriented areas to meet the bill's minimum standards (as may be modified by DOLA) or adopt DOLA's transit -oriented area
model code. The municipalities must report their compliance by that date, subject to DOLA review and approval. Failure to
adopt meet the minimum requirements by June 3O, 2O25, or DOLA's rejection of the jurisdiction's report, means the model
code goes into effective immediately; no provision is made for who makes this determination or whether it can be disputed. If
the model code is adopted, it must be implemented using "objective procedures" and the municipality cannot have any "local
law" that would contravene it. The bill does not account for potential citizen referendum and expressly seeks to preempt local
zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution.
Developed by June 3O, 2024, DOLA's transit -oriented area model code will prohibit new -off street parking in transit -oriented
areas for multifamily or mixed -income multifamily development, allow minimum density as a "use by right" for multifamily
residential (at least 4o units per acre net density) and mixed -income multifamily (at least 6o units per acre net density).
Affordable units must be a similar size. This prevents TiUM jurisdictions from influencing multifamily development
according to local standards.
The bill establishes minimum standards that attempt to preempt local law if the model code is not voluntarily adopted.
Minimum Standards for Transit -Oriented Areas
A T1UM must legislatively create a zoning district for the
transit -oriented area to allow multifamily housing as a "use
by right" with a minimum gross density of 40 units per
acre for all eligible parcels. Districts can extend outside the
transit -oriented area to meet gross density requirements
based on development constraints or other planning for
transit -compatible uses.
Municipalities cannot have local laws that apply to "create
unreasonable costs or delays" or make multifamily in a
transit -oriented area or the residential density limits
"infeasible" or require new off-street parking.
DOLA can update minimum standards through rulemaking under an ambiguous "public hearing and comment process."
Other exemptions apply for parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, short-term rental rules, and
historic districts. Transit -oriented area requirements will not affect an inclusionary zoning ordinance unless it renders the
"development of multifamily housing financially infeasible."
Zoning preemption No. 4:
Housing in "key corridors" — TiUM and RRJC
The bill declares "an increased housing supply in key corridors" to be a matter of mixed state and local concern but reflects
no study of how any of the subject jurisdictions treat the topic or what the supply would look like if the bill is enacted. Under
the bill, a "key corridor" is an extraordinarily broad concept that is not limited to transit corridors and could undermine
the zoning and land use plans of an entire municipality. Key corridors include "frequent transit service areas" as mapped by
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 7
DOLA (including in some cases anything within one -quarter mile of a bus route with certain service levels). Key corridors
also include any parcel in zone districts that permit commercial uses that are supposedly compatible with residential uses and
public or institutional uses. Key corridors also include anything zoned for a mix of uses other than industrial. The definitions
used in this part are likely inconsistent with many local zoning codes and could capture very large parts of a community.
The bill suggests some option for the municipality that does not adopt a model code to designate their own key corridors. The
bill extent of this discretion is not clear, and all minimum standards described for key corridors apply.
The focus of this part of the bill also focuses on multifamily housing (one or more buildings on one lot with separate living
units for 3 or more households) and mixed -income multifamily housing (at least io% of units are set aside for households
earning no more than 8o% AMI). Although municipalities with inclusionary zoning ordinances can establish their own
threshold and set asides, the bill interferes by setting density standards, set asides, and AMI requirements, and inconsistently
restricts local inclusionary zoning ordinances based on the financial effect on developers.
By December 31, 2026, Ti UM and RRJC must change their local laws concerning housing in key corridors to meet the
minimum standards that DOLA must develop or adopt DOLA's key corridor model code. The municipalities must report
their compliance by that date, subject to DOLA review and approval. Failure to adopt and meet the minimum requirements
by June 3O, 2027, or DOLA's rejection of the jurisdiction's report, means the model code goes into effective immediately; no
provision is made for who makes this determination or whether it can be disputed. If the model code is adopted, it must be
implemented using "objective procedures" and the municipality cannot have any "local law" that would contravene it. The bill
does not account for potential citizen referendum and expressly seeks to preempt local zoning ordinances enacted pursuant
to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution.
Developed by June 30, 2024, DOLA's key corridor model code will set minimum residential density limits for multifamily
housing as a "use by right," an allowable minimum residential density limit for mixed -income multifamily housing at least
5o% greater than the multifamily minimum density as a "use by right," requirements for set asides for low- and moderate -
income households.
By June 3O, 2O25, DOLA will establish key corridor minimum standards that attempt to preempt local law if the model code
is not voluntarily adopted. The minimum standards appear to be targeted to take over municipal land use planning in broad
swaths of territory and must include: guidance to encourage regional strategies for key corridors, a "net residential zoning
capacity" for each municipality based on that municipality's local housing needs assessment, and "any additional standards"
that DOLA "deems necessary," like a minimum residential density limit and minimum district size.
Minimum Standards for Key Corridors
A T1UM must legislatively create a zon-
ing district within key corridors to allow
multifamily housing as a '`use by right"
that satisfies DOLA's mandated net
residential zoning capacity and require-
ments that DOLA may impose.
Municipalities cannot have local laws
that apply to "create unreasonable costs
or delays" or make multifamily in a key
corridor "infeasible."
A RRJC must allow multifamily hous-
ing as a "use by right" wherever a key
corridor is designated in the RRJC's
regional housing needs plan (even if the
RRJC did not approve it).
For key corridors only, the bill prohibits
new off-street parking in key corridors
for any use.
Z 41
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Municipalities can allow different den-
sity within the key corridor if minimum
standards are satisfied.
Page 8
nismas
Other exemptions apply for parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, short-term rental rules,
and historic districts. Key corridor requirements will not affect an inclusionary zoning ordinance unless it renders the
"development of multifamily housing financially infeasible."
What's exempt from SB23-213?
Each part of the proposed article 33 of title 29 includes varying degrees of exemptions. Except for ADU requirements, a
common exemption is for "standard exempt parcels," or those that are outside an urbanized area, not served by domestic
water or sewer treatment, have an agricultural zoning designation as of January 1, 2O23, are noted as a "high risk, high very
high, or very high risk" for wildfire by the state forest service (which does not appear to include much land covered by the
bill), or in a floodway or loo -year floodplain identified by FEMA. The bill does not account for other local conditions.
For transit -oriented areas, standards also do not apply in park and open space or on properties subject to conservation
easements. For key corridors, standards also do not apply on a site that is on or adjacent to a site used or permitted for
industrial use or designated for heavy industrial use in a master plan adopted before 2O23.
"Unreasonable costs or delays" and feasibility
Each of the zoning preemptions includes a dangerous concept that preempts any local land use law that "individually or
cumulatively create unreasonable costs or delays" or that would make the permitting, siting, or construction of the housing
type "infeasible." This language recklessly exposes municipalities to significant liability, could undermine local efforts to
create affordable housing, and risks forcing the public to bear burdens that should be borne by developers. It is unclear
whether safety standards, impact fees, fees for water or municipal services, or other important local standards could fall prey
to this type of language. Several provisions in the middle housing, transit -oriented areas, and key corridor parts also suggest
that financial burdens on developers imposed by local inclusionary zoning ordinances will invalidate those local laws.
Interference
Each of the zoning preemptions includes another dangerous concept that would preempt a municipality from amending,
developing, or even interpreting a local law "in a manner that would interfere with the intent" of the part. Broad and careless
language could have significant unintended consequences and expose municipalities to significant risk.
Parking burdens
Each zoning preemption prohibits a municipality from requiring new off-street parking as part of a housing development
approval. The "key corridor" provision appears to prohibit parking requirements for any development approval in a key
corridor, not just housing. The bill does not limit these restrictions to any guarantee of public transit availability. The bill
does not identify where cars will go or how municipalities are to address the burdens on public streets, public safety, and
quality of life. Each zoning mandate permits parking standards required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Water, wastewater, and stormwater burdens
Each zoning preemption allows a municipality to apply to DOLA for an unclear "extension of applicable requirements"
based on deficient water, sewer, or stormwater "services." The bill does not seem to account for any other burden on public
infrastructure or services. To obtain the extension, the municipality must have a plan to remedy the deficiency on a specific
timeline and must show that it cannot serve other, less efficient housing types than those provided in the mandate. The
provisions do not account for pre-existing service obligations to those other housing types or rights of their owners. These
provisions also do not consider long-term planning and suggest that municipalities must fund development to accommodate
the state mandate.
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 9
Manufactured & modular housing
Section 3 requires the division of housing to create a report by June 30, 2024, on "opportunities and barriers" in current state
law concerning manufactured homes, modular homes, and tiny homes.
Sections 4 and 6 remove financial assurance requirements for manufacturers of factory -built structures (not necessarily
limited to residential structures). Under current law, those assurances are payable to the division if the manufacturer fails to
deliver a structure or refund a down payment or ceases doing business.
Section 5 adds "final construction plan reviews" to the scope of quality assurance representatives approved by the Division of
Housing relating to factory -built structures. The impact of this addition is not clear.
Section 11 amends current law to mandate that municipalities address manufactured and modular housing in the same manner
as site -built homes. Municipalities must use "objective standards" and an administrative review process equivalent to site -built
homes, unless a subjective review process is used for site -built homes. More restrictive standards than are applied to site -built
homes are prohibited, including zoning and subdivision laws and "other regulation affecting development" such as requiring
permanent foundations, minimum floor space, home size or sectional requirements, "improvement location standards," and
side yard or setback standards. Despite allowing for equivalency with site -built homes, the bill removes existing language
that ensures authority to enact consistent zoning, developmental, use, aesthetic, or historical standards that are applicable to
existing and new housing. The categorization of municipalities in Section 2 does not apply to these amendments.
Preemption of planned unit development zoning
Section 7 amends the Planned United Development Act at CRS 24-67-105(5.5) to provide that PUDs with residential uses
cannot restrict AD Us, middle housing, housing in transit -oriented areas, or housing in key corridors in a manner prohibited
by the proposed article 33 of title 29. It is not clear whether this applies only to PUDs in jurisdictions covered by proposed
article 33 or more broadly.
Preemption of residential occupancy limits
Section 8 creates CRS 29-20-110 that would preempt counties and municipalities from placing residential occupancy limits
on "dwellings" that differentiate between occupants based on family relationship (other than short term rental restrictions).
Here, a "dwelling" is defined as any improved property used or intended to be used as a residence, but in Section 2 a different
definition of "dwelling" is used. (a single unit providing complete independent living facility
No commitment to use state-controlled property for affordable housing
Section to permits statutory municipalities to sell municipal property held for a government purpose (other than park
property) without an election if the purpose is to develop affordable housing. The categorization of municipalities in Section
2 does not apply to these amendments. The state makes no commitment to the use of state-controlled property for affordable
housing in the bill.
A narrowing of municipal zoning authority
In addition to Section 2'S broad preemptions and mandates, Section 13 bluntly narrows the traditional zoning authority of
municipalities by prohibiting TiUM and TaUM from imposing minimum square footage requirements for residential units
unless "necessary for health and safety" in the municipality. The bill would not allow those municipalities to address issues
relating to their communities' welfare.
CML
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page io
Undefined process for creating master plans
Sections 9 and 12 amend Titles 3o and 31 regarding county and municipal master plans. The categorization of municipalities
in Section 2 does not apply to these amendments. Counties and municipalities must ensure an undefined "inclusive process"
by consulting with housing authorities, nongovernmental organizations, and local governments in the creation of the master
plan. Master planning already involves heavy public engagement.
Counties and municipalities must include, for plans after June 30, 2024, water items including the location and extent of
water supply, a water supply element and conservation policies, and priorities for natural and agricultural land in accordance
with the state's natural and agricultural land priorities report. Counties over 250,000 in population must include a "greenfield
development analysis."
Section 12 also addresses the inclusion of housing needs plans, a greenfield development analysis, and a concept of natural
and agricultural land priorities following the state's natural and agricultural land priorities report.
DOLA must receive draft and final plans and is required to review plans for compliance.
New reporting requirements for water loss accounting
Section 14 requires covered entities (including municipal and special district water providers) to provide and validate water
loss audit reports to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The board will adopt standards for validation of reports,
technical qualifications, and methods by January 1, 2025. Some funding is provided for assistance in validation and for
technical training and assistance to guide water loss programs.
Invalidation of HOA housing decisions
Section 15 would invalidate common interest community limitations on ADUs, middle housing, housing in transit -oriented
areas, and housing in key corridors.
Transportation planning and grants. Section 16 requires the transportation commission to include "statewide strategic
growth objectives relating to regionally significant transportation projects" in the ten-year plans for existing and future
transportation systems created under CRS 43-1-106(15)(d). It is not clear whether those objectives are the same created by
DOLA under Section 2.
Section 17 requires the department of transportation to ensure that grant prioritization criteria are "consistent with state
strategic growth objectives" by December 31, 2024. It is not clear whether those objectives are the same created by DOLA
under Section 2.
Section 18 requires regional transportation plans and the statewide transportation plan under CRS 43-1-1103, beginning
December 31, 2024, to address and ensure consistency with state strategic growth objectives. At least for the regional plans,
the objectives are those determined by DOLA under the proposed CRS 29-33-107.
Section 19 requires that projects funded from the multimodal transportation options under CRS 44-4-1103 be "consistent with
state strategic growth objectives." It is not clear whether those objectives are the same created by DOLA under Section 2.
Inadequate funding
Section 20 appropriates $15 million for DOLA to provide technical assistance under the proposed CRS 29-33-111(3). The
extensive amount of code revision, reporting, plan development, and compliance with various mandates required by the bill
in covered municipalities has an unknown cost that would certainly exceed this funding. The funding will not address impacts
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page i i
to infrastructure, public services, and quality of life in municipalities or litigation costs arising from the bill. The funding does
not address the major overhaul of DOLA's mission and authority.
Safety clause prevents voters from weighing in
Section 21 includes a safety clause, preventing voters from exercising the right of referendum. Local zoning ordinances on the
same issues covered by the bill are subject to the reserved constitutional power of referendum.
► SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Communities by tier level
Urban Municipalities
Tier 1
Denver region: Arvada,
Aurora, Boulder,
Brighton. Broomfield.
Castle Pines,
Castle Rock. Centennial,
Cherry
Hills Village. Columbine
Valley,
Commerce City. Denver.
Edgewater. Englewood.
Erie,
Federal Heights, Glendale,
Golden,
Greenwood Village.
Lafayette.
Lakewood, Littleton,
Lochbuie.
Lone Tree, Longmont,
Louisville,
Northglenn, Parker,
Sheridan,
Superior. Thornton.
Westminster,
Wheat Ridge
North Front Range:
Greeley, Fort
Collins, Loveland, Windsor
Pikes Peak: Colorado
Springs.
Fountain
Grand Valley: Grand
Junction
Pueblo Area: Pueblo
Urban
Municipalities
Tier 2
Denver region:
Dacono, Fort
Lupton. Firestone,
Frederick
North Front Range:
Evans, Berthoud,
Johnstown, Tinmath,
Eaton, MIliken.
Severance
Pikes Peak:
Monument
Rural Resort
Job
Centers
Aspen, Avon.
Breckenridge,
Crested Butte.
Dillon, Durango,
Frisco.
Glenwood
Springs,
Mountain
Village.
Silverthorne,
Snowmass
Village.
Steamboat
Springs.
Telluride, Vail.
Winter Park
Non -Urban
Municipalities
Alamosa, Brush.
Canon City,
Carbondale,
Cortez.
Craig. Delta,
Eagle.
Fruita, Fort
Morgan,
Gunnison,
Gypsum.
La Junta, Lamar,
Montrose, Rifle.
Sterling,
Trinidad,
Wellington
This table lists communities by tier level, according to a document provided by Rep. Steven
Woodrow.
Tier -level table published by Colorado Public Radio, https://bit.ly/3FV1Yio.
i1
1cMi\rn
COLORADO
MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE
Page 12
resinter
Hello