Eagle passes emergency ordinance restricting density in town
Town vote is prompted by state bill that goes into effect July 1
Ben Roof/Special to the Daily
When the Colorado Legislature passed House Bill 25-1093 in March, the goal was to target what it called “anti-growth laws” — local policies that reduce residential density in urban areas.
However, the bill allows local governments to maintain or establish density standards that are in place as of July 1, 2025, creating a deadline for towns that don’t have such standards in place.
Up until Tuesday, Eagle was one of those towns.
Realizing that Eagle did not have clear density limits in place in some of the town’s mixed use and commercial zone districts, and fearing that the new state standards could restrict the town’s ability to reduce density in those areas, the Eagle Town Council passed an emergency ordinance on Tuesday, establishing density standards downtown and in East Eagle.
The move followed a unanimous recommendation from the Eagle Planning Commission against adopting a similar ordinance in June. Members of the Eagle Planning Commission expressed concern about limited public input and concerns about overly restrictive design standards.
Support Local Journalism
Community Development Director Peyton Heitzman said the planning commission did have consensus on making certain changes to the ordinance, but “with all the back and forth, ultimately it seemed cleaner just to recommend denial.”
On Tuesday, Heitzman presented to the council a revised ordinance incorporating some of the feedback from the planning commission hearing, as well as feedback from a June 3 work session on the issue that saw participation from both the planning commission and the Town Council.
Much of the discussion was centered around employee dwelling units, known as EDUs, a residential option that’s allowed in many of the town’s commercial and industrial zone districts.
With no density caps on EDUs ahead of the July 1 deadline, there was nothing in place to “ensure the EDUs serve their intended purpose, housing employees of the principal nonresidential use,” Heitzman pointed out. “Locating EDUs on the same lot prevents them from being sold separately.”
The planning commission recommended a maximum size of 850 square feet for employee dwelling units, expressing concern that “without a clear standard, an EDU could be larger than the commercial space it was intended to replace,” Heitzman said.
Council members said 850 square feet might be a little cramped for some of the workers who will be living in those residences, pointing to the yet undeveloped East Eagle area, which would be subject to some of the new density restrictions presented in the emergency ordinance.
At 850 square feet, “Maybe you could squeeze a really crappy little two-bedroom in there,” said Mayor Scott Turnipseed. “I’d rather have a little flexibility for an employer out in East Eagle, if they want to have a decent two-bedroom for some of their employees. Because not everyone is single, there might be some families.”
Council member Bryan Woods said there could be civic institutions like the school district, fire district or transit authority looking to build and house employees in East Eagle.
“If you want to have real professionals hired, you can’t expect to put them in 850 square feet,” Woods said.
Commissioners also felt a 7,000-square-foot cap proposed for buildings in the commercial/mixed-use zone district (located directly to the east of Broadway in downtown Eagle) was inadequately vetted and could restrict architectural flexibility while encouraging densely packed structures.
A motion to approve a version of the ordinance excluding the 7,000-square-foot cap was proposed on Tuesday, but did not pass the council. Another motion to table the discussion failed, as well.
The version that was finally passed contained both the 7,000-square-foot cap and a 1,200-square-foot limit on EDUs.
“I think that Peyton and the staff have done an incredible job presenting us with some options,” Turnipseed said. “I understand that right now her recommendation does not align with the planning and zoning’s recommendations … some times we don’t align with planning and zoning all the time, and that’s OK, we have other things to think about that planning and zoning doesn’t.”
