Tuesday, June 23, 2026, 1:30 p.m. (Denver time), 1437 Bannock Street, Room 391
This special joint session of the City Council Planning Board working group received an update from Community Planning and Development staff on the 'Unlocking Housing Choices' project, a citywide missing middle housing initiative. Staff reviewed the project's three key strategies (improved residential design compatibility, an infill bonus for retaining existing homes, and an affordability bonus), the results of a spring engagement effort with over 800 survey responses, and a consultant report on expected redevelopment outcomes. Council members and Planning Board members then gave feedback and asked questions, ranging from strong support for the density goals to concerns about one-size-fits-all rules in suburban contexts, gentrification and displacement in west and northwest Denver, whether the affordability bonus will actually pencil for developers, infrastructure costs, and AMI levels. No vote was taken; staff said the proposal would come to Planning Board and City Council later this year and committed to further refinement and coordination.
0:05 It's time for a special
0:05 session of City Council's
0:08 planning board working group.
0:13 Join us for City Council's
0:14 planning board working group
0:17 starting now.
0:38 We want to thank you so much.
0:39 To pay for passed through the
0:41 Continued thank for joining us
0:42 for this special planning
0:45 board City Council session. I
0:49 always look forward to means.
0:51 We are having people trickle
0:56 in a little I will around the
1:00 room get started you introduce
1:01 yourself you to say here this
1:04 city council members, but I
1:05 think we have a new kind board
1:05 members to just from my
1:09 colleagues. If you want it pay
1:10 special attention, pining for
1:11 a number that be important. So
1:13 i'm I'm at the time booking. I
1:14 represent Stafford, have the
1:15 honor council PRESIDENT Right
1:18 now. And look forward to the
1:19 session. Called him and start
1:22 to make Good afternoon. Flatly
1:26 denies lucky district. 7. Can
1:27 impose conditions South Tendra
1:28 district 6. Jamie Torres was
1:30 Denver district. 3, some here
1:33 planning board member. We
1:35 should find him playing board.
1:36 Andrew Webb, Denver community
1:38 planning and development, Rob.
1:39 Hey, community planning and
1:40 development. Derrick Rose
1:43 Planning Board member Kaitlin
1:46 quieter, 24 member and current
1:46 chair Julie mean at new
1:49 Planning Board member Chris,
1:50 staffers perfect 10 which come
1:55 to protect. I Diana Romero
1:55 Campbell, Southeast Denver
1:58 district 4. Really did you say
2:02 things that All right. So
2:03 we'll pass it over to cpd the
2:08 for thank you so much for the
2:13 time again This is the joint
2:15 session that we've had with
2:17 you all. So we just going to
2:18 build on what we've been
2:19 talking about and give you an
2:20 update about where the
2:21 Unlocking Housing Choices
2:26 Project is today. So we have a
2:27 agenda to go through. We'd
2:30 like to first kind of review
2:31 the project, the project
2:33 goals. And then recap where we
2:34 are and what the strategies
2:36 look that we're currently
2:42 refining then we will talk
2:43 about more specific details on
2:47 the affordability bonus. And
2:48 then the survey and engagement
2:50 analysis that when we last met
2:51 in MARCH, we were just about
2:55 to go into then finally we'll
2:56 talk a little bit about
2:57 expected outcomes in a recent
2:59 report that we had prepared by
3:04 our consultant team. So a
3:07 little bit of brown sitting
3:08 here. And as we reach a point
3:08 in the project where we're
3:11 refining our key strategies,
3:11 important to remind ourselves
3:12 where we started. So these
3:14 were our original project
3:15 goals. So they are to allow
3:18 more missing middle housing
3:21 update, building forms to
3:23 promote compatibility,
3:24 existing homes, explore
3:24 incentivize the retention of
3:25 incentives for requirements
3:28 for on-site affordability and
3:31 implement blueprint and our
3:32 npi plans that call for this
3:32 missing Middle Housing
3:33 initiative, a citywide
3:37 project. So from those
3:37 original goals we've been
3:39 working closely with our
3:41 advisory committee to develop
3:42 strategies for working on And
3:43 we'll talk about that. We're
3:45 fighting today. Last summer,
3:48 we established the project's
3:48 background, got our arms
3:49 around what we're really
3:52 trying to do within that
3:52 committee. And then in the
3:54 fall of 25, we address some of
3:55 the scheduling challenges and
3:56 really got started on the work
3:57 of developing the project.
4:01 Strategy had lots of workshops
4:02 or had a few workshops really
4:04 came out of that with these 3
4:06 free cat key strategies that
4:10 we have refinement then
4:11 through the winter in spring
4:12 of 2026, we made progress
4:15 testing those strategies and
4:16 really understanding the
4:17 feasibility taking a look at
4:21 what uptick we might expect.
4:22 Then here on the right, this
4:24 kind of shows generally the
4:26 process of how we. I've been
4:28 working with our advisory
4:29 committee partner agencies,
4:32 stakeholders, and all of you.
4:32 3 just development of our
4:36 strategies. And also
4:38 throughout this whole project
4:39 our primary guidance has
4:39 continued to come from
4:41 Denver's adopted plans. So we
4:43 place significant weight on
4:45 these plans because these
4:48 plants just are much more,
4:49 much better supported than we
4:52 are to complete the community
4:56 community engagement process.
4:56 engagement supported by longer
4:58 Is there better resourced to
4:59 have community navigators? And
5:00 so we really rely on on that
5:04 deep work that that happens
5:07 and our work that we're doing
5:08 now or that we just completed
5:10 out in community is still
5:10 crucially important, but is
5:12 supplementary to
5:19 As a reminder, these are 3 key
5:20 strategies that we've that we
5:21 have developed to that process
5:24 and that were working too
5:27 refined and the current stage.
5:28 So these are to improve
5:30 compatibility of residential
5:31 development. Lot more homes
5:34 existing home is retained and
5:35 allow more homes with
5:39 affordability is provided.
5:40 When we talk about and we can.
5:42 We're considering changes to
5:43 our building standards. These
5:45 are 2 MAY help skill
5:45 development fit better within
5:48 the existing neighborhoods.
5:49 Makeup, Denver's low scale
5:51 House scale residential
5:53 neighborhoods. This could
5:53 include revising how we
5:55 regulate 3rd floors or have
5:58 stories could include second
5:59 story terraces and balconies
6:00 different standards. There are
6:04 exceptions for porches also
6:04 changing regulations and
6:06 around wall height or length
6:06 to address things that we see
6:10 in our plans, which is the
6:12 community vision for for homes
6:13 that look more like about
6:14 working what exists and
6:16 existing communities to these
6:17 changes would would apply to
6:19 new single unit development as
6:21 well as new missing middle
6:22 housing development that's
6:22 allowed by unlocking housing
6:27 choices. So in addition to
6:30 that, we we're also working on
6:30 a proposal to establish a
6:31 maximum floor area limitation
6:34 on residential development.
6:35 The floor area maximum would
6:37 increase for each additional
6:38 housing unit to financially
6:39 incentivize missing middle
6:41 housing development. Instead
6:42 of very large single unit
6:44 homes that we see that Upper
6:47 Basin today. This would still
6:49 maintain size. It's
6:51 appropriate to the
6:53 neighborhood current building
6:55 forms allowed for houses that
6:57 are often 2 to 3 times larger
6:58 than the size of homes that
7:01 that were traditionally built
7:03 those existing neighborhoods
7:04 to the strategist Mary Price
7:06 of New Homes, a slow
7:07 speculative redevelopment and
7:09 really promote the development
7:10 of strategies that we are
7:13 introducing through a lot
7:14 housing choices. However, even
7:17 though we're placing this
7:18 limitation that this
7:19 limitation on scene, when you
7:20 get homes still significantly
7:20 larger than average homes
7:25 across route 2000 Square feet
7:27 for So 3500 square feet, even
7:31 though it is a limitation, it
7:33 is still significantly larger
7:34 than the majority of homes in
7:38 the city and allows for vigil
7:40 as homeowners to add value to
7:40 their properties. They me in a
7:46 single unit. This infield
7:47 bonuses, the second key
7:48 strategy and would allow for
7:52 additional dwelling units.
7:54 When when the existing home is
7:55 retained. So through this
7:56 unlucky housing choices. Seeks
7:59 to discourage demolition.
8:00 Expand options available for
8:02 builders and homeowners to
8:02 incentivize the creation of
8:04 new housing units. Well,
8:05 keeping the existing homes in
8:10 place. The 3rd key strategy is
8:12 the affordability bonus. So
8:14 this would allow for a
8:15 completely new structure to
8:16 replace an existing home, but
8:17 requires at least one of the
8:20 units to be either deed
8:21 restricted as affordable or
8:21 become part of a community
8:25 land trust. And we'll take a
8:26 closer look at that. This
8:26 strategy in the next few
8:30 slides. We wanted to provide
8:31 this quick overview of kind of
8:32 where we were. What we talked
8:32 about last MARCH before we get
8:36 into new material. So over the
8:38 last few last month or so, we
8:40 have really been working on
8:41 updating kind of are finding
8:45 this affordability strategy
8:46 and the details going into So
8:47 this is like this is one of
8:48 the main things we like to
8:52 cover with you today. This
8:53 strategy fits below the
8:54 existing mandatory affordable
8:55 housing requirements for 10
8:58 units or more. That was that
8:59 exists currently and were
9:01 developed under the expanding
9:02 housing, expanding housing
9:06 affordability, project or dha.
9:07 So somewhat different than
9:09 these existing requirements.
9:10 Is that what we're proposing
9:11 is a bonus so we allow these
9:17 additional housing types in
9:18 exchange for the the
9:19 Affordable units that are that
9:23 provides these opportunities
9:23 are being created so this
9:27 beyond the current zoning.
9:28 These affordable units can be
9:30 for rent or for sale and host
9:31 will be the primary
9:32 administrator of these
9:39 requirements. So the current
9:40 would require at least one of
9:41 the units in a development to
9:43 be affordable to median
9:47 household, earning 70% of the
9:47 area median income for the
9:50 city of that is for rent.
9:51 We're 100% of the area median
9:55 income. If it's for sale. As
9:56 an example what that really
10:00 looks like on that works out
10:04 to about 18, 90 per month for
10:07 a one-bedroom house or 26. 21
10:07 per month for a 3 bedroom
10:13 house. For rate. This a looks
10:17 like $392,450 for a
10:22 one-bedroom home or worse.
10:23 $504,700 for a 3 bedroom house
10:25 hole.
10:31 The on this just to summarize
10:33 a few more details. The
10:34 affordability bonus applies to
10:34 single unit to unit zoned
10:39 properties. This incentivizes
10:40 affordable housing development
10:42 up to 9 units again below the
10:43 mandatory affordable housing
10:45 requirements for those
10:47 requirements would would would
10:50 take precedent. Lucky housing
10:51 choices not prove proposing an
10:51 inclusionary zoning
10:53 requirement for row houses.
10:56 Some districts since they are
10:59 already allowed construct
11:00 additional units. Again, this
11:02 is the bonus that is allowed
11:05 for single unit into
11:07 districts, the unlocking or
11:08 sorry the the area median
11:09 income is based on the Denver
11:10 Metropolitan area as
11:13 calculated by hud my levels
11:14 for income-restricted rental
11:16 or for sale units are set and
11:16 applied citywide and do not
11:21 vary by neighborhood. So
11:22 during this last phase of
11:23 strategy development, we also
11:25 tested the feasibility of our
11:27 proposed changes and
11:28 strategies and found that our
11:30 updated standards reduce the
11:31 maximum profitability driven
11:33 by the replacement of these
11:33 moderately sized homes with
11:34 very large new homes and
11:38 duplexes. And the effect of
11:39 this could be too slow, spec
11:40 their development and steer
11:42 builders towards are other
11:44 strategies our infield notice
11:46 particularly the infield bonus
11:50 is shown to be the most. The
11:51 most financially feasible,
11:53 most financially profitable
11:54 for homeowners, market
11:57 Hauser's and the affordability
11:57 builders and affordable
12:01 bonus. Is likely only to be
12:03 used by non-profit our
12:04 mission-driven affordable
12:08 housing developers. Well, by
12:09 other builders who can combine
12:11 multiple funding sources to
12:13 close the gap between
12:14 development costs and the
12:17 revenue generated by these
12:18 income-restricted units. So
12:19 when we looked at this in
12:21 multiple different areas of
12:22 the city hypothetically with
12:22 different land costs,
12:24 different potential rents.
12:29 We're for sale prices. The for
12:30 the math really to work out
12:34 and have a, you know, really
12:35 for the math work out there
12:37 need to be multiple funding
12:41 sources. So market rate
12:42 developer without any subsidy
12:44 without any other got by
12:46 financing would have a very
12:48 difficult time purchasing a
12:49 property scraping home
12:49 rebuilding. And one of these
12:50 ways providing one of the
12:53 units at an affordable rate.
12:56 So for that reason, the infill
12:58 bonus then becomes kind of the
13:00 most attractive option for
13:02 market rate developer under
13:04 the strategies who would like
13:06 to retain that existing house
13:07 that's required by the
13:08 strategy construct additional
13:13 housing on that property. Now
13:16 we'd like to quickly review
13:17 the survey results and
13:20 engagement analysis. So when
13:23 we met last MARCH, we were
13:25 just preparing for a round of
13:25 community engagement that
13:29 ended in early APRIL. Since
13:30 that meeting, we've
13:30 incorporated what we've
13:31 learned from the community
13:31 along with additional
13:34 stakeholder input. Our
13:35 feasibility study also work
13:39 with our advisory committee to
13:39 continue refining our
13:44 strategy. Details once again.
13:46 input in project strategies at
13:46 When considering community
13:50 this point in the project,
13:50 provides extremely helpful
13:52 guidance for many of the
13:54 important details. But we do
13:54 still continue to play
13:56 significant weight on the
13:59 city's adopted plans because
14:00 they are supported by much
14:01 community engagement,
14:01 longer, better resourced
14:04 processes. In the engagement
14:06 we conducted this spring
14:07 included public meetings
14:12 hosted by cpd Night ended. 25
14:15 more than 25 are no meetings
14:18 where we presented briefings
14:19 got a lot of great input and
14:19 answered a lot of questions
14:23 about unlucky housing choices.
14:25 And we also distributed an
14:25 online survey and over 800
14:31 responses to that. So the
14:31 responses from the survey
14:32 generally showed support for
14:35 the key project strategies
14:35 while also highlighting
14:39 several areas of concern. The
14:41 survey is really important
14:42 tool for taking our work.
14:43 Helps us confirm that we are
14:44 headed in the right direction
14:45 and that we're considering the
14:48 full range of community
14:49 concerns and that we're really