Denver City Council & Planning Board Discuss Unlocking Housing Choices Project on August 12, 2025

It's time for a special session of City Council's Planning Board Working Group.

Join us for City Council's Planning Board Working Group.

Starting now.

Don't talk to me.

Okay, we got space.

We can move over.

We have a whole planning going on.

So I'm on it.

That's why there's a lot of things.

Oh, we don't have to do that.

Hi, everyone.

Thanks for joining us all.

Is everyone have a seat?

Is there plenty of room?

Yeah.

Do we need to make room for one more?

We can always pull chairs up from behind.

Thanks for joining us.

I'm Council President Randy Sandoval.

And um, if you don't know me, I see some new faces around the table.

I love CPD.

I love Planning Board, and I love all things zoning.

And this is like one of my favorite meetings, where we gotta bring, we get to bring City Council and the amazing members from our community who serve on the planning board around the table to talk about issues and tackle things together.

So I'm gonna do a quick round of introductions.

So um, and then I'll pass it over to our partners at CPD.

I'll keep the cues, so council members and planning board members.

Um, just cue me up if you have questions, and then we'll get started.

So I'll start with my right.

Uh hi, uh Greg Volt today.

Rachel Marion, uh, Denver Planning Board.

Good afternoon.

If you want to be there with likely just start seven on Denver City Council.

Fred Lick with Planning Board.

Deirdre Host with Planning Board.

Caitlin Quander, Planning Board, and Kerr Chair.

Rob Haig with Community Planning and Development.

Andrew Webb, also community planning and development.

Sebastian Montenegro, we planning board.

Hi, everyone.

It's one of the council members at large.

Uh Melissa Mejia with planning board.

Alicia Kwan Hammond Planning Board.

Chris Hines, Denver City Council District 10.

Good afternoon.

Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

David Torres, West Denver District 3.

All right, thank you all.

And now I'll pass it over.

Great.

Um, well, good afternoon.

Thank you all for taking the time to uh to meet with us today.

Um, we will be discussing the unlocking housing choices project.

This is the second one of the meetings that we've done in this format.

Um, and we've got a little bit more to share, um, but primarily we want to save as much time as we can to allow you all to discuss and give us your comment and feedback on what we have.

Um, that is the reason why there was a lengthy uh appendix that went along with this presentation.

Um so uh with that kind of move in to respond, um to our agenda.

So um so today we'll talk about um uh items here.

We'll first give a quick recap from the July advisory committee meeting.

Uh then we'll talk about some of the adopted plan guidance that uh is relevant to this project.

Uh, we'll provide an overview of the issues identified that are relevant to this project, um, and we will highlight some of the key findings from our peer city uh strategy review.

Um, as I mentioned, we'll be stopping uh uh after the adopted plan guidance section, after the uh issue identification section, and then again after the peer city approaches section to allow time for comments.

So in those three breaks, you'll you'll uh be invited to um to to comment and discuss or ask any questions.

Um and with that um uh give a quick uh overview of the first advisory committee meeting.

Uh we kicked off this advisory committee group, um, and the first meeting was held on July 28th of this year.

Um this meeting was primarily introductory, uh, was an opportunity for the advisory committee to get to know one another, as well as begin to begin the foundation, building the foundation for why we are doing this work.

Uh the full meeting recording notes and presentations from that meeting are all available on our uh project webpage.

Um so this project this uh uh schedule shows the rough timeline for the core engagement phase of the project.

This is a draft and it is already out of date.

Um so uh to start, kind of working uh bottom to top.

Um along the bottom, you can see the kind of monthly cadence for the advisory committee meeting.

This starting in the fall, we expect to begin discussing some of the potential strategies that we will develop through the course of this project.

There will be a meeting in September and December, kind of the most important piece of kind of how this is out of date.

Moving up from there, we also have a series of community meetings and focus groups.

Our first round of community meetings we are working on scheduling now.

We'll have two in-person events at locations across the city so that folks can attend in person.

We'll also have a virtual remote option.

That meeting will be recording, recorded, excuse me.

There will also be a survey that kind of follows the same materials and is done in coordination with those community meetings, both in-person and virtual.

And so that will enable individuals who maybe cannot make the in-person community meetings and can't attend the virtual option to be able to watch that meeting on their own time, kind of absorb the information and participate in this survey on their own time.

So now to get into the first key point of discussion today is the adopted plan guidance.

So Denver's adopted plans establish the policy guidance that leads to projects like this one that help update our regulations for how land can be used.

The unlocking housing choices project will implement the key guidance in Blueprint Denver and our citywide plans, and then the area plans, neighborhood plans will be used to tailor and refine that approach.

The adopted plans are critical for this project since they were developed with extensive community engagement.

This engagement results in a vision that is articulated in those plans for neighborhoods to include and enable more housing options.

The unlocking housing choices project will directly implement that plan guidance and that policy guidance to realize the vision that was heard from the community during that extended engagement process when the plans were developed.

This comes from the land use and built form housing policy section.

This policy tells us to diversify housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate missing middle housing options into low and low medium residential areas.

There's a series of other strategies and more kind of detailed guidance that goes along with this, and that's included in the appendix at the back of this presentation.

However, the key part of that this guidance is in that quoted section and highlights the need to enable more housing options within low and low medium residential areas.

So that is talking about the future place guidance in Blueprint Denver, which is shown by this map on the left.

The map on the right shows where our single unit zone districts are, and it's it's pretty easy to see the correlation here and kind of how much overlap they have, and really pushes us to expand the housing options that are available within these single unit zoned areas in order to implement and realize that policy guidance from the plan.

Currently, these areas on the right are only able to provide housing options at the most expensive housing type we have, which is a single single unit home.

The vision in Blueprint Denver and comprehensive plan articulates an inclusive Denver that would rely on a diverse range of residents, businesses, and employees in all neighborhoods.

These areas, certain areas in the city that become too homogenous or exclusive, threaten that vision by reducing or eliminating the choice for anyone but the most affluent or the most privileged uh individuals to find a housing uh option that they can afford and want to live in.

So, in addition to that key citywide plan guidance, our adopted neighborhood plans also play a critical role in fine-tuning this approach.

Um, and each of the plans has specific language that we will use to tailor to tailor that approach.

So, uh in general, most uh most of the uh adopted neighborhood plans support missing middle housing, particularly in low and low medium residential areas.

Um, however, these plans have different prescriptive language and uh kind of direct us to look in certain places as as we refine our strategy uh uh kind of the large summary.

The uh most most of these plans uh focus on um enabling additional affordable housing options when we're considering uh missing middle housing, um uh preserving existing structures, whether that's single unit or multi-unit structures, uh, looking at allowing additional housing options uh closer to amenities, um, and also improving design outcomes, particularly as it relates to new development within our house-scale neighborhoods, so our our single and two-unit uh zoned areas.

Um so you know, to summarize Blueprint Denver really provides that overarching goal and the policy direction uh for this citywide project.

Um, enable for the project to be uh, in order for the project to be successful, um we really need to realize this this citywide approach.

However, these plans will uh give us this really key guidance that we will use to develop a neighborhood context sensitive approach.

So the differences between uh our approach in a suburban uh neighborhood context might differ uh from an urban edge or urban neighborhood context in these plan guidance uh sorry, these adopted plans and their guidance starts to give us the the tools that we need to kind of uh tailor and fine-tune that approach.

So, with that, I will pause here for any questions, comments, or um discussion uh about the plan guidance.

Councilmember, then.

Wow, I didn't think I'd be the first.

Thank you.

I thought I'd be the last.

Um Rob, I find it frankly offensive for you to talk about single family neighborhoods as affluent and exclusive, because I represent a very diverse district, majority minority.

And I don't think the families who are struggling in their single-family bungalows in Brentwood or Marley or or the singles in college view, would agree that they're affluent and exclusive.

Uh I think of Latino households in my district or in the mid 40% of my population.

And so I think if I'm thinking about country club, maybe or hilltop, you know.

When you say something like single-family neighborhoods are exclusive and don't want other people to move in, that's that's patently false.

Because frankly, the folks who are being gentrified out of our former red line neighborhoods are moving to Southwest, Southeast, Northeast Denver, because that's where they can afford uh the overland neighborhood uh where my son used to rent for 600 a month in an attic efficiency.

Every affordable little hundred-year-old bungalow was being sprayed and replaced with duplexes or selling for over a million and a half bucks.

So the notion that duplexes, triplexes bring more affordability into single neighborhoods is false.

I live in a single family house, but right on Kipling Park West, a new duplex development.

Uh some of the some of the units have already gone up for resale, and they are selling for more than the value of my house.

So I hope that you would modify that.

But that's just a stereotype that will offend folks who are struggling in places like Brentwood and are concerned about being gentrified out if what's happened in Villa Park and West Colfax and Overland were to come down there.

Uh so that's number one.

Number two, and I think you got to an thankful for that.

Uh the plan guidance in some of the NPIs have been adopted, particularly the first one in Montbello.

There literally is language in the plan that says uh these single family areas are not appropriate even for duplex.

So when we're looking at a citywide change, can it be nimble and nuanced enough to recognize that in suburban context, we can absorb all the growth in middle housing that we are due under blueprint, which is 20% of all in all other areas of the city, 20% of housing growth.

We can absorb that.

I have 40% of my units in council district two are multifamily units.

A lot of them are large apartment complexes.

But I'm asking, can we be that nuanced so that this isn't just anywhere in the city, you can build a quadplex on a single lot?

I brought this up to the advisory committee also.

So I would like some data at the advisory committee and for the council.

Can we look at historical changes in housing costs in neighborhoods like uh overland, like Bill Park, like Atmar, Ruby Hill, uh Barnum, and what's happened when we've added density, because I can't find a neighborhood where we've added density and made it more affordable.

I used to only see neighborhoods where we made it more expensive, and the folks who used to live in are coming southeast, southwest, and northeast.

So I'd love to see that happen.

Yeah, thank you for your comments.

And and first and foremost, I just want to say that that I meant no offense.

I apologize if we if we did.

I think the the point in that that quote comes from Blueprint Denver.

It's it's really about the threat that that as these neighborhoods continue to be homogenous, they could potentially um, you know, uh allow that choice for only you know the more affluent, but but we totally understand, and it's actually a huge challenge of the project to start to develop a strategy that is sensitive to the fact that there, even though there may be two, you know, single-unit properties on different in different areas of the cities, very different economic situations, you know where they are sometimes.

So yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Fred and Caitlin and Councilman Albiders and then Mary.

Thanks.

I you know, to the councilman's point, uh I agree, not all single-family neighborhoods are the same, and I and I think that's important.

I think it's important to ref to acknowledge that.

I do think a couple of things that I think are worth considering as we think about this.

One is is that I think there's a lot of good research about the impact of what a monocultural neighborhood is on the residents on the children and outcomes all of that.

And I I think it's important to make sure that we are thinking beyond just oh, this is about densification.

I think you also have to think about why densification happens or why diversification happens and and what those impacts are on people.

So I hope that we can kind of take it to the next step a little bit in terms of um in terms of our thinking and understanding why we might want to do this.

Um I also just to speak to the you know, duplexes came into these neighborhoods and they didn't get cheaper.

I I think it's important to remember that our densification has been pretty limited and pretty restricted, um, and so because we've done it in very small bits, that's of course where capital has gone, and that that has, I think driven gentrification.

Um I think we have to be careful about saying, well, maybe we just do this in certain places, because then those certain places as I think we saw with um areas of change versus areas of stability, it really did drive it.

Two places targeted it, and because it was so difficult to build, for instance, a fourplex, you end up seeing maximize what is economically not just viable, but the most profitable since we unfortunately in this country rely upon the private sector to produce all of our housing.

Um it's one of the reasons why I think missing middle is so important, is that it does.

I think provide a route to take a piece of land, and instead of only having the option of single family or duplex to also be able to look at what a quad or a sixplex looks like on that because I think the numbers start to change, and I do think that we if we enable those sorts of forms, which you know, we we often dismiss as sort of something new, and I think it's important to remember that those forms are very traditional forms in Denver and and in neighborhoods where they're no longer allowed to be built.

Um I think we might see some very different results.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Caitlin?

Yeah, um, mine's more of a question around definitions.

So there's some slides in the pack, and I think you showed one as well around housing diversity numbers, and some are some neighborhoods have more diversity than others, and is that the idea that you're looking for a mix of housing versus like, for example, downtown would be almost all multifamily.

So would it still have a low number because it doesn't have diversity of housing, or is it really I just kind of want to pull and unpack that data point a little bit more?

And then I think tagging on, are you looking at diversity of pricing as well, or kind of the availability of a range of pricing, right?

Um, for purchase or for rent in a neighborhood, and is that part of diversification as well, or is it just type of structure?

Yeah, great question.

So that how we talk about housing diversity in those slides with those maps just come from blueprint inverse.

So it's the same metrics that we use during the equity analysis, and it does consider kind of the mix of housing, whether it's all on one side or all on the other.

So what we are looking at is kind of that range of options that does include single family houses.

Um, like downtown would still potentially have a low score because it is all multifamily.

My understanding is correct, and I'll follow up with you if that's if that's wrong, but I my my understanding of how the metric is done is it is it does look at kind of the yeah, the full the full range and type of housing.

So it would be a low score if it was all multi-unites.

Um but there's lots of things that go into that, which includes uh you know the housing cost, um uh housing type and tenure as well.

So renting and owning, so there's a lot of different metrics that we're looking at when we're talking about how we want to improve housing diversity.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next up, we have sorry, something.

Uh Councilman Alpha's.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, thank you for this presentation.

It's definitely exciting to think about um a different type of housing than what we see a lot of built today.

Uh I had a question about the similar map on page 14 where it talks about lower and higher density as well.

Um, or not density, but um diversity.

And I'm curious, it seems like there's a low diversity in generally industrial areas, and so um that kind of has me curious about what we're planning on doing with those industrial areas specifically as they have continuously only existed in low-income neighborhoods, and I see like Adamar Park in particular showing um less diversity, and I do believe that has to do with industrial there.

Um, and it also is one of the neighborhoods out of the entire city that lost the most value recently, which also hurts stability.

So, I'm curious about how we're looking at diversity of housing in the same vein.

What does that mean in different areas?

Um, and I would also I'm also curious, and have been raising this to the Southwest area plan, is how are we authentically having neighborhood planning going on simultaneously with this planning?

I I'm a little bit confused on how that their input will be, you know, validated or changed once we do this plan.

How are we going to maneuver those suggestions?

And knowing that the other half of my district is supposed to go through neighborhood planning next year.

So feeling a little bit uncomfortable with how does that lay out.

Right.

Yeah, that's that's a great question.

Um, I'll answer that that last question first, and and I'll be pretty brief, so this will be kind of like in in pretty prompt summary because there's a lot of nuance.

So, you know, that that is one of the reasons why we really need to approach this as a citywide project, so that we're not advantaged advantaging or disadvantaging community or parts of the city that have had the ability to go through that um that planning process.

So, you know, to a degree, we kind of have to look at the, you know, when we're fine-tuning our approach to kind of figure out our context-based approach based on some of those area plans, um, we're gonna look at kind of what we've heard in similar neighborhoods in the city.

So, so you know, like the um uh west area might have some impact in in kind of neighborhoods that we can draw lines to of being similar, whether that's through zoning, right, having the same context or or other neighborhood characteristics and use those to kind of apply the same uh same strategies across the neighborhoods.

Um, as far as kind of how we're having the conversations at the same time, we we're we've been working really closely and coordinating with our MPI planning team, um, and are making sure that as they're having conversations that touch this topic that that they're kind of relaying that to us, you know, almost as like a live stream, and so that we we can incorporate that um once it's adopted, you know, into this into this effort.

So, input that the individuals have in their neighborhood plan will make it into this planning process or into this project, excuse me.

So, you know, because we are using that input in those plans, and we you know that we're getting that input now, um, that's how it makes its way in.

In addition to that, we would ask, we would invite people to kind of participate in the survey um specific to this project and kind of being involved in any of our community meetings.

If they want to have, you know, kind of two ways that they can have their um their voices heard.

I appreciate that.

I think what I worry about is just people not having time to attend all these community meetings or my constituents have been really kind of tapped out with the neighborhood planning process in general, and I think one of the things that I've struggled with going through neighborhood planning is that people are commenting on a plan they don't understand, and so I think there needs to be a level of education for community while they're giving input into what they want to see in their neighborhoods, and I just I don't feel great about the planning process happening simultaneous simultaneously with this because even though their input can be integrated into this larger goal, I don't think that it's a very genuine when they may have thought differently creating their neighborhood plan if they knew this was also happening.

And I don't think that other people that I've talked to in the Southwest Area Plan really understand what's happening here and how this could impact that.

And quite frankly, I don't understand what that impact could be either because this plan is up in the air, and so I just want to raise that that's something I'm concerned about, especially going into the second part, and let me just make sure that was all my questions.

Um I think the other thing is just not all neighborhoods are the same.

So I'm still curious what you just said about one string going through the whole city.

What does that mean when the neighborhoods are so different?

I think there's definitely a lot of similarities.

You know, we have industrial areas, the inverted L, and um there's definitely a difference there, but how we address things in different areas, I don't think can be exactly the same.

You're right.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Mary?

Yeah, thank you, Council President.

Um, I just wanted to, there was something that uh Councilman Flynn mentioned that that just made me curious um how we're looking at yield issues for investment, um, because to Fred's point, even though it's been limited where this has been allowed, if tomorrow we were to flip a switch and allow higher intensity development citywide, it wouldn't flow evenly.

Because investors are gonna have opportunities to make more money in neighborhoods that are lower valued than others.

So one, I'm just curious how we're taking that sort of yield perspective into account when we're looking at this, and then I'm also curious, because you know, so many of these things move in tandem.

The primary objective of this to me seems to be to create more housing options for people in our city, which I think is a really um critical thing to move on, um, but it will also impact the revenue of the city through tax assessments as properties have different valuations, and I'm curious if we're bringing value per acre into the conversation to look at how different densities and different land uses are contributing to our city budget to understand how that plays into the puzzle as well.

Yeah, great questions.

So we absolutely are very concerned about that, the yield, or kind of if we kind of allow additional entitlement across the city in certain in certain neighborhoods are going to be way more impacted than others, right?

If we just kind of open it up evenly across the board, which is why we're probably not doing that.

We are looking at strategies and what they are.

I can't exactly say, uh, just because we don't know.

Um we've looked at some cities that have kind of tailored things based off maybe the size of the house that was there, or um the um the size of the lot, right?

Like having like an FAR limitation or just kind of limiting size in some way, which would make a you know, kind of lower the profitability, you know, of a of a lot based on kind of the size of what's existing.

So if you have a neighborhood that typically has smaller houses, you won't be able to build something as big there as some of the other houses.

But anyway, that is just one thing we've seen from one city and is one example of how a city has tackled that.

We're still examining lots of different strategies to try to figure out how we can tailor our approach so that we're not just opening a floodgate and and seeing rapid change of neighborhoods.

We're really sensitive to that.

Um, and as far as the value per acre, I I don't know.

That's a great question.

We we met with the assessor two weeks ago, the the deputy assessor, and kind of had a conversation.

Um, and that's something I think that is worth talking to him about for the next conversation because it might open a tool that we could use to do something like that.

That's great.

Um Torres, followed by, hey Fred, can I put you at the end so we can get everyone first?

I just wanted to tag into councilwoman, there is a okay, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Oh, okay.

I I just because I think you raised a very interesting question that leads me to how I think this gets what this ends up being.

I think, and you guys correct me, that you end up with some strategies here which are probably implemented through zoning changes, whether those are map amendments or text amendments, but that this does not result in an amendment necessarily to our plans.

So, in essence, I think that the work that's being done on this remains subordinate to NPI to neighborhood plans that really are adopted plans.

So the strategies that might be recommended in this, I think, would then be implemented based on council's analysis of plan guidance.

Is that that's correct accurate?

That's a great way.

There we go.

So that's how we feel better about the simultaneous planning.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Torres followed by Councilman Watson.

Thank you.

Um I think it might be uh I'm serving with Councilman Flynn on the committee, and uh really interested in how that group starts to develop some recommendations and some thoughts.

Um, pairing this to policy, I think will be something that our body will be very interested in understanding what other things might need to come with this in order to ensure equity and um even flow or yield or incentive or whatever that might look like.

What I worry about is us launching forward with um just the planning guidance without that policy consideration and further risking um uh harm um economic harm to a lot of our our neighborhoods.

So um uh even if that's a parking lot that we're tracking as we're discussing things that um we're identifying well that would have to be in code or that would have to be in charter, or um those are ideas that would need to be fleshed out with host or you know, things like that.

I would really love for us to be tracking simultaneously so that we can also begin thinking about um like um what is that really look like because I'm um still very interested in um some geographic centers around the city that we're either identifying as um and I hate using vulnerable, but um these are neighborhoods might where we have the memo applying right now um I'd want to be able to come out of utilizing that memo but we can't do that until um like we we know we have a particular tool or um something that we can lean on to ensure that um it's not going to become West Colfax that Villa Park and um some of the other West area neighborhoods um uh don't like flip in just a few years so um just all that to say I would like for there to be real policy tools that we're able to extract out of this um that make a a real difference in us being able to implement it with some satisfaction and and confidence um so totally open I come with some ideas but not all of them and so um just really interested in how other folks are seeing things play out so thanks for council member Watson followed by Rachel.

Thank you council president I'll be really brief Rob I came in a tad bit late so I'm curious on um to add to the policy discussion so for example there was policy coming through a council on single stair etc.

How are those building in and that may be the committee council member Torres or that the York that Flynn that may be something that may be discussed as to when we have clear policy process that's coming through that may have maybe any type of impact on um housing opportunity not certain how that's working but would love to have some more information and then my other point was to add to where Fred was going and so Blake already answered it so not a question but very curious on the policy piece we have some policy legislative actions we're taking that may inform these strategies and very curious how that's going to be integrated.

Okay that could be something that I could put on the agenda to ping councilwoman parody who chairs our community planning and housing um to figure out like a VIN diagram.

We're working over here we're working single stair over here we have parking minimum we would just remove parking um where the in the VIN diagram where's that center section and how is how do we have synergies between them and how do those all policies get to it that did different outcomes is that what you're talking about yeah and how it informs the strategic process we're doing that because obviously there's all there's throughput on all of it.

Yeah okay Rachel followed by Alicia uh my comment or question is perfectly pennybacking off of that which is that um it looks like all of this is zoning related but I we've raised we being planning board have raised a number of questions regarding building code and how does building code impact affordability in our cities single stairs one but I I think we've raised a number of other um contexts uh including you know whether you fall under residential or commercial building code and so I'd be curious um also just to understand how those conversations are being integrated in as well.

Yeah great question I can I can answer kind of briefly that kind of touches on all these things so this project again as a couple of you mentioned is is very much focused on what we can do in the Denver zoning code.

There are a fair amount of tools in the zoning code that would allow us to kind of reach these same policy goals as far as kind of you know tempering development or uh kind of again having a more tailored approach for neighborhoods that maybe are more sensitive to to more development if we kind of open things up.

So we're going to kind of come at this from a really broad outlook but knowing that there's probably this kind of center lane that we can really do as text amendment to the zoning code.

However, as we go through that we're not gonna cross anything off the list if there's an approach that we think would be beneficial to that that would move along with this project that might be something that needs to move along in a parallel channel and I think we'll begin have we'll start having those conversations as early as we can, whether there's like another avenue through working with uh um the the building code uh um uh amendments or working with another council member or one of yourselves to kind of move forward something else in in parallel.

It might not be something that's specific with this, but but yes, kind of a little bit further along in this project.

I'd say, you know, hopefully by the by the winter time as we start to talk about strategies that we might be uh proposing uh at that point.

I think we'll have a fair amount of other strategies, other policies, other um other uh um yeah, tools that might live outside of the zoning code that we can we can talk about.

So I would just say I think it's important to have them the conversations happen together.

Um I think part of to Councilman Flynn's point, part of why some of these projects are um being priced at a certain point is because is not for a zoning reason, it's for a building code reason.

And if we want some of these fourplexes, sixplexes to be attainable, um, if not you know, capital A affordable housing, but attainable housing, there are shifts that would need to happen in the building code to uh enable that.

Thank you, Alicia.

Um, I just want to echo some of the conversation.

I'm really glad that um councilman Torres brought up about policy solutions because I think as soon as the city starts talking about potentially upzoning a single unit district to a sum unit district, um which is about 35% of the city.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Um private equity is very interested in that.

And so I think the whatever policy solution is paired with zoning, um, needs to work parallel and implemented day one.

We can't have a lag, um, in order to have those kinds of um protections.

I think uh I'm gonna echo a comment I made in our um in our subcommittee meeting um that I think uh when we talk about all these neighborhood plans, right?

And we talk about blueprint Denver, area of stability does not mean no growth.

We don't actually have truly no growth areas in our adopted plans.

Um it's just more modest growth, right, or 10% growth, but um over a scale of a neighborhood, that feels like radical change, and that's something that really needs to be communicated clearly so that people really understand as we're talking about unlocking housing options and a potential change to our zoning code that would allow for more development, what that actually means, what are the rules, and that um and that it doesn't mean no change.

And I think that's the hardest part about when this uh when we have these public conversations, right?

Is that there's this misunderstanding of like, well, I bought this neighborhood, I bought in this house in this neighborhood because it's an area of stability.

And it's like, well, it is, but and if you look at the change over this neighborhood, it is because of zoning, and so um just uh uh an up zone, right?

I mean, just look at ADUs, look at the conversations around that.

And so um, I would expect the same kind of fierce discussion and debate, but it's really important that we talk to communities about what they're actually getting, um, what the adopted plans actually mean and how this will layer in kind of back to Fred's point, um, that this will be subordinate to to the adopted plans, but I don't feel like we do a good job of communicating what's in those plans um and what it permits.

So um I just think communication is key, right?

It um kind of assuages all fears, um, and that also good policy is so important.

Zoning can't fix everything, it will easily become the scapegoat.

Um, and uh we cannot stop private equity with zoning.

Um we have to be smarter than that.

So thanks.

I have a question on slide nine.

Um, then particularly do you put slide nine up?

Um, we looked at that.

So I'm confused about the far northeast.

I'm confused in uh Mount Ballow and like the whole entire Green Valley Ranch, according to this slide, one little pocket has R1 zoning, which I don't understand.

That whole entire area is single family home and former chapter 59.

So how is it just that little gray patch?

That's a great point.

That those areas are probably master planned zoning, and and that you've just highlighted a great fix that we need to make for this map because it should include some of those areas, even though they're a little bit funky, but but that's a great thing.

Thanks for highlighting.

Yeah, because it if if the public saw this, it would look like just that according to your legend, just that little gray spot would be open to, but in reality, we know that whole entire Montbellow and for lack like a percentages, it's mostly single family homes in Montbello and Green Valley Ranch.

Yeah, that's a great point.

And the custom zoning we left out of this map, but for the barriers like that, it's by worth including for the reasons that you brought up.

So thank you.

Okay.

Um, and then um in Northwest Denver, when we we when the 2010 zoning code was adopted, um, we did do experiment with getting rid of single-family zoning in Jefferson Park.

It can't it got higher density, um, and we did higher density in the lower highland, and we did higher density in Sunnyside, the lower part of Sunnyside, and Jefferson Park in 2010, before it got rezoned, it was my most diverse neighborhood, meaning socioeconomic diversity and um people of color, now it's my leased.

And so we have brought we brought in a farm, the slot home, it's no longer allowed, but we took one single family home and put in seven fee simple homes throughout the entire neighborhood.

And what happened with that form is now I have more renters in that council in that neighborhood single-handedly than anywhere else in this in my council district.

And so when we're talking about using words like stable and stability, for me, that neighborhood, when I did the neighbor NPI, it was the hardest to engage in because we had renters and people didn't really get involved.

And if you ask my council district, that would be the most unstable neighborhood, even though we have created the most density out of council district one, um, because what happened in that form is it the houses um unfortunately they were value engineered and they're just not holding up very well, and so people lived in them in the first two years, and now they're I when I've done an assessment.

I think Jefferson Park, I send mailers to people who buy homes in Northwest Denver.

I do a welcome letter.

Jefferson Park has the most highest turnover in anywhere in council district one, and I don't do it just to say, hey, welcome to Northwest Denver.

We have great amenities in Northwest Denver.

I actually do it as a data gathering um exercise so that when I go back I can see our houses being sold to LLCs.

Who is buying these houses?

Is it going from a um individual to another individual?

And so when you all ask for data, I also have that other data from the assessor's office, and we do it every three every three months.

So just want to just say that when we're using terminology like stable and um and a benefit, and that density always brings some type of benefit with different type of housing.

It it actually was the burden at North uh Jefferson Park has felt like it's been a burden, and in for people who have lived there for a really long time, they don't they don't know their neighbors because usually every 18 month or a year they have a new neighbor because it's a new renter.

Um, so just want to put that out there because that's just been my lived experience of having gone through a neighborhood plan.

I had it was really it's really challenging to engage in that neighborhood because of the the change.

Um so thank you all.

That was a great discussion.

The floor is back to yours.

Yes, Council President of Sander.

If you don't mind if I uh clarify one thing about that map there, um I'd love to.

One of the challenges with the fact it's not up on the screen anymore with the former chapter or with the far northeast area is that a lot of a lot of what you see up there in Montbello and in Green Valley Ranch in particular, have they while they do have single unit development, they actually have underwater zoning that was multi-unit, so uh like CMU 20 uh and the R3 uh RMU 30, that sort of thing.

So we did pull the the most analogous zone districts from former chapter 59 to single unit here.

Uh but your point is well taken that we we may need to figure out a way to reflect the the actual development on the ground versus what the what the zoning is up there.

And I think if I'm because the councilwoman who represents both those areas, neither one of them are here.

I think what happened, if I'm not mistaken, is there's a lot of HOAs in that area, and the HOAs are actually the ones that are regulating the form in a master planning community.

And so that's what I've heard from the councilwoman over there.

Is when we had accessory dwelling unit conversation, they were really concerned specifically about those two areas because the HOA did not allow an accessory dwelling unit form within that area, which is not anything we can take on.

We have that's a total state regulation where we have to partner with the state.

Okay.

Councilman Pertem.

Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

I think additive to what you're saying, I represent in Southeast Denver, and it's vastly it's it's in a suburban context, the vast majority.

And I think that goes without saying fits into this conversation of just the caution not to have the cookie cutter approach, um, knowing that the conversation around the ADUs and the HOAs is very present in Southeast Denver, as well as thinking about like the form of the of whatever does come into a single family, what is currently a single family um neighborhood, it just fits differently.

Our streets are built differently, our you know, the front, the back, all of the things, and it's actually on people aren't tearing houses down, houses are being multiple rooms are being used.

Um, and so it's it's a different issue that we're having, um, or that we're experiencing for um for how the space is used and and how people are thinking about um the neighborhood and growth and what that density looks like.

It's just I think for the committee, if you guys can just kind of put a put it put a uh a little side note to it of thinking about you know that use and density um and what makes sense in all parts, they need thank you.

Alyssa, you want to close this out?

Yeah, thank you.

Um, a lot of people covered a lot of what I would have said, and I appreciate it.

And I would just add that Jefferson Park is like a really fast and egregious example.

Um, but that happened throughout the north side, and I feel like I talk about that all the time.

Anyone who's been here for a long time knows that it literally was the multiple units coming into where there was one unit that is why that whole part of Denver changed so rapidly.

Like that's that is what happened.

Um, and there was a whole effort um many years ago to re-down zone, um, which ended up with a compromise deal, whatever, but literally the motivation for that was to keep it more affordable and to stem the amount of displacement that was happening.

So I think there's like, and we talk about it all the time, we've all talked about it all the time, but it is just important as we figure out what to do and how to stagger it and everything, um, to really understand that we have really specific test cases in this city of how we often go against what national trends and national research says about how zoning, how single-family zoning tends to play with affordability that because of the history of Denver that has happened in a very different way.

Um but I did want to pick up on the point, and now that it's a way um but the density and the HOA, the HOA of it all, um, and what has happened in Green Valley Ranch, but I that's where like the solutions that come out of it is where I start to have concerns because if we look at a lot of the um big density changes and the big affordability work that has been done in Denver in the last you know 10 to 20 years, it's a lot of those big projects that tend to be um to have infrastructure that is funded through metro districts and special districts and turns into HOAs, and one of the results of that is a concentration of affordable and attainable housing within those HOAs that have those building form regulations, but that also have a lot of other requirements, a lot of other expenses and expenses that can change rapidly that the city has no say over, and you end up putting people in a position to get into this affordable and attainable housing that has strings attached to it that people outside of that have the benefit of not having.

That trend, you know, when it's one-off development, that's one thing.

But when it's that trend of like we're gonna make these big changes, we want to do it to this big area.

Um we wanted to do a whole section of a neighborhood, and you end up putting everybody in special districts.

There are trade-offs there that end up impacting low and middle income um households the most.

So just sort of flagging that as we move into proposed solutions that like special districts, metro districts should not be, there are long-term impacts that have nothing to do with the infrastructure that we need to be thinking about as we're setting those up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

Okay, um, so to move on to our next topic, uh, let's take a quick look at some of the issues that were identified uh relevant to this project that kind of help set the foundation things that this project can affect in some way.

Um so this uh this slide shows the the issues that that were identified.

I'll just start off by saying that there are other smaller issues that will be tangential to some of these are somewhat related that this project will might affect in some way.

Um, and so this is, you know, not the inclusive list.

These are kind of the key issues that this project uh has the ability to affect.

Um so the first is is uh the lack of housing diversity.

So this map here on the right, again, is this something we've talked about already with this group and is the housing diversity map from the blueprint equity metrics.

Um so many Denver neighborhoods don't have enough of the housing diversity to really support the full diverse population in a kind of full sense of the word, so economically diverse uh racially diverse kind of across the board there.

So this project will hopefully seek to introduce housing options so that uh all individuals can have some housing choice in all neighborhoods and in the neighborhood of their choice.

Uh second issue is the deficient housing supply.

So uh Denver has had years of of great housing development and has had years of slower housing development, but in general, uh the housing uh supply still falls behind demand, particularly in certain uh certain categories, and and there's some more details on this in the report as well as uh in the appendix slides that show kind of the places within our whole spectrum of housing where we really kind of are the most efficient.

So uh so this project hopes to uh or or is uh one of the goals is to uh help increase the housing supply, particularly in certain certain segments where demand has fallen the most.

Um so uh kind of broadly by unlocking some gentle growth across the kind of wider area of the city.

This this project hopes to also kind of improve the housing supply where right now, where so much of the city is uh uh zoned and mostly built out to the extent of that zoning, kind of locks that away, and and uh this project hopes to uh uh very moderately increase that uh ability for those areas to provide um support for for housing supply.

Um this uneven pressure across inver's neighborhoods.

This is something similar to what to what Fred brought up, where um, you know, in the past we've had um uh development that maybe the entitlement has increased in a particular neighborhood beyond what the zoning currently allowed or previously allowed, and then kind of results in the situation where the entitlement is much greater than what exists on the ground, and there's there's very rapid change in those neighborhoods.

Well, that's an issue, right?

And so, you know, and we we are we are both looking at those neighborhoods as places we can learn from and and kind of understand what resulted in that and and avoid those impacts um in other other neighborhoods across the city.

Um but by kind of again having this citywide approach, uh, when we do kind of uh uh make the changes to the zoning code along with any policy uh um changes that um that move along with this uh kind of relieves the pressure in some of those most pressured neighborhoods so that we don't have neighborhoods undergoing such extreme change so quickly as we've seen in the past.

Um housing affordability.

Uh so uh Denver's housing is expensive.

Uh and Denver's housing costs has increased uh at much higher rate than wages have increased.

Um so uh through a through a couple ways, this this project seeks to um uh help relieve some of those housing affordability concerns.

Um, and as outlined in Blueprint Denver, um this project does also seek to enable more affordable housing options, whether it's capital A affordable income restricted units, or um as we've seen evidenced by similar projects in other cities, missing middle housing types uh primarily through smaller unit size that just happens naturally, and the division of land cost is able to provide more affordable units at a natural ability as well.

So kind of two different ways that this project's, or maybe three, right?

Adding supply, um, income restricted units in some cases, um, and the kind of natural affordability of some of these smaller multi-unit forms uh hopes to address some issues with housing affordability.

Uh the fish fifth issue identified is the loss of existing housing options.

Um here we're we're we're primarily talking about the loss of of existing more affordable uh uh housing types and houses that have that have existed in neighborhoods previously.

So we looked back at the um the 2024 housing permit data and saw that um when a single family home or duplex was uh scraped and replaced, the new floor area increased by an average of over 3,000 square feet.

So that admittedly this is a really small portion of the entire new units that are being developed, right?

This is about two percent of the new units that were built in Denver in 2024.

However, that trend is across all of the new single unit and duplexes that were built.

So, you know, it even though it's only two percent of the overall units, it still represents this trend that's pretty significant and and shows us that where uh new development is happening in these house scale neighborhoods, it's we're we're losing the kind of more moderately priced housing stock uh as people are replacing them with these big uh uh mick mansions, so to speak.

I'm sorry, Rob.

Will you go over that again?

The additional 3,000 square feet.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna say I didn't know it.

It's good.

I can't.

I saw I will move to one of our appendix slides, thank you, 52 that that kind of uh uh gives us a little bit more detail.

So um we looked at the 2024 housing data, and it's it was about 66 homes, right?

So so in in relation to everything that's happening in Denver, this is a pretty small portion.

However, that's looking at kind of all of the development, all of the scrapes and replacements of single family duplex in all of Denver's neighborhoods.

Um it kind of is a valid trend.

The average size of a house that was scraped was 1,300 square feet.

The average size of a replacement house when that 1300 square foot house was was replaced is 4,405 square feet.

And that's the average.

So there's some that are much bigger and some that are smaller.

But on average, we see this increase of house size over over 3,000 square feet, which is secure.

A councilman, or is that was it replaced only with a single or replaced with duplex?

Like for life.

Uh like for like and it's full structure size.

Okay.

So great question.

Okay.

I have a question.

Yes.

How many of those um make mansions are multi-generational houses?

Because that we see your setting like in California, right?

Um, kind of the pink elephant houses of Asian Americans expressing their, you know, American dream.

But they have three generations of people living in that house, which is incredibly dense at 4,400 square feet.

So it'd be interesting to know if uh if we're actually getting density through multi-generational housing, or if it's just um, you know, Denver mental cats expressing their you know their American dream with just uh you know uh a single family, or um, I'm just curious that that breakout because to me I would be okay with this if we're if we're housing three generations of folks in one house.

Right, yeah, that's a great question.

Uh I can look into that and see if we can find an answer.

Might be tricky, but I could tell you I was gonna say I can tell you in Northwest Denver, I put an overlay because we did this analysis, so I actually created an overlay that you can only go up to three thousand above like you can have a basement so you could get to four, because we knew that the average was four.

They don't have kids, they have dogs, okay.

Like, no, I'm not joking.

I'm not trying to be like, sure, right.

I'm just explaining literally when we did the analysis, when we're scraping a single uh 1200 in Northwest Denver, they are moving in two couples.

And I'm not joking you, they usually have I have a golden doodle, so I love my golden doodle, but they usually have a golden doodle, um, I'm not joking.

We have tons of ways, like northwest Denver is overram with golden doodles.

Um, we could start a cluster.

Um, and so that's just my lived experience.

And even in Northwest Denver, where they're taking a single family home and taking it each side of a duplex in Northwest Denver, it was higher, so it was higher than the four, it was averaging 5,000 square feet, and we even on this on a duplex, we were putting a 3,000 max.

So that's why we did that max square footage, is because we were McMansions were just selling everywhere.

I'll just add to that.

I think you know, on the perspective of like what's happened in Northwest Denver, you see it trickling into West Denver, is that even the even though you're replacing like a single family with these duplexes, they're huge, but they're also very expensive.

So even if you were to have a McMansion and were to try to have it be multi-generational or even a multi-generational family to afford one of those McMansions, it's just like not even doable because they're incredibly expensive.

They're like over well over a million dollars to purchase.

And so if you don't have that generational wealth in like the couple is trying to buy the home for the whole family, it's just not gonna probably be realistic.

Go ahead.

I think you had a share.

I was just gonna, I mean, I was gonna add to that like that's the difference is the generational wealth to buy something of that size in those neighborhoods because I would say that in that part of the city at least.

I'm sorry, we all have like the same experience that we're speaking from.

These neighborhoods, but the number of multi-generational houses has absolutely diminished.

There were way more when there were more homes that were more like um, I would say there were a ton more homes between 800 and 1300 square feet on the north side.

Um and there were way more multi-generational homes than there are now with these huge houses, and it's because of that price point that you have to purchase the map.

Fred, and then council member Flynn.

Just to throw on, I mean, I think some of this back together to to your project.

It seems to me that an issue that you guys have to examine, and and I think research outside of Denver will be helpful is um how how family structures changed and how can you serve different family structures?

You know, we know that Denver was once much much denser.

Family sizes were much larger, that has changed.

Um, but we also know that there are uh extended families and extended family living that many culturally want to take place, and whether it's it's just simple extended family or more South Asian joint families, um, but also what we're seeing with younger folks in terms of chosen families now, and so in a way I think that that I'd almost add that as a side issue of identification is what changes are we seeing to what's desired, and how can we design code and develop strategies to start accommodating those as opposed to, well, you know, right now we build big duplexes because that's what you can do.

I mean, that's what the code allows you to do.

So that's what we see happening.

So are there other ways that we can create opportunities to accommodate all these other sorts of of family structures and desires um within this project?

Yeah, we hope to do that.

I have council member Flynn and then Councilman Tars.

Thank you, Rob.

I hate to make you do this because you're on slide 52.

Of course.

Could you go back to 14?

I can't.

I do.

Well, take a take a smoke break while I'm getting the oh, thank you.

Yeah, it's quick.

What is our working definition while we're doing this uh neighborhood?

Because are they census tracts?

Is that what I'm looking at here?

Those divisions?

Great question.

I believe these are census census tracks.

Okay, because some of them that are the same color but are larger, probably multiple census tracts of the same diversity.

So when I look at where I live, I see that I am a uh looks like I am a two, and the right to the north of me is a three is a three, or maybe it's a three and a four, I'm it's hard to tell.

And but I do know that uh being a suburban context that ranch separation of intensities in blueprint that where I live, or among three subdivisions, there are 908 single-family homes, but surrounding us are 2200 multifamily units of all types, including uh the duplex at Park West, uh the uh uh Trail Creek Ranch townhomes for sale townhomes at Lakeshore Village, uh apartment condos, apartment flat rentals of all varieties.

Um so I'm wondering how do we what is the definition of neighborhood?

If uh if someone lives in a neighborhood that has the darker green, but they're surrounded by in suburban context by uh multifamily of all varieties, is the intent to say, well, within those single families, uh, single family areas we need to upzone there because you don't have duplexes on your block.

In other words, how high, well, how high a level are we looking at a neighborhood?

Are we looking at Marston and Bear Valley, or are we looking at Park West and Glenbrook, Grant Ranch?

What are we looking at is the definition of neighborhood mining up density there?

So you can build a quad on a cold sack.

Yeah, that's a great question.

And I think up until this point we've we've we've defined them as like the statistical neighborhoods, um, but it's something that I think we'll bring up as a defined term at the next advisory committee.

I mean, great comment, yeah.

Thank you, that's fair.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this is bringing up I think the question of desired outcomes that we want, not just from the planning conversation of the committee, but also um that that we want to see, and not in such like a social engineering kind of um kind of way, but if we say we want housing form diversity, um, here are the ways that we might get there.

If we say we want housing cost diversity or a range within each of the neighborhoods, here are some of the ways that that we might get there.

Um, if we want better built forms, um, President Sandoval has mentioned the sunny side extravaganza.

Um, that I got that I got to preside over.

Um, uh, but the intention there was to build porches.

The intention there was to bring back a form that was disappearing in a neighborhood that had pitched roofs and see I paid attention and porches and certain sizes.

Um, if we want to discourage demolition of naturally occurring affordable housing, here is how we address that.

Because I I would I and I think we have to be super explicit about all of these outcomes that we want to affect.

Otherwise, I think what Alicia mentioned is we're gonna be chasing um loopholes and things like that.

So if there are other kinds of outcomes that you would like to see in your neighborhoods, given I agree with Alicia that no neighborhood sees no change, like everything shifts in some ways, but some things are um just different from Villa Park and Westwood, because I have different kinds of lots there and just different kind of street layouts and different um culture and housing appreciation.

And when I say housing appreciation, like just forms like um, and so uh I want to be able to kind of bring to light some other ways that we're able to um uh be really articulate with those things because I think for all of us um uh housing is on our plates at some in some way or another for all 13 council members, and um there's got to be something that we can start to figure out alignment on so that we can help support this as it comes out over the next year, year and a half.

So yeah, I like that thinking that solutions-based approaches, so yeah, it's okay.

Thanks.

Thank you, Congressman and California.

Uh, thank you for those those comments.

I mean uh we want to solve the problems.

One way to solve the problems is to do the Minneapolis thing and just let's not have single family zoning.

You know, any lot can have three homes on it or four homes, but I'm assuming we're not going down that path because we want to we want to unlock more options, not create a feeding frenzied for private equity or or you know, others who might um you know, we want to be intentional about the um the the growth, and so council Torres, your your point about um what what are the problems, how are we solving for it?

I mean, we want to be intentional with how we're solving for it so that it just I mean downtown, you know, I don't really see district 10 in the yellow area.

I think there may be two streets in the south side of Congress Park.

Um, you know, the bottom two streets of Congress Park might be the only areas in District 10.

So I'm happy to give you a personal tour of all both streets so you can exhaust all of District 10.

But I mean, part of the reason why it's not there is because um already uh you know have we already have people living in multifamily units, um we have generations living together in uh in the center city because you don't you don't need a car.

I mean, everything is right there, and so um, thanks to our work on making sure that uh groups can live together, because that was uh you know a huge pain point in uh in the center city uh that there were people living illegally together and it wasn't just generations, it was uh college graduates uh unable to afford to rent a place in Denver because uh just the cost of housing.

So um I also know that Congress Park and uh City Park West both want conservation overlays.

So this again kind of feeds into the let's just rip off the band-aid and not have it single family zoning at all, like I'm not sure.

Like even District 10, uh, which has uh a lot of multifamily units has the spire as 150 units in it, I think.

So that's just one building.

Um so I I want to thank you for um for considering how you know Congress Park doesn't want housing to stop, um, it wants to make sure that there's a reasonable quality of life uh there and that there's activation, there are porches, so people will have eyes on the street and whatnot.

So even in the areas in the center city that are not on your map, they still I think could benefit from uh from some of these housing choices that I didn't want.

And I think Congress Park neighbors is chatting with you and uh SuperQuest also chatting with you.

So um while we might not be in the yellow zone, um, I think that there are opportunities for us to provide input too.

Great, thanks.

Yeah, and we're we're we welcome it.

Yeah, thanks.

Council Trice.

Um, just wanted to chime in on that because that was raised in our committee meeting as well.

Just get rid of it, right?

Um, I think we always have to remind folks that may solve one thing.

We're not trying to solve one problem.

We're not just trying to solve lack of housing diversity types in every neighborhood.

We're also trying to solve affordability, and those aren't the same thing, or at least try to provide some solutions for affordability.

So I just I just don't want us to get stuck in this thing of well, all you have to do is just lift the zoning, um, and uh and let everyone figure it out for themselves.

So it was raised in our meeting.

So I just I feel like throughout this process, we're gonna have to confront that myth.

Yeah, um, I think this came up in committee, but also it'd be really helpful when we have this mapping to know if they're you know when the areas of change are identified, if should it come to that right, and they go from single unit to some units.

We also need to see the infrastructure that's associated with that, because a lot of times what will happen is a zoning change will happen, and then maybe nothing happens because the cost of improving the infrastructure is great, or maybe it's not, and that's why uh developers will come in right away, is because they're they you know they have the correct sizing for utilities.

Um, we know there's disparities on access to power around the city with Excel, right?

Um, and changes to the Denver building code um that have more energy demands or different energy demands in different parts of the city.

I think this is especially true for all of these IMX zone districts that we're seeing, or in industrial going to IMX, um, where we're seeing additional residential density in those areas, but not necessarily the roadways to kind of match that density over time.

Um, and so I think that's a really critical piece that often gets excluded in these conversations that developers figure out very quickly, and by that time it's too late, right?

So when they're looking at a piece of land, that's one of the first things they're looking at is whether utility improvements are going to be what those costs are gonna be.

And so I think when we look at like housing diversity and things like that, it's easy to model just land use, but we also need to see is this area of the city maxed out in utilities, and um, you know, will that also lead to displacement if everything gets upsized?

You know, I I live um in Bellevue Hale, and obviously, you know, Denver Waters been um working in that area for quite some time, which is good uh to get the letter of our water, but um, and then and then the BRT is following that along Colfax, right?

And so it's it's pretty um disruptive and impactful to people's lives and businesses, and so um I think um as we are moving along this process, we need to have DOTE involved or at least some really good mapping about utility and sizing and what the impact of even you know having a quadplex would do um in certain locations to our infrastructure.

Um I think I think that's important.

Yeah, great great comments thanks that's a great point when I was rezoning accessory dwelling, and they told me I couldn't go to Regis because I wouldn't have the wastewater um that I had to literally wait because I wanted to go on the west side of my council district, so they made me start in Sloan's Lake, yeah, and work my way because they had to put in a wastewater um on Tennyson right by Willis Case.

They had to put in a wastewater pipe, and they said that I literally could not do it because if I brought more density into the Regis neighborhood, I it couldn't support it.

So I was fascinated.

I was like, are you joking me?

And they were like, no.

So you need to start in Sloan's Lake because we know we have the wastewater there to be able to support that, and I I was something I had never even thought about.

Yeah, um, I was just gonna ask, I know you touched on at the beginning, but just what the conversation at the committee level has been around preservation of existing housing stock and specifically, I mean, kind of incentives or encouragement that can be done, or any kind of activities from other pure cities that you're talking about at the committee level, because I think that is such a current form of kind of existing affordable housing for in a lot of places, and can often for the larger, like Capitol Hill is a great example, where you have these larger homes, and the building form presents a single family, but so many are broken up as multiple apartments, and so as we look at it, it's not just how do we promote you know a single family home, maybe going to a duplex, but also that's kind of regulated in size and form.

But how do we preserve the existing stock?

And so just curious more on those conversations.

Yeah, we haven't really had many conversations about that since we really only had one committee meeting, but but I can't say that in our adopted plans, that's kind of one of the paramount pieces of guidance that we need to encourage affordability and encourage preservation of existing structures, and that that language, existing structures is broad intentionally to include whether someone's has an uh, you know, an old mansion that they're cutting up, or maybe they have an existing smaller house and they if they keep that.

We're looking at incentives, whether it's like a fee structure type incentive or additional units, additional floor areas, and like that.

If they keep that structure, but maybe it's a big lot and they can build something else and keep that smaller house in place.

Like, there's something to incentivize that.

So we are kind of that is absolutely something that we'll be spending a lot of time with as we move forward with the committee and conversations with this group.

So um, yeah, I'm glad I'm glad you brought that up so I can emphasize it because that also kind of balls within this issue, but has like its own really strong plan guidance as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mary and then Sarah.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to follow up on Alicia's point with because I think that there are two really important considerations with infrastructure.

One is adequacy, obviously, and making sure that we can serve the density that we're bringing in.

But the other goes back to what I brought up about the value per acre, because that added density helps pay for those infrastructure replacement costs, not just about putting in the capacity in the first place, but in 50 years when the roads need to be repaved, and 30 years when we need to replace a water main, it's that tax generation that you get from added density that covers those costs.

And in some parts of the city, we generate more, and and then in other parts of the cities um we generate less, and I think that that is an important and that's always gonna be the case.

Like there is always gonna be some element of that in our city, um, but we need to look at that holistically and look at how the value of the property is relating to the cost of the city to maintain that property.

Yeah, it's a great point.

Okay, um, I'll just add everyone's made some great comments.

So I think this is a great discussion.

Um, and thank you, guys.

I think it's headed in the right direction.

You guys are looking at the right things, you're studying the right things.

I like all the information you've provided.

Um, but I think this could easily become like an advancing equity rezoning project where it could devolve into a variety of things, and there's just no matter which way you look at something, there will probably be like 10 other things that you can study and like go down rabbit holes very easily, as I feel like we all like are really intelligent and kind of are anticipating all this stuff that might happen or the what ifs.

I think forward, um calling back on kind of why we're here-like the whole name of the project unlocking housing choices, we're here because it's it's locked, it's not that flexible.

We're trying to add flexibility, so I think leaning into that of like where do we need and have to have that flexibility and move forward in that way, and then understanding what you can actually solve with this project or not, because a lot of stuff we just discussed is like building codes, programmatic, it's other implementation things.

So if you're moving forward and you're deciding kind of a specific direction of what is the project and what is kind of the end result look like, I think make sure to be very clear on communicating that too.

Of like in the end, we are just going to use this code update that will only inform these things, and then here's how we're addressing all of the other things that might be kind of um an outcome of the project.

Because I think how I see it, there's so many things that you could address, but being clear on what you will address moving forward, you know, you move forward from uh, you know, your pure city research and all of that, and kind of figuring out what is the best approach.

I think make sure to communicate that and how other things might be addressed too.

If people are concerned about affordability or other things, uh communicate how you're um going to deal with that or not, or if that's another project.

Okay, thanks.

I just quickly because I know we're we're reaching the end.

I want to touch on the the cities, the city's research, the pure cities research.

I think that that's I think that's really critical.

I think we have a habit in Denver of thinking that we are very special and must do things in a very special Denver way.

And I think it's so important for us to look at what other cities have done and what the outcomes have been.

And some of these cities have done things more recently.

Um I do want to see Memphis on the list personally, because I think you know, they are starting to see the outcomes of the work that they've done and the links between building code changes versus zoning code changes.

I think are really critical.

Um so I think looking not just at what they've done, but really trying to find cities that have had it in place for a few years so we can look at what the outcomes were, so that we can try to not just say, well, we think that if we do this, this is gonna happen, but we have some evidence to back that up from other cities.

Um I do think that we've got to be, even though I recognize building code isn't part of this.

I think those recommendations have got to be here.

I mean, I I would posit that there is likely a causal link between development costs and equity, right?

So I wanted to and development costs are very much, you know.

Yes, zoning impacts it, but building code issues are huge on that.

And and if we don't try to address this, I think we've we've just made a big miss.

And I recognize that you guys aren't gonna be writing the building code.

I think that this project would I think there would be a little bit of wasted effort if we didn't come forward with some pretty specific code recommendations, at least on a high level.

Thanks.

We have our special for it.

Yeah.

Maybe we should look at what we're doing.

And Rob and Abe, I wanted to, and and Fred, I appreciate your your point on that, and I think that's um absolutely necessary.

Uh Sarah made a point, and I really wanted maybe to hear some reflections from both of you on.

I think really being precise what a project can do, and expectations of outcomes.

I think that's important and any of the answerary, extremely important stuff.

How is that gonna fit?

What are your thoughts?

What's your impressions on really what I thought was a very salient comment that Sarah made.

I just want us to bounce over and say adjourn.

And we don't really hear.

So I'm curious from your perspective.

Um, yeah, I mean, I think that's a that's a great comment because this particular project does have the could have the tendency to kind of creep out and out and out, and then we kind of get stuck trying to solve for everything and end up solving nothing.

So I think we we really are kind of focusing on some of the um, gosh, I'm struggling with trying to find the best way to to say this.

I think we're we're we're really kind of first and foremost using our our plan guidance as a guide, right?

We are looking at trying to add more building forms into areas that are low and low residential future place types.

And while doing that, it tells us to encourage affordability and the um uh retention of existing structures.

So I think that is kind of gonna be the core of this project, and in that focus will have an effect on some of these, you know, other other things is like housing supply.

Well, we're not gonna like focus on like, okay, let's solve that because this project is not gonna solve that.

Um, I think maybe what what this is highlighted in it in a couple times I've written down too is that you know that's that's gonna be a key piece of communication for us as well moving forward, and maybe we just need to be clearer about um the can'ts that what this project can't solve for completely.

It might have an effect or down the line it might improve some of the uh the um the situation on a certain thing, but the project's not gonna be focused in it in itself.

But I think I would just kind of always fall back to the plan guidance, right?

And that kind of like gives us the box that we're working in, and within that box, these things kind of have that Venn diagram that kind of are partially in it, while we might not be solving the issue completely.

So maybe that helps us just the way that we're thinking about it, but um great points, and I'm glad that it was brought up twice.

Um, with that, with the last couple minutes, I can push through the last, I think we have like two or three slides left on the the pure city approaches, and then kind of hear any last comments before we wrap up.

Does that work, Council President?

Yeah, perfect.

Um, so as far as our pure city approaches, this is I want to first highlight this is ongoing work.

So if you have cities that you've talked to that you have looked at, and they have interesting approaches or things that we should explore.

Email Andrew and I, and we will um uh we will incorporate that into our review.

You'll see a lot more cities get added to this each time we meet.

Um so this is just kind of an outline of as we were getting this project off the ground.

Let's look at kind of how some of the other cities structured their similar projects, uh, mostly focused around missing middle housing.

Um the first thing we saw is that uh you know that the key piece of all these projects, almost all these projects is to allow more housing options in areas that were previously single unit.

Um in some cases they said that this was getting rid of single unit zoning, and other places they said, oh, this is just more in-fill development that's allowed under certain circumstances within our single unit areas.

Um but these areas, uh, these these uh cities typically allow duplexes, triplexes, and four plexus.

That's kind of where we see the most um uh the most allowance.

Um most things higher than that, a lot of times there's more strings attached, whether it's um income restricted units or certain geographic situations or or any number of things.

Um the next piece that we saw was that it was and academic studies also back this up, that in order for these projects to be successful, um, there needs to be something that encourages the development of those additional units, whether it's more flexibility in the building form, um, in some cases, like uh Portland, for example, they they limited what can be built on a property based on a floor area ratio compared to the lot size.

Um, and they increased that floor area ratio so they increase increase the floor area that you can build for each additional unit.

Um Portland, Sacramento, and a couple other cities did that.

So having something that encourages that additional those additional units or incentivizes them is something that that uh has shown to be successful in order for that uptake to occur.

Um that can often be balanced with um with other strategies, but that's something that we saw a lot.

Uh this third one is is um uh that that numer no a number of cities kind of kept like they said, okay, we want this to fit in our house-scale neighborhoods, our single unit neighborhoods.

Let's start there and use that building form, and then you can build as many units as you want, or you can build up to four units, but you have to fit it in the same box that a house is allowed.

That's a common strategy that we saw.

That was often paired with some incentive from the previous strategy.

Um we often saw those strategies that allowed for a greater number of units, and included also with a uh elimination or restriction or reduction of the minimum lot size requirements.

This allowed for more flexibility on larger lots.

Um, you know, if you already have you know a lot that's uh on a block and it it's kind of sits on the one side of the lot, you can cut off the south side and sell that in order to, you know, afford your your um your existing house or um you know any number of things, but adding that flexibility was something that we saw very commonly.

Um, and then the last one was uh requiring some income restricted unit in exchange for additional housing units.

I'll say most commonly there was an allowance for additional housing units that was free from any requirement for income restricted units, and then maybe over a certain threshold to unlock additional units we needed to have this uh the income restriction because it's just you know, how it works financially is the tricky part there.

Um, so um these are the cities in general that we looked at kind of like on a deep dive level.

This is not inclusive of all the cities that we looked at in some way.

Um we have, of course, looked at Memphis when they've made code changes to their building code and allowing more development under the IRC and things like that that aren't on this list, and this list will kind of continue to expand.

But this is kind of where we started with some known quantities, right?

Like Minneapolis and and Portland, that have had their projects in for a while and have good data so we can see kind of how things were successful, what wasn't successful, what were the impacts that they saw to kind of maybe their more vulnerable neighborhoods or things like that.

There's a lot of lessons to be learned.

Um, and then also some some nearby examples with really recent uh projects like Boulder that is that recently reformed some of their um zoning regulations in their lower scale neighborhoods.

And so that's that's it for our slides.

I just wanted to get through that, invite any kind of final questions, but I guess we're we're closing, so email me.

So I one thing I have is um I know we're all facing furloughs and we're facing shortfalls.

So just want to say thank you for this, and however we all can assist you.

Um I think the budget shortfall will impact all agencies across the board, and this is really important work.

So I understand that the timeline has to change a little bit given the workload has to change a little bit.

So I just want to say that on record.

Last thing is is there any possible way that you could update the website so that we know that your first meeting is has already happened and maybe have like um minutes so those of us who are wondering how to watch can because it's not up there.

And then if you can update your membership, I'm looking at it right now, so it doesn't say who the members are.

So if someone came to me, I would go to and say, Hey, could you not that I'm not a good conduit, but I would want to directly have them contact the two council members who are on there, or if someone came to me and said, Hey, who from my neighborhood is participating, they can have that list of who the representatives are.

So the website I'm seeing doesn't it it doesn't have anything on there.

They they come up under um project team.

There's a full list of all of the advisory committee members and affiliations and the okay.

And the project archive has the will have and currently has the last meeting, so it has the recording of the meeting in the minutes middle.

I'm thinking it would look more like the planning board website.

Yeah.

Because the planning board website is super easy.

It says members, and oh yeah, maybe we can update some titles.

That's a good point.

I wouldn't think of the project team as the people who are serving on the committee.

That makes sense.

Yes, in the the video from the last and all the meeting minutes and stuff like that are in the archive, but uh, we need to change that name.

Yeah, I wouldn't think about archives ideas.

I probably wouldn't either.

Okay, thank you all.

I look forward to next time.

Have a good one.

Thank you.

So we did want to like hit the point again and take more time.