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.

Is that your work?

What's that?

The emergency.

Oh yeah.

Should I not be here?

I'm not sick.

I'm just turning back together.

We're talking about the problem.

I don't want to hit you.

I think you're welcome.

No, Chris, if I took everything on the members, you would think I'd have like sugar.

I would be like, here's like a little change and email.

Is that my card?

Do you have a way?

We're on the real little set of a teams chat.

Okay.

You just gave me your fellow.

Do we need more chairs?

Okay.

Okay, that's like pretty funny.

Hi.

I just thought that was good for the stickers.

I did a salary.

So uh Council President, I did this out.

Do you know how to make them?

Yeah, I just did this like as a habit and they're in my bag from a family trip.

Last night during the meeting, I was like, I'm gonna keep myself awake.

So I don't want to replay with my daughter.

Hi, everybody.

Oh, there's one that had that.

Okay.

I'll go sit in the front.

We might have an echo in here, especially down with that.

And Jamal.

Oh.

So here, let me stop looking at it.

Makes me wish we had like a 25-member city council.

How cute would that be?

Look at us all.

That's great.

We're dealing with us.

All right.

Happy December, everybody.

Um, for those who may not know, I'm Council President of South Wall, just okay.

Um, we had a long night last night, so we're doing our best to like keep up with everything.

I am opening up my notes.

Um, so thank you all.

Let's just go around the room because then I can help figure out who's where.

Halen, are you gonna help me keep Q on your side and I'll help keep Q on my side?

Um, and then we'll pass it to the presenters.

I think we're gonna have a great discussion.

I know this is um talked about a lot in my council district.

Um, so hopefully it's gonna be a robust discussion.

Thank you all for joining us.

Um producer, do we have anyone online?

Yeah, uh let's start with our person online.

Hi everyone, Councilman Chantel and Louise here for Council District Eight.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Um, and the time of the Sarah Ferdi, one of your City Council members at large.

Uh good afternoon, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Mary Coddington, Planning Board.

Uh Watson, fine, district nine.

Uh Paul Cashman, outstanding outstanding district.

Alicia Con Hammond Planning Board.

I'm the council member for Lucky District 7.

Uh Sedana Denzel's could your other council member at large.

I mean, Sawyer, district five.

Pete Winquater, planning board and current chair.

Deirdre's planning board.

Stacy Gilmore, District 11.

Hey Denver.

Chris Hines, Denver's perfect test.

Jamie Torres, West Denver District.

Great.

And then I'll pass it over to our planners.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh, my name is Rob Haig.

I am uh City Planner with Community Planning and Development.

Um, thank you all for uh coming uh today and making the time to come down here.

Um we would like to give uh an update to you all about the unlocking housing choices project, um, and uh um you know, get some feedback on the project and in the direction that we're headed heading.

Um so first, we'd like to uh give a quick recap at the uh from the previous uh uh joint session where we all met.

We discussed the project's foundation and background, which included uh a look at the adopted plan guidance, the issue identification, uh, and some of the peer city approaches.

Uh so moving forward today.

What we'd like to talk about is uh we have a quick presentation and project update, and then we'll talk about next steps.

But but generally we'd like to get your feedback at this point in the project and uh get your input as we take things forward and begin to refine our strategies.

So, at this point, you've probably heard that there have been some changes to the project's timeline.

Uh, and the thing we really want to emphasize here is that the project scope has not changed.

Uh so we still have the same objectives that we originally set out to accomplish, uh, but we are setting the the separating the project into two phases in order to address budget and staffing challenges.

This enables us to accomplish some of the key parts of the project within the original time frame.

So we still wanted to have that you know original scope or time timeline that we set forth.

We wanted to accomplish something within that time frame.

So this phased approach allows us to do that in contrast to kind of delaying everything and not not accomplishing anything until this the end of this longer timeline.

Um so this enables us to accomplish some of the key parts of the project that have the strongest plan guidance and enable missing middle housing for affordable housing when affordable housing is provided and when an existing home is retained.

So to quickly go over the approaches in phase one, the first phase enables this more focused approach in order to incentivize the retention of existing homes.

Phase one will allow additional housing options with an existing home is retained.

This would enable more housing within a new structure or within an existing structure.

It would allow the subdivision of an existing home or new uh housing units within within a completely brand new structure.

The second uh part of phase one is the uh it allows for completely new structures on a property when one of the units within the new housing is set aside as affordable.

So this would allow for uh the options kind of like here, potentially two structures where one of the one of these units within this two double duplex type situation is set aside as affordable, or three completely set aside structures, three three uh cottage home type type units, or one unit with with one of these set aside as affordable in a single structure.

So, in addition to the new enabling of missing middle housing types and this more focused approach, UHC will also update our residential design standards to reduce building scale and promote more uh compatible infill.

So, phase two will then move forward with uh these these options and enable a more open missing middle housing uh strategy with some of the requirements in the incentives of phase one, but some of them also uh might be removed.

The additional time in between phase one and phase two and now allows us to engage the community, continue to build support for the project, fine-tune our approach based on you know uh concerns of individual neighborhoods and kind of be more be more proactive while we've separated kind of the more straightforward approaches in phase one, phase two will we'll will be where we kind of tackle the more complex issues of the project.

Um so far up to this point in 2025, the public basic aspects of the project uh been focused on our advisory committee, but we've also had good engagement on our web page and met with multiple registered neighborhood organizations.

Um basically anyone who requested a meeting, we we were happy to oblige.

Uh in 2026, we look forward to expanding our engagement strategy to the wider general public through community meetings, publishing our strategies, and the continued advisory committee meetings.

So now we'll take a closer look at those phase one strategies that I just went over briefly in the previous slides.

Um, to take a quick look at uh current trends, when an existing house is demolished and replaced with a new house, that new house is typically over 1.4 million dollars and larger than 3,000 square feet.

This is not attainable to many people.

But when an existing house is demolished and replaced with a duplex, triplex, or row house, the majority of those new homes are less than $800,000 and smaller than 3,000 square feet.

Of course, the existing home is often still cheaper and still smaller than what it is being replaced with.

But that's one of the reasons why Blueprint Denver calls for this project to explore incentives to keep those smaller, cheaper houses in place, and it's why one of our key project strategies encourages the retention of existing structures.

Also, of course, that $800,000 duplex or row home is still out of reach for many Denverites, which is why the project will also include incentives for new units to be restricted at even more affordable prices.

And we are making changes to our built forms to reduce the size of structures that are built within our residential neighborhoods.

So unlocking housing choices can help residents stay in their homes and enable more attainable homeownership opportunities through these three key concepts.

First is compatibility, we're updating our building forms to improve compatibility of residential infill.

Secondly, UHC can improve the attainability of our residential neighborhoods through the introduction of additional housing types.

Third, UHC can enable an increased housing supply in residential neighborhoods.

And these concepts all uh work together too to create additional smaller homes that are not being built today and create more housing options for more Denverites to enable them to live in our great residential neighborhoods.

And the compatibility and supply components will work together in order to ensure that that new infield development is more compatible with existing neighborhoods than what we see being built today.

So to take a quicker look at some of the three components of the first phase of the project.

So this strategy would enable missing middle housing when an existing structure is retained.

This promotes the preservation of existing smaller homes while still allowing flexibility for property owners and home builders to add value to the property.

This would help advance plan goals in Blueprint Denver in multiple NPI plans that call for the preservation of existing homes while still considering the addition of missing middle housing.

A home builder, for example, could buy a smaller home, they'd renovate that smaller home, add one or two additional dwelling units at the rear, and this could result in three more moderately sized homes, all for sale than what we see today, which is which is a uh the scrape and replacement of that single home with one very large home that is built to the maximum of our building standards in order to maximize profit.

So the second strategy is our enables missing middle housing when one of the units is affordable.

So this would allow for a completely new structure on our property.

This would be the replacement of an existing home with a missing middle housing type, whether it's a duplex, fourplex, or cottage court type development, this would uh require one of the units to be uh to be affordable.

Our financial feasibility study, which is still underway, and we expect to see some of the preliminary results of that in early 2026, will be crucial in determining what level of affordability is feasible so that this strategy actually results in more housing and more affordable housing as well.

So, in addition to those opportunities for missing middle housing, we'll also be updating our building forms to better align with the size and scale of our existing neighborhoods.

Uh we will also uh we're also considering establishing a maximum floor area limitation on residential development in order to uh both uh uh uh incentivize the creation of more moderately sized homes uh and incentivize the creation of of uh missing middle housing.

So our current building forms as demonstrated in this image in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen uh allows for housing that is much larger than what's typically already existing in these neighborhoods, um, in some cases three or four times the size of existing homes, even something like a Denver Square is dwarfed by some of the new single-family homes and duplexes that are built in these neighborhoods.

So we're gonna right size our um uh our building standards um in order to uh promote more in more compatible infill.

Um additionally, the uh the potential maximum floor size uh uh will increase for each housing unit uh proposed on a property.

Um this will act as a financial incentive for uh for home builders to build more missing middle housing types rather than large single family homes.

Um so uh with that we'll take a quick look at the next steps.

So the next steps in after after today, uh we are working closely with our our consultants and staff uh to continue to uh develop these these strategies and and prepare um uh uh our our report and what we're going to distribute uh to the public so that we can we can get comments back on that.

We've had great uh advisory committee meetings that are informing the development of those strategies.

So now we're taking this time after a round of meetings that ended in November uh to do the work required to kind of implement what what we've heard from our committee.

Um we'll also plan on having public meetings uh in early 2026 with the general public uh in multiple locations around the city, and we'll share our findings and recommendations of our financial feasibility at the same time that we issue this strategy document uh in the first half of 2026.

Um the first phase of this project, we're we're targeting an adoption at the end of 2026, uh which will which will come up very quickly, and we look forward to to working with you all through that process as well.

Uh so that is the presentation that we wanted to give again, just a you know, general update sharing kind of where we are and the strategies that we are working on developing.

Um, looking forward to hearing your discussion and also looking for your feedback on how you how you think about these uh these strategies.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um so in the queue, I have council member parity, Alvivor, Councilmember Hines, Fred, Mary.

Okay, um I'm just gonna take a moment of personal privilege and say that um when I did the overlay in Sunnyside, um and in Harkness Heights, I'll never forget I didn't think it was gonna pass panning board, um, especially the one in Harkness Heights.

We created a minimum floor area allowance.

So we have this in a neighborhood in Denver already.

Um I have it predominantly like the biggest place that we have it is in Sunnyside.

Um, and we we were doing that because houses were being torn down and McMansions were being built.

And so we the data that my aide at the time nailing found is that the market drives it.

And so if you have a bigger house, it's all based on square footage.

Um I will say that I did do the maximum floor area allowance also on duplex form, um, because we were getting um make duplexes.

I one just sold in Sloan's Lake for 2.9.

And so that's what I'm facing in my neighborhood is a single family house was torn down.

It was like a bungalow, it's like a tutored house, and it literally each side one sold for 2.9 and the other side sold for 2.5.

And I think they were like 5,500 square feet.

And so um in sunny side, we also saw that happening as well, where a single family house was being torn down, and a duplex on average between five and six thousand square feet were um being built.

I will say that what we did with the maximum floor area coverage was we didn't include it a basement.

So you can actually build down and actually have a basement, so you could still have a three-story house if you want.

I know when you have kiddos, a basement really helps.

So the the basement is not included in my maximum floor area allowance.

So if you if anyone's interested in seeing that at past um planning board, it's been implemented in sunny side, and I believe the Heartness Heights area, which is at least we have some evidence of its working or not.

So that's just a little food for that before we get into the queue.

Um then thank you for the great presentation, and thank you so much for the work on it.

And I just want to acknowledge we have two council members who are on this committee.

We have Councilmember Flynn, we have councilman Torres, and do we have planning board members who are on it?

Alicia, okay, awesome.

Thank you for your service, and thank you for all the time that you're spending.

I know that these are robust conversations.

Um, and I think we have some committee members here.

I think we have Alejandra and I'm here.

Lucas.

Thank you for joining us.

All right.

First up, we have council member parody.

Yeah, thank you.

This is hard to be first.

Um, so um, here's my thoughts about this project.

I've been excited about this, and when I look at the group that was gathered by um CPD to do this, it's a very cool group of people.

Like, that's a club I want to be in.

I don't know, you guys have collect a lot of very thoughtful residents on this, and it's large and robust.

So a lot of time went into putting that together.

Um, and I have a feeling like we're all in that spider mine cartoon where everybody's pointing at each other.

I'm two online apparently, but um, it's a meme, anyway.

Because I feel like there's a little bit of um, I at least as a council member find these issues to be, or this issue of sort of like missing metal housing and like small unit density to be probably the most like policy and economically complex thing that I've dealt with on as a council member, and despite trying to think and read about it obsessively for two years, it is just really hard.

And no city has really like just sort of cracked it, you know.

Um so I think I was hoping for a bigger menu out of this project and like a more analysis for us of like here's kind of a lot of different things you could think about.

Um, because otherwise I don't necessarily have the tools to kind of like fully think all those things through.

Like I've heard lots of different ideas, um and of course, most of those things just to be clear would involve like um whether or not we want to allow market rate two and three unit buildings somewhere in some under some circumstances with some conditions with some constraints, right?

Um and so not having not having any analysis to at least think that through.

Um, I feel sad about that because I um that would be helpful to me, I guess.

Um, and I think that there's been a little bit of feeling of like everybody's trying to assess what everybody else is most interested in and committed to instead of more of the like here's a whole bunch of options.

And I've seen early slideshows from this process too that had a lot more um, like in principle, here's different things other cities have done that have to do with um, you know, if if you're concerned about replacing small one unit houses with really big two unit houses, then you think about what footprint you allow, like what you're you're doing here.

Um, but just ways to get at that market right piece of things without um doing something that's either um too broad stroke or um just that we don't know that we're gonna get results from, I guess.

So that's one thing I'll say is just and I know that also CPD doesn't have limitless staff.

Um if you guys all had endless time, you are the people that could give us every answer to all of this.

I feel really confident, but you don't, and I know that.

Um so a couple like thoughts or questions.

Um I also will say that like that the two slides about the cost of a new um one unit versus cost of a new two or three unit versus the cost of sometimes the existing one unit house is like the description of the whole problem, and it's so interesting to look at those because in one sense we kind of missed a tipping point where that duplex or triplex would have been more naturally affordable than that one unit.

Um, like we've blown past that, which is fascinating in and of itself.

Um it's been a wild housing market, and then in addition to that, um you know, we don't really control, like this kind of supply is really hard to think about in like a supply and demand framework because it's tiny compared to all the other factors that drive housing markets that drive the supply and the cost.

So it's not like us adding, you know, little duplexes and triplexes here and there at market rate is gonna just magically drive prices down because suddenly there's tariffs, you know.

Um, suddenly everyone in the country wants to move to Denver.

Like there's these other factors that just eclipse that kind of work that we might try to do.

Um, but all of that said, I feel like we need to um I still feel really committed to allowing a little bit more market rate density in the city.

We are so heavily single family, we know that, but it's a question of where, and it's a question of with what breaks, you know, um, because in the future, like that little bit of supply also should matter some to our housing markets, you know, all the things being equal, might be hard to measure how much, but like it should matter because it would be new supply, and um it's also environmentally sound, it's good for climate, it's good for you know, like there's other reasons why um we might want to see more density in at least parts of the city.

So I guess um, and then we among council members, like we've um we all talk about these things a lot, and I think I've talked with most council members about different thoughts of how to do this, including um just the thought of like going back to our existing plans and seeing where they call for a little more small multi-unit residential density and making sure that we've even zoned for that, which we haven't done everywhere.

Like there's there's lots of other there's little bits and pieces of this I think we could do in all kinds of ways.

So that's um, that's kind of what I was hoping for from the project, although I don't disagree with what you're recommending.

Um, and I think the the key thing to remember though is that like if that little bungalow ends up for sale, right now it's gonna get scraped and turned into the one unit, not the two or the three.

We would prefer the two or the three, and the trick is like you change the rules, you also change the incentives a little bit, and then you get more of the little bungalows scraped.

So it's like, where's the where's that little balance point, you know?

But I I don't think we're finding it with this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next step we have come from the market.

Thank you so much, Council President.

Um, I will say uh that it's disappointing to hear about this getting pushed out over a longer timeline.

I think that I lost the South Central area plan this year and next year because I was hoping to see some of the outcomes here that we're going to allow for market rate housing.

Another thing I really appreciate that council president did um was in our committee she reorganized them so hosts could be together with our planning um department, and I would like to maybe have them at this table.

Uh I've been digging into their numbers on their five-year plan and goals.

Um, and last week we held a black home ownership round table because of the fact that um the home ownership rates in the city are going down very quickly, and especially amongst community of color.

So I did a little analysis um of why the affordable for home ownership option is not working.

Um the analysis I did was two homes in the same neighborhood and the same zip code, um, the affordable one deed restricted has been on the market.

For over, oh, can you pass those?

Sorry, for um over 90 days.

Uh, and when I talk to Elevations Land Trust, they're really having a hard time getting people qualified for these affordable home ownership opportunities, and so the analysis here will show you that the payment on a four-market and affordable house is almost identical, and there's also a lot of harms that are caused when we do have um HOAs and these huge developments.

Um, and so I wanted to share that as well as just the difficulty of qualifying for some of these homes.

And I am afraid that if we don't pursue market rate housing, that we will lose home ownership opportunities, and not only that, but wealth building opportunities in the city.

And so I just wanted to share that information uh with the group for consideration and also ask that host to be here.

For the BIPOC home ownership rate in particular, uh the goal was to get from like 40 to 45% home ownership in a five-year plan, and it's gone backwards.

We're at 38% home ownership.

Um, and the low to moderate home ownership was to get from 36% home ownership to 41%, and we're now at 32.

So I think that what we've done for affordable for rent is showing success as we are seeing rent decrease as we get more units on the market.

And I think that this has the possibility if we could do it within a reasonable time frame to allow for home ownership opportunities for people.

In the same regard as adding units of affordable rental has brought that down.

Adding this market rate housing opportunity to young families will be helpful.

And I also look forward to the housing needs assessment that host is doing, which talks about the number of bedrooms potentially and the other things that I don't think we're paying enough attention to.

And when I think about the families in my district, they would like to live in a town home or something where they could have a yard instead of a huge high rise.

So I do we are building not the product that our constituents necessarily want, and I am worried about the wealth building opportunities that we will lose pushing this out into 2029, which we have no idea what the housing market will be then.

I anticipate housing prices continue to go up, and we're in a temporary temporarily seeing housing prices go down, which is a really big opportunity for us to really change these figures of declining home ownership rates in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Hines with uh board member quick on you.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, thank you for the uh presentation.

I I imagine that you are also disappointed that um uh that there's an extended timeline as I assume that's fair to say.

Um, and uh we do have housing stability here, just not at the table.

Um when I think of a combination of historic preservation, neighborhood character, reducing landfill waste and additional density.

I think of Cap Hill.

Um, you know, there are these uh large mansions that have been subdivided over time and to two or three or five or sometimes eight different units inside um, you know, one structure, so it looks the same uh from the curve, but has quite a bit of additional density.

Is that something that we can do today?

If most of Capital has, I'm sorry, should introduce myself, Andrew Webb, but uh CBD, most of the zoning or a lot of the zoning in Capitol already allows multiple units, so some of those existing very large homes can already be uh subdivided into individual dwelling units.

Um areas with uh single unit zoning or two unit zoning are limited to just one or two units.

What is proposed here in the first phase would allow uh subdivision of a large home in a single unit zone district into multiple units as well.

Yeah, I just I mean, I imagine that that would be reducing construction and demolition debris because you're not demolishing anything except walls or adding you know bathrooms and kitchens and whatnot.

But um, so that's good that that's um that's under consideration.

Obviously, there will be concerns about parking and street use, um, you know, cars on the street and whatnot, but uh uh but I'd say Cap Hill has figured it out and um and you say they're eligible for subdividing.

I mean, what's our responding to the audience?

Oh, sorry.

So good.

I was like, what?

Um, so that so yeah, so this um uh the idea of being able to subdivide the existing structures, has has um seen success in capital, and I would say like all the ones that want to subdivide have done so at this point.

I mean, I think we'll have to wait until there's a um you know a sale of the homes that are still single-family homes for them to, you know, all the owners that are currently single family, and there aren't many.

Um, I think they want to retain single family.

Um, but I'm glad that that's uh that model is being uh moved outside of um you know the center city, but um uh so eighty percent of my uh residents are multifamily uh you know dwellers, um so only 20 percent of them are in single family homes.

Um both Congress Park and City Park west are interested in some you know uh are interested in conservation overlay the two uh neighborhoods where there are single family homes and um that I think uh particularly uh City Park West they're okay with development but they're concerned about you mentioned mansions I like lot monsters either way the um you know the um one of your slides talks about reducing buildable area uh I'm I there really wasn't a whole lot of detail there so I'm curious about what your thoughts are like what does that mean reducing buildable area and increasing density at the same time yeah so what right now what we're thinking is is establishing some type of gross floor area limit for properties and it would be roughly based on a floor area ratio to the lot size but it would be it would not exist like as a some something someone would have to calculate each time but it would be some limitation probably for above ground floor area on residential properties and then with each additional unit you create you get some additional floor area so right so let's just say for example it's 3,000 square feet for a single family home maybe it's 3250 for a G Plex and 3500 for a for a triplex and obviously there's going to be a lot of work and feasibility study that goes into figuring out what those numbers are but that's how we would incentivize in and allow for more dwelling units while still limiting floor area and our current urban house building form allows a lot of building it allows a structure big enough for multifamily so we think we can even start there and pair it back and still allow a lot.

So um so it's kind of isn't the 2010 zoning code getting away from floor area ratio the old chapter 59 was FAR and now we're saying we want to kind of go back into FAR model to a degree we this is not something that is currently in there's not a floor area ratio limitation within residential zone districts in the current code.

And like I said we wouldn't establish a floor area ratio it wouldn't say like FAR is 0.6 for the stone district it would say you know lots between this size and this size maximum floor area is this number so that it makes it easier for reviewers and people to understand what they can do on their property.

But it is it would be a new tool but it's a tool that other cities that we've studied has has shown to be a best practice and very effective uh both at encouraging missing middle and discouraging mansionization of of their neighborhoods does it talk at all about um a structure fitting into the character of adjacent structures um yes I believe that's that's definitely one of the consequences of of that it fits better but but one of the main you know it solves many problems which is why why it's such an effective tool and that would be one of the things that it can help solve.

Yeah okay and then just as a as a comment I haven't been convinced to let this go just yet um but uh I think one way to help unlock housing choices would be to have a a suite of a menu of ADUs where if you pick one of these items off a menu then you know you get a green light and at the end you get the inspection of that just says you did what you said you were going to do and um it seems like that would kind of speed permitting it simplify the city process um and um uh and help uh with determinants for those who want to do an ADU and I think that would kind of help um move along auxiliary dwelling units um just to you know kind of get the city out of the um uh you know city hands out of the pile a little bit more so absolutely if we're thinking about unlocking choices I think that could be a way to unlock choice I think you're right we we're exploring that type of pre-approved design for lots of different developments kind of beyond ADUs and beyond as well.

So we're exploring it and hope it could be something we include.

The hard part is you have to go to Metro wastewater and get a tap.

And so they have to, we I just toured their facility, and they have are in charge of everything for a whole entire region.

And so their board is not comfortable with getting rid of that tap fee for everywhere else just because Denver has ADUs.

So when we did that ADU in Denver, they gave a report out on next depth.

And one of them is like what you're talking about, but some of them are out of our control.

And so I've really been pushing and like writing to them, and like, hey, I'll take a tour.

And then I ask, hey, when are you going to update this?

Hey, I'll take a tour.

When you can update this, so I asked them to have all council members go out there for a tour so that you all could start pushing on them as well to say, hey, we need to update some of these fees that are out of our control because we can't holistically do that until we partner with some of the entities that have jurisdiction over us with these tap fees and all these other fees because they're huge.

I mean, it's like a $20,000 fee where you have to get your own tap where you can't tap into your own um sewer.

Yeah, so go take a tour.

If you haven't, I'll introduce you.

Uh next up we have member Fred Quick, and then we member Mary Cuntington on deck.

Thank you, Council President.

Um I have a bunch of questions, comments, and a lot of this is really I think for later for the next round of presentations.

I'm hoping you'll kind of take these and run with them.

And I want to kind of preface it by saying that I think a lot of um what I'm contemplating here, a lot of what I want to raise comes from a place of of hoping that this is not just a tool that only developers are able to use.

I think as we saw um in Chaffee Park uh when Council President Sandoval led the the ADU rezoning there way back when there were a lot of people who wanted these for a lot of different reasons, and yeah, some of them are developers hoping to make more money, but there were also a lot of families that wanted to have multi-generational housing, that kind of thing, and so uh I hope that this tool can be done in such a way that it is not so complex that only developers use it.

Um I do think you know one thing that might be helpful down the road in another presentation is a little bit of um explanation of how this differs from simply building an ADU.

And I think some of it has to do with things like tap fees.

I mean, an ADU has a has a reduced tap fee compared to uh an individual unit, or at least it did the last time I did it.

Um, and I think that there's some other guidelines in there, but it'd be helpful to see how that how this differs from ADUs and how this initiative, what this initiative might change about doing in ADU, I think would also be helpful.

Um, as you get into the form changes uh and introduce FAR and potentially more complexity.

Um, I want to be sure that we are making making it so that this isn't so complex that we're driving people out of the market, um, but I think it's it's helpful for us to understand and do some analysis around potential unintended consequences, how this might impact land values.

Uh, we we know, and we just talked about this last week at planning board that for instance doing a lot split of a larger lot into multiple lots uh isn't always easy, whereas combining lots into a larger lot is is very easy and is simply an administrative process.

Um so there's a little bit of me saying, well, if we introduce FAR, then those who do want to build larger lot larger houses, uh why not just snap up a few lots and they're gonna build a bigger house and end up having a bigger lot and take those lots out of um circulation for missing middle housing potentially.

So I want to make sure that we we do dive in and understand those potential unintended consequences and what the impact on land values could be because of this.

Um as we talk about affordability and this route that of using an affordable unit, I'd love in the future for some conversation about what that is really going to look like.

I I think it can be difficult for for-profit managers of these units and for the city to track affordability uh and affordable units.

And so, again, I worry a little bit about um families that are trying to do this, and if we make it too difficult for family to do it, because suddenly they've got these requirements and these these um uh these requirements that they have to, these compliance requirements that they have to uh look to, and suddenly this family that thought it was going to be great to have uh you know the brother in law and sister in one unit and parents in another unit suddenly realizing that they're gonna have to hire a lawyer and spend money on a lawyer every year to do this, maybe that pushes them out of the market.

So I want to be sure that we we understand that.

And that also speaks I think a little bit to understanding whether we're talking about as we do this is this a route to ownership or are these only rental units?

Um I do have some concerns about deed restricted affordable for sale units in from an equity perspective that we're basically telling folks of lesser means here's a path for you to own, but not a path for you to build wealth.

That only happens for those who have wealth already.

So that's a bit of a concern, but I think as we we go through and talk about this, I do think it's so critical to involve hosts, and I think we need to understand if if you're building three units and those could be owned separately, which it's not clear from the presentation if that's an intent or not.

We have to understand what that looks like from an assessor's point of view.

Um I think we we also need to at least touch on beyond zoning what that looks like uh from a building code standpoint.

If I have a house and I want to preserve it but turn it into three different units, does that mean that then I'm obtaining two new COs for it or three new COs potentially?

Uh and does that trigger requirements that I have to do fire separation between those units, and does that mean that I have to upgrade the entire electrical for it?

So if we don't explore these pieces, we may be doing a zoning exercise that isn't achievable in the real world, at least not for a normal person, because if that's where we get to, then we are just creating another path for developers, and that helps by creating more supply, but I think that leaves a whole lot of people that we hope are benefited by this exercise out of the picture.

Thanks.

Um Mary?

Yeah, thanks so much.

Um yeah, a lot of your points, Fred, were were kind of where I wanted to go with this.

Um I think I was really confounded at the at this approach in terms of um we're facing budget constraints, so we're gonna take one of the tools that doesn't require any city funding off the table for three years, because supply is, you know, it's certainly not gonna take care of all of her problems.

Um we need a lot of tools in our toolbox, but it is an important piece, and if we're gonna sit on our heels on that, which doesn't require any additional city investment per unit, it just seems to me like uh a strange way when we're facing like this tight budget environment.

Um, so personally, I would rather see, you know, if we need to slow the process down because of where we are in terms of staff capacity, you know, if we don't finish till 2027 but we have a full policy, I would feel better about that than having a partial policy in place by 2026, and then addressing the market rate pieces and and ideally getting that through by 2029.

Um, Fred, that question of like who is development for has been rattling around in my head a lot, and even thinking of like who can afford to subsidize a unit, and it's not gonna be your mom and pop developers that might be adding a unit for somebody in their family, and then also the compliance concerns for deed restricted units, even going beyond the points that you raised about scattered site, but also you know, we've seen rents soften citywide, and now we're struggling with vacancy in our income restricted units because why would you want to go through the hassle of having to register your income with your landlord every year.

If you can find a place to rent that doesn't require that?

That's hard enough for our experienced affordable housing developers to deal with.

But if it's just, you know, I I own a unit and I'm trying to rent it out, and now all of a sudden I can't fill it, um, that could create some really serious financial consequences.

And I also want to lift up the fact that, like, um, I like my favorite drum to beat on is that we are not in a singular housing crisis.

We're dealing with a lot of competing housing challenges, and not every tool is designed to solve every problem.

You know, this conversation came up a lot when we were looking at expanding housing affordability, and I know there were a lot of people frustrated that that tool didn't reach super low AMIs, but really looking at like what is this tool best equipped to deal with, and not trying to make it a panacea for the full scope of housing challenges, I think is really important.

Um, and then you know, the scope of this, especially since the project lives in CPD is very like regulatory focused, and that makes a lot of sense.

But um, council members, as you're thinking about this, I think a bigger barrier to this middle and you know, missing middle housing is finance, and there aren't a lot of good financial tools to build duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes, which I think is actually a gift, because if there were private equity would be waiting on the sidelines to flow in.

And so there's an opportunity for us as a city to think about how can we create financial incentives that give people who live here a leg up.

And not only does that create opportunities to stabilize our residents living in our community now, but it'll keep that money circulating in Denver as opposed to being extracted out to you know the centers of global finance.

Um I wrote my thesis in college on institutional investment in the single family market, and so I'm very interested in how the flow of capital plays into this conversation.

Um I also think it's really important that we take a fine-grained approach when we're looking at this and not do a broad brush of we'll just do four-plexes everywhere, and eventually that'll catch up.

I I don't think that'll be palatable for for folks in Denver, and I also have concerns about how that affects underlying land value when you have a single small single-family home next to a fourplex, and if that's a building pattern in a neighborhood, what that does to property taxes.

So really looking at where we have S U and T zoning now, maybe keeping that at to you and looking at fourplexes and slightly higher around our corridors so that we have a step-up pattern as we get to the areas of higher density in our city, and then really looking at opportunities to balance stabilizing people and giving them the opportunity to stay if they want to.

But preserving adaptability and not freezing our communities in place.

Um, I'm concerned that if we have a lot of income restricted units, and we're seeing this with how the states rolled out funding for sale housing that can't be sold right away because market conditions changed.

So those units sit vacant because the people who built them aren't allowed to rent them out, and so being really considerate when we're deed restricting units, are those responsive to market conditions as they change, or again, are we saddling people with units that are gonna sit vacant while we're in the middle of having so many people who can't find affordable housing?

So those are my thoughts and comments.

Thanks for the time.

Thank you, Council Party.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Mary.

I have so many questions to what you said.

Um a lot of the the issues that I had have already been raised.

Um, I think in in Southeast Denver, I I'm trying not to get caught up on slide 15.

I know it's just a depiction and so forth.

I'm really focused on it right now.

Um, but I think about what is happening.

Um, and what's happening is uh I guess it's part of that subdividing conversation, but people aren't tearing down the houses.

There are three, four, and five-bedroom homes.

They are renting and leasing out rooms, um, basements, etc.

And so I know it's just a reality.

I know there's that always comes up, and people are like, I can't do that, but it's what's happening.

Um, and so that's more of the issue I think that that we're facing in um in Southeast Denver at least, as far as how lots are being used.

Um there isn't uh the question that you raised, uh Fred, about um the difference with ADUs and how this how this differs and what that form was, there was a long process to decide what that looked like, and so I'm just trying to grapple with like what does that look like in district four, and so those are more of my questions and or concerns about um what does this look like in a very practical way for the residents that live in Southeast Denver.

You said adaptability Mary and I don't know if you mean adaptability or accessibility excuse me let me go back to what you said um adaptability but what I heard in my mind was also homes and their accessibility so we have a lot of folks who are aging in place who are aging in their homes because they are comfortable in that space um and they're not moving my mom was one of them it was a place where we could all gather um and that's great and that's fine but also finding those places where people can still you know age in community and then taking those spaces so that those houses could be more accessible.

I think we often talk about building form on the outside we don't always talk about building form on the inside that would allow people to um move into a home and stay in that home and not have to move because they can't make it up the stairs or um the bathroom door isn't wide enough or you know you can't convert it your tub into a shower or whatever the case may be and I think that's a very nuanced way maybe to look at how people are using or except are are how people are in their homes able to stay in their homes and then think about their transition into other places in communities.

Okay that's all thank you.

Councilmember councilman president tell me how Capitol Hill solved the parking problem I apologize I almost swallow my tongue there my uh my son lived at 11th and Pearl my youngest son uh for a number of years and he was kitchen manager at crema and every night when he would come home he had parked up to five blocks away.

So let me know let me know how that got solved I want to synthesize what the comment parody and Mary said and uh just the issue of uh looking at our adopted plans and where they intentionally said they want that in the first place I think she wants to be because a lot of the guidance in blueprint and in the NPIs a blanket allowance for the proposed changes to allow missing middle housing on any single family lot in the city cannot possibly be found consistent with our adoptive plans it's dead on a rival because blueprint doesn't say that it says look at locations it says uh in fact it literally says that two unit uses are not appropriate in all low residential areas I think that's misworded it should say uh not all two unit not all single unit areas are appropriate for two units I like what it says now that's not what you meant but then also when I look at the NPIs the first one that passed is the council member Gilmore's district uh the far northeast there literally is guidance in that plan that says uh these low residential single unit are these areas are not appropriate for duplex so here we're talking about building up the quads when we have guidance that says you can't even do a two unit in suburban context though the guidance is very clear last night we adopted the far southwest plan and it gives clear guidance for where we can have missing middle all over in places where we intentionally planned it because in suburban context, the guidance specifically is that intensities of residential uses are separate, generally speaking.

There are some exceptions.

But when I look at all the duplex, triplex, and a few, I have a few quads in my district uh but uh when I look at all the duplexes that went in on um along Tipling and Stanford area, in my neighborhood and um in um over in the Fort Logan neighborhood, they are in a in an area that is zoned for it because we planned it to be there.

So we've done one, two, three, four, we've done seven MPIs now.

And every single one of them has guidance that will not be consistent with a blanket allowance of up to four units on any single family lot in the city.

So I'm urging us to look at, as the councilwoman said, to look at our adoptive plans and say, where are these gonna work?

We just recommended in the Far Southwest plan uh upzoning all along Federal Boulevard.

I still have single family homes on Federal Boulevard for crying out loud.

That's an area that is ripe for row house, duplex, triplex, quadplex, row house, multifamily.

We just dedicated the All Saints uh senior housing apartments.

Uh it works there, and for a couple blocks all the way to Decatur and to Irving on either side where they're doing the bus rapid transit.

West Evans between federal and the river, all along the centers and corridors, which is the guidance in far northeast and every NPI since then.

And so I I would ask that maybe in the next couple of advisory committee meetings that we take a look at location analysis rather than saying how can we put a quadplex into an area where the plan guidance says you shouldn't be doing it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So just so we're clear I have councilman Sorry, Council Montari, Councilman Gilmore, Councilmember Watkin.

Um member Alicia, and then again in the queue, I'll be there, but I'm gonna go first around everyone who hasn't gotten the queue first and then the meeting.

All right.

Councilwoman, sorry?

I was gonna say something else, but first I'm gonna just respond to Councilmember Flynn because he literally asked my question, right?

We uh came across this with the East Area Plan in 2021.

Blueprint Denver says, and I quote, single unit districts shall remain primarily single unit.

Comp 2040 says that, right?

All of our area plans say that because our area plans have to be consistent with our overarching plans, and that is what our overarching plans say, and they say that because that is what our residents said they wanted during a two and a half year process, 2018, 2019, no, 2017, 2018, to create Blueprint Denver.

That happened.

So I understand the desire for advocacy, um, around just getting rid of, you know, single unit zoning in our city altogether.

That's not what our residents said that they wanted, and we are elected to represent our residents.

Also, that's not what our plans say, because that's not what our residents said that they wanted, and our criteria literally requires that we follow our adopted plans.

So that is, I think, a concerning start to this conversation.

Um I also will say I believe that there has to be a way, right?

In the near Southeast Area Plan, we have entire sections, swaths of Southeast, where the potential to go to two units is there.

That is what our adopted plans say.

Had conversations with the community, the community said, yep, we're willing to do that in these locations.

That is what we agree to, and we want that.

That's the suburban context where there is no form that allows you to build a duplex.

So if we want to talk about like building forms, let's start with a real easy one that actually allows us to implement the plans that already exist, right?

Um, and I think that you know, even if we were to do that, we'd need to come up with a clear financial picture.

And I just I appreciate the information you guys have provided today, but like I need to see the analysis piece that you guys said is coming and maybe our next meeting, because um we can talk about plans in a vacuum all we want.

This is all market driven.

It all has to do with the cost of land, the cost of labor, and the cost of materials.

And if it doesn't work in the market, it doesn't matter what we say here around this table, because it has to actually be reflected in a functional market.

And I'm not sure that this is.

What they're gonna do is what they have already been doing.

Scraping an attainable $750,000 1940s bungalow and building either row homes or a McMansion.

And if they build the McMansion piece, then that accelerates gentrification and displacement because we've lost that attainable unit.

If they build row homes, they're gonna charge 800 to 1.4 million for each of those row homes and walk away with a lot of money, and we are going to displace one family for all of those.

So the fixes here, I said this to you guys in our briefing, and I'm just gonna say it so everyone else can hear it, right?

My question for them in my briefing, and I'm gonna ask you all the same thing is what is our return on investment with this plan that we have in place right now, right?

We are paying contractors to consultants to go out and do market analyses, we are covering staff time with this.

What is our return on investment?

No offense, DRC, but the only place this is gonna be successful is Southeast Denver because Southeast Denver is the only place that has lots large enough to do this on.

So it's only coming to you, right?

So I just want to be really clear that.

Well that's not like a 15.

Yeah, 100%.

Like that's I would be a real scared of slide 15 if I were you too, because this is only coming to your district.

So if our ROI is 15 of these in district four, that is not a good use of our staff time, and it's not a good use of our city dollars.

So, what I would like to see us do instead of this, is address the micro fixes that really need to be addressed to get us a bang for our buck that we need.

So, what is that?

That is figuring out the two to nine issue we have been talking about for five and a half years now, um, changing the building forms in the right way so that you can actually rezone some of these units in Southeast Denver that are that could be potentially future zoning for duplex where you couldn't build a duplex even if it was zoned for duplex.

Talk about a maximum square footage maximum square foot.

Golden has one, it's 3,000 square feet, not including the basement.

It makes absolute sense.

We have enough McMansions, right?

And then there's something else we haven't talked about here, which is missing middle housing could also include multi-unit housing with extra additional bedrooms.

We know our market is not building that right now.

It's building one bedrooms and it's building studios.

That is not what people want, and that's why they're sitting empty.

If we could find a way to incentivize three and four-bedroom units being built into our multi-unit developments, that's missing missing middle housing too.

It is, it's just not something we talk about.

So I uh I really appreciate the work that you guys have done, and I cannot wait to see the actual numbers that come through the next time around, but I'm really concerned about this project because I think we are not getting the ROI we need for the crisis we have when it comes to missing metal housing with the plan that we're looking at here.

I also don't think we're gonna get buy-in from our residents on it.

Not the district.

Definitely not.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilman.

Next up, we have councilman Steyer.

Victoris, we can around deck.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so just for my council colleagues, I'm not sure if planning board have already seen it or not, but I should I just shared the um pure city uh comp sheet and report um that was made available to us in the um in the committee uh meeting just for your information.

Um, when it came to our plan, so a couple of my comments or responses to some of the things that I've heard so far.

Um, when it came to the West Area plan, um, we were not a plan where all residents said um they only wanted single unit in single unit zoning.

Um, they wanted access to remain in West Denver.

They wanted access to affordability for a family unit, right?

And so like I've been trying to rack my brain along with CPD in partnership to try to figure out how are we actually delivering what they say they want out of a plan that opened up a lot of entitlement.

So that's why we have the memo in place, which is not a moratorium on rezonings, and I'm constantly letting folks know that we've had four that have already come through in West area neighborhoods.

And so that process actually leads me to your comment about really desiring flexibility when we have deed restrictions.

So Laya, I think that that flags something for us to have a conversation about because all of those now have deeds, right?

They all now have a covenant that says we will make a unit available at a particular amount.

And the amount, coincidentally, is about what they paid for the lot.

So you're replacing at least one of the five units with a like for like, right?

A three bedroom, 1,200 square foot unit at a rate that you might have needed to pay if it was a one-bedroom, small 900 square foot house in my district.

Um but I recognize I don't want us locked into concrete when it comes to something like that.

Um I do want it to be flexible, but that is our one tool, right?

To try to guarantee something will be non-market, non-luxury in in my district when they're building.

And so I do want to think about how do we do that differently, especially if one of the recommendations from this committee is guaranteeing one unit is accessible or affordable or at some level.

I mean, we're not talking about 50% AMI, we're talking more like 100% AMI, right?

It is replacing that single family home with a like option.

So that just um I'll just say that.

Um the missing piece for me, and I appreciate Councilwoman Sawyer bringing up the two to nine.

I think that is still the missing piece for me, and it is where we are gonna see, it's where gentrification took place for northwest Denver.

Um, it's where we're gonna see it hit West Denver the hardest.

It's the development that happens within that range of housing that is that is gonna push um uh residents out and give them no new option.

And I don't I don't accept a lot of the narrative that I hear from other residents who are like just build and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't I can't accept that because that means my residents have to leave in order for um for that to happen.

So um part of the missing piece is that um we don't offer a lot of options.

We have a huge gap, right?

We have SU means SU, um, duplex or tandem requires TU.

We don't have anything that allows for triplex or quad other than RH or MU, as far as I can tell.

So I feel like there's a huge gap there when it comes to what can be offered.

Um the product in D3, and this goes to councilwoman Alviderez, um, your your piece.

Um it's always up to them whether they're gonna offer it for sale or rent.

Like I I don't know how we structure something in the zoning code that leads them towards sale, right?

Um, in some cases, the rent is gonna get them their investment money faster and bigger than offering them for sale.

That's that's part of where I struggle.

I will say though, what we've rezoned, they're planning to offer for sale.

Um, condos are getting built in my district for sale.

Um they're just smaller footprint, it's like 20 as opposed to like 50 or 60, right?

So it is smaller footprint, but they're doing that on their own.

So I don't know if that it helps, it's definitely something that I feel like is a good thing that that folks are willing to experiment with.

Um, and I guess my last comment is I think it's really important for us, not just to talk to pay attention to what people in our district say they don't want, but how they're using housing now.

And the way that I respond to that in my district is people are doubled up in district three.

Um that's why we've pushed really hard on ADUs and in the financial products to make ADUs accessible to folks.

When I hear you kind of mention people are occupying or renting bedrooms, that's how they want to be living.

Like that is that is a use that I think we have to respond to as opposed to say it's not what we want.

Oh, I'm not saying we can.

And I'm not, and I'm just what's happening.

It's happening, and it's not a bad thing.

And we had this conversation when it came to group living a lot about how people want to be living is something for us to respond to as well.

So though I was just hearing some things that I wanted to make sure were um, they just added some resonance from West Denver.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Gummer within Mondeck.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, thank you for the report out.

And um, yeah, when I look at District 11 and Mont Bello and Green Valley Ranch, for the last 10 years have worked really, really hard to mitigate involuntary displacement.

I mean, we made it through the biggest growth in the city from 2015 to 2019 that I've really ever seen in the far northeast, and we didn't have people displaced, and you know, I use my own family as an example.

Um we have a single-family home in Mont Bello that's um uh uh home that we've brought up our kids in, but I now have a 29-year-old, a 27-year-old, and I'll be having a 21-year-old returning in May, and my husband and I, and we all live in the same home, and that is our choice.

My kids don't want to leave, they want to stay and help us, and there's two sets of stairs in the home.

So we've already talked about that when it gets too hard for us to go up two flights of stairs, we'll move to a second level so that we can have the kitchen and we can you know take care of each other, and so the assumption that people want to build or be in a brand new quad quadplex, I don't know if that resonates with me or my constituents at all, because honestly, what you're saying is that um if they're looking at something like that, they're at least looking at a 20 or 30-year loan.

If not, on homes now, people are taking out 50-year mortgages, because they can't afford the monthly um mortgage cost on a 30-year mortgage, and our mortgage and finance companies are doing 50-year mortgages, which I don't see how you ever pay off a structure and get out from underneath that mortgage.

And so the multiple people who are living in our house, we all know we had um a loss of income in our home, and so I'm the only breadwinner in our house, other than my two other kids who are helping us, and that's how we want to live.

We want to be around each other, and if we could afford to build an ADU out in our backyard, we would, but I don't know if I want to use our retirement funds to be paying off a mortgage for an ADU or a cost of that, and so I think really going out to the neighborhoods.

Like this is a really great academic exercise, but to get out in the neighborhoods talking with people, I think you'll hear very, very different things around this, and it's not the new, it's preserving what is there because the homes at the front side of Mount Bello are brick built.

And so, right away when you started talking, I would love to know what the carbon footprint is gonna be around if you get X number of duplex, triplex, fourplex, whatever, and you've got to remove and scrape previous properties, we right now in the city don't have a way to even recycle that.

So it's all going to end up out at dad's and then we've created more waste.

And so I think it's a much deeper conversation than we've been able to go into it.

But just wanted to give a little bit of flavor on that.

And the other piece that I think about is life and safety.

We don't have any alleyways in Montbello.

So if somebody has a quadplex and there's a fire on the backside on the second story I don't know there's not like a boom arm on a fire truck.

How do they even get to that back portion of it?

You'd be going through fences I guess I I don't know but those are some of my initial thoughts on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Next up we have Councilmember Watson and board member after uh thank you council president I want to say thank you for the presentation great information and it's a lot that we are you know struggling with on the east side as to what um missing middle means I want to first start by um responding not even responding but elevating uh councilmember Alvidra's some of the the work that you and your team and my team is um as is leaned in on one of the points that the council member made on affordability as far as wealth building it's not specific to this dialogue but I thought I would provide an illustration we have a condo for sales in um district nine we have two um uh condominiums are being built and I think it's gonna be about a um eighty or so um condos maybe a little bit less 50 to 80 um and uh the Charles Burrell and uh Hattie McDaniel um were leveraging the prioritization policy for folks who have been displaced to bring them back um to um the east side um they are been able to um uh identify folks who qualify um for the one and two bedrooms based on the criteria that most of the the folks who do this affordable housing provides the one selling piece why we push for these condos were the three bedrooms and they cannot find folks to qualify at the rate that they are asking for um and it's on average like as Councilmember Albizar shared 93 thousand um three for individuals in a black community that want to build wealth and understand that they're gonna be capped for a family of three to only be able to make 93000 to get into these condos with a prioritization policy with all of the the the due deference that we've done within the process they overqualify and I want them to go qualify I don't want a family of three living with ninety three thousand dollars just to somehow get into a condo to build wealth so then their only other option is to continue renting and um if you look at our council aids you put one and two of them together and they get married and they want to stay in the neighborhoods where their council members at they cannot qualify for working family housing in our districts we're not specifically speaking on that but I see that as something that we want to get into that discussion when we're um so councilmember Lewis and I are picking off our first MPI plan that's gonna be something we're gonna be talking about.

It's all on the finances it's all on how do we um provide the incentives for this to work if we're truly looking for folks that live in our communities that work in the city or county of Denver to stay and we create policy to say, hey, this is for you to bring you back after you've been displaced.

But yet the financial targets are so low that folks have to be in poverty in order to be able to begin to build wealth.

That is not sustainable.

And we're missing something because both of these developments, one two bedrooms flying through the window.

They cannot, and because they can't do their three bedrooms, they're not hitting the percent of um units that they must have filled.

And so they're getting into some Germany.

I shouldn't have said the name of the condos.

So I just realized I'd say too much.

But disregard where they're at, I'm just simply saying they're doing all the right things, but because of the what we're not incentivizing, and what the financing around these are providing, they're not being successful.

Um, I think if there are ways we can look at that, I think it'll be great.

Um, wanted to speak to the globally responsible community.

Um that community is doing well when it comes to looking at um increasing um density on single-family lots.

Um because the their home values right now are depressed because of all of the horrible um institutionalized um systems we put in place to keep property values low in GS, as well as for all of the um environmental hazards, the cost of doing business there.

Um folks aren't scraping and building back matches in G.

Yes.

Um they might be doing other units, they're not doing that, but um communities um like uh uh TR collective and others are they are splitting lots so that families can stay and live in global swanse.

So parts of this works in communities that are depressed, not just based on market, um, but based on some of the institutionalized stuff that we've done within the city.

So I see parts of this working, and so I'm I'm agreeing with the focus on based on plan, and based on where this has great application um in Park Hill, this may not have as many options for that because they're not scraping throughout, they may be scraping on Monaco, um, but most of those single family homes are stable.

Um so I think looking at what we have for ADUs, look at what we have from the East Area Plan, which has a small section of Park Hill.

How do we actually actualize the outcomes where there is opportunity for more housing stock within those communities?

Um that's something we're gonna look towards in our plan.

But I appreciate uh the information I'm looking for, the financial uh piece, but also how do we target this across the city um in a places where it makes sense, which our area plans are providing.

Um, I think it's gonna be helpful at least for me, uh, to be able to go back to my community and say, hey, in Cole and Clayton, in Skyland, um, North City Park, and in Whittier, which is not part of the area plan, but it's my neighborhood, um, where can we do this?

Um, and um I look forward to engaging with folks on that.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, I really appreciate the discussion.

Um, I think CPD, you kind of been tasked with the impossible.

Um, you know, zoning is a really blunt instrument.

Um, and so what I keep hearing at this table is how do we how do we create equitable solutions for people, which is meeting people according to their needs, right?

Which is very kind of place-based, versus zoning, which is a tool of quality, treat kind of everyone the same.

And so I think, you know, to councilman Sawyer's point, um, I think there's a lot of other solutions uh that need to be explored that uh should be discussed that uh will actually solve this problem versus changing our bulk standards.

I mean, we just expanded actually building coverage in the last text amendment, I believe, right?

Like we can do 60 percent versus 30 percent.

So reeling that back feels like maybe a taking of someone's entitlement, which I think is dangerous.

Um, so I don't necessarily think that the bulk standards are um necessarily where we're gonna solve this problem.

I think this is uh the reason why we don't see subdivided properties more is not because it's not easy to do from a zoning perspective, um, a planning perspective, it's incredibly challenging from a building code perspective.

So I think unless we're willing to make some concessions regarding building code, um, we're not going to see the adaptive reuse that we want, because you have to build it to the current energy code, and guess what?

There's no brick building uh, you know, from the 40s and 50s and 60s that are gonna pass that requirement.

So that's why it's more cost effective to scrape and build new is because it's more expensive to bring something up to code.

And so unless we have meaningful conversations around the tools in our toolbox and how they're implemented and what they cost, I don't think we're gonna get to where we are.

And so this is why this, in my view, is not necessarily a zoning discussion.

Zoning will say this is allowed or it's not allowed.

But policy, good policy is here are the guardrails on private equity, which I heard today, which I think is really important.

Um looking at the group living, uh, you know, allowing us uh assisted living to be outside of residential care will help a lot of people that are vulnerable to displacement and just are vulnerable in general in the city.

I mean, those are these are kind of the policy tools that we really need focus on, and I feel like CPDs trying their best to well, here's here's some options, but it's not it's it's not actually gonna solve the problem because uh it just won't.

Um and so I think when we have those other policy tools, then go back to CPD and say how can how can CPD support this policy versus having you kind of do it the reverse, which is kind of how I feel like it's happening right now.

Um, and I also agree that some of these other kind of other options, like uh the you know, expanding or incentivizing three and four bedroom apartments, which I think is a great idea.

It's really hard to do that outside of um you know affordable housing, because affordable housing really, you know, Litech supports those kinds of developments outside of a market study, um, you know, incentivizing those things are are would be easy or easier to do and more impactful to I think day-to-day citizens, and I think would have the political will needed to do it.

I just think there isn't, I'm kind of agreeing with Mary and others that there's not really political will, I think, from residents to kind of have this blunt upzoning of all these properties.

Um, and so maybe having a policy discussion around what we can do and taking a look at uh building code to get to those solutions faster than just being like okay, well, how are we gonna do this from the ground up every time, which is what we're what this is doing now, right?

Saying how do we get the two to nine units, but it's assuming like we're building a brand new building, and then but like where does it go?

And so if there is things from zoning, I would say we should have max lot areas back to Fred's point for single family units instead of minimum lot sizes, which I think is crazy, which is why we see all these rezonings over these little things.

Um so those are little quick fixes that I think would enable this type of housing faster, and I love the idea of having kind of an off the menu uh option for ADUs for permitting on the building permit side that's really smart.

That's kind of what happened with like the the tiny home villages, right?

We're able to think the first model cost a quarter million dollars because it had any energy code and then it got more efficient, right?

Uh and now it's man mass manufactured, but um getting to something like that, you know, talking about how do we improve residential permitting so it's faster, um, and looking at all these other policy tools, which is really in your court, and then just add and then having CPD support those things, I think is the is where the discussion will be most fruitful.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um, so I I'll I don't think we have time to go back around, but one thing that caught my attention to Fred, to your point, who is development for?

And in Northwest Denver, um, it was so complicated that when we up zone the city in 2010, development for with developers in Jefferson Park.

And we took a stable neighborhood, and now it's unstable, and I have the data to back it.

So I do these welcome letters that Councilman Sawyer has talked to me about years ago.

And so I send a welcome letter, welcome to the neighborhood.

But it's actually to see who is buying these lots.

And over the years, it's LLCs who buy these lots up.

And in Jefferson Park, where you have uh one house, and now you have 16 units.

We did we upzoned it.

It's my least stable neighborhood.

And when I say stable, I mean it has more renters, it doesn't have people who own it.

They sell, and then there's construction defects all over the place because they were just shoddy construction builders.

So I have my husband's friend lives in Jefferson Park, and his roof every time it rains, it leaks, but he can't replace the whole entire roof because it's six other homeowners because it's a slot home, and so he has to get permission from six other homeowners to do this repair, and he's fixed it on his right unit, but it's it's the whole membrane has to be taken off because it's a flat roof, and so then he has to get permission, and he has to pay for the whole entire thing because nobody else's roof is leaky, and so and then his windows literally leak, like literally the siding, like they literally leak, and so he had to have and he is on the outside unit where the inside units don't have windows on the outside except for in the front and the back, right?

He had to replace his windows, and so now he's in a lot, and so he works in boulder with my husband, and now it's just a rental, and now every time it's rains, and they're like, Oh, yeah, I know about that, yeah, no problem.

But he lives in boulder because he doesn't want to deal with it anymore.

And so when we look at these policies, I think that one of the key things that I heard was who is this development for?

I mean, I think the the residents on this panel, I don't think any of you are developers, I don't think any of you, maybe one of you can go in and but not like the Jefferson Park developer where you decimated my whole entire literally I mean it's literally red tea development.

Now they're in Calculum and Alvides' district.

They moved from Jefferson Park, literally picked up their headquarters, and not only did they decimate my council district, they ran over the RNO because the RNO didn't know how to have bylaws, and so the developer had all of his staff because he owned a building there, joined the RNO, and then they started voting for all these rezonings to go through because it wasn't you didn't have to own a property, it was just an RNO who needed help, right?

And so they got this developer in there, and then he took over.

Then he got all his staff to join the RNO, and then every rezoning was mostly the development team at the RNO meeting voting in favor of the RNO, the owner of Red T who was going to redevelop.

So then I had to when Councilman Espinosa was in office, I had to, we had to do this whole entire like look at our our RO buy lots, are your RNO bylaws like really short up so that you don't have a developer who can come in and take over.

So I in Northwest Denver, I think when this this project started, I have a couple old 50s, they're brick, their condos, and they're they're right next to single family homes.

We don't get complaints about them.

There's one on my block off of 44th in Grove, and they're fee simple, they work, they're the size of like they're kind of small, it's like two houses.

We get zero complaints on them, and so when I started looking at our building form, we can't build those anymore.

We literally cannot build something like that anymore.

We can't build a box with four units at the bottom, two units up the top, the main this main entrance and a garage on the side for each unit to have its own car.

Literally, you can't build that anymore.

So, to your point, Alicia, I love how you're saying that we need to tack our building form and our building code because the most complaints that I get in my council office are not use by right.

If you have the use by right, even in my council district where we have higher entitlement, they're not building to the max that they can.

They're just not.

The market's not following.

They're actually building less, and but they're coming in for all these variances.

I don't know about you all, but I don't, my staff watches every single variance that comes into my council district, and we're seeing a pattern of building into the side interior setback so that you can get more lock coverage, and you're building into the rear setbacks so that you can get more lock coverage.

And so I'm like, well, maybe there's a problem with our form because we keep going to this variance process.

And trust me, I updated the whole board of adjustment with Robin Connects because of the variance process, right?

And one other thing, Lucia, you said that I'll never forget when I got into council.

Councilwoman Kenich kept saying the reason why everything gets turned down is because it's easier to build brand new to meet our complicated high bridge zoning code.

We don't have just one one, a form-based or FAR.

We really have a hybrid zoning code, and it's really a unique kind of unicorn from what I understand from the research that I've done at UC Denver.

And so in Councilman Torres' district, when we were working on the West Area Plan, and I represented West Colfax, it was getting decimated.

Everything was getting torn down because it's easier to build new.

I live in a 1943 bungalow.

I wish I had five bedrooms, Councilman Gilmar.

I have two.

I brought my niece in to live with me.

She lived on my couch for two years because I only have three bedrooms.

I have one in my basement, I have two upstairs, I have one bedroom, it's like tiny.

My kitchen is like the size of that kitchen in there.

And my niece, when I had to bring her in to help raise her, she had to live on my couch.

She's coming home this summer, this this winter.

My daughter's gonna spend the night for things for Christmas Eve, and we're like, all right, he thought, well, you're gonna be on the couch and it's gonna be fine.

But that's the way we choose to live.

That's how I want to live.

And so, how do we take all of this?

And what I keep saying to CPD, I feel like this is happening in a bubble.

Because if I go out to my neighborhoods, no one's talking about this except for a couple people.

I don't know about you, but are you all having coffee and drinks about unlocking housing choices?

You know, I mean, because that's what we're gonna have to do, is we're gonna have to all of us be ambassadors out to this because if we're gonna be talking about this passing this time next year, that means we're gonna have to do major, major, major outreach in 2026, and every single one of us at this table is gonna be responsible for getting that out into my community because my staff has been going and asking thoughts on this, and besides the person who's sitting here representing her interest in part of it.

I don't know one person who is very excited about this in Northwest Denver from the people that we've been talking to.

They're they're scared, they're nervous, and what they're saying is this is not gonna be predictable.

And one thing we always developers tell me is oh, we want everything to be predictable, and now we're saying is this how is this gonna be predictable?

So how is it gonna be predictable?

I guess that's my question.

The next question around is developers are always saying that that's why they don't want to go for a rezoning is because it's not predictable, and they want our zoning code to be predictable.

Is this going to be predictable?

I don't have the answer to that.

So I think that that's something that I've heard clearly through my council district when we've been asking.

Um, and people are just not aware of it.

I mean, people are the federal government shut down snapping pulls aside, all the things that are going on.

I mean, even us on council, we were at council last night till 10 30 last night.

We had an eight-hour meeting.

Um, and I this wasn't something we were talking about.

It was actually the Southwest IRE plan that was the most simple thing that we dealt with last night.

Or South, yeah, our Southwest was like literally the simplest thing that we dealt with last night on our agenda.

And we had two rezonings.

We I rezoned regis, you all just talked about registration.

I held on to that since 2021.

From 2021, I worked on that to get it to City Council till 2025.

So I guess that's what I think about at night that keeps me up is what are we actually dealing with on our city council hearing or like during our council meetings?

It's not these, it's not these things.

It's all of the other policy issues, to your point on how do we work on them.

So I think that gives us some homework.

I do think that it's an opportunity.

The next meeting is in January.

So my staff is going to go to the RO meetings in January.

Um or in February.

So then they're going to go back in March and report out to it.

And then so they could go in April.

And then April, we're almost a quarter way through the year, or yeah, quarterway through the year.

We better get start talking to our constituents and CPD.

I'm just going to ask you to please partner with council members so that that's what we did for redistricting when Councilman Gilmore was president.

I asked her, can I have quadrant meetings and can I have council members come together and give them like two weeks notification?

And those meetings were really actually pretty well attended, except for one that we had to council because of COVID, because there was a COVID and we decided Councilman Gilmer was like we can't put people at risk because of COVID.

We went a little bit over.

How about I reach out with Luke and and we schedule a couple more for 2026?

Does that work for you all?

That should sound good.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.