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, we're going to get our own.

Kevin Flint, Southwest Denver's District Two.

Amanda Sawyer, District Five.

Melissa Mejia, Planning Board.

Hi, DV Chair, Planning Board.

Paul Cashman, South Denver District Six.

Fred Click, Vice Chair of Planning Board.

Alicia Conheuman Planning Board.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Sebastian Montenegro, Planning Board.

Hi everyone, Andrew Webb, Community Planning and Development.

And Rob Haig, uh CPD staff.

Dear Drew Host for Planning Board.

Well, okay.

Well, um, are we gonna start with a presentation?

Sure.

Yes, I'm I'm happy to go ahead and get started as as people are walking in.

That's what we'd like to do.

Wonderful.

Um, can you just check?

And I think so.

Okay, great.

Sound good?

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you again uh for taking the time to meet with us.

Uh Andrew and myself are going to give a quick presentation and update on the unlocking housing choices project, and then hopefully give uh a lot of time for discussion on what we're planning to share today.

Um during today's meeting, we'll provide a quick reminder of what the project goals and strategies are, then we'll recap what we discussed in our last joint uh meeting as well as some other recent meetings that have happened uh in between our last meeting.

Uh, and then we'll share uh some of the the preliminary uh financial feasibility findings.

Um as a reminder, uh uh unlocking housing choices goals were developed using our adoptive plans and are uh to provide additional housing uh that's more compatible with the neighborhoods and more attainable to more Denver residents and is more plentiful by uh providing uh an improved supply.

Uh the project will have two phases, and in the first phase, we are focused on missing middle housing approaches that center around uh affordability and preserving existing homes.

Uh, phase two will then expand on these missing middle housing opportunities, but we're really excited about these strategies we have in phase one that we're developing.

Um, as a reminder, these first phase strategies will reduce the mass and scale of new residential development in our low-scale residential neighborhoods and enable missing middle housing when an existing house is preserved, or when one of the uh new units uh is uh uh housing unit.

Um quickly to recap on some recent meetings.

Um during our last advisory committee meeting uh in early February.

Also, during our last joint session with this group, we shared our phase one strategies that we had that previous slide showing.

We got some great feedback on these strategies, including some potential unintended consequences and concerns about some of the plan guidance.

So now we hope to build on that conversation and share what we learned during some of the preliminary financial feasibility study and those findings.

So what is an economic feasibility analysis?

So our financial feasibility study is being conducted by our consultant team for this project, which is Arland Studio Seed and Root Policy.

Some of those members of those teams are here today to help answer some of the questions that might come from this group.

And this study looks at the inputs from construction costs and land values derived from developer interviews, case studies, and other work into their proformas to test a variety of scenarios to understand what can be built and what would be built under current conditions, current zoning regulations, and proposed zoning rules with our three strategies.

This financial feasibility analysis helps us determine whether individual property owners, conventional developers, and affordable developers might pursue the new housing options under our proposed rules.

This study is focused right now on what we're going to look at the results of today on the urban context.

And we're continuing to work on the urban edge in suburban context.

But as we move forward, the assumptions that were made when we look at the locations, land values, lot sizes, all of that is based on the urban neighborhood context.

So first we'll look at the economic feasibility impacts of our proposed form changes.

These are the changes that we're looking to make to limit mass and scale of new residential development in our low-scale residential neighborhoods and how these relate to both single unit and missing middle housing development that would be allowed under the proposed rules in these areas.

So the first part of this strategy limits growth floor area based on lot size and based on lot size, the number of provided units and neighborhood context.

And in this case, we are specifically looking at urban neighborhood context.

We are also proposing changes to the building forms that address compatibility, like how third stories need to be built.

This would help new development fit better into existing neighborhoods.

But this also is balanced to ensure that two or more units still fit within this house scale form.

So as shown here within single unit and two unit neighborhoods, the profitability of large homes and duplexes has been slightly reduced under the proposed zoning rules.

However, this also this helps neighborhood compatibility while also slowing some speculative development.

But these these housing types are still still possible, still feasible to be built.

But by increasing the allowed floor area for each additional dwelling, the financial feasibility is lowest for new single unit homes and increases for that builder for with each individual or each additional level unit.

So looking at that a little bit more closely, this limitation of gross floor area reduces potential returns, but there's still a positive return for single and two unit homes.

It's just not quite as profitable for developers who are building these massive single unit homes speculatively and then would sell them on the market for multiple millions of dollars.

These new single and two-unit development that as we reduce the size, it naturally creates housing that is that is uh lower in cost while still not being uh affordable for for lots of Denver rights.

It is still more affordable than what we were seeing naturally built previously.

And again, this sliding scale where we're allowing additional floor area for each additional unit, it encourages missing middle housing units, makes them more profitable over these larger detached homes, which is part of the purpose of this uh of this strategy, um, and encourages home builders to think more units uh rather than more floor area when looking to maximize profit on a property, which is something that we've heard from our peer cities and kind of how the paradigm shifts within their development community and where they actually start to see more of these these units built, more missing middle housing units built.

So now we'll look at the financial feasibility of development under the in-fill bonus.

So in these next slides, we'll look at uh look at the results of this feasibility analysis that includes land costs, construction costs, other soft costs, and to compare that with uh possible sale prices and rental rates and these revenues to understand the returns and thresholds for profits uh projects, feasibility.

Uh so we made some assumptions.

I want to remind everybody that that this part of the financial feasibility study is specific to the urban neighborhood context and properties within the urban neighborhood context.

So again, we're looking at a 6250 lot with an alley.

Uh these models also uh have space for for parking on-site and then compare what's uh possible today versus what's being proposed in our uh in our uh with this project.

Um so when an existing home is preserved, we generally found that the development of additional missing middle housing on these properties is feasible.

Uh returns on the new units are enough to offset these development costs, and additionally, the units created by this strategy are more affordable uh than what would otherwise be redeveloped on this on a property uh that would be redeveloped under our current rules.

Um you can see here uh the two the left in middle uh are one additional unit, and then that sale price is of that that new unit.

Um so you know it this could be possible for a property owner who already owns the land and has no land cost.

Um there's also a situation where a developer buys this property, redevelops this rear lot, keeps the the front home in place and sells both.

Um these are all situations that that would result in um in feasible outcomes, and then that backyard cottage creates smaller units, which would be more affordable at that sale price of uh 361,000 based on this model and uh uh return on both of those units would be feasible.

So this infill bonus housing uh does result in for sale and rental units that are less than half the cost of the typical single housing, single unit housing that would be uh the results of this same, a lot similar to this being redeveloped under the current rules.

Um, it does have significant potential for returns on the investment for homeowners, home builders, and nonprofit developers.

Uh so finally we'll take a look at the affordability bonus.

Um, and again we are looking at uh land costs and development costs to understand the revenues after the project returns for for sale and and rental projects or products.

Um so this strategy has more varied results, uh, and some of this is due to the variety of building types.

Um the first on the left, this double duplex model would be the most feasible.

Um it creates fairly attainable units as modeled and and uh with the uh affordable unit required there, kind of uh as shown in that that uh dashed outline.

Um the cottage court in the middle is slightly less feasible, um, uh likely due to higher development costs uh in the lower total floor area divided by you know into fewer units.

Um then finally the on the far right, this four-plex model really struggles to be feasible due to higher building costs, likely due to some of the building code requirements and um and what's required for uh uh uh four attached units, um, especially those that are uh stacked on top of one another.

Um but these uh the findings here that the double duplex and cottage developments are the most feasible options within this affordability bonus.

However, the the target uh audience here are really mostly our affordable developers anyway.

So those are uh not looking for profitability just to kind of make the uh make this work so it's kind of a lower threshold on uh on feasibility there.

Um so the multiplex example again is is not feasible for market rate developers due to those high construction costs, but potentially again for affordable housing developers since they are not looking to turn a profit and particularly those that already own the land in the city and looking to redevelop in a way that uses the money most efficiently.

Um it is worth noting here that uh that building code updates uh some uh changes to condo defect laws and other review requirements are also things that you know will will come out of this project as a as a recommendation because they they impact the feasibility of these development types.

Um so just to conclude and then we'll get to discussion.

Uh, we're looking forward to some upcoming meetings with our committee.

Again, uh, as I mentioned, we'll kind of continue this conversation about feasibility in the urban edge and suburban contexts.

Um those outcomes will be slightly different again because the land values are different, uh the contexts are different, like built context as well.

So some of the form changes uh will be different.

And look to continue those conversations uh uh and then continue to refine the strategy into the summer.

Uh we are also looking forward to our uh the beginning of our community meeting series next week.

Uh first starting at the Highland and Cook Park recreation centers.

Um and then after spring break, we'll be hosting meetings in Montbello and Athmar Park.

Um Andrew and I, well, mostly Andrew made uh uh an effort uh over the last uh week to post flyers at every library and community center in the city, um, uh including those that are shown here.

But uh some of this was fun uh Friday afternoons biking across the city to deliver these these flyers and um uh and other uh times driving to to far flung corners of the city to to make sure that we we kind of uh notice as best as possible.

Uh in addition, uh we've noticed these meetings and our survey on social media to all registered neighborhood organizations to our community um our uh our network, our list that we have for for receiving email updates.

Um and then we also have ongoing uh community open houses and meeting with our with RNOs, including the Bear Valley Um and South City Park uh in District 4 uh just this week too.

So um with that uh um I will stop and uh um turn it over to council president to uh uh take over the meeting and uh uh and have some discussion.

Thank you.

Sorry I was late, everyone.

Uh I was out of town last week, and that's what happens when you're out of town for a week trying to get caught up on everything.

Um thank you for that really informative um presentation.

I think there's lots of questions on I know I have my own set of questions so far in the queue.

I have Councilmember Cashman, Councilwoman Foyer, Councilmember Flynn, anyone else?

Right, heidi.

Thanks, ladies.

I see Ad right there.

Anyone else?

All right, take it away, Councilmember Catron.

Thank you.

Uh thanks for the presentation.

So I'm I'm wondering if in the economic analysis, I'm assuming if I can, I forget what the numbers were, but if I can build 5,000 square feet now, and now I can only build 4,000, my property value go down goes down a bit.

Um I'm also guessing that if we uh now say that I can build duplex or triplex or whatever, my property value would go up.

And I'm just wondering is there any validity to that uh uh train of thought and what does that do with property tax, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's it.

That's a great question.

Um, and I might turn to our consultants in the room and see if one of them will not and they can answer that question about property values changing with in increased entitlement.

Can I just here?

Can you say just to clarify?

Is this the rule where the and this is an addition to you, or is it what I'm assuming it's the entitlement within the like in Canada?

You're either reducing what you can build or you're increasing what you can build.

Hi, uh good afternoon.

Arlene Taniwaki with Artland Land Use Economics and worked on the financial feasibility portion of this work.

And what you say has some validity that if you do reduce the amount of square footage, at least in the short term that you can build, then yeah, theoretically, some of your your values and potentially your taxes may go down.

Now, you know, the tax structure it lags, it's not exactly a one-to-one, it's not that straightforward.

But if you do add um an additional unit behind, that's all that's also taken into account as well when the assessor looks at taxes.

I have a clarifying question on that.

So I did this in Sunnyside, and I have not seen property values drop.

Because if you they it's all based the way our assessors does taxation, is it's all based on improvements.

And so it would have to be a complete scrape and then a rebuild for the tax for what you're saying to be implemented, correct?

Because I have not seen this happen.

I this I literally did this overlay in Sunnyside, and I have we have not seen those results.

That's a very good point.

So say you have an older 5,000 square foot house, and so its value just because it's older is going to be lower.

But then say you have a newer with lots of upscale finishes, 3,000 square foot house, even though it's smaller, it still may have the same value as it had before.

So there's a lot that goes into that calculation.

The other part of it is, as you know, the um assessor of this valuation always lags you know a year or so, so that always adds to the confusion as well.

So it's not like a one-to-one, and it's it, you know, a lot of it is sort of it depends on the situation.

Thank you.

And one other question present.

I'm assuming I'm assuming didn't mean to interrupt um uh I'm assuming uh that we're very early in the process, and there have been no decisions that we're gonna allow triplexes on every lot, single family lot in Denver.

Anything like that.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

At this point, and in particular in within this first phase, you would have to qualify for either the one of the bonuses, right?

So you would need to retain that front house in order to build.

So you couldn't in any neighborhood at this point just scrape and rebuild without without either retaining that.

So that is a current um formal position that uh the the need to maintain the existing structure.

That's correct.

That's all that questions.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Sway.

Thanks, Honor President.

Thank you guys so much.

Just curious.

Um I I remember the numbers off the top of my head for kind of what we have across the city when it comes to number of single family units, but in the urban context, what are the how many properties do we have where something like this could potentially be done?

I guess my question that I'm really trying to get to that I'm asking you is like how much of an impact do we anticipate these changes making on the ground in our neighborhoods?

Right.

I mean, that's a great question.

And so one of the reasons why so we we don't know for certain how many lots where this is possible.

It's most feasible in the urban neighborhoods because there's alley access, um, because the lots are uniform shape, because development pattern in these neighborhoods is often where the there's the primary house in the front and the rear 35% of the lot is either a garage or open.

Um there's there's quite a bit of of developability within the lots that that exist today, kind of within that kind of typical form.

So I'd say quite a few lots would be would be possible.

Um additionally, there was recently that that affordable housing competition um that was done uh that Denver took part in.

Um there were some great uh examples and entries and even the winner showing how a um uh a lot could be redeveloped, a 4,500 square foot lot could be developed within our infill strategy, right?

Retaining the front house, uh reusign, reusing the area in the back of the lot to build additional housing.

Um, and so you know it's possible even on small lots.

Um so the the willingness and ability to do this are uh are is a different question.

Um so we we it's hard to say exactly how many people who own lots where it might be possible who also have the financial and and desire to kind of give up the rear portion of their lot.

Um honestly or obviously people really value that having that extra space um, but you know, ever there are lots of people have different needs, so we understand that um it's a probably a fairly small percentage overall, but that's the advantage of applying this to uh to such a wide area of the city.

If we get a small percentage of uptake over a wide area of the city, we can provide a lot of new housing options for uh for a number of people in the in these neighborhoods without creating significant impact on specific areas of the city.

So yeah, I think that that's great, and that's a kind of exactly what we thought about when we rezoned the entire city for ADUs as well, right?

Um I think I'm I'm really interested to so I'm glad you started in the urban context because it's the easiest one because it's so uniform, it's the easiest one for us to sort of wrap our minds around all of this.

I will be very interested to see how this translates to urban edge and suburban context.

Um I will also just say that I think it is hilarious that you describe a 4500 square foot lot as a small lot when there is a bill at the state that would max lot sizes at 2,000 square feet.

So that just shows you how unrealistic the state proposal is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Councilmember Finn, followed by Bardman.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I guess this is a my periodic reminder that everything that we're looking at here, if it were to be applied citywide on a blanket basis, would be completely inconsistent with every adopted plan that we have and couldn't possibly meet that criteria, that criterion for us approving it.

Um I've been asking that it'd be more tailored and more locational, which is what all of our plans say that density should be an intentional decision as to where it goes, mostly near transit quarters, centers, et cetera.

Uh along that line, uh along Councilman Cashman's line also thank you, uh Rob for changing the survey somewhat over the weekend, uh, because I was very concerned that the survey was putting cart before the horse.

Uh councilman, it was uh we're not looking at entitling citywide more than one unit on a single family lot.

What we're doing is we're designing what would go there, and we'll approve that later.

And that comes in phase two after you and I are no longer on the council.

Excuse me.

Uh finally, I just want to uh make everyone aware if they don't haven't heard already that uh councilwoman parody and I are working on uh aid zoning uh change.

Uh we're presenting it as a concept first, because there's been no outreach, or we're just floating the concept uh next week of budget and policy to um uh we've heard a lot about how it's illegal to build more density on single-family lots.

We've looked at it conversely, uh, it's legal to build a single-family home on lots that we've zoned for duplex and higher.

So councilwoman and I are exploring the idea of removing single unit as a use by right.

New single unit not existing, but a new single unit in any zone district, residential zone district that is zoned two unit or higher.

So two unit row house 2.5, uh mixed use, main street.

Uh that it makes no sense that we've rezoned uh pick a neighborhood uh well like overlin, uh, which I think has been two uh two-unit since it was R2 since the 50s.

It makes no sense though, somebody wants to replace a building there, we've zoned for duplex that they scrape it and build a single that we should infill where we've zoned for density before we look at infilling areas that we have not zoned for density.

So we're we're gonna explore that at budget and policy, and thank you to Rob and Andrew for uh giving us the initial presentation on it, and we're kind of building on that.

We don't have any draft, we don't have anything in writing yet, just floating the concept, and obviously we need to do a lot more public outreach.

It's not something that's gonna happen immediately, but why are we encouraging as a use by right building a new single in a row house zone?

That's where we want the density.

That's where we planned it.

Thank you, Madam President.

I guess there wasn't a question there.

Board member Quick, go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you guys for the presentation.

Um couple of comments and and larger questions to contemplate, I guess.

Um is just in terms of the engagement map.

It I noticed that sort of the whole that near Northeast sector doesn't really have anything in it.

And I just want to advocate that perhaps with the forthcoming NPI, that might be a really good opportunity to talk about these missing middle strategies in the context of developing a small area plan.

So it feels like we've got a great opportunity there to really get in given all of the community engagement that I know takes place as part of an NPI process to perhaps get in and workshop these in a in a way that has some pretty in-depth community engagement with neighborhoods that uh are likely to be impacted by these changes.

So I just want to make that suggestion.

Um I don't expect you to answer this question, but uh you know, I'm always concerned about unintended consequences, and one of the questions I have as we start to limit scale is where then do the larger houses go that inevitably are desired by some sector, some portion of the population.

And one of the questions and concerns I have, and again, I don't expect you to be able to answer this today, but I hope you'll kind of look at is does that reinforce essentially segregation of neighborhoods?

We know that Denver is pretty economically segregated, which reflects in pretty significant racial segregation across the city.

We've seen that with DPS and that conversation with DPS.

And I I have to admit I start to wonder if limiting the style the scale of single-family homes will reinforce and perhaps even accelerate economic segregation across our city, which has some real impacts for kids, particularly in education.

I think that there's really good data about educational outcomes when we see economic segregation.

So that's just something that I hope you guys can look at.

Am I right in thinking so you're envisioning the affordability as primarily being acted upon by affordable housing developers?

That's correct.

Okay.

All right, great.

Because you know, I I still remain concerned where that becomes an option for a homeowner about the compliance and whether the city can really ensure compliance, whether homeowners can meet that compliance burden, and if they then end up being punitive outcomes for homeowners who try to meet that but aren't able to or don't um you know I I want to highlight the what you had to say about multiplexes and building code, and I think that that's that's really important.

And I hammer on this all the time.

I get that we're segregating zoning from building code, but it would be really useful probably to see what some of those basic building code changes might do to the feasibility to really understand this if we're looking forward and saying, well, you know, that could be coming down the road.

And I think that's as a team at least, we've when we talk about the the phased approach, that's one of the advantages of having that second phase.

It gives us time to continue working with the other parts of other divisions within our department and kind of collaborate on on that work.

Uh we're just being realistic within this first phase partially.

So but I totally understand, and it's it's reinforced by what we're seeing in our financial feasibility study.

I just think it might be helpful while you've got those consultants working away on that to you know examine what happens if there's an IBC to R IRC adaptation that you know, what does that do to the financial feasibility?

As we look forward.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next step we have Heidi.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh staff and consultant team, thank you for this great work.

Really great to see the the economic feasibility.

In the infill bonus section, you were you were showing the potential sales price of the additional units located in the backyard in the urban context.

Does that mean that this initiative is considering including an ability to do a rear lot line lot split to be able to allow them to be for sale units?

So you already could.

Um with the that is not require a zoning zone lot amendment.

So you could divide that parcel with the tax assessor in the same way you can today with an existing duplex or tandem house.

Um these could be for sale, and then that's maybe the prime one of the one of the key differences between a similarly sized accessory dwelling unit and the tandem house that that we showed on on that slide is that that this would allow that for sale.

Um yes, yes, that's true.

May I ask a follow-up question to that, Rob?

Do you foresee any infrastructure challenges while maybe able to legally do that now?

Are there infrastructure challenges that we might need to address in a phase two that would prevent that from happening?

Um it it it would be more complicated from uh from an infrastructure point perspective uh for a homeowner who is uh trying to develop a tandem house separate ownership as opposed to an ADU just based on the conversations that we've had with uh um with DOTI that they they look at those things differently, and so does Denver water when they look at water taps.

Um so it would the it does add a layer of complication, and you know, if the if there's not the width that you need to put the line in and things like that, you know, those are going to be infrastructure complications that might prevent a project from happening, which is another reason why you know every lot is not a candidate, even if it even if it looks good on the ground.

And Andrew, I'll say since you've been in those conversations.

Let me know if you there are other things for that.

Yeah, the only the only thing I would add to that is that what we've heard from uh are from uh uh the folks in Doddy Wastewater, for example, and our addressing team is that they they are confident that they can track whether there might be broader infrastructure uh uh concerns like that uh um uh an existing sewer main might not be able to accommodate additional units.

Uh uh they bel what we've heard from them is they they don't see significant areas where that would be a problem at the scale of expected development that we're we're seeing here that we're expecting here uh and that their analysis, their knowledge of the systems would allow them to flag that during a development review process if it uh if it would be a problem.

So if if that's what you meant, like do we see broader uh infrastructure concerns?

It's our understanding from the the folks that work on that, and and that includes Denver water, um Dotty uh wastewater addressing and so on.

We have not heard that.

Great.

I was thinking more specifically to the lot and Rob really read my mind.

I was specifically thinking about Denver water, and even if the size of tap that services the lot is large enough to um accommodate additional units, it's that additional tap fee that can cause these projects to not go forward because it's quite costly, and in fact, that is what um caused Central Park to stop building ABUs.

Um it hit a very specific filing that was filing 19 when Denver Water decided that they were going to charge a second tap fee on a single three-quarter inch uh water tap on any unit that came in with an ADU and building permit, and that stopped the three builders who were currently building it from being able to continue to have them be marketable and have the consumer purchase them, which is like what a what a sad day for our city because there are no ADUs on the north side, um, and there are after filing uh 18 on the south side, they stop.

So there's only about a hundred of them on the south side, which is is truly unfortunate.

So it's thinking about that and going, okay, especially with the affordable options, how can we as a partner to um to Denver Water try to ferret that out ahead of time and figure out a way for our um for our affordable developers to be able to overcome that and get our city to housing we desperately need.

Do you mind if I respond to that real quick, Council President?

Um so we did actually uh talk about this recently with Denver Water, and I I can't speak to you know what their policies were in the past, but what we learned is currently they actually are um supportive of adding additional density uh onto um existing infrastructure and actually are uh offer discounts for tap fees for more than one unit.

So typically the the first unit pays the the larger tap fee, but additional units uh uh are are currently getting a significant uh discount from those tap fees if built on the same parcel.

So they may have changed their approach uh since then and and uh definitely something we're definitely something we're tracking.

And as we move forward with this, if they have if Denver water has a written policy to that effect that we can be providing to upfront to any applicants who might come in to help them navigate that, it would be fantastic.

What about metro wastewater?

Because they do a separate tap.

So we have your wastewater, right?

And then you have your Denver water.

And from what I understand, um, when I took a tour of the waste facility plant, they have to make a decision for all counties that participate, and they're not willing to do that right now.

And so that was another barrier for the ADU.

That was a recommendation on the ADUs is that that's a separate tap.

And so I I've asked all my colleagues to go out there and tour that facility and put pressure on that board so that we can do that.

So I would ask all of you also if you haven't taken a tour out there, because that is a very significant tape as well when I was doing the analysis for ADAs and when I was rezoning my district.

I I've got the system development charges for Denver water pulled up.

Um, and this is as of July this year.

If you're building a single family residential inside Denver, your base charge is $3,380 plus about a dollar per square foot.

If you add an ADU, that adds another 2,170.

On the other hand, if you're building multifamily, uh your first two dwelling units are 12,000 $350, and then additional units are 2710.

Is there a bottom threshold on multiple?

Sorry, we're kind of getting off the rails here.

Well, that also does that have to do because of fire.

But anyway, I do believe that these fees were included in our financial feasibility, is that correct?

Yes, yes, they were.

So even with those high fees, these were those tap fees were included in our financial feasibility.

And the mechanical fee as well.

Yes.

Thanks, Ryan.

Thank you.

Next up we have Caitlin.

Thanks.

I just wanted to echo something that uh Fred shared with just thinking about unintended consequences and just dovetailing there.

I I took the survey last night, and I think I saw some language about you know having to explore some areas where it might not apply, like historic districts or overlays.

Um, and I completely understand why, but I also worry about are we going to kind of create more value in certain neighborhoods if there is an overlay or if there is a historic district.

Similarly, if we pick a certain square footage to maybe the maximum, have a home that is more than that, is it suddenly more valuable and even higher priced in the market?

So just kind of continuing to explore those and thinking about the impacts.

Um on the maximum square footage relative to lot size, uh, I think it's your slide 12.

Um I'm just curious where those numbers came from and if you're still kind of flexing on those.

Um I know that you know Lakewood passed their zoning code and just had kind of a set number at the 5,000 square foot.

Obviously, a different community, but I'm just curious if you've done kind of canvassing of communities that have maximum square footage relative to lot size and if you know if how solid these numbers are.

Yes, the the numbers are still really flexible, hence their range there.

Um yeah, we we've looked at a lot of different all of our different peer cities and and are still trying to figure out kind of like what works in Denver and and working that through and kind of feeding that into our financial feasibility and also the modeling, so understanding like even if we allow this, is it even possible to build that amount of square footage on a on a site?

And so, yeah, so we are these numbers are still uh very uh very flexible.

So um oh, and then I think Heidi actually asked answered my second question related to kind of comparison to ADU versus what what we're exploring with Tanner House with the idea of focusing on for sale.

Right, that's that's the biggest difference.

That in the short-term rental piece.

Um for the ones where we saw the preservation of the first unit and then the development of the let's say in the backyard, is that and I know in the the survey there's kind of a like choice of getting rid of open space requirements or getting rid of kind of maximum or kind of built buildable on the lot, right?

Because you have to keep a certain amount open.

So do those assume that that is kind of out the window for the maximization of the square footage on those lots to build those?

Great question.

Uh no, it wasn't out the window, and and that it really I think the best way to describe it is that those same models that inform some of our feasibility test feasibility analysis were also helping us test where we need to be as far as what that maximum building coverage allowance, you know.

Do we need to change that?

So I think at for certain developments, we are within where our current limitations are, about 45% of the lot uh is the maximum building coverage.

Um really what what complicates it is once you add parking, that parking structure, a covered parking structure, is typically what tips it over between our our current uh building coverage maximum and needing to change it.

Um, you know, that's something that people really value.

And uh uh something that might come through this project, and we're part of it being in the survey is that that is still something that we're we're studying.

So great question.

Next up we have council pro temperal cambell.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Um one of my questions was already answered, so I appreciate that, and I appreciate the um the overview and also coming tomorrow to the um to our open house.

Um I think there we will have a lot of people asking what does this mean in the suburban context and being able to explain because roughly it's maybe 17 blocks that we have an alley in in um Southeast Denver.

Uh I think that's what people are gonna be most concerned about.

What is this like in the suburban context?

A lot of work was done on the ADUs and the setbacks and so forth, and so just I it's more of a statement of just taking that in mind as far as what I think people are gonna be most concerned about.

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, fortunately, we've we've been able to uh you know we've met with Harvey Park uh Saturday before last and and several other neighborhoods in southwest Denver and um have started to have those conversations and and uh have definitely also as a team sort of thinking about what you know what does that look like and it looks it looks a lot different.

Yeah, fortunately, we've we've been able to uh you know we met with Harvey Park uh Saturday before last and and several other neighborhoods in Southwest Denver and um have started to have those conversations and and uh have definitely also as a team so they're thinking about what you know what does that look like and it looks it looks a lot different um but but still kind of considering moving forward with these same strategies um with the slightly different um fine-tuned to fit better within those contexts because I'm looking at I think it's on I don't know what side it's on but the testing strategy number three for the affordability bonus the one that isn't feasible that has the red check mark is more of the housing stock that we have in Southeast Denver so I'm I'm wondering what that's gonna turn out I'm just curious as to what what this when we start talking about a suburban context great thank you yeah we'll look forward to having that conversation with you all too yeah thank you thank you madam chair yeah thank you next up we have Rachel um thank you and thank you for this it was very very interesting presentation I had uh two quick questions and then a com or related comment one um and maybe this was just the focus of this uh iteration of the presentation but I noticed all of these assume new builds on the property as opposed to taking an existing structure and converting that into a duplex or a triplex did you evaluate that at all it seems to me um and this is sort of my second comment where you said you know there'll be building code changes recommended as part of this it feels to me that a lot of what um the city and and again focusing on the urban but also on the suburban um areas or urban edge areas of our city um also be less concerned about you know a you know grandmother's suite in the basement to an existing building structure than they are about four new row homes on a property and so um and I know or even within the urban context some of the urban forms that I think we would like to see um that we all love in other cities require building code changes to be viable within our city so some of this I think is a building form versus building code complication and so I was just curious what you've explored in on that.

Yeah great great question and you you kind of hit the nail on the head that it it really to make those options viable the building code changes need to need to occur at the same time so that's something that we'll keep working on in tandem we are going to allow it um uh that where we see it most possible is like if there's an existing house and then an addition um and then that kind of division between the old house and new house or new portion of the house and that addition um uh being most most viable but but yeah it's it's uh becomes difficult to divide a house into you know to meet current code especially older homes um so it's something that we're continuing to work on um but yes we we have looked into it great I'd be curious just to see a lot of uh more of that I think in terms of preserving kind of the historic fabric of our city and the look and feel um there's tremendous opportunity to add uh gentle density um while still keeping the look and the feel of a lot of our neighborhoods the same um and then my last question is what I assume all of this would be done via text amendment can you remind us what the criteria for a text amendment is off the top of my head um I cannot I would I think we could we could pull it up I'd be happy to share it um for you sure I can say that it's it's very similar to the um requirements for uh a rezoning um plan consistency being a key one uh developed through a robust community process pollinies for memory but uh I seem to I ask because I and I was trying to find it also I seem to remember there's some sort of like superseding need or some I'm getting the language incorrect but I seem to remember it differing slightly from uh a a map amendment in that there was like some recognition for city wide need which is what I was just curious.

So if you go to superseding me I don't need good clients 1244 yeah I was a sponsor of something that did that and I didn't go to planning board for rezoning.

Well, yes, it's it's uh very similar to the rezoning consistency with adopter plans, public health safety, general welfare, and uniformity with district regulations and restrictions.

And I think what Rachel's talking about is whether you go charter or you go ordnance for rezoning.

And so when you can do that, you I don't there's a provision in the ordinance somewhere where we don't have to go to planning board.

We did that when the mayor declared a state of emergency and we rezoned the Radison in Globille, and I was the sponsor with council member Watson, and it would it was like superseding me.

I can't remember, but and we kept that when we updated the three criteria.

That's charter.

So that would mean that this plan would have to be adopted first.

Okay.

Well, I was just sorry to tack on to what Councilman Flynn said earlier on um on plan conformance.

So for to look to apply it to the whole city in order to meet the criteria outlined in 124114.

Would it just be through Blueprint Denver in the adopted NPIs, or would it be through UHC as being an adopted plan?

Through blueprint in the NPI plans.

This is not this is that text amendment project that would then bring forward that proposal, it's not a plan in it of itself.

Sorry, we're trying to have a sidebar.

Um lots of stuff in the Zenny code.

All right, you know, and I'll I have a couple questions.

Um will a feasibility analysis be completed.

Um that's a good question.

I might turn to our consultants if we know we have a rough completion date or um uh it it it'll probably be somewhat iterative um and we'll probably get pieces of it out.

Um we are also working on like a larger report.

Um, but now that our lean is up, I will sometime this summer, so it'll align with the dates that um you previously presented.

And so I think it's um June and then August is the date that um the final we're aligning the schedule with the dates that Rob showed, but likely sometime in the summer.

And you need to being that advisory committee dates being kind of yeah, the the iterative first urban edge and then suburban, and then following that kind of the larger report that has the full analysis and background.

Okay.

And then on the testing strategies, have you looked at the sunny side neighborhood to see if it's working or not?

And what in because they're very similar square footage that I implemented in my as Councilman Torres said at the Sunnyside extravaganza um overlay that we implemented.

Yeah.

How does it what would what would be found there?

Um I I don't know if we've looked at it close enough for me to report any findings.

We've definitely looked at it in as far as kind of uh a starting point for what we're proposing.

Um, but you bring up a great great idea to kind of look more closely at the permits that have been issued since the adoption within that size, maybe even sale prices if there are any.

Um that that's not something that we've done yet.

It's a great suggestion.

Okay.

And Brad, to your comment again, my extravaganzas overlay.

Um I did limit height in um, but it was in a historic district.

So in um Potter Highland in Highland, they were getting the dog house, and they couldn't stand it.

And so what we did was we went to the historic um guidelines and we re-ramped the historic guidelines for Potter Highland, and then on top of that, we did an overlay for Potter Highland, and what we did is said we decreased the bulk plane, but what they wanted were they wanted pitched roofs, so you could pierce the bulk plane if you designed a type of house that they actually wanted more to fill, and we did that in Sunnyside as well, because people didn't want the third the the flat roof with the doghouse on the top for the third, and so what we did was we reduced the bulk plane, but you can pierce the bulk plane if you actually get the pitched roof, and then the pitch roof you can actually put dormers on because in the overlays I did, I actually allowed dormers so that you could actually have a house that you could pop the top and hopefully pierce the bulk plane and then get the dormers on the side so that you could expand in that house and get the square footage.

Um I haven't seen it fill it it the sunny side one hasn't been around long enough to see, but the houses that are being built, they're actually I could give you a couple of them so you could go look at them, even the planning board.

They're actually being the infill that is being created is it's pretty big because when we rezoned, we did open up the floor plate, right?

And we did.

Um and so they're actually pretty big, 3,000 square foot home, 3500 square foot home, but they are actually fitting in more compatible with the neighborhood.

Um and the prices, the whole point was Sunnyside was on the brink of gentrification, and so we wanted the price range to come down, and from what I understand the developers have said that they don't want to develop in Sunnyside anymore because they can go over to Sloan's Lake, build a uh two like two duplexes, sell them for two million dollars each, and they are not doing that in Sunnyside anymore.

So the point being is I have pushed development in some neighborhoods unintended, uh and my one of the unintended consequences of the sunny side overlay of reducing the bulk plane, then having the square foot floor um minimum is I have pushed development into pretty much the Sloan's Lake neighborhood, and now this Loan's Lake neighborhood is feeling a lot of pressure.

Um I had a uh duplex cell, I think each side sold for 1.9 million off of 26th and Xavier.

And they're probably about 3,000 square feet.

Um, and so I have heard complaints about that, and I have seen some unintended consequences just in my neighborhood.

And even I live across the street from Sunnyside, I live in Berkeley, and I've seen houses in my neighborhood.

I live in a modest, you know, 1943 tutor kind of home-ish 900 square feet up top.

They're scraping those in my neighborhood and not across the street anymore in Sunnyside and building those big bulky um houses.

So I think it is important that we look at where we are going to push development because that is something that I have really worked on in Northwest Denver, is try attempted to figure out how to use the zoning code for a anti-displacement gentrification tool, right?

Um, and there have been good outcomes.

And there have been some unintended outcomes as well, and that's what I think we might see in parts of the whole city if this were to happen.

So I think it's um a good test field to see what's happened in the sunny side neighborhood.

Yeah, that that's a great point, and and that's exactly why we are it's important that this applies to all of the city so that we don't push it in one direction or another.

It's kind of apply equally.

I mean, I it I always kind of think about it as a water balloon.

You know, if you take a water balloon and squeeze it in your hands, it's gonna expand where it has room to grow.

And so we we do end up pushing working things.

You know, the the guys who are out there trying to build stuff are gonna analyze it and dive deep deep into it and figure out what they can do based on on the changes that have happened, and so you know it we we make it more and more complex.

They find the path out through that.

And and I just uh I just worry about it.

My worry as we talk about limiting the housing sizes that you know what what does that do?

Does that mean that an area that's covered by historic implications that would the historic regulations that might allow that?

Like does that mean that Seventh Avenue Parkway just gets more and more expensive?

And that we're we start to concentrate wealth even more because of what we've done.

So it's it's it's so it's such a complex system is the problem.

I'm not sure we we don't always know what we're doing really when it comes down to it and what the impact's gonna be.

Um I think backing on to this conversation that's right is that you know, zoning's kind of a blunt instrument.

Yeah, and so while we want the intention is always to um avoid displacement um and limit gentrification.

There are other policy tools that are unique to council to help supplement what CPD can do, right?

Because CPD is really limited, also in their power.

So zoning is a very powerful uh tool.

Um but having meaningful conversations around policy supplements that keep people in place or help them age in place or have more liberty to house more folks is really important, but a lot of those answers don't live within the toolbox of zoning.

And so I think there needs to be a parallel conversation with council on how that will be done.

I know um councilman Torres in our last UHC session that talked about that conversation starting kind of in her office, but um I just think that's so important that um this effort gets paired with good policy outside of zoning, so that we would get more equitable outcomes and the people according to their needs and not just treat everyone the same, which is what zoning does.

Um as the sponsor of expanding housing affordability, I've been looking at that tool and saying, does it work?

Are we getting the outcome?

Did we actually make an one of the intended consequences?

We aren't getting development in downtown Denver and Cherry Creek because we made that high market area right in those areas.

Was that the correct thing to do?

Um was it correct to set it 10?

And so I'm I've been hosting a process to reevaluate some of that work as that sponsor of expanding housing affordability.

I'll say one of the things that when I've done these overlays, um, I always keep thinking councilwoman Torres, because she was the council president who had to read them into the record all the time, and she would laugh at me, and then I would go back to her and I would say, hey, I have to update one of those amendment one of my overlays because it's not actually producing the outcome.

But it takes a lot of work.

I will say that that for me to go to the planning department when I was looking at like everyone keeps talking about how Tennyson is thriving.

Tennyson's thriving because we've added three stories and we built 500 units between 38th and 46th Avenue in two years.

And now we have active ground retail, right?

But in one of the unintended consequences is I didn't wrap the corner, and I didn't they didn't want to pick like a major thoroughfare, 44th, and they wanted to do the smaller site on Tennyson, so I had to go in, and it's such a blunt tool that I kept having to re-evaluate, and then I have to have my staff go to the planning department, pull the permits, what's the outcome of it?

Um I think that all of us at the at the table are always thinking about how what other policies um I love I joined ULI to look at other cities to say, hey, what other policies are cities doing that I can implement in the Denver revised municipal code, not just the Denver zoning code, because it's such a blunt instrument really understand that I just wanted to quickly respond to that because councilwoman Torres Perity and myself are looking at some of those tools, and so if you wanted to be folded into some of the work or just even opine on what we have going on, we'd love to have your opinion and your advice.

I speak on behalf of them because they should have been here.

So both of them are sick, right?

And I'm healthy today.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You know, speaking of other policies, sorry, we had counseling.

That's right, go ahead.

I'll be quick.

I I was just gonna say, I mean, I think it's it's it's it's great for council to go back and look at some of those.

One example that always came to my mind was when we instituted um uh essentially impact fees and for residential by number of units, and at the same time, we didn't disincentivize the conversion of multiplexes to single family.

So I know in in Park Hill, for example, I've seen some duplexes converted to single family, and they don't have an impact fee to they didn't have an impact fee to pay on that.

Whereas it seems that we actually want to disincentivize that and and our economic policy incentivize that thank you, uh president.

Um I'm not particularly uh the comment about concerns on uh uh limiting what what can be built for segregating wealth.

It seems to me the wealth is self-segregating.

Um I live in in a neighborhood with with large lots and small homes and cheap land.

I mean you can get a 7500, 8,000 square foot lot in my neighborhood for uh under 500,000 dollars, and uh nobody's beaten down the doors to build big houses.

So um it may be true.

But I think it's for me feels like it's worth uh uh a pilot in addition to what council president's already done to to really judge uh the effect on our housing market.

The the crisis that we're having is is not for expensive homes.

Um the crisis we're having is for information.

So that's that's my thought.

Any last other thoughts?

Well, I'll just ask that um my everyone at the table.

Um I think the theory is is if you tell five people, three actually repeat what you said, and that's how change happens.

So if we all each tell five people about the upcoming meetings, probably two or three of them might actually repeat that, and then those the people will ask them to tell five people, and we need a groundswell of people at the meetings because I've had my staff go to neighborhood organizations and talk about this, but it's so conceptual that oftentimes they're having a hard time understanding what what like how to grasp it and how to even give feedback on it.

And I have one of my more sophisticated neighborhoods, um Highland, who has very sophisticated land use.

Um, even they're having a bit of a hard time, and they're architects and a former planning like CPD member, they're even having a hard time digesting what we're what we're talking about, and so I just ask that everybody please that on slide it's not numbered, maybe 24, where the public engagement are.

If you could please just ask people, um I've been asking my staff to we're having an RO dinner, and I'm meeting it there.

I'm telling everybody, and everyone in my council district knows I'm like this planning geek, right?

They're like, oh, whatever, sound of all.

But the hard part is what happened in Jefferson Park, it wasn't on anyone's radar, and I keep using Jefferson Park because we did upzone that whole entire neighborhood.

And that was one of my neighborhoods that had the most um Latinos living in it at one point a time, and now we have more homeowner turnover um in that neighborhood.

I keep a list of I do welcome letters that I got this idea from Councilman Sawyer, but you also get a track data.

You get to see where houses selling um by doing that exercise as well.

And Jefferson Park, it is right next to the stadium, and it is the hardest neighborhood to engage.

There's more renters in Jefferson Park, and we took away single family homes and we put in slot homes.

We put 14 homes sometimes where one single family house was.

Um, and now I can't get engagement.

Um the schools are really fail failing in that neighborhood.

They don't have young people.

We have people who don't they like live there when they're in their 30s, but they don't want to it you can't age in place if you get a bad hip or you know, your kids on the third floor.

Um so I just ask that all of us be the ambassadors of these projects and get everybody to these meetings because it doesn't happen until you start seeing like when we updated the zoning code, and then two years later we had the unintended consequences of this building form that came out.

So I think it's all the onus is on all of us here and CPD to make sure that we're doing the best.

And I just want to say thank you to Councilmember Flynn and Councilwoman Torres and the planning board members who are serving on unlocking housing choices.

It's a huge time commitment.

And you're being the ambassador of your this board and they're he they're the ambassador of our board of our members, and it's a lot.

It can feel overwhelming.

I was on the equity and rezoning, and oftentimes I felt overwhelmed.

I was like, I'm making these all these decisions, and I don't even know how this is gonna have an outcome.

So thank you all for having this really thoughtful discussion, and um I just hope to see all of you at these.

And I'm glad that Highland Rec Center will be the first one.

I'm happy to host the first one, and I'm hoping to get a whole bunch of Northsiders and Westsiders there.

Um, because Councilmember Flynn and I say oftentimes nothing happens on this side of the Platte River, West of the Platte River.

It feels like everything happens on the east side of the Platte River, so happy to host um and thank you all, and I look forward to the next.

I think the rest of the year is planned out.

Is that accurate for these work um and I really look forward to reading that feasibility study because that is gonna have a lot of the devils in the details, and that will have a lot of the information that I need to be able to feel comfortable with, some of the um information that was presented today.

All right, thank you all.

Have a good rest of your day.