Denver City Council Planning Board Working Group Special Session on Unlocking Housing Choices - June 25, 2026

On June 25, 2026, the Denver City Council Planning Board Working Group held a special joint session to review the progress of the Unlocking Housing Choices project. Community Planning and Development (CPD) staff presented an update on three key strategies aimed at increasing missing middle housing: improving compatibility of residential design, allowing more homes when an existing home is retained (infill bonus), and allowing more homes when affordability is provided (affordability bonus). The discussion focused on refining these strategies, feasibility testing, community engagement results, and expected outcomes. Council members and planning board members shared their perspectives, with several expressing conditional support for the citywide proposal, while raising concerns about suburban applicability, affordability requirements, infrastructure costs, and the need for parallel anti-displacement policies.

Discussion Items

• Project Overview and Strategy Refinement: CPD staff reviewed the project goals, including allowing more missing middle housing, updating building forms for compatibility, incentivizing retention of existing homes, and exploring incentives for on-site affordability. They presented three key strategies: (1) improving compatibility through revised building standards and a maximum floor area limitation, (2) an infill bonus allowing additional dwelling units when an existing home is retained, and (3) an affordability bonus permitting a new structure to replace an existing home if at least one unit is deed-restricted as affordable (at 70% AMI for rental or 100% AMI for sale). Staff noted that these strategies are designed to work together, with the infill bonus being the most attractive for market-rate developers while the affordability bonus is likely only feasible for nonprofit or mission-driven developers.
• Feasibility and Expected Outcomes: Staff shared results from a consultant report estimating that between 83 and 675 single-unit lots per year could convert to missing middle housing, with most redevelopment focused in areas already experiencing strong markets. The maximum floor area limitation is intended to discourage large single-unit replacements and steer builders toward infill or affordability bonuses.
• Community Engagement Results: CPD conducted five public meetings, over 25 registered organization (RO) briefings, and an online survey with over 800 responses. Staff stated that survey responses generally supported the key strategies while highlighting concerns. They emphasized that the engagement supplements the city's adopted plans, which carry more weight due to longer community processes.
• Council and Planning Board Feedback: Councilmembers and planning board members raised a variety of issues:
  • Councilmember Sandoval (Northwest Denver) described firsthand experience with rapid redevelopment in her district, noting both positive and negative impacts, including loss of diverse businesses and affordable homes. She expressed cautious support but stressed the need for more outreach and attention to infrastructure and tree preservation.
  • Councilmember Torres (West Denver) emphasized the importance of linking this policy with anti-displacement measures and programmatic protections, citing the West Area Plan memo and ongoing gentrification in West Colfax and Villa Park. She expressed interest in the infill bonus but wanted clear safeguards.
  • Councilmember Campbell (Southeast Denver) questioned how the strategy would work in suburban contexts with larger lots, no alleys, and cul-de-sacs, asking for more modeling and visual examples.
  • Councilmember Hines (District 10) expressed strong support, comparing the approach to Minneapolis's model of eliminating single-family zoning, and highlighted benefits for sustainability and transit.
  • Planning board members Alicia Conhammet and Julie Meenan Eck raised concerns about the affordability bonus's limited uptake without subsidies, the need for deeper affordability (lower AMI levels), and the risk that only a few developers would benefit. They also questioned the impact on impervious surfaces and open space.
  • Planning board member Rachel and others noted the need for tracking outcomes and regular adjustments to the ordinance.
  • Councilmember Watson (District 9) supported the proposal as a tool for enabling families to stay in place, citing examples in Whittier and Park Hill where elders and young adults need housing options.
  • Councilmember Cashman (District 6) inquired about the overall unit limits and how zoning districts would interact with the new allowances.
• Staff Responses: CPD staff acknowledged many of the concerns, noting that the affordability bonus is intended as a pilot, that work on suburban contexts is ongoing, and that infrastructure capacity is generally adequate but may require case-by-case upgrades. They confirmed that the infill bonus does not require income restrictions and that homeowners can add market-rate units if they retain the existing house.

Key Outcomes

• Overall Sentiment: Several councilmembers and planning board members expressed conditional support for the citywide proposal, contingent on further refinement of suburban design details, stronger anti-displacement policies, clearer affordability metrics, and expanded community outreach. No formal vote was taken.
• Next Steps: CPD will continue refining the strategies through the advisory committee, incorporate feedback from the working group, and conduct additional outreach, particularly in underrepresented neighborhoods. The proposal is expected to return for a vote later in 2026.
• Request for More Information: Councilmembers asked for more detailed modeling of suburban lots, analysis of infrastructure costs, and coordination with the Housing Needs Assessment being conducted by the Department of Housing Stability (HOST). Staff committed to sharing the full consultant report and engaging in follow-up conversations.