Denver City Council Planning Board Working Group Special Session on Unlocking Housing Choices – September 28, 2026

This special session of the City Council’s Planning Board Working Group was held to receive updates on the Unlocking Housing Choices (UHC) project, a zoning code text amendment aiming to increase missing middle housing options near transit. The project team presented four major structural changes to the original proposal, responding to feedback from community members, stakeholders, and elected officials. Council members discussed the changes extensively, expressing mixed reactions ranging from support to opposition, with many raising concerns about equity, compatibility with adopted plans, and potential unintended consequences.

Discussion Items

Project team presentation (Rob Sasser, Andrew Webb, and others from Community Planning & Development):

• The UHC project proposes code updates to allow missing middle housing via two bonuses: a retention bonus (preserving an existing primary structure for at least five years) and an affordability bonus (one unit affordable at 70% AMI rental or 100% AMI for-sale).
• Four structural changes were introduced in this latest iteration:
  1. Narrowed applicability: Bonuses would only apply to single-unit and two-unit zone districts within ¼ mile of transit priority streets (as identified in Blueprint Denver) and existing/future rail stations, reducing eligible area to about 54% of previously eligible zoned land (58% of parcels).
  2. Postponement of floor area allowance (FAA): The proposed gross floor area limits for new housing were removed from Phase 1 and deferred to Phase 2, citing the need for further calibration and to avoid market shock amid interest rates, tariffs, and construction costs.
  3. Retention of bulk plane regulations: After testing, the project team decided to keep the existing house-scale bulk plane system rather than replace it with sidewall/height measurements, while still making other building form updates (e.g., combining house scale forms, allowing multiple primary structures, updating half‑story definitions).
  4. Unit limits per lot: Maximum of two primary dwelling units in suburban neighborhood contexts and four in urban edge/urban contexts when using the bonuses.
• The building form updates (except FAA) would apply citywide, not just within the narrowed bonus areas.
• Next steps include an advisory committee meeting on October 20, 2026, public meetings from November 4–19, 2026, and release of a draft amendment in winter 2026–2027. Planning board and city council hearings are expected in early spring 2027.

Councilmember Flynn (District 2 – Kevin Flynn):

• Asked for more intentional refinement of the transit corridors map, noting discrepancies such as a section of Sheridan in Bomar that should be excluded and old R2 zones already developed with triplex/row houses on Wadsworth.
• Questioned the elimination of the floor area maximum and requested the survey data showing community input.
• Raised a conflict between the mapped transit corridors and adopted plans, specifically the far northeast plan for Montbello/Green Valley Ranch, which states even duplexes are not appropriate in low‑residential areas. Noted that the UHC survey had only 3 respondents from those two neighborhoods, while the NPI plan involved over 1,000 participants.
• Emphasized that specific plans should override general citywide guidance.

Councilmember Heinz:

• Expressed surprise at the removal of lot maximums, calling it a “green light for lot monsters” and counterproductive to limiting large houses.
• Questioned the feedback that led to the changes, characterizing it as a mix of NIMBY and YIMBY that was confusing.
• Concerned about the timeline, noting that further slippage could push the project into 2027 with competing priorities.

Fred Glick (Planning Board):

• Asked for data on how the pilot (narrowed geography) vs. citywide approach affects expected outcomes, particularly regarding concentration of development. Wanted to see comparisons from other cities that have piloted such zoning changes.
• Noted that concentrating the pilot may attract capital in a way that undermines disbursement goals.

Councilmember Torres (District 3 – Jamie Torres):

• Clarified that the changes are independent—each could be kept or returned to original.
• Questioned the administrative difficulty of limiting bonuses to transit corridors, contrasting it with the citywide approach used for eliminating parking minimums. Was assured by staff that the zoning code already uses similar transit‑proximity rules (e.g., mini‑storage) and can be administered via text, not map amendments.
• Noted that the project team had not yet taken the changes to the advisory committee due to scheduling, but would do so in October.

Councilmember Sawyer (District 5 – Amanda Sawyer):

• Declared she could not support the revised proposal for three reasons:
  1. Removing floor area limits fails to address gentrification in her district, where scrapped mid‑century homes are replaced by large McMansions.
  2. The urban edge context effectively allows ADUs without the existing primary residence requirement, which was important to residents.
  3. The proposal is incompatible with the Near Southeast Area Plan, which recommends duplex zoning in suburban contexts (not four‑unit buildings) and was developed with extensive community input.
• Noted that many of these concerns were raised in her earlier briefing.

Councilmember Albitris (District 7 – Laura Albitris):

• Asked who made the decisions on the four changes; learned they were project team recommendations.
• Questioned the definition of transit corridors, pointing out that WIPAN was previously called a transit corridor during a rezoning but is not on this map. Requested a transit study from DOTI.
• Asked how many housing units would be lost by the cutback and whether the map includes areas already upzoned; was told the yellow areas are single‑unit/two‑unit zones, not upzoned lands.
• Requested parcel count data rather than just acreage; was told about 58% of parcels remain eligible.
• Expressed that she was hesitant to support without understanding the potential loss of units and disproportional impact.

Councilmember Cottington (Mary Cottington – Planning Board):

• Strongly supported the project, calling it a powerful way to unlock capital from homeowners and create a stronger tax base.
• Worried that the pilot geography might concentrate capital too quickly, repeating issues seen in the West Area plan, and that findings from a pilot may not be applicable citywide.
• Raised equity concerns: denser parts of the city subsidize less dense areas, and the pilot does not impact all districts equally.
• Asked about the size of a rear house under the revised building forms; was told it would still be limited by building envelope standards.

Councilmember Watson (District 9 – Daryl Watson):

• A strong supporter of the original proposal, but expressed confusion about the revised map and requested a detailed briefing for his district (Globeville, Elyria‑Swansea, Five Points).
• Wanted to ensure that neighborhoods that had carefully chosen solutions (e.g., with Tierra Collectiva) were not disincentivized.
• Indicated that if the phased pilot approach is necessary to obtain a council majority, he would be supportive, pending deeper understanding.

Councilmember Caitlin (Alicia Caitlin):

• Supported removal of floor area limits to Phase 2 to allow calibration.
• Asked for clarity on whether the transit map is a firm ¼‑mile buffer or subject to tweaking (staff said mostly yes/no, with minor exceptions like streets not controlled by Denver).
• Asked for a concrete example of how the unit limits work with combined lots; staff explained the retention bonus scenario.
• Raised a concern similar to Sawyer’s about the ADU primary residence requirement being circumvented.

Councilmember Alicia (Alice No Man / Alicia Caitlin? – another speaker):

• Emphasized that baby steps are bold and important in a housing crisis.
• Supported using Blueprint Denver’s transit priority streets as the pilot geography, noting that it aligns with transit‑based land use, reduces parking concerns, and ensures utilities are already in place.
• Discouraged combining house, duplex, and tandem building forms, as it could create confusion between zoning and building codes.
• Noted that lot coverage regulations (maximum lot coverage) should be better explained as an already‑existing control on development.
• Expressed general support for Phase 1, even with compromises.

Councilmember Lewis:

• Asked about equity: whether narrowing applicability concentrates density in displacement‑prone areas, contradicting UHC’s anti‑displacement values. Staff responded that the transit priority streets were chosen to spread impact citywide across different neighborhoods and land values.
• Noted that some council members have appetite to go further, and asked how the team landed at these changes. Staff replied that it was a balance of feedback, including calls to pilot the project.
• Asked if the administration had weighed in; Tim Hoffman (Mayor’s Office) said they have been informed and are deferring to the project team.
• Asked how the team plans to “atone” for not presenting to the advisory committee first; staff said they will bring the changes to the October advisory committee meeting.

Council President Campbell (District 4 – Diana Romero Campbell):

• Asked whether adding both retention and affordability bonuses could allow more than the stated unit limits; staff confirmed no—the unit caps are maximums regardless of bonuses.
• Raised the challenge of aligning the proposal with neighborhood plans that are still pending (e.g., Southeast Denver). Staff explained that citywide guidance is applied uniformly, with input from adopted NPI plans and ongoing engagement.
• Noted that in her district, many homes are split internally (rented rooms, basements) rather than demolished, and asked if the retention bonus would address that. Staff said yes, it would allow legal conversion of existing units.
• Pointed out that the ¼‑mile buffer as the crow flies may not reflect actual pedestrian access (e.g., crossing a highway); suggested more explanation is needed.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. The purpose of the session was to gather feedback from council members on the proposed structural changes.
• The project team will use this feedback to refine the proposal before presenting it to the advisory committee on October 20, 2026.
• Additional public meetings are scheduled from November 4 to November 19, 2026 across various locations.
• A draft zoning code amendment is expected in winter 2026–2027, followed by planning board and city council hearings in early spring 2027.
• Several council members indicated conditional support or opposition, setting up a potentially contentious path to adoption. Key unresolved issues include the scope of the pilot geography, the removal of floor area limits, and consistency with neighborhood plans.