The Englewood City Council further brainstormed potential zoning changes that could increase housing density in traditionally single-family areas during its March 13 study session. 

The zoning changes being considered are part of the CodeNext project, which is an effort to update Englewood’s development code, called the Unified Development Code. This code details what types of development and property uses are permitted in certain sections, or zone districts, of the city. 

One of the ideas the council is considering as part of CodeNext is allowing for two-to-four-unit buildings — also referred to as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes — to be built on some residential lots that exist within the city’s R-1 zone districts, as long as at least one of the units is more affordable. 

R-1 zone districts represent areas that have residential one-dwelling units, also known as single-family homes. According to the city’s code of ordinances, there are three types of R-1 zone districts: 

• R-1-A, which means the properties typically have a larger lot size.
• R-1-B, which typically represents a medium lot size.
• R-1-C, which typically represents a smaller lot size. 

The project has been in the works for more than a year, said Chris Brewster of Multi Studio, a consultant for the project. 

“These issues have been discussed in the community for quite a while and we think we have a lot of good input, and we’re approaching a point where we’re ready to make our formal recommendation, although nothing tonight is in that format,” Brewster said. “The status we’re at is we have an initial draft of the full code.” 

There are a variety of different changes under consideration through CodeNext, though it appears the most controversial is the possibility of allowing two-to-four-unit buildings in R-1 zone districts. A group of residents held up signs opposing the consideration during the March meeting. 

If the council pursues allowing two-to-four-unit buildings to be built in R-1 zone districts, Brewster said there are some potential outcomes to be aware of. 

“Largely, the idea that some of these lots aren’t built to their full extent now, so we would expect some larger volume buildings being built in these locations,” Brewster said. 

One of the questions Brewster posed to council members was whether they would only consider allowing these buildings if the developer is guaranteeing an affordable unit. 

Councilmember Rita Russell asked what the definition of affordability is. 

Mollie Fitzpatrick, co-founder and managing director of Root Policy Research, explained there are two different ways to talk about affordability — natural affordability and “capital A affordability” that involves contractual agreements such as a deed restriction. 

Root Policy Research, a Denver-based community planning and housing research firm, recently conducted a housing needs assessment for Englewood and is a consultant for the CodeNext project. 

Previously, during a Feb. 23 town hall, Councilmember Joe Anderson said the current idea, which he noted was not set in stone, is that a two-to-four-unit building would have one unit that was required to be affordable at the 80% area median income (AMI) level. 

However, during the March meeting, consultants suggested that the AMI level be set to 100% instead, specifically for the for-sale properties. 

“Are you stating that it’s not feasible to go lower than a 100% AMI on any for-sale properties, if we were to move forward with this — with any of these recommendations?” Mayor Othoniel Sierra asked during the meeting. 

“It would be less attractive to a developer to pursue less than 100% AMI,” Fitzpatrick said. “It’s pretty hard for that incentive to be attractive to someone that would otherwise build market rate, to actually take that and … allow for one unit to be affordable at anywhere less than 100% AMI.”

If the city council does want to go down to 80% AMI, then the incentive will likely only be attractive to a non-profit or mission-based developer, she said. 

“It could still work. It could be a great incentive for a land trust or for something like Habitat for Humanity, who is already building to deeper AMIs, this would give them a path to make it where they could build more units maybe than they otherwise would. But that’s a different type of incentive as opposed to one that is likely to attract a market-rate developer,” Fitzpatrick said. 

Councilmember Jim Woodward asked if the AMI level is for the city specifically or the metro area, to which Fitzpatrick said it is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is the same across the entire metro area. 

According to a Root Policy Research report, a 100% AMI income limit for a single-person household is $82,100 and an affordable home price is $336,462. For a four-person household, a 100% AMI income limit is $117,200 and an affordable home price is $480,309.

Woodward said that he would consider most of Englewood as already having attainable housing. 

“Yes, you are more attainable than a lot of other communities. On the other hand, you are not fully balanced in terms of the price points that are needed by your current residents and workers,” Fitzpatrick said. 

She said the housing needs assessment found there is a shortage of for-sale properties below $300,000 in Englewood.

“With a single-family home or a multi-family home in a lot, can we get under $300,000? Cause it doesn’t seem like it’s possible in this market, at least,” Sierra asked. 

“It’s a real challenge … but with these incentives, we’re showing that it is feasible but only for, kind of, one of those units, and that’s why we’re at 100% AMI as opposed to that 80% AMI. And it does shift a bit as interest rates shift too, and so we want to continue to watch that,” Fitzpatrick said. 

Some concerns Russell, who has voiced opposition to this proposal in the past, raised during the meeting included potential parking issues that the increased density could create, as well as the impact these developments could have on the property values of nearby residents. 

Fitzpatrick said that although Root Policy Research did not look at that for Englewood specifically, there are a lot of studies that have researched the issue. 

“Those broadly show that there are no negative impacts on current property values from incremental increases in density nor are there negative effects on property values for allowing affordable or income-restricted units adjacent to property values,” Fitzpatrick said. 

“Those studies almost completely show zero negative impact — and in fact, a lot of times, positive impact. Because a lot of times it actually shows that new construction actually raises property values around it, even if it’s (a) duplex, triplex, townhome-type development,” she said.

This explanation intrigued Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ward, who asked, “If we’re making density changes and we’re making small scale changes for one affordable unit at a time, and those changes actually increase the value of our current stock, then how are we experiencing a net increase in affordability?” 

“That’s a really fair question,” Fitzpatrick responded. “Any new construction will often, or has been shown in many cases, to increase property values.”

“Building a duplex next to a single family home has not been shown to drag down the property value of that single family home. But we’re not talking about inordinate increases in property value just based on the building (of) a duplex that would be different or bigger than a new, other structure,” she added. 

Ultimately, Ward said he is opposed to permitting the two-to-four-unit buildings in R-1 zone districts. 

“I fundamentally don’t believe that this accomplishes what we think it accomplishes. I anticipate that the outcome of this will be massive disruption to our neighborhoods through construction, parking, noise, other problems that our R-1 neighborhoods don’t currently experience,” Ward said. “And that we will not make a dent in the affordable housing problem. One unit out of four that is affordable is a lottery, essentially, because there’s gonna be massive competition for that.” 

Russell said she agreed with Ward’s statement, adding, “I do not believe, even though we are touting it as affordable, it will not be affordable to the people who really need it.” 

Woodward asked if it would be feasible to try these changes in a certain area of the city as opposed to the whole city. 

“I don’t know what area that would be but I just feel really uncomfortable about changing, making changes like this to the whole city because it’s really something that — once it’s started, I don’t believe it can go back. And I see that as a huge problem,” he said. “Can’t we take this pieces at a time and see what happens?”

Sierra responded by saying he thinks that is a decision for the council to make in terms of whether to scale this slowly, explaining a limit such as a time release could be set.

Anderson suggested a potential limit could be that only one two-to-four-unit building can be built every three years per block, providing time for the council to assess the implementation and if changes are needed. 

Several council members expressed interest in exploring some kind of limitation to how much a block could change and how quickly. 

Councilmember Chelsea Nunnenkamp said no neighborhood should be forced to undergo radical change overnight. She favors a thoughtful, incremental approach to increasing the missing middle housing stock that she feels the city needs.

A few council members also talked about wanting to have more specific design standards drafted to ensure the new developments would fit in with the neighborhoods as much as possible. 

“I’m happy to see some restrictions coming forward on this,” Ward said. “I have a lot of heartburn over changes to R-1 districts and I’m not sure that the ultimate package is gonna be something I can vote for. But … one of my big concerns here is sudden shock to neighborhoods and I appreciate council (is) honoring that concern by trying to put some reasonable restrictions on this.”

A potential limitation that not all council members agreed on was whether the two-to-four-unit buildings should be limited to corner lots. 

Sierra said his preference would be to have the corner lot limitation, as he viewed it as helping limit the amount that a block can change and providing two sides for parking. 

Nunnenkamp, however, was not in favor of the corner lot limitation. She would like corner lots to be included as places where development can occur but not have it be limited to them because then certain lots are targeted. She said she’d like to have the developments be more evenly distributed throughout the neighborhood. 

Ultimately, with the support of council members Nunnenkamp, Anderson, Sierra and Cheryl Wink, the consideration of the two-to-four-unit buildings with at least one unit being marked as more affordable being permitted in R-1 zone districts will move forward. 

Next steps

The council agreed that it will have another presentation for CodeNext presented at a future study session before the code draft is finalized and presented to the city’s planning and zoning commission for a public hearing. 

Residents who are interested in learning more about the CodeNext Project can visit engaged.englewoodco.gov/codenext. To watch the full March 13 meeting, visit: bit.ly/0313meeting. 

Those who are interested in contacting their city council member can find their contact information listed on the city’s website: englewoodco.gov/government/city-council.