OUR PLATFORM

PROPOSAL 1:

Faster Approvals for Affordable Housing

Allow administrative, non-discretionary development approvals for all multifamily dwelling projects that provide at least 50% of units at sales prices or rents affordable to low-to-moderate income households.

A 2018 study found that regulatory costs—including the costs of delay associated with permitting processes—comprised nearly 20% of the cost of building a single-family home, and over 32% of the cost of building a multifamily housing project. These delay costs are particularly challenging for developers of affordable housing, which generally have tight project budgets.

Although Proposition 123 provides significant financial incentives for cities and towns to adopt an expedited approval process for these types of projects, it does not apply to local governments that are not seeking financial assistance under this program.

Under this proposal, a project that provides at least 50% of its units at affordable prices would be allowed to proceed with only administrative approvals, reducing the overall permit processing time.

PROPOSAL 2:

Reduced Parking for Affordable Housing

Reduce minimum vehicle parking requirements by 50% for any income-restricted affordable housing units.

Providing vehicle parking is costly. Minimum parking requirements require a housing developer to acquire the necessary land to construct parking. In addition, a 2018 study indicated that surface parking lots cost approximately $5,000 to $10,000 per space, and garage parking costs between $25,000 and $50,000 per space. These costs make supplying affordable housing difficult, if not impossible. At the same time, higher-income households generally have more vehicles than lower-income households, and owners are more likely to have vehicles than renters.

Although HB24-1304 prohibits some cities and towns from applying minimum parking requirements to multifamily developments near transit service, it does not address the cost of required parking spaces in other areas or the need for adjustment of parking minimums to reflect lower car ownership rates by occupants of deed-restricted housing units.

This proposal would require local governments to reduce minimum parking requirements by 50% for any units that are designated affordable units.

PROPOSAL 3:

Objective Housing Approval Criteria

Use only objective decision criteria for approval of housing projects in areas where the comprehensive plan allows housing uses and that comply with objective zoning and subdivision requirements, and eliminate the use of criteria using the terms “harmonious,” “compatible,” “attractive,” “consistent,” “quality,” and “character”.

Many zoning ordinances include subjective criteria for the approval of new development, which means that residents, developers, and appointed and elected officials can and do disagree about what those terms mean when applied to a specific development application.

In practice, these subjective terms are often used to deny housing development proposals in locations that are supported by comprehensive plan policies for expanded housing on the grounds that for some reason they do not “fit” the established character of the surrounding area.

This proposal would require Colorado’s larger cities to eliminate the use of particularly subjective words from decision-making criteria and instead make housing review and approval decisions based on their compliance (or not) with objective zoning standards.

PROPOSAL 4:

Multifamily Housing in Commercial Zoning

Allow multifamily housing as a use-by-right in commercial districts where heavy industrial land uses are not permitted.

Many Colorado communities are “overzoned” for commercial land, meaning that the supply of commercially zoned land far exceeds the likely future demand for that land. This has become increasingly true with the growth of on-line retailing and increased working from home in the post-COVID 19 era. At the same time, many communities are “underzoned” for multifamily residential development, meaning that the demand for multifamily zoned land significantly exceeds the supply.

While HB24-1313 promotes this change in areas near existing transit service, its requirements do not extend to other commercial areas further from transit.

This proposal would require Colorado’s larger cities to allow multifamily residential uses as a permitted use in those zoning districts where residential development would not involve risks to public health or safety.

PROPOSAL 5:

Multifamily Housing on Religious & Educational Lands

Allow multifamily housing as a use-by-right on parcels zoned for and occupied by existing religious or educational uses.

Colorado’s religious and educational institutions own very large amounts of land, and zoning that allows those uses often does not allow residential development. In many cases, religious lands include underused parking lots or land acquired for expansion for a new building that is no longer needed. Similarly, a growing number of educational institutions have determined that land originally acquired for another purpose would be better used to provide affordable housing for teachers, faculty, or students.

Allowing adjacent excess lands owned by religious and educational institutions to be used for housing would increase housing supply and help these institutions to continue to support their broader missions.

This proposal would require Colorado’s larger cities to allow multifamily residential uses as a permitted use in those on lands currently used and zoned for religious and educational purposes.

PROPOSAL 6:

More Medium Density Housing

Allow development of a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre in at least 10% of the land area of the city or town without the need for conditional use approvals or rezoning.

Ten dwelling units per acre is roughly equivalent to a two-story attached townhouse or row house community. Townhouses and row houses—which fall within the category of “missing middle” housing—are important housing types in every community, as these types of homes are often “starter homes” for young families and “downsize” homes for older residents.

This proposal would require every city or town in larger counties to zone at least 10% of their land area for these types of housing, ensuring that more affordable forms of housing are available to accommodate Colorado’s growing workforce in urban, suburban, and rural settings. This proposal also ensures that every community contributes to providing housing for a diverse group of renters or buyers and contributes to housing their workforce.

PROPOSAL 7:

Smaller Residential Minimum Lot Sizes

Adopt at least one zoning district in which the minimum lot size required for a single-family home is 2,500 square feet or less, which some Colorado communities have found is adequate to accommodate both the home and required storm drainage and fire code setbacks.

Requiring larger minimum lot sizes for single-family and low-density housing is a significant contributor to high development costs. Not only does it limit the number of homes that a builder can construct on a parcel of land, but it requires that the roads, sidewalks, pipes, wires, and other infrastructure required to serve the home is longer and more expensive than they would otherwise need to be.

While many current zoning ordinances require a minimum lot size of 5,000 or 6,000 square feet for a single-family home, many older Colorado communities were platted with residential lots of 2,500 square feet, and some newer developments include single-family homes on lots of 1,400 square feet.

PROPOSAL 8:

Reform Single-Family Zoning

Allow four or more primary residential dwelling units per parcel in each residential zoning district that previously permitted only single-family dwelling structures.

Single-family zoning allows just one detached house per lot. Over 60% of Colorado’s housing consists of single-family detached units. This development is significantly misaligned with our decreasing household size and growth in small households, including those occupied by single senior residents.

Attached forms of housing, such as rowhouses, townhouses, or condominiums tend to be far less expensive than single-family houses. The median price of a single-family house in the Denver metro area was $620,000 in February 2025, meaning a family would need to earn more than $150,000 per year to afford a median-priced house. In contrast, the median price of a condominium was just $352,000. Renters and owners across the income spectrum are less likely to be housing-cost burdened if they occupy attached forms of housing: In 2019, renters earning between $50,000 and $75,000 were more than twice as likely to be cost burdened if they lived in a single family detached home or a large apartment complex than if they were living in a three- or four-unit building. Owners earning $50,000 to $75,000 living in a single family detached home were twice as likely to be cost burdened as those living in a small condominium complexes.

Attached housing—such as rowhouses, townhouses, and condominiums—provide a path to homeownership for younger households, are more affordable workforce, provide low-maintenance living to older households, and accommodate those seeking an environmentally conscious housing type.

PROPOSAL 9:

Reduced Fees for Affordable Housing

Reduce utility connection fees and development impact fees by at least one-third for all residential developments that provide at least 25% of units at sales prices or rents affordable to low-to-moderate income households.

Utility connections and impact fees can cost a housing project hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars.  These fees are particularly challenging for projects that have affordable housing units, which generally have tight project budgets.

This proposal would require local governments to reduce utility connection fees and impact fees by at least one-third for projects that provide at least 25% of their units as affordable units.  These fee reductions will incentivize projects to deliver more affordable housing units in response.

Planning for Realistic Housing Needs

(Addressed by SB24-174)

Require every covered city and town to adopt a housing plan, or a comprehensive plan housing element, using reputable data to determine affordable housing needs, develop action for how those needs will be addressed over a 20-year period, and to update that plan at least once every five years.

Transit-Oriented Development

(Addressed by HB24-1313)

Require every covered city and town to zone all property within 1/8 mile of each fixed rail transit or bus rapid transit station to allow a minimum residential development density of 40 dwelling units per acre, subject to requirements for the production of affordable housing units in new residential projects.

Accessory Dwelling Units

(Addressed by HB24-1152)

Allow accessory dwelling units to be developed by-right in every agricultural, single-family, or two-family zoning district, or in any portion of a planned unit development that allows agricultural, single-family, or two-family uses, in the state, exempt from maximum density limitations.

No Growth Limitations

(Addressed by HB23-1255)

In counties with more than 50,000 residents, prohibit local measures capping or limiting the issuance of residential building permits for the exclusive purpose of limiting population or housing unit growth.

Inclusionary Zoning

(Addressed by HB21-1117)

Empower local governments to adopt mandatory inclusionary requirements for rental and ownership units, coupled with incentives and flexibility for developers.