Greeley council weighs build-to-rent housing as alternative to apartments

City of Greeley staff briefed the City Council on “build-to-rent” developments during a work session in February 2025, explaining how the product differs from traditional single-family and multifamily housing and how it could affect local affordability and zoning.

The item drew questions from multiple councilors about density, park space and whether the city should try to steer such projects toward ownership models. ‘‘Build to rent is a new style of housing development where a developer builds a single family home community, and instead of selling them individually, rents them out,’’ presenter Beth (staff member) said. ‘‘The rents are market-rate rents, and we’re gonna talk about why that’s important when we talk about housing affordability.’’

City staff framed the product as sitting between single-family and multifamily development: more units per acre than traditional single-family neighborhoods but lower density than many apartment complexes. Staff said the recently approved Boomerang PUD was the first local example and another build-to-rent project is set for a public hearing on March 18. The Boomerang PUD’s density was described at roughly 15 units per acre; a second upcoming project was described as closer to 10 units per acre.

The presentation placed build-to-rent households mostly around the 70–80% area median income (AMI) range without subsidies, and staff noted the city uses the Weld County AMI chart published by HUD for local program alignment. ‘‘Rents associated with this build-to-rent would support between 70 and 80 percent, and that is the current market rate rent for Greeley,’’ Beth said. Staff cited the city’s 2023 growth report showing heavy multifamily permitting in 2022 as background for why this product type has emerged locally.

Councilors pressed on related topics: whether these projects should be allowed on single-family lots, how much on-site open space should be required, and how to create pathways to eventual homeownership. Councilor Rolts said he prefers this form of development to large apartment buildings but asked whether the same product has been built under other names. ‘‘There was a component of it that had a rent. Just wasn’t called this. Exactly,’’ Rolts said when discussing earlier local proposals.

Councilor Butler and others asked about incentives that might enable conversion to ownership in the future, noting legal and cost hurdles for subdividing a single parcel into individually owned lots. Staff answered that conversion is possible but currently uncommon because these developments are typically constructed as a single parcel with infrastructure that would make subdivision difficult.

Several councilors also raised parks and open-space concerns. Councilor Debutey asked whether the city could require or incentivize more usable green space because many build-to-rent layouts spread units across a site rather than building vertically.

The staff recommendation was informational: to continue regulating the first projects through the planned development (PUD) process while drafting possible development-code amendments to allow build-to-rent as an explicit use in multifamily zones later in the year. No council vote was taken on regulatory changes at the session.

The council indicated interest in pursuing code amendments and potential incentives to encourage ownership conversions, while acknowledging practical and legal constraints. Staff said they would return with additional proposals as the next build-to-rent application advances to public hearing.

Less urgent details: staff noted national growth in build-to-rent product and cited local examples in the Front Range; they also described the product’s typical long-term owner/operator model and the likelihood that units would not be deed-restricted affordable housing unless paired with subsidy programs.

The council moved next on the agenda after about an hour of discussion on the topic.