Broomfield council backs drafting of code changes to speed medium- and high-density housing; directs staff to study taller options

City planning staff asked the Broomfield City Council to approve community engagement and ordinance drafting for a package of changes to the residential zoning code that staff said is intended to modernize standards and reduce developers’ reliance on Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezonings.

Principal Planner (Miss) Donahoe told council the code updates propose three main moves: rename and revise the existing R3 medium-density district (to a “medium-low” district) to better accommodate duplexes, triplexes and townhomes; rename and revise R5 (from “high density” to “medium-high”) to allow neighborhood-scale multi-unit projects; and create a new R7 district intended for higher-density multifamily development.

Donahoe outlined key numeric changes staff proposed: in the R3 rewrite, maximum density would rise from 10 dwelling units per acre to 20, maximum height from 30 feet to 45 feet and required private open area would fall from 40% of the site to 25%. For R5, staff proposed raising maximum density from 20 DU/acre to 30 DU/acre, increasing maximum height from 30 to 50 feet and reducing required private open area from 40% to 15%.

The new R7 district would initially be proposed with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, a maximum height of 60 feet and a maximum density of 80 DU/acre; staff proposed that R7 use a site development plan review process similar to recently approved mixed-use districts.

Donahoe also recommended removing the medium-density uniform standards from the PUD section of the Broomfield Municipal Code; staff said those PUD standards are rarely used directly and developers commonly request variances, and that removing them would avoid duplicative comparisons when reviewing PUD plans.

Council members broadly supported beginning community engagement and asking staff to return with ordinances. Several council members pressed on details: Council Member Delgadillo asked who owns the office buildings and what reinvestment would look like; staff answered that ownership is mixed (local, out-of-state, REITs and longtime owners) and that options include infill, mixed use and selective redevelopment subject to zoning and infrastructure. Council Member Ward and others urged speed and flexibility; Ward favored administrative review for faster approvals, while other members including Council Member Henkel and Council Member Anderson preferred site development plan review to preserve public input.

Staff asked for direction on whether to require a site plan process for R7; after discussion councilmembers signaled general support for the site-plan approach but asked staff to analyze alternatives. Council later asked staff to research higher maximum heights for a high‑density district — staff and deputy planning leadership said they would study an 8–10 story range (roughly 85–100 feet) and the corresponding density effects and return with recommendations.

The council gave no formal roll-call vote on the ordinances during the session but provided direction to staff to begin community engagement and to prepare proposed code amendments. Staff said they will return with an ordinance for first reading and will include any recommended height/density options based on follow-up research.