Broomfield Council signals support to modernize medium‑ and high‑density residential zoning; staff to pursue outreach and research taller buildings

City planning staff told the City and County of Broomfield City Council they plan to modernize the municipal code’s medium‑ and high‑density residential standards to increase housing variety and streamline review for multifamily development.

Principal planner (presenting staff member) summarized proposed changes: rename R3 from "medium density" to "medium‑low density" and revise standards to allow townhomes, duplexes and lower‑density multifamily; rename R5 from "high density" to "medium‑high density" with higher heights and densities; and create a new R7 district intended for higher‑density multifamily development (staff proposed a 60‑foot maximum and up to 80 dwelling units per acre under the draft standards).

Why it matters: Planning staff said the existing 1973 zoning regime and the Municipal Code’s PUD uniform residential standards are out of step with modern development and that developers are overwhelmingly using PUD rezoning for residential projects because the current base zone districts do not meet market needs. Staff recommended removing the PUD uniform residential standards from the code and instead comparing future PUD proposals to current base‑zoning standards on the PUD plan itself.

Council reaction and guidance

Council members generally supported community engagement and ordinance drafting. Responses to staff’s four discussion questions were predominantly affirmative:

- Begin community engagement and return with an ordinance for R3 and R5 updates: majority yes. - Begin community engagement and return with an ordinance creating an R7 district: majority yes. - Should R7 require a site development plan (SDP) or administrative review? Council preferences split; several members favored SDP (public review) while some members preferred administrative review for speed. Several council members emphasized preserving public participation; others highlighted permit timing. - Remove the PUD uniform residential standards from the municipal code: council supported bringing back an ordinance to do so.

Height and density research

Council member Ward and others requested staff research higher maximum heights and corresponding densities. Staff asked for direction on researching taller options and received a show of hands supporting a study of roughly 8–10 story ranges (staff committed to investigate the implications of that height range and associated density). Deputy director Lynn Merwin said a 6‑story limit roughly corresponds to the draft R7 height; an 8–10 story study would require additional analysis on parking, infrastructure, floor‑to‑floor heights and building design.

Clarifying details

- Draft standards presented by staff included raising R3 maximum height from 30 feet to 45 feet and increasing density from 10 to 20 units per acre; private onsite open area was proposed to be reduced from 40% to 25% for R3. - Proposed R5 changes included raising maximum heights from 30 to 50 feet and increasing density from 20 to 30 units per acre while reducing required private open area from 40% to 15%. - Proposed R7 draft standards presented included a minimum lot of 10,000 square feet, a 60‑foot maximum height and a maximum density of 80 units per acre; staff noted a 60‑foot height usually equates to about 4–5 stories depending on rooftop architecture. - Staff said PUD plans will retain their own specific standards and variances even if the PUD uniform residential section is removed from the municipal code.

Next steps

Staff will begin community engagement and return with ordinance options and financial/staff‑time estimates. Council directed staff to research 8–10 story options and associated density and infrastructure implications and to report back with findings as part of the comp plan and ordinance process. Several council members requested that public review be preserved through a site development plan process for high‑density projects; the council did not adopt a formal vote on SDP vs administrative review and staff will return with options.