Skip navigation

Group Living Rules Update


Translate This Page


Latest news: LUTI to vote on updated proposal December 12 

Members of City Council's Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure (LUTI) Committee are weighing potential changes to the group living proposal that would update and modernize the Denver's rules on residential uses, following a series of discussions at the committee's regular Tuesday morning meetings throughout the fall. The committee has scheduled a vote on a revised draft of these code amendments for its meeting Tuesday, December 22. The revised draft will be posted on on this page in advance of the meeting.

How will the proposal change?

During the committee's ongoing review of the proposal this fall, CPD staff presented and answered questions on various topic areas related to group living in Denver. Additionally, staff presented various alternatives to the original proposed amendments aimed at addressing concerns raised. Here are key changes under consideration:

  • Cap the number of adults in a household regardless of the house's square footage.
  • Prohibit community corrections in single-unit and two-unit zone districts.
  • Reduce "type 2" residential care facilities from 11-40 residents to 11-20 residents in existing civic, public and institutional structures (like an old church that is no longer in use).
  • Increase spacing between smaller facilities serving up to 10 people and limit the number in an area to avoid concentrations in a single neighborhood.

Download December 1 LUTI presentation (PDF) for complete update on potential changes to the proposal. Use links below to see all staff presentations below or watch the LUTI discussions on Denver 8's online archive.

How to watch December 22 meeting

Additional resources



One of the group living project's primary goals is to provide more housing options and more flexibility for those who need it. The following testimonials offer some insight into how more options can have a positive impact.


Talk to planners at virtual community office hours

Members of the project team are holding small, virtual meetings for anyone who has questions about the project or would like to offer their comments to city staff directly. Click the button below to sign up for an appointment for one of the sessions on any of the following dates.

  • Thursday, October 29
  • Thursday, November 5
  • Thursday, November 12
  • Thursday, November 19
  • Thursday, December 3
  • Thursday, December 10
  • Thursday, December 17

Get answers to common questions

Key problems Proposed solutions
Outdated definition of “household” limits common living arrangements and reduces affordability especially for people who could live with roommates. Allow more unrelated people to live together, as is already possible in most other cities, and provide flexibility and affordability.
Residential care regulations perpetuate inequity, effectively keeping some populations from living in residential neighborhoods and near jobs, transit and other services they need. Allow residential care and group homes in more places and reduce inequity by categorizing them by size instead of the needs they serve. This will eliminate many barriers that facilities addressing community needs like shelters and halfway houses currently face, and it will allow residents to live closer to transit and services.
It is difficult to establish some needed uses, while others are not clearly regulated, and existing facilities cannot grow to meet demand Improve predictability for providers and neighbors by standardizing permitting processes and regulations, such as spacing between facilities.
Inconsistent notification and permit requirements can interfere with establishing some kinds of shelters and frustrate neighbors. Require community information meetings prior to submitting a formal application for larger residential care uses to notify and educate neighbors and foster positive relationships.

 Current rules create obstacles for residents who need flexible housing options and for providers who offer much-needed services to vulnerable populations. Current rules also perpetuate inequity by making it harder for certain communities to live in residential neighborhoods and near jobs, transit or other services they need.

The project and the proposed changes aim to increase flexibility and housing options for residents, to streamline permitting processes for providers while fostering good relationships with neighbors, and to make it easier for those experiencing homelessness, trying to get sober or who have other special needs to live and access services with dignity. 

What are “residential care” facilities?

Residential Care facilities are structures that provide short- or long-term housing for people who receive treatment, assistance with daily tasks, emergency shelter, supervision or other types of care. They include assisted living facilities and nursing homes, shelters, community corrections (or “halfway houses”) and similar uses. 

How does this proposal affect residential care facilities?

Facilities that serve residents through shelter or transitional housing and related services face barriers under the current zoning code. The city’s goal with these updates is to reduce and eliminate those barriers, as well as locate these residential facilities near jobs, transit and other amenities. While the zoning code previously categorized these homes by the type of service they provided, the proposed update would categorize them by their size or how many people they served. Making this change shifts the focus of regulations away from who the facility serves, and instead, emphasizes regulations based on size and scale. New rules would also offer greater clarity on the permitting process for both providers and neighbors.

Will existing buffers from residential areas or schools go away? How about spacing and density requirements?

The code currently requires that shelters and community corrections facilities (halfway houses) be located a certain distance away from schools and residential areas, despite there being no evidence that these buffers have any impact on the safety of these facilities or surrounding neighborhoods. The buffers used in the past have been largely arbitrary and have created major barriers to the establishment of much-needed facilities. Under current zoning, the locations available for shelters and community corrections facilities is extremely limited, which inhibits Denver’s ability to provide much-needed housing and services to people experiencing homelessness, people working to get sober, and people transitioning back into life after serving a sentence.

Residential care facilities need to be regulated by size and impact, not who they serve or what services they provide. The proposed new codes would do this by only allowing the largest facilities in high-intensity zone districts and limiting those in neighborhoods to smaller facilities. Building form and off-street parking requirements will ensure that they blend in with the surrounding neighborhood, and existing regulations governing the safety and operations of any Residential Care facility will remain in force.

The code also requires spacing between residential care uses and limits the density of some facilities within a certain geographic area. These amendments will preserve spacing and density requirements, but will tie them to geographies (in feet or miles) derived from block lengths and neighborhood boundaries. They will replace some existing geographies referenced in the Zoning Code, such as City Council districts, which are redrawn every 10 years and have caused previously conforming facilities to become non-conforming and limited the ability to establish facilities where they are needed most.

Will this allow every house on my block to become a residential care facility?

Pursuant to the Colorado Group Home Statute, smaller residential care facilities are already permitted in neighborhoods and exist all over the city. These amendments would require that any facility serving 11 or more people be spaced out from others by approximately 3 blocks, and they would only be permitted on parcels that are 12,000 square feet or larger. In single-unit zone districts, building form standards such as setbacks, maximum heights, and bulk planes ensure that new buildings and additions are appropriate in size and scale for the neighborhood.  Residential care facilities, even when established in houses, require off-street parking.

Does this proposal target lower-income communities?

No. It will help alleviate the burden these communities have felt for decades. Current regulations, especially for residential care facilities like halfway houses and shelters, effectively limit such uses only to industrial areas of the city, within or adjacent to underserved neighborhoods. An overarching goal of this project has been to ensure that a more equitable distribution of housing of all types can be established in all areas of the city. These regulations would apply citywide, and would not differ by individual neighborhood.

How do proposed changes to residential care impact homelessness?

Denver and its provider partners seek to provide a range of housing options for people who are experiencing or who are at risk of homelessness. Top priorities are keeping people in existing housing or securing housing for those who have become unhoused. However, for many reasons, a network of shelters, transitional housing and other facilities is necessary to ensure everyone has access to a safe, human place to sleep at night. These zoning changes will impact Denver’s ability to provide for its unhoused residents in several ways, including:

  • Allowing some shelters that are effectively “frozen” in place due to non-conforming status or council district bed limits to more effectively serve guests by renovating or reconstructing existing structures.
  • Providing clearer criteria for emergency expansion, and the ability for any Residential Care Facility to expand for a short period of time in an emergency.
  • Moving away from locking operators into specific use types allows operators to determine the best configuration of housing types to assist guests as they move through a continuum of housing toward housing of their own.
  • Permitting shelters and all other Residential Care uses to exist where guests have access to transit, employment and other daily needs, reducing the need for high-cost transportation services.
  • Allowing multiple temporary shelters to cover an entire calendar year.
  • Establishing effective regulations up-front with community meeting requirements to help ensure such facilities are good neighbors.

Is it true that 5 to 10 roommates could live in one house? Why should this be allowed?

The Denver Zoning Code currently limits the number of people who are not related by blood who can live together as a household to two. This restriction doesn’t reflect how people live today and severely limits options for people to save on housing costs by having multiple roommates, combining households or living in multi-generational households. It is also out of step with neighboring Front Range cities, most of which permit at least 4 or 5 unrelated adults to live together. As part of efforts to confront an expected wave of unemployment and evictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. Jared Polis has asked Colorado cities to amend or eliminate barriers to unrelated people living together.

Additionally, the state of Colorado’s Group Home statute already requires Denver to treat a group of up to 8 people that fall within one of that statute’s protected classes (people over a certain age, people with mental or physical disabilities, etc.) as a household for the purposes of zoning.

Are there any space restrictions for this number of people living together?

The proposed change would allow five unrelated people to live together as a household in any dwelling unit, with additional unrelated adults permitted for every 200 feet of finished floor area over 1,600 square feet, to a maximum of 10. Staff are recommending this number for this size based on:

  • The state’s Group Home statute
  • A guideline from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that recommends 200 feet of floor area per person in a dwelling unit. (For reference, this exceeds other standards, such as building codes, which only require 70 square feet of space for a room to be considered a habitable size.)
  • The zoning code’s existing standard, which caps the number of occupants of an accessory dwelling unit to one adult per 200 square feet.

Denver’s 2019 Building and Fire Code sets no limit on the number of people who may live together. Likewise, Denver’s zoning code does not limit the number of related people who may live together.

What about bathrooms? Are there requirements for a certain number of bathrooms based on the square footage of house, number of bedrooms, or number of residents?

Yes. The Denver Residential Code, not the zoning code, establishes these standards, which will not change as a result of this project. A house of any size is required to have at least one bathroom.

What about potential health or fire safety issues?

Along with working to provide more housing options for residents, we want to ensure those options are habitable and safe. Our agencies will continue code enforcement to ensure buildings meet appropriate rules for safety and fire prevention. Regardless of the number of residents, dwelling units will continue to be required to have smoke alarms on every floor (including the basement), in each bedroom and just outside of bedrooms.

The 2019 Denver Building Code Amendments, acknowledging a shift in some households toward housekeeping units of non-related people, allows residences occupied by up to 10 unrelated people to be treated the same as a one-family dwelling occupied by related people for purposes of fire safety – neither is required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system. In comparison, dwelling units for more than 10 people and all congregate care facilities must install an automatic fire sprinkler system. Residents can report building safety concerns to 311.

What about the impact on neighbors?

Noise and maintenance and other potential issues stemming from a larger household will continue to be governed by the Denver Revised Municipal Code and will not change. As is currently the case, enforcement will typically begin with a call to Denver 311.

How do you currently enforce complaints about unrelated adults?

Our Zoning and Neighborhood Inspections team responds to code enforcement issues and works with residents to ensure they are aware of and comply with zoning and property maintenance rules. Typically, when a complaint is made about unrelated adults, inspectors can ask for proof of relationships, which are considered on a case-by-case basis. Complaints may be submitted through 311 or Pocketgov.

However, as residents grapple with the impact of the pandemic, enforcing the number of unrelated people currently allowed to live together (2) is not a priority for inspectors. This is especially true if there are no visible impacts to the street or neighborhood that suggest the property is not safe or being kept properly. The intent of these rules is to reduce the impact of certain land uses on a neighborhood, not to target people for how they choose to live. If there is an external impact that constitutes a code violation, like too many cars, outdoor storage or overgrown vegetation, neighborhood inspectors will follow their standard process as outlined here:

This approach is in line with Governor Jared Polis’ request to suspend limits on unrelated people who can live together to prevent homelessness among those who might be evicted or displaced during the pandemic. See Denver Post story:

Won’t this give an opening to unscrupulous landlords to buy up large houses and rent out rooms?

No. This change would expand Denver’s definition of a “household” to include related and unrelated people living together as a family or the functional equivalent of a family. The code defines a “household” as a group of people living together as a non-profit housekeeping unit and who share all spaces, make decisions about the household together, and who have jointly chosen to live in the unit. Rent-by-the-room scenarios managed by non-residents would still be prohibited in single unit, two unit, and row house zone districts, as they are today.

People already rent out homes they own in Denver, and this would not change that. However, it would clarify that households of unrelated people living as roommates are permitted – a scenario that occurs all over Denver and in all cities but which is not technically legal under the zoning code. While we do expect that this update will legitimize common housing arrangements, we do not expect it to change the way operators and owners of rental housing do their business. As is currently the case, all houses will have to meet building code requirements to provide basic needs (bathing and toilet facilities, functional kitchens, etc.) as well as building code requirements for efficiency, safety and fire protection. Additionally, operators and owners of rental housing could still choose to limit the number of people allowed to live in a home.

Will this option be available to an owner who wants to subdivide a large house into four separate bedrooms?

Any addition of bedrooms to a house would have to meet Denver Building and Fire Code requirements. Renting individual rooms to different people in such a scenario would be a change of use from a “household” to a rooming and boarding house, which is not permitted in single-unit, two-unit and row house zone districts. Anyone who made such a use change without a permit would be in violation of the zoning code.

“Subdivision” in the strictest sense could also mean dividing a house into completely independent dwelling units, each with its own sleeping, bathing and kitchen areas. This would not be permitted by the proposed change to the definition of “household.” Residential zone districts establish limits on the number of dwelling units permitted on a zone lot and would not change as part of this code update.

Are these changes eliminating “single-family” zoning?

No. Single-unit, or SU, zone districts, which comprise more than half of Denver’s land area, permit one dwelling unit per lot, and in some cases a second accessory dwelling unit. This will not change with these amendments.

Since homeowner associations (HOAs) set their own rules, can they avoid these potential changes?

HOAs or homeowner groups with deed restrictions do not set their own rules. They are required to follow all city, state and federal housing laws, including zoning laws that affect what may be done on a property. HOAs are allowed to add restrictions that go beyond existing city rules—such as setting stricter limits on the number of signs someone can put on their yard—but they can do so only as long as those additional restrictions are not discriminatory in nature and are not in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

Part of the intent of the group living project is to ensure zoning rules do not discriminate against specific communities who were previously excluded from residential neighborhoods. HOAs cannot legally create rules that specifically exclude these same communities. 

Will there be restrictions on cars? How will CPD address neighborhood on-street parking issues?

The Denver Zoning Code currently allows one car per driver plus one additional car for each household. However, there are currently no minimum off-street parking requirements for single-unit uses (typical detached houses). These proposed amendments would make two key changes:

  • A new minimum off-street parking requirement for homes with 6 or more adult residents. This requirement would be “context sensitive,” which means that the requirement would vary by the intensity of the zone district. Two off-street parking spaces would be required for such households in Suburban and Urban Edge zone districts, with one or no spaces in higher intensity districts.
  • A new maximum of 6 vehicles, regardless of the number of licensed drivers, permitted to be parked on a zone lot.

Additionally, in residential areas where neighbors have raised concerns about on-street parking, resident parking permit systems, time limits and other strategies can mitigate issues. The city will continue to work with neighborhoods to find solutions as problems arise. For more information about the City’s permit parking programs and how to apply for one in your neighborhood, visit:

Will these changes encourage residents to turn front lawns into parking?

The Denver Zoning Code sets forth specific requirements for the design and surface composition of parking areas. Parking on lawns is not permitted. Additionally, the Zoning Code’s design standards for houses and other building forms establish the maximum area of front setbacks that may be used for parking based on lot width. Generally speaking, just over 30% of a front setback may be used for parking.

How does letting more people live together help our housing and homelessness crisis?

We need many strategies to address housing affordability. The household definition relates to housing affordability, which is one of many factors contributing to homelessness in Denver and other booming cities. We know that people are seeking more affordable housing options and that more people are living together to save on housing costs. This change is proposed, in part, to acknowledge everyone’s need for housing they can afford.

We do not expect this proposal to change the pricing of rent or property, but to allow more people to legally share those costs of one house if they choose to. This is one more tool in a series of tools and strategies that the city is implementing to tackle these complex issues.

What is a “halfway house”?

A halfway house is a place to live for those who have been sentenced to live there by District Court as an alternative to prison or who are state prison inmates eligible for parole who have met the requirements to transition to a halfway house. In Denver, halfway houses are referred to as “Community Corrections” following the state’s terminology.

How is a halfway house supervised?

These facilities are under strong oversight at the local and state levels. The Colorado Department of Corrections and the court have responsibility over the clientele in halfway houses. The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, in conjunction with the Denver Community Corrections Board, creates standards of operation. In addition, Denver’s Department of Public Safety provides oversight, ensuring compliance with state regulations and local ordinances, and all clients placed in Denver facilities must be approved by the Denver Community Corrections Board and the local provider. According to the Denver Department of Safety, less than two percent of clients who are in placement are terminated from the halfway house program for committing a new crime. None of this is controlled by the zoning code, and none of it would change as a result of this proposal.

How does this proposal affect halfway houses and how they are regulated?

Zoning shouldn’t discriminate based on type of person. Right now, the code does, but it’s our belief that facilities need to be regulated by size, not who they serve. The proposed changes to the zoning code would regulate community corrections facilities – and all other residential care living uses – by the size of the facility (the number of people they serve), rather than who they serve, to better and more equitably address the impacts of a facility on a neighborhood. The proposal would remove some of the current restrictions on where they can be located, but it would not change other regulations, codes or oversight that apply to these types of facilities, how they are established, how they are run or who is eligible to live in them. All clients placed in Denver facilities must be approved by the Denver Community Corrections Board and the local provider, and this would not change.

How are violent crimes treated? Are there safeguards in place?

Individuals in community corrections facilities are supervised according to individual circumstances and needs. These facilities provide 24/7 supervision and structure for individuals to receive treatment and supportive services to assist with their transition back into the community. All clients placed in Denver facilities must be approved by the Denver Community Corrections Board and the local provider, and have oversight by a number of agencies, not the zoning code. While in placement, less than two percent of the clients are terminated from the halfway house program for a new crime, according to the Denver Department of Safety.

How does the proposal affect current spacing requirements for community corrections facilities?

Under the proposal, all residential care facilities—including community corrections—would be regulated according to their size, rather than the needs of the people they serve. This would make it possible to establish facilities in more places and give those residents better access to transit and services, by eliminating the barriers that currently limit shelters and community corrections facilities to industrial areas and underserved neighborhoods. For community corrections, this shift in approach would include reducing the required spacing between facilities and removing a current requirement that they not be established within 1,500 feet of a school.

Why change current spacing requirements? What about safety near schools?

Most of the city’s 11 existing facilities were established before this rule existed and about half of existing facilities are already within 1,500 feet of one or more schools. Spacing requirements are arbitrary, and there is no data showing that they have an impact on crime or safety. Overall, data do not show an increased risk of crime near these facilities – a review of Department of Safety crime data for the last decade does not show any property or violent crimes external to existing facilities that could be attributed to residents or the presence of those facilities. 

Is it true that some areas of the city are exempt from this proposal? Why won’t these new rules apply everywhere?

The changes being proposed by the group living project would apply on all properties governed by the Denver Zoning Code, which covers the vast majority of the city. About 20 percent of Denver properties, however, continue to the governed by the Former Chapter 59 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code or “the old zoning code.” These amendments or any other updates proposed for the Denver Zoning Code cannot be made to the old zoning code because city law does not allow updates to the Former Chapter 59 zoning code. When City Council adopted the Denver Zoning Code in 2010, it prohibited amendments the old zoning code to ensure all properties would eventually be rezoned into the new code.

As we implement Blueprint Denver in the Denver Zoning Code, we know that the ongoing use of Former Chapter 59 in about one-fifth of the city means that we have additional work to do to ensure that our vision for an equitable, affordable and inclusive Denver truly has citywide reach. In the meantime, the code that applies in the other 80 percent of the city must still be kept current and updated to reflect the needs of Denver’s residents, who are right now struggling with housing costs. Public feedback has made it clear that community members want the benefits of updated group living rules to be applied equitably across the city, and we agree. We’re looking at the steps we can take to apply these necessary changes to Former Chapter 59 properties and will report back as we make progress. 

Why does Denver have two zoning codes? Why wasn’t the entire city rezoned in 2010?

When most of the city was rezoned in 2010, the properties that remained in Former Chapter 59 zoning were those with custom zoning, a site-specific development plan or that otherwise required additional analysis to ensure consistency with relevant plans before rezoning. Our intent then and now is for all old code properties to rezone into the Denver Zoning Code, and we have been working on that over the last 10 years, providing incentives for property owners and including old code properties in CPD-led rezoning projects. City Council members also can and have led legislative rezonings of these properties. 

Recent research on how living with roommates impacts affordability in cities with high housing costs can be found at the following links:

Project staff surveyed many cities and in some cases discussed comparable regulations with local staff. Most comparable peer cities, such as Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Austin and San Diego permit more unrelated adults to live in households. This is also true of Front Range cities like Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Lakewood, Arvada and Castle Rock.

Residential care / halfway houses / shelters

Residential care facilities allowing up to 40 residents are already allowed and already exist in neighborhoods. An overarching goal of this project has been to ensure a more equitable distribution of these uses citywide – to help us improve our ability to provide warm beds and care as a city without continuing to only place these facilities in the few neighborhoods that already support them, which includes Five Points, Capitol Hill, Northeast Park Hill, and Globeville.

Why change current rules:

  • To remove discriminatory provisions and practices that unduly impact communities of color and overburden certain neighborhoods in the city.
  • To help address housing needs in a humane way that allows more residents access to jobs, transit and the services they need.
  • Denver voters overwhelmingly opted against allowing camping in public spaces, but current restrictions on shelters make it almost impossible to provide housing alternatives for people who are experiencing homelessness. This proposal would remove barriers in the zoning code that currently prevent the city from addressing a crisis that the pandemic has made even more urgent; the proposal would also help mitigate the impact wherever these facilities are located.

Household size / impacts

We looked at data from 36 other cities that have higher household limits than Denver (ranging from 3 to 8 unrelated adults) and found that, in each city, the average household size remained between 2 and 3.1 people, despite laws allowing more occupants than that. Legalizing larger households for those who would benefit from them by being able to share housing costs does not significantly impact the way most people choose to live, which is with fewer occupants.

Why change current rules:

  • Zoning rules are intended to limit the impact of certain uses on neighborhoods—not to determine or judge how adults live. External impacts (trash, noise) have always been regulated and will continue to be. In fact, this proposal would create stricter parking restrictions than we have now.
  • Denver’s current definition of household dates back to the 1980s and is among the most restrictive in the metro area at a time when the median price of a detached home in Denver is at its highest – in excess of $600,000.

Property values

Property value is affected by a multitude of factors, many of which are not related to zoning. There is a large body of academic research that has found that property value impacts of formal group homes nearby — including shelters and halfway houses — is negligible, especially when compared to other uses in close proximity like shopping centers and even busy roadways.

Owner-occupants / commercialization

Rent-by-the-room scenarios managed by non-residents would still be prohibited in single unit, two unit, and row house zone districts, as they are today. This proposal would not change that.

Moreover, renting a home with roommates, living at a home with other people who share a common purpose (like sober living), or living in a home designed to provide a level of care in addition to the typical amenities of a home does not constitute a commercial use of a property.


Community Feedback 

Use the links below to review community feedback through various review phases of the project, with the most recent at the top. 

City Council Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Note: All comments submitted will be provided to the committee when it is scheduled to take action on the proposal, per City Council staff request.

Planning Board: 

  • Comment log 1 (PDF), comments submitted to the board from July 17 - August 10, 2020
  • Comment log 2 (PDF), comments submitted to the board from August 10 - August 17, 2020

Community feedback received during public review of the original group living proposal released earlier in 2020:

Contact Us

Andrew Webb
Senior City Planner

Contact us using the information above if you use assistive technology and need access to any of the files on this page.

About the Project

Denver has an immediate need for housing, and the city has made it a priority to address that need by working to make more options available for all residents. Updating zoning rules is one piece of the city’s overall strategy to provide more and better housing opportunities for all residents.

The issues being addressed by this project have become even more urgent in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, job losses that are leading to a wave of evictions, the forthcoming loss of our existing community corrections resources, and our country’s long-overdue awakening to issues of equity.

With the evolving needs of our residents in mind, along with recent changes to other housing regulations, city planners have worked over the last two years to evaluate the Denver Zoning Code’s rules for “group living.” This evaluation has included a review of land uses and definitions for: households, community corrections facilities, shelters for the homeless, residential care homes, new uses like tiny home villages, and more. 

Staff has hosted 36 meetings with the project's advisory committee, participated in nearly 40 neighborhood meetings or events discussing this work with residents, and has hosted 5 citywide community workshops attended by nearly 1,000 people. Throughout this project, we’ve worked closely with service providers, policy experts, and neighborhood groups, and we continue to listen to feedback.

While the evaluation of the code should identify any and all relevant problems with the current rules, several have already become clear, including: 

Outdated or confusing language. The current Denver Zoning Code was adopted in 2010. However, some of its language came from the previous code, now called Former Chapter 59, which has its origins in the 1950s. This has resulted in regulations that may be confusing or contradictory, antiquated, or in conflict with current federal and state fair housing laws. Examples of these may include the current definitions of “households,” and complicated regulations for shelters for the homeless.

Emerging uses not considered in the code. In recent years, demand has emerged for new housing types that cannot be achieved using the zoning code’s use definitions or building forms. Examples include “tiny home villages” of detached single sleeping units that lack the amenities of a legal dwelling unit, and commercial buildings converted to live-work-performance art spaces. 

Changing needs. Recent efforts to address homelessness have highlighted zoning requirements that make it difficult to establish new shelters. The zoning code also imposes limitations on mixed uses in these facilities that could be beneficial, such as small-scale job training or storage for clients. 

Community corrections moratorium. A 2008 moratorium on new community corrections facilities will expire in 2018. This project will review current regulations for community corrections and identify any updates that may be needed to balance community needs with evolving strategies for reintegrating people back into society after incarceration. 

Federal regulations. Recent changes to federal fair housing regulations have resulted in some Denver regulations becoming non-compliant.

Generally speaking, the Denver Zoning Code breaks residential uses down into two use categories: Household Living and Group Living. These categories and their specific included uses are defined in the Use Definitions section of the Denver Zoning Code: Division 11.2. 

Review the Denver Zoning Code as a single document or by article >>
Review regulations for residential care uses in Article 11 (PDF) >>

Household Living

Household Living is defined in Sec. and includes:

  • Single-Unit Dwellings: a single dwelling unit in a single structure, such as a detached house

  • Two-Unit Dwellings: two dwelling units contained in a single structure, such as a duplex

  • Multi-Unit Dwellings: three or more dwelling units contained in a single structure, such as an apartment building

  • Live/Work Dwelling: a combination of residential and commercial activity located within a dwelling unit. Live/Work Dwellings permit commercial activity as a primary use, alongside the residential use – this is in contrast with the limited Home Occupations that are regulated as accessory uses and permitted in other types of Dwelling Units.  

Household Living uses limit the number of unrelated individuals that may occupy the dwelling units described above. In a Two-Unit or Multi-Unit dwelling, four unrelated adults and any number of relatives to each may occupy each unit. In a Single-Unit dwelling, the Zoning Code currently permits the following combinations of residents:

  • A single person, plus any number of relatives
  • A “husband and wife,” plus any number of relatives to either
  • Two unrelated adults over the age of 18, plus any number of relatives to either

The code specifically lists allowable relatives, which generally include parents and grandparents, children and step-children, siblings and step-siblings, in-laws, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. 


Group Living

Group Living is defined in Sec. and includes:

  • Assisted Living Facilities: A residential structure licensed by the state that houses more than 8 adults with 24-hour non-medical supervision. Examples include homes for people with disabilities and the elderly who require assistance with daily tasks like bathing and dressing. 

  • Community Corrections Facilities: Residential structures for three  or more persons who have been placed in a community corrections program by city, state or federal judicial or correctional departments. Residents of these facilities are often transitioning from incarceration back into society. 

  • Nursing Homes and Hospices: State-licensed establishments that provide 24-hour skilled nursing care. 

  • Residence for Older Adults: Single- or multi-unit dwellings that house unrelated, mobile persons 55 years or older, in excess of the number of persons permitted per dwelling unit . Such facilities do not require 24-hour supervision, and residents typically receive fewer services than what would be delivered in an Assisted Living Facility. 

  • Rooming and Boarding House: A residential structure containing one or more guest bedrooms that are rented for permanent occupancy. Meals may or may not be provided, but cooking facilities are not provided in individual rooms. 

  • Student Housing: A structure related to a college, university or seminary with common cooking facilities and gathering rooms. These can include dormitories and recognized fraternities and sororities. 

  • Transitional Housing: A residential structure that houses unrelated persons in excess of the number permitted per dwelling unit, where occupancy is more than 30 days but less than 2 years and is intended to help residents transition to permanent housing. Transitional Housing is often a first step out of homelessness. 

  • Special Care Home: A residential structure that houses unrelated persons in excess of the number of persons permitted per dwelling unit that provides more than 12 hours per day of treatment or care to address mental illness, behavioral problems (such as addiction) or other conditions.

  • Shelter for the Homeless: A facility that provides overnight sleeping accommodations for people experiencing homelessness. 

  • Safe House: A residential structure that provides a refuge from dangerous social situations or abuse. Note: Safe Houses are unique in the Group Living category in that they are permitted in any zone district that allows Multi-Unit Dwelling uses. 


Large and Small Residential Care Uses

Large and Small Residential Care Uses: Transitional Housing, Shelter for the Homeless, Community Corrections Facility and Special Care homes are considered Residential Care Uses. Each one is subject to special use limitations (see “How these uses are regulated,” below). 

Transitional and Special Care housing uses are further broken down by size:

  • “Large” = facilities serving 9 or more persons

  • “Small” = facilities serving 8 or fewer persons

Shelters for the Homeless and Community Corrections uses are always considered Large Residential Care uses, regardless of the number of occupants.  



How these uses are regulated 

These uses are regulated based on the definitions described above and in several other parts of the Zoning Code. 

Use Tables: Residential uses listed above appear in the "Use Table " for each of the Zoning Code’s Neighborhood Contexts. The Use Table shows where each defined use is permitted by zone district, and it identifies the required zoning procedure for each use. Zoning procedures may require an applicant to obtain a zoning permit, a zoning permit with public notice, or a Zoning Permit with Special Exception Review, which is reviewed by the city’s Board of Adjustments and may be subject to special conditions to limit potential negative impacts. 

  • Note: Special Care and Transitional Housing facilities are listed under Residential Care Uses, and are not individually named. Safe Houses are regulated as multi-unit dwellings. 

Use Limitations: Each Neighborhood Context Use Table has a column listing any Use Limitations associated with uses permitted in that district. Use limitations are included in Article 11 of the zoning code, and limitations for the Group Living use category begin in Section 11.2.6 . 

Residential Care Uses (Large and Small), especially Shelters for the Homeless and Community Corrections Facilities, are subject to the most stringent requirements. Limitations on Residential Care Facilities are intended to balance several issues:

  • Need for humane, equitable housing for special populations, 

  • Compliance with federal and state fair housing regulations, 

  • Prevention of Residential Care use concentration in neighborhoods, and  

  • Effective regulation and communication processes to help ensure such facilities are good neighbors.

Use limitations vary extensively by zone district and are difficult to summarize. Key examples are highlighted below. 

  • Designated Contact Person: Operators of Residential Care uses are required to designate a staff person to address questions and concerns from neighbors.
  • Spacing and Density Limitations: Large Residential Care Facilities are not permitted within 2,000 feet of other such uses, and no more than two others may exist within a 4,000-foot radius of the proposed new use. In Impacted Neighborhoods, up to 200 feet of additional spacing may be required by the Zoning Administrator. (Impacted Neighborhoods are those neighborhoods with more than the city-wide average number of Residential Care Uses within their boundaries.)
    Shelter and Community Corrections uses are subject to the most stringent requirements. For example, Community Corrections facilities are not permitted within 1,500 of a school or within 1,500 feet of a Residential Zone District.
  • Special requirements for Shelters for the Homeless: Some Large Residential Care uses, such as Shelters for the Homeless, have additional use limitations that vary by operator or other criteria. In Sec., the zoning code establishes three types of shelter uses:
  1. Shelter for the Homeless as a permanent, primary use
  2. Shelter for the Homeless as a primary or accessory use when operated by a place of religious assembly (such as a church)
  3. Shelter for the Homeless when operated in a building owned by a nonprofit corporation or by a government entity

    Permanent shelters as a primary use are permitted in higher-intensity mixed-use zone districts, industrial districts and others that are not solely residential. Permanent shelters are subject to the Use Limitations for Large Residential Care Facilities as described above and in Sec. 11.2.8. They also must meet special requirements for operations, including but not limited to mitigating the impact of waiting areas on adjacent public rights-of-way (preventing obstruction, etc.) and making restroom facilities available when the facility is closed.

    The Zoning Code provides more flexible options for shelter uses that are operated by a religious assembly. These include, but are not limited to, permission to operate in any zone district and looser restrictions on bed counts for shelters that operate for 120 days or less per year.

    Similarly, shelters operated by a government entity or nonprofit corporation, in which the Denver Department of Human Services plays some role in the operation, are also permitted in any zone district provided certain requirements for public notice and involvement have been met.  
  • Limitations on the Number of Residents: The Zoning Code’s Use Limitations limit the number of clients served by Residential Care facilities based on size, applicable zone district, etc. Shelters for the Homeless and Community Corrections Facilities are subject to the most stringent requirements. For example: 

Community Corrections Facilities are permitted in the I-MX zone district but are not permitted to exceed 40 residents, and they must provide 50 feet of gross floor area per person served. In the I-A and I-B zone districts, Community Corrections Facilities are permitted to have higher numbers of residents. 

Shelters for the Homeless established as permanent, primary uses are not permitted to have more than 200 beds, though some shelters with permits issued prior to Jan. 1, 2005, may have up to 350 beds. No more than 950 beds are permitted in any one city council district in homeless shelters that are permanent, primary uses. 


The project is expected to occur over several phases: 

  1. The first will involve working with the advisory committee to identify problem areas in the code. A public meeting will be held for public review and comment on the committee's draft definitions of the problems to be addressed in the code update.

  2. Next, the city, working with the committee, will develop proposed changes to the zoning code to address these issues. Another public meeting will be held for public review and comment on these proposed changes. 

  3. The proposed amendments will then be considered by the Denver Planning Board, Denver City Council subcommittees and ultimately, the full City Council for adoption. Finally, CPD’s Planning Services and Development Services divisions will collaborate to implement the amendments through training, updated forms, etc. 


The following links and resources have been provided by Advisory Committee members and project staff to generate ideas and discussion about issues related to this project. We’ll continue to add links to this page as we receive or find them in the course of our research.

Mapping related to Group Living uses in Denver

Zoning Code Examples and Similar Projects

Articles and information on the Fair Housing Act and similar federal regulations

Articles and examples of unconventional and creative residential uses (Tiny Home Villages, Co-Op Housing, Artist Spaces, etc.)

Articles related to permitted unrelated adult occupancy

Ordinances (condensed) and reports related to regulations for shelters for the homeless in Denver

Advisory Committee

The advisory committee has helped evaluate existing regulations and provide insight into community needs and potential solutions. The committee represented a broad cross-section of community members, registered neighborhood organization (RNO) representatives, group-living service providers and clients, elected officials, design professionals and other stakeholders, to ensure a public process that included multiple perspectives and walks of life. The Denver Planning Board and City Council will consider advisory committee recommendations before City Council adopts any amendments to the Denver Zoning Code. 


Rey, Roberto


Lyall, Amanda

Beloved Community Village

Henry, Michael

Capitol Hill United Neighbors

Fisher, Robert

Colorado Cross Disability Coalition

Malloy, Michael

Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

Chandler, Cole
Colorado Village Collaborative

Carst, Shannon


Hayden, John

Curtis Park Neighbors

Carr, Mary Jane

Delores Project

Kniech, Robin

Denver City Council

Ortega, Deborah

Denver City Council

Bustos-Giron, Debra

Denver Dept. of Housing Stability (HOST)

Conner, Christopher

Denver Dept. of Housing Stability (HOST)

Mauro, Greg

Denver Dept. of Safety Community Corrections

Howard, Terese

Denver Homeless Out Loud

Koehler, Loretta

Denver Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation

Noble, Joel

Denver Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation

Aggeler, Heidi

Denver Planning Board

Elliott, Don

Denver Planning Board

Priestley, Kevin

Denver Regional Council of Governments

Goldman, Robbie

Dry Bones Denver

Falk, Frances

GEO Group

Lewis, Kristen

GEO Group

Curtis, Terrell

Housing Advocate and Consultant (Formerly Delores Project)

Rodriguez, Rose

Independence House

Keeven, Rachel

KTGY Architecture

Ronczy, James JR

KTGY Architecture

Gladwell, Troy

Medici Communities

Papesh, Lex

MetaRecovery Inc

Hancock, Brice

Mile High Sober Living

Kiger, Scott

Mile High Sober Living

Coddington, Chris

Old San Rafael Neighborhood Organization

Fuchs, Daniel

Oxford House

Garcia, Michael

Pinehurst Country Club

Lewis, James

Pinehurst Country Club

Bindel, Paul

Queen City Cooperative

Wells, Sarah

Queen City Cooperative

Martorano, Louise

Redline Denver

Gross, John


Licko (Giellis), Jamie

RiNo Business Improvement District

Tucker, Vanessa

Rosemark at Mayfair Park

Jenkins, Vanetta

Senior Living Options

Dolan, William

Sobriety House

Rutherford, Bill

Southmoor Park West

Scudo, Paul

Step Denver

Florance, Mimi

Swallow Hill Neighborhood

Bartic, Brendan

Third Way Center

Eisner, David

Third Way Center

The advisory committee as a whole will meet on a regular basis, as will the committee's subgroups. Meetings are open to the public, and information on upcoming meetings will be posted here. Meeting materials for past meetings will be posted at the bottom of this page in the meeting archive.

No meetings are scheduled at this time. 


Project Archive: Information and documents from previous steps in the process

Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Review


Additional information:

Please note: Per the request of City Council staff, all written comments will be provided to the LUTI committee when this item is on the agenda for final action. 

Planning Board Public Hearing

The Denver Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend that City Council approve the package of  proposed changes to group living rules.

Problem Statements

To ensure any updates to the Denver Zoning Code appropriately address existing conditions and existing challenges of group living uses for residents, neighbors and providers, the problem statements lay out what those challenges are, as identified by city staff and a Stakeholder Advisory Committee. The general problem statements apply to overarching concerns with group living, while sub-group problem statements focus on issues related to specific uses. 

Evolving Residential Needs: Different ways of living together are desired to meet new challenges, circumstances, and lifestyles. However, outdated or unclear regulations or a lack of applicable use definitions and building forms in the Denver Zoning Code (DZC) limit those possibilities.

Difficulty Meeting Rising Demand: Demand for some group living types exceeds current supply, but expansion or establishment of new facilities is constrained, in part, by the DZC.

Unintended Results: Current regulations have led to unintended results, including: 

  • disproportionate concentrations of social services and resources in some neighborhoods
  • ongoing use of legacy residential care facilities
  • need for extensive transportation services 
  • concentration of vulnerable population

Unclear Regulations: Some regulations are unclear or inflexible when considering expansion or siting new or innovative facilities.

Unnecessary or outdated language: Some language in the DZC is redundant, inconsistent or in conflict with state and/or federal regulations and guidelines. 

  • Zoning restrictions limit the number of unrelated individuals who can live together under the definition of “Household Living,” which reduces opportunities for intergenerational living and other desired uses.
  • Vehicle parking requirements for assisted living facilities exceed the vehicle parking demand.
  • The Denver Zoning Code regulates Assisted Living Facilities and Large Residential Care Facilities based upon zone district contexts creating confusion for city staff.
  • Demand exceeds current capacity
  • Limited space in applicable districts for new facilities
  • Many existing facilities are compliant or nonconforming uses, which have limited allowances for expansion
  • Vehicle parking requirements exceed demand and take up space
  • Population Density requirements need revision
  • The Denver Zoning Code’s definition of “Household” places limits on the number of unrelated individuals who can live together. These restrictions inhibit the development of nontraditional residential typologies like artist housing, cooperative housing and co-living. 
  • The Denver Zoning Code’s Household and Group Living definitions and use limitations make it difficult to establish creative spaces that combine low-cost housing with flexible performance venues, assembly and gallery venues, and the narrow “Live/Work Dwelling” category has proven inapplicable to such uses.
  • Key terminology used in the Denver Zoning Code is not always consistent with corresponding language in the Building, Fire and Health Safety codes. This leads to confusion in interpreting the correct language and regulations between the codes, causing delays and additional expenses as staff and property owners resolve the conflicts.
  • The zoning definition of “household” is too restrictive, limiting the number of unrelated individuals who can live together. 
  • Zoning does not recognize residential building forms that do not meet our current definitions for a “dwelling unit” such as co-housing and Tiny Home Villages. 
  • Single Room Occupancy is categorized as a lodging use which may be negatively impacting their development as an attractive group living option.
  • Current limitations on spacing, density, and size for shelters are difficult to administer and have unintended consequences, including overreliance on emergency determinations to expand existing facilities and continued concentration of legacy facilities in certain
  • City Council districts are the wrong geographic units for regulating the maximum number of beds for shelters as permanent, primary uses. 
  • The terms “beds” and “residents” are used inconsistently, and the use of “beds” as a measure of facility size does not reflect best practices for limiting the size of shelters.
  • Definitions of shelter types are confusing, have ineffective and inequitable public involvement procedures, and make it difficult to combine a continuum of shelter to housing options in one facility.
  • Sober Living Homes are not clearly identified and regulated as a Group Living Use. 
  • The distinction between services provided in a Transitional Housing setting and a Special Care Home facility are unclear. 
  • Small Residential Care Facilities contribute to the concentration of services and “institutionalization” of neighborhoods but face far fewer requirements than Large Residential Care.
  • Establishment of new Large Residential Facilities near adequate transit and services is limited by zoning, spacing and density requirements.
  • Neighborhood role in permitting decisions is unclear and difficult to explain to the public, especially for Small Residential Care Facilities.
  • Minimum 6,000-square-foot lot dimension for Residential Care Facilities may have the effect of concentrating such facilities in suburban neighborhoods.
  • Section, specifying compliance with the Denver Building and Fire Code, is redundant, as all residential uses must comply with the Building and Fire Code.

Past Meeting Information

Advisory Committee Meeting #1
Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 5:30 - 8 p.m.
Colorado Health Foundation
1780 Pennsylvania Street
Meeting materials linked below:

Advisory Committee Meeting #2
Tuesday, June 26, 2018, 5:30 - 8 p.m.
Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.B.6, 201 W. Colfax Ave.
Meeting materials linked below:

Open House #1
Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 5:30 - 8 p.m.
McNichols Civic Center Building, 144 W. Colfax Ave.

Advisory Committee Meeting #3
Monday, October 8, 2018, 1 - 4 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.B.6, 201 W. Colfax Ave.
Meeting materials linked below:

Advisory Committee Meeting #4
Tuesday, Oct. 30, 4 - 6 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.B.6, 201 W. Colfax Ave.

Full Group Living Advisory Committee meeting #5: 
4-7 p.m., Wednesday, May 8
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.B.6

Public meeting on tiny home villages 
6-7:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 5
St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church
2015 Glenarm Place

Full Group Living Advisory Committee Meeting #6 
4 to 6 p.m., Tuesday, October 15
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.B.6
201 W. Colfax Ave., Denver

Group Living Advisory Committee Meeting #7
11 a.m.-1 p.m., Tuesday, January 21
Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.B.6
201 W. Colfax Ave., Denver

Group Living Public Open House
6 to 8 p.m., Tuesday, February 11
Bruce Randolph School, 3955 Steele St., Denver

Group Living Public Open House
9 to 11 a.m., Saturday, February 22
Goldrick Elementary School, 1050 S. Zuni Street, Denver

Group Living Public Open House
6 to 8 p.m., Wednesday, February 26
Hebrew Educational Alliance, 3600 S. Ivanhoe Way, Denver

Open house display boards:

Advisory Committee Meeting #8
Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 1 - 3:30 p.m.
Virtual meeting

Virtual Community Office Hours

  • July 30: 3 p.m., 4 p.m.
  • Aug 6: 5 p.m., 6 p.m.
  • Aug. 13: 3 p.m., 6 p.m.
  • Sept. 3: 3 p.m., 4 p.m.
  • Sept. 10: 5 p.m., 6 p.m.
  • Sept. 17: 3 p.m., 4 p.m.

Adult and Elder Housing Subgroup Meeting 1
Friday, April 13, 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.3
Meeting materials linked below:

Adult and Elder Housing Subgroup Meeting #2
Wednesday, May 9
1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.D.1, 201 W. Colfax
Meeting materials linked below:


Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #1
Friday, April 6, 1 to 2:30 p.m.
Fox Community Corrections, 570 W 44th Ave. (44th and Fox)
Meeting materials linked below:

Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #2
Tuesday, May 1, 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Williams Street Center, 1776 N. Williams Street
Meeting materials linked below:

Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #3
Tuesday, June 5, 1:30 to 3 p.m.
Independence House Main Office, 5590 Pecos Street
Meeting materials linked below:

Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #4
4-7 p.m. Thursday, January 31, 2019
Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.4

Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #5
5-7 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 26
Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.4
201 W. Colfax Ave., Denver

Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #6
11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4I4
201 W. Colfax Ave., Denver

Community Corrections Subgroup Meeting #7
11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Thursday, Dec. 12
City and County Building, Room 391
1437 Bannock St.

DIY/Artist/Co-Op Subgroup 
Monday, April 9, 2 to 4 p.m.
RiNo Arts District Offices, 3501 Wazee St., Suite 109
Meeting materials linked below:

DIY/Artist/Co-Op Subgroup Meeting #2
Friday, May 4
11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Queen City Cooperative, 901 N. Clarkson St.
Meeting materials linked below:


Emerging Trends Subgroup Meeting #1
Thursday, April 5, 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Wellington Webb Building, Room 4.J.1, 201 W. Colfax Ave. 
Summary (PDF)

Emerging Trends (Single-room Occupancy, Tiny Home, etc.) Subgroup Meeting #2
Thursday, April 19, 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Wellington Webb Building, Room 1D1, 201 W. Colfax Ave. 
Summary (PDF)

Emerging Trends (Single-room Occupancy, Tiny Home, etc.) Subgroup Meeting #3
Thursday, May 3, 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Offices of KTGY Architects, 820 16th Street, 5th Floor
Summary (PDF)

Emerging Trends (Single-room Occupancy, Tiny Home, etc.) Subgroup Meeting #4
Thursday, May 31, 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 1.D.1, 201 W. Colfax
Summary (PDF)

Emerging Uses Subgroup Meeting #5
4-6:30 p.m., Tuesday,  March 19
Webb Municipal Building, Room 4I4
Meeting packet (PDF)
Meeting summary (PDF)

Emerging Uses Subgroup Meeting #6
4-6:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 21
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.4
Meeting summary (PDF)
Meeting presentation (PDF)

Shelter for the Homeless Subgroup Meeting #1
Tuesday, April 3, 2018, 4:30 to 6 p.m.
Wellington Webb Building, Room 4.I.5, 201 W. Colfax Ave. 
Summary (PDF)

Shelter for the Homeless Subgroup Meeting #2
Tuesday, April 17, 2018, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Wellington Webb Building, Room 4.I.4, 201 W. Colfax Ave. 
Meeting summary (PDF)

Shelter for the Homeless Subgroup Meeting #3
Tuesday, May 22, 2018, 5 to 7 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4I4, 201 W. Colfax
Meeting summary (PDF)

Shelter for the Homeless Subgroup Meeting #4
Thursday, June 7, 2018, 1 to 2:30 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4I4, 201 W. Colfax
Meeting summary (PDF)

Shelter Subgroup Committee Meeting #5
4-7 p.m., Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.4, 201 W. Colfax Ave.
Meeting summary (PDF)

Shelter Subgroup Meeting #6
4-7 p.m., Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.4
Meeting summary (PDF)
Meeting packet (PDF)

Shelter Subgroup Meeting #7 - This meeting was canceled
11 a.m.-1 p.m., Thursday, November 7, 2019
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4I4
201 W. Colfax Ave., Denver

Shelter Subgroup: Meeting #8
11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Tuesday, Dec. 10
Wellington Webb Building (201 W. Colfax), Room 4I4
Meeting summary (PDF)
Meeting packet (PDF)

Transitional Housing/Special Care Subgroup Meeting #1
Monday, April 9, 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Step Denver, 2029 Larimer St.
Meeting materials linked below:

Transitional Housing/Special Care Subgroup Meeting #2
Monday, April 23, 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Step Denver, 2029 Larimer St.
Meeting materials linked below:

Transitional/Special Care Home Subgroup Meeting #3
Wednesday, May 23, 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.5
Meeting materials linked below:

Transitional/Special Care Home Subgroup Meeting #4
Tuesday, January 22, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Wellington Webb Municipal Building, Room 4.I.4
Meeting materials linked below: