A proposal that would change Denver’s zoning rules to raise the number of people who can share a home is expected to be scaled back, again, following fierce opposition from the majority of City Council members, who earlier this month urged city planners to hit the brakes for further discussion. 

“Seven of us twice requested when COVID hit that this be slowed down because the public engagement had been cut off precipitously,” District 2 Councilman Kevin Flynn scolded chief city planner Andrew Webb on Sept. 1. “Instead, you forged ahead without regard to the fact that, from that point on, the public could only react to what was drawn up rather than having authentic input into what would be drawn up.”

Under the current plan — which has been in the works for nearly three years — the number of allowable unrelated occupants would rise from two to five, along with any number of their relatives. A maximum of 10 unrelated adults would be allowed in houses 2,600 square feet or larger.

However, now faced with mounting backlash from the council and some residents who fear what’s proposed could threaten the safety and character of their neighborhoods, Denver’s Community Planning and Development Department has agreed to explore alternatives in collaboration with council members. 

Among CPD’s considerations are lowering the base number of five unrelated adults; capping the number of adults who can share a home, regardless of their relationship; mandating a zoning permit for larger households to ensure parking and fire safety requirements are met; and allowing larger households by bedroom instead of square feet.  

“We’ll also look to some other ideas that have been offered up to us as well, including potentially a separate use type for houses of unrelated adults and those with related adults,” Webb told City Council’s Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday. 

Webb and his team are scheduled to meet with the LUTI Committee five more times over the next two months to dive deeper into the details of the plan, which council members have criticized for its lack of community input, particularly from people of color, as well as its complexity and vast scope.

The proposal not only applies to households, but also impacts residential care and community corrections facilities, as well as homeless shelters and halfway houses.

The goal, planners have said from the beginning, is to increase flexibility and housing options for residents living in Denver — deemed the second-most gentrified city in the country — to streamline permitting processes for providers; and to make it easier for those experiencing homelessness, trying to get sober or who have other special needs to live and access services.

“Opening new opportunities for more housing options is key to addressing our city’s housing needs, and that need for those housing options has only grown more urgent in the wake of COVID-19,” Mayor Michael Hancock said in a statement Aug. 19. “It’s more important than ever that we have a zoning code that reflects how people live now, as well as the values of the more equitable city we want to live in.”

City data shows the median income in Denver increased less than 10% annually between 2005 and 2018, while rents started growing faster in 2010 and rose about 13% every year between 2015 and 2018. Meanwhile, there were nearly 4,200 people experiencing homelessness in Denver in January, according to the latest Point-in-Time count.

Most Denverites agree that the city is in desperate need of more affordable housing. But many residents argue that this group living proposal would do more harm than good, leading to unsafe neighborhoods, overcrowding, scarce parking and decreasing property values. 

Still, some city leaders say that those fears and complaints — which, for months, have flooded the ears of council members and city planners — may be drowning out other, more marginalized voices who could benefit from the proposal.

District 3 Councilwoman Jamie Torres, for example, has noticed a trend as she’s responded to and analyzed the neighborhoods talking about retaining “the look and feel” of their community: “They’re not people of color who are chiming into my inbox to reject this proposal.” 

Torres’ district in west Denver alone has lost about 4,000 residents over the last three years, she said, because they can no longer afford to live there.

“I need every option on the table when I’m thinking about how to keep folks housed in District 3,” she told Webb. “I can’t get caught up in what CPD determines is a family relationship and what isn’t. Because they need a roof over their head.”

The last scheduled group living meeting between CPD and the council’s LUTI Committee is slated for Dec. 1, when the committee is expected to take action on the proposal and determine whether to refer it to the full City Council for a vote.