A leader in the push for a high-profile zoning change that will raise the number of unrelated adults who can live in a single-family home saluted its passage early Tuesday morning, calling it a significant change that “has value.”

The change, which the Denver City Council approved by a vote of 11-2, also loosens existing restrictions on where certain types of congregate living facilities can operate.

Councilwoman Robin Kniech, one of the leaders on the measure, said that the equal treatment of all households with five people or fewer moving forward is “a significant change tonight, and it has value. It promotes housing stability for residents who are able to afford their housing costs by sharing them.”

Prior to the vote, the council heard from more than 100 speakers on the topic, and their testimony lasted until after midnight.

“You’re going to anger quite a bit of your constituents on this no matter what. You might as well be on the right side of history,” commenter Joseph Spaulding told council members.

Although the group living text amendment to the zoning code generated thousands of online petition signatures in opposition, was the subject of a judge’s order to release documents, and underwent key revisions in response to outcry, council members heard at their meeting a range of views for and against the proposal. The changes apply to most of the city, with approximately 20% of parcels requiring further work to effectuate the new zoning rules.

Voting against the amendment were council members Amanda Sawyer and Kevin Flynn.

By the time of the meeting, the council had received 1,143 written comments, 54% of which were in favor and the remainder in opposition. A majority of spoken comments likewise came from supporters.

However, the arguments some residents used were nonetheless provocative, if not downright incendiary at times.

“This is about some people’s need to exert dominance over people who are lesser than them,” said Kevin Matthews of Congress Park, a supporter.

The change is “one massive, unproven, urban social experiment,” countered Donna Krentz, an opponent. She asserted the proposal will “destabilize neighborhoods,” causing the middle class to flee such that “the remaining population will be struggling renters that cannot escape and the criminals that will prey on them.”

Throughout the meeting, people decried the “lies and inflammatory language,” “classist, racist, outdated and homophobic zoning,” and “nastiness devoid of compassion” that some saw in the opposition to the changes.

“Apparently, I’m a racist, a bigot, an elitist and am homophobic,” scoffed Samuel Hargraves in response.

For roughly three years, the city’s department of Community Planning and Development and an advisory committee of 40 members worked on the zoning amendment designed to satisfy several components of Denver’s comprehensive plan as well as Blueprint Denver, the citywide land use and transportation framework.

“The bill that’s on the floor tonight was a compromise that reflected a lot of that input,” said Councilwoman Debbie Ortega, an at-large representative. “I’ve never been engaged with a more open and transparent process that had multiple outreach points with the community, that was as broad-ranging in the representation.”

Andrew Webb, a senior planner with the department, told the council that the amendment would reduce housing costs, ensure that city regulations enable a range of flexible housing options and provide a more inclusive definition of households. His analysis found that cities with larger caps on unrelated adults did not experience average household sizes that were substantially larger than in Denver.

A report last year from the online rental service Apartment List noted Denver’s average rent for two-bedroom apartments was higher than the national average, but still lower than some of its surrounding jurisdictions.

There have been 60 meetings with community organizations on the group living amendment, and a council committee referred it to the full council in December with a favorable recommendation. The current version lowered the maximum number of unrelated adults from eight, as originally proposed, to five, and backtracked on the extension of community corrections facilities — colloquially known as halfway houses — into residential neighborhoods.

The heads of several organizations, including Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association, and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, spoke in favor. The president of the Cherry Creek East Association spoke against.

Many residents indicated their disappointment that the council did not stick by the original version, calling the changes “watered down.” Nevertheless, proponents of the group living amendment frequently observed that Denver’s limit of two unrelated adults per single-family home was highly restrictive compared to peer cities inside and outside of Colorado, and that the amendment legalizes the way many households with roommates are already living.

“Our immigrant neighbors are now scared that their neighbors and other residents who oppose group living will call the city on them if they have a large family,” said Mayra Gonzales of Montbello, referring to the possibility of deportation for those who are discovered to be undocumented. That, to some, illustrated inherent racism in the zoning code.

One woman acknowledged she was taking a risk by speaking in favor, as her living arrangement is illegal under the status quo. Several individuals also shared their own experiences living with multiple roommates or in cooperative housing, explaining that they wanted the city to be affordable for others and were worried about the lack of opportunity for others who are priced out of Denver. 

However, finances were similarly a concern for opponents.

“When I bought my home, I chose it with the zoning protections in place that not only made it a safe home for me, but that preserved its market value,” said Kristin Macarthur, who lives in Council District 6. “My home is my most significant investment and I’m too close to retirement to recover from a sudden loss in value due to the zoning changes you’re proposing.”

“It’s reasonable to expect when you move into a neighborhood that the zoning means something,” added Hargraves. “What you’re proposing destabilizes the city.”

Beyond the characterization of “24/7 frat houses” if the cap on unrelated adults were lifted, commenters also expressed fear of homeless individuals and incarcerated people awaiting parole if shelters or community corrections facilities were to locate nearby. They spoke to the perceived threat to children’s safety that would come with the proposal’s elimination of 1,500-foot buffer zones between the facilities and schools.

Such an allowance “vastly alters the character of that neighborhood,” said one person, while another commented that “any little thing could set them [halfway house residents] off.”

Requests from opponents, including several from the opposition group Safe and Sound Denver, beseeched the council to go back to the beginning and restart the process, refer the policy to the voters or break the change into smaller pieces for consideration. The organization released a video ad in January raising the possibility of recalls for council members who supported the amendment.

Sawyer, representing District 5, was among those who advocated for a separate vote on the unrelated adult provision, and even acknowledged she had three unrelated adults in her house. However, she could not convince a majority of her colleagues.

“My concerns with the residential care side are too numerous to support these changes as a whole,” she said before voting no.

Although the group living change, which locates facilities based on the number of people served rather than the type of service, originally allowed community corrections facilities in residential neighborhoods, opposition forced a revision to commercial and mixed-use corridors.

“I just don’t think that having people in need in your neighborhood is a risk to children,” countered Alisha Black-Mallon during public comment.

While explaining their votes, multiple council members took time to denounce misinformation that had spread about the group living amendment, and also assuage fears about worst-case scenarios.

“I make my decisions based on fact — not fiction, not hyperbole and not the misrepresentation of facts,” said Councilwoman Kendra Black of District 4. “And the facts do not support the rhetoric.”