he Denver City Council reportedly is anxious to approve the long-awaited rewrite of Denver’s zoning code. But there are calls to delay the code’s debut because it is not yet ready for prime time.
We should heed those calls. The current draft of the zoning code awkwardly grapples with aesthetic issues and threatens economic recovery.
For example, spokesmen from the planning department say the current R1 use (single-family homes) would remain intact and thus preserve existing entitlements. However, new districts that replace R1 zoning would change entitlements by significantly reducing the allowable size and shape of future development.
Prior to February 2003, one could develop 50 percent of a lot in this zone. This entitlement provided space for several features of proven value in the marketplace: outdoor covered spaces, the option of a single-story plan, and a three-car garage. These possibilities changed with Quick Wins II in 2003. Those changes, currently in effect, reduced the developable area from 50 percent to 37.5 percent of a lot. This includes covered areas; actual living space would be considerably less. Quick Wins II also curtailed the size of second floors and the bulk of structures. Nevertheless, many neighborhoods have seen a renaissance of new housing under these restrictions.
Now comes proposed zoning to reduce developable area again. The new maximum in some residential districts is a miserly 34 percent. Combined with setback changes and depending on property size, most lots would lose the possibility of a third garage, covered patios become smaller, and single-story plans or main floor master suites would be difficult or impossible. This affects big segments of the market: growing families who require more bedrooms or garage space, elderly or physically challenged people who do not want to climb stairs, and the affluent who simply demand more space.
There are many other restrictions in the proposed zoning. It micromanages plate heights, floor levels, offsets, gable dimensions, garage doors, and further reduces allowable height. On some lots, rear setbacks are doubled and garage width limited to one car.
The response by planners to these criticisms has been that the restrictions are in flux and will be “calibrated” based on neighborhood input. That’s even more reason to delay approval until everyone can absorb and understand the impacts. However, my concerns are more fundamental than calibrating numbers. The department describes the zoning revisions as “form-based” design. This means that for every designated district, the shape, size, offsets, and massing of buildings are predetermined by a matrix of dimensions. At the same time, we are told that these prescriptions do not regulate architectural style. The contradiction in the last two sentences should be apparent.
The proposed zoning moves in the direction of freeze-drying our neighborhoods. It attempts to codify aesthetics more in the manner of a gated community than a vibrant and evolving metropolis. This will put Denver at a competitive disadvantage for investment dollars and tax revenue. It will limit the number and diversity of people attracted to our redeveloping neighborhoods. Most detrimental to current residents is the diminished opportunity to enjoy the full potential of our property.
Michael Knorr (mk2mka@aol.com) is an architect.
