First, a little history:
The zoning code rewrite was called for as far back as 1989. Mayor Hickenlooper hired Peter Park to shepherd it in 2004. Meanwhile, preservationists like Jim Lindberg were concerned how the old code was allowing redevelopers to potentially ruin our historic neighborhoods. Blueprint Denver was begun in about 1998 and released in 2002 as the guide for a new code. The Zoning Code Task Force (ZCTF) was appointed in early 2005, consultants were hired, problems identified, and neighborhood contexts were defined.
Along about early 2008, third parties realized that sustainability issues had been heretofore largely ignored by city staff and their consultants. Michael Henry and Don Tressler of INC (InterNeighborhood Cooperation, an RNO), are the most significant of these third parties. Although Greenprint Denver was initiated in 2006 and widely admired, it was two years before Greenprint representatives were spotted at any ZCTF or Blueprint meetings.
At the request of INC, Park then hired Doug Farr to recommend sustainability strategies for the new code. The author wonders why a Chicago based consultant, however well qualified, could be a better choice than a local firm. For example, does Farr know why evaporative coolers are such a great peak power solution for the Denver area? Probably not. It turns out that swamp coolers ARE a zoning issue. No matter, he wrote the book, and made an effort to interview local experts like Michael Tavel.
Also, in the spring of 2007, Bob Sperling and James Van Hemert organized the Friends of Granny Flats after they realized that the Zoning Code Task Force was almost unaware of the existence and popularity of thousands of historic carriage houses in Denver. They gave a presentation to city staff in April 2007 that was well-received and put dADU's on the radar.
Farr gave his report to the ZCTF in September 2008. At that meeting he was asked, "what are the biggest things we can do in Denver?" His reply, "Two things: Share cars and Solar Access". It looks like the private sector is already targeting the former.
(Coincidentally, at the same meeting, the housing affordability consultant, Don Elliot, was asked the same question. His reply, "ADU's, reduction of the minimum buildable lot size, and inclusionary zoning." The ZCTF took the first two choices to heart and they are well-represented in the draft code. The affordability recommendations promised ADU's "in a wide range of districts." The efficacy of Denver's current inclusionary zoning law is unclear.)
After staff parsed Farr's report, they issued the Jan. 14, 2009 sustainability memo , and ADU's are prominent. Mention is made of future study of things like solar fences, kind of a tough putt in urban neighborhoods with mature trees. More on that here and here.
Unfortunately, the proposed zoning map is disallowing ADU zoning over most of the city.
Review the Map . Look for suffixes like -B1, - C1 etc. For example, if your neighborhood has U-SU-C you don't get ADU's, but if you have U-SU-C1, you get 'em. B2 & C2 zoning allows them only on some corners, which is better than nothing, but there isn't any B2 and C2 on the map. Why develop a zoning typology and then shelve it? There are a lot more questions like that once you study the map. Please do, and weigh in .
So, in 2009, after all this work, why is the city offering up ADU zoning in less than 5% of the city?
Edit: As of late August 2009, the areas with ADU zoning shown have increased, but they are still insignificant. There is a small amount of A2, B2 and C2 now shown.
Edit(2) As of November 2009, there is tons of ADU zoning shown. Meanwhile, "Friends of Granny Flats" recommended ADU zoning for ALL single family districts.