Whether or not a specific form of architectural design will continue to be allowed or banned by the City of Denver is currently a topic of debate between council members. The Council’s willingness to put a moratorium in place on developers using a “garden court” form design in their projects seems to hinge on whether or not current projects will first be allowed to move forward.

The garden court form orients the front doors of units in a development to a central court area rather than to the front of the street. The city’s allowance of the design has come under fire as developers have used it to build in more established neighborhoods, which critics argue goes against the original intent of the code change in 2010. Instead of familiar street views in established neighborhoods, critics say the design form is being used to drastically alter the look and feel of neighborhoods for the worse.

City Council is in the midst of a debate over whether the city should put a hold on future developments’ use of the design form. The current proposal working its way through the process right now would impose a one year moratorium against the use of the form unless certain criteria are met.

What could become a major sticking point in the proposal, put forward by Council Members Rafael Espinoza, District 1, and Wayne New, District 10, is whether the half a dozen projects already in the pipelines would be affected by the change in rules. Espinoza has been one of the most vocal critics of what he has described as an abuse of the intended uses of the garden court design.

Under the proposal, developers who have submitted an application for projects that use the garden court form would be allowed to move forward so long as they meet certain criteria that sponsors of the measure say incorporate the intended uses of the design form.

“This is a wonderful form if used properly,” New said during a first reading of the moratorium proposal Monday night at Denver City Council. “I’m looking forward to seeing this reevaluated and implemented in the future.”

Some on Council seemed skittish toward the idea that the six projects in the works could be banned – effectively throwing developers into a lurch – under the rule changes, pointing to other cases in the past like dispensaries being grandfathered in after the city changed its marijuana rules. But Councilwoman Robin Kniech, At-Large, said projects were being allowed to adapt to the rule changes and to continue as opposed to an outright ban on all uses of the design form.

“This allows for a path to revise and a path to proceed. I’m not sure where my vote will be on final reading, but I want to hear testimony in committee on it.”

The proposal now goes back to committee to discuss possible changes and whether or not to grandfather in projects that have already submitted applications. It is scheduled for a public hearing and final vote Aug. 22.