HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular Meeting (2)1
Katie Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 6:49 AM
To:Katie Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Comment Document for P&Z's September 26, 2023 Public Hearing
Attachments:Position Paper - Dev Review - BK II-2.pdf; CoFC-Land-Use-Code-2023-Summary-Report.pdf
Categories:P&Z
Sent from my T‐Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: James King <jwkingjr2027@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:00:30 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc: James King <jwkingjr2027@yahoo.com>; Lisa King <lisacking99@yahoo.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment Document for P&Z's September 26, 2023 Public Hearing
Honorable Members of the Fort Collins P&Z,
Attached are two documents, one Lisa and I prepared (Position Paper on Development Review) the
other (Land Use Code) was prepared by CSU's Center for Public Deliberation as the result of the
Spring Land Use Code Event held at the Aztlan Center on April 26, 2023. Lisa and I attended many
of the Land Use Code events over the past several months.
Our paper, along with the CSU document were submitted to the Planning Staff and all members of
the City Council several weeks ago, just prior to this issue being shelved for later consideration by
City Council during one of their work sessions.
The highlights in the CSU document are mine to aide the reader in identifying relevant sections
addressing our primary concern, the Development Review Process.
Thank you for considering our points of view and our suggestions for improving this very important
aspect of the Land Use Code and development application process. We ask that you reject this
current proposal until it can undergo further study.
Bill & Lisa King
6319 Victoria Road
Fort Collins, CO 80325
240/997-9325
jwkingjr2027@yahoo.com
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Citizen Participation in the Fort Collins Development Review Process
Introduction
“Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have
a right to be involved in the decision-making process.”
(IAP2 – Spectrum of Public Participation)
In the fall of 2022, several members of the Fort Collins community reviewed the proposed Land
Development Code (LDC) recently passed by the City Council. Community members identified
several areas of concern. This concern initiated a petition process resulting in the repeal of the
LDC. The large number of signatures collected during the repeal petition drive, in the short
timeframe required, illustrated just how unhappy many in the community were, not just with
the changes proposed in the LDC, but the process the city used to arrive at the recommended
new Code.
One of those concerns was that the proposed LDC lessened citizen participation in the
development review process. Citizen involvement in local development is vital to ensure that
our city represents the values of the community. Our citizens deserve to be heard in genuine,
meaningful ways that can bring consensus and a greater understanding of who we are as a
community.
Implementing these changes could be a path toward restoring a community’s faith and
confidence in an application review process in need of improvement . The City of Fort Collins’
own guidelines, policies, etc…note the importance of citizen participation in local government
processes. When examining these processes however the question must be asked are the
citizens of Fort Collins participating at the highest level, the top rung on the ladder? Are they
being given the opportunity that being an active participant in the final decision-making
process?
Identified Problems Associated with the
City of Fort Collins Development Review Process
“While there appears to be universal agreement that the involvement of ci tizens in the
decision-making process of government is a good idea, there is little agreement as to the best
way to achieve meaningful involvement.”
Kathe Callahan – Professor, Rutgers University
1)Limited role of the Neighborhood Meeting
2)Lack of Transparency
3)Basic Development Review limits Public Engagement
4)Adversarial nature of the Neighborhood Meeting
5)Notification Radius
6)Code Language
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
1.Limited Role of the Neighborhood Meeting
The “Spring 2023 Land Use Code Summary Report” based on feedback from the April 26,
2023, Aztlan Community Center meeting, made it very clear, “participants wanted to
make sure neighborhood meetings were not removed from the development review
process.”
The report also documented the participants want Neighborhood Meetings to continue
and “conversations across tables [during the Aztlan meeting] seemed to indicate that
participants at this event hoped to potentially have more input into these processes in
earlier stages.“ Those two goals are certainly attainable.
“Planners and planning officials have a multitude of possible ways to facilitate
meaningful participation.” (Arnstein, Sherry 1969).
A collaborative environment between the stakeholders must be created. It is almost
inconceivable that any meaningful public engagement can be created with only one or
two Neighborhood Meetings occurring just prior to the submission of the developer’s
formal plan. More citizen input means increasing the number of engagements between
stakeholders. The current process creates an environment that enables the developer
to employ stall tactics in their conversations with members of the Host Neighborhood.
(Host Neighborhood is defined as the area within the Notification Radius whose
residents will be most impacted by the proposed development). It encourages
developers to ignore concerns and focus on working only with City Staff, a City Staff who
appears to be more concerned with avoiding litigation than a communities Quality of
Life.
To increase public engagement effectiveness, multiple meetings need to occur
throughout the entire development review process and should begin during the Pre-
Submittal Review Phase. Conceptual and Preliminary Review meetings can be
incorporated into the public engagement process, thus increasing the number of
interactions between stakeholders and members of the Host Neighborhood.
After receiving their announcement (flyer) in the mail, members of the Host
Neighborhood could attend in person or watch on ZOOM and listen to the discussion
between developers and City Staff. This early participation in the process would allow
those most impacted residents early insight into the developer ’s anticipated plans. It is
important for sufficient public participation to occur at this early stage that adequate
notification take place through mailings and/or other means to those Host
Neighborhood residents. Funding for these notifications should be shouldered by the
developers.
After listening to the exchange between developers and City Staff during the Pre -
Submittal Review Phase (Conceptual/Preliminary Review Meetings) the Staff Comments
document should be provided to residents of the Host Neighborhood. This will provide
Host Neighborhood residents background information in areas that will need to be
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
addressed and aide in the face-to-face discussions that will take place during future
dates. Incorporating the Pre-Submittal Review phase in the application review process
helps address one of the primary concerns identified at the Aztlan forum, that of
starting the process earlier.
Subsequent meetings held with Host Neighborhood residents could also take place in a
roundtable discussion format. The next question that needs to be answered is when or
if a moderator needs to be inserted into the meetings. A formal moderator inserted
into the process will reduce mistrust, decrease cynicism, lend creditability to the pr ocess
and assist with developing a mutual understanding and genuine interaction between
stakeholders.
After the last Neighborhood Meeting a survey of the Host Neighborhood residents
should be conducted. The purpose of the survey is to determine whether the
development proposal has Host Neighborhood support and identify for the record any
remaining issues and concerns. The survey results will be provided to the Host
Neighborhood residents, and forwarded to the Director who will then decide as to
whether the application will go forward or be returned to the developer for additional
changes based on the level of public input. For this to occur, written changes to the
Code granting the Director this authority will have to take place. The Dir ector already
has approval authority in granting modification requests to the developer’s application
so extending this level of authority is reasonable. The survey will help decision makers
gain an understanding of the strength and representation of the Host Neighborhood’s
opinion.
2.Lack of Transparency
“Once feedback is received, there must be follow through or participants may feel that
their contribution was ignored or pointless.” “Note: This does not mean that feedback
is automatically implemented, but why or why not and how must be communicated.”
Fort Collins Public Engagement Guide
Again, the “Spring 2023 Land Use Code Summary Report” from the Aztlan meeting
reflected, “they [community members] often feel as though their input is not taken into
account.” “Several noted there was limited to no transparency about how the City
considers neighborhood input and what impacts it truly has on the process so they were
left wondering if their time was well spent.”
Areas where the feedback opportunities exist have been identified (see below). They
need to be part of an overall information resource system that collects and manages
and responds to questions and comments about the proposal. Citizen comments need
to be taken seriously and responded to.
Devreview emails: The city has created an email address to receive comments from the
community on the development review process. Based on personal experience of the
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
last few years, these submitted emails are not “receipt acknowledged .” As far as what
happens to the DevReview email, they are supposed to be collected and provided in a
folder to the decision-makers for review. Copies of these emails do not become visible
for review by interested parties until they are collected and compiled into the above
folder. After acknowledging receipt these email documents should be placed online in
the public project folder, just like planning documents, drainage reports, landscape
design plans, etc. Placing the DevReview emails in the public project folder allows them
to be read by other interested parties during the application process.
A more comprehensive procedure for handling DevReview submittals would consist of a
process that allows emails to be tracked. This will avoid lost documents that fail to
make it from the DevReview inbox to the Staff Report addendum. These email
submissions contain topics that are important to the contributor .
Example: A DevReview email mentions traffic is a concern. The DevReview email is
included in the folder delivered to the P&Z. In the Public Outreach section of the Staff
Report it acknowledges traffic was a concern expressed during the Neighborhood
Meeting. Unless one of the commission members asked about traffic, there is no further
comment on the matter. Nothing details why traffic was an issue. Nothing documents
how this issue was decided/resolved and what the basis for that decision was.
Neighborhood Meeting notes: The current Land Use Code requires a written summary
of the Neighborhood Meeting be prepared. These notes are then placed in the public
project folder for the proposal and attached to the Development Review Staff Report
when it is prepared. These written notes consist of general statements, nothing
detailed, but do recognize issues and concerns raised by those attending. There is no
indication these notes are used by decision makers. It is important that the community
is provided the rationale for the decision and how the information from the
Neighborhood Meeting notes is used.
Staff Report - Public Outreach section: This section of the Development Staff Report
describes the day, date, and time the Neighborhood Meeting took place. It notes the
Summary Report and that the Neighborhood Meeting was recorded and where that
recording can be found. It also mentions the main topics discussed during the
Neighborhood Meeting.
Identifying outstanding issues and concerns in the Staff Report, that have been also
identified in the Neighborhood Meeting notes and not addressing them leaves the issue
unresolved. It creates more concerns with respect to transparency and accountability.
Staff Report: Is prepared by a lead project planner, who coordinates the report’s
contents. The Staff Report represents a City of Fort Collins product, completed by the
Planning Department, but does not identify who has final approval authority. The
report needs a signature block for the appropriate approving official (“Director”). The
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
report preparer should not be the approving official. This will aide in accountability, and
transparency.
Behind the Door Meetings: As the application process proceeds, meetings are held
between City Staff and the developers. Requests to attend these meetings by residents,
just to observe, have been denied to residents. The day, date and time of such meeting
should be made available, and citizens should be able to atte nd via Zoom or in person.
3.Basic Development Review Limits Public Engagement
“Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution
will influence the decision.”
IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
The Basic Development Review (BDR) limits public input by reducing the opportunity for
face-to-face interactions between stakeholders. The BDR process certainly benefits
developers by reducing the processing time of their application. It benefits City Staff
because it creates an administrative process consisting of checking the box for meeting
guidelines and approval. The BDR does not level the playing field for the community or
the Host Neighborhood.
The BDR, as outlined in the repealed LDC, is being expanded to include all residential
housing proposals. These large acreage developments could easily impact several
nearby neighborhoods and the residents of those neighborhoods should have an
opportunity early in the process to have their voices heard.
4.Adversarial Nature of the Neighborhood Meetings
“The good news is that deliberative engagement has been shown to create a positive
feedback loop, increasing trust, decreasing cynicism, and making it mo re likely that
people will return.”
Tackling Wicked Problems Through Deliberative Engagement
Martin Carcasson, CSU – Center for Public Deliberation
The adversarial nature of the Neighborhood Meeting was another concern pointed out
and recorded by students from CSU’s Public Deliberation Program during the Aztlan
Community Center meeting. The creation of earlier involvement in the process allows
for more frequent contacts between stakeholders during the review process and more
opportunity to reach consensus.
5.Notification Radius
The current notification radius is 800 feet; this perimeter should be doubled in size.
Increasing the radius will provide awareness to a larger segment of the Host
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Neighborhood so they may participate directly in the development of their community.
The City Staff addressed this concern in its FAQ section on their website by stating,
“radius matches what is currently in the Land Use Code today” and “was carried forward
to the new code, unchanged.” This response fails to answer the question posed because
the community concern can be more accurately described as, “Is 800 feet enough?”
Fort Collins has recently seen several large residential developments. Developments of
this size impact multiple nearby neighborhoods and having more community
participation increases the likelihood of a positive exchange and outcome between
stakeholders at the end of the application process.
6. Code Language
The current code states the purpose of Neighborhood Meetings is to “facilitate citizen
participation.”
While the code mentions the importance of active citizen involvement in the
development review process, there are several issues that need to be resolved if that
statement is to have meaning.
For this to take place in a meaningful manner the Code needs to recognize and state that
citizens of this community have a role to play in determining the outcome of our
community. Citizens should be engaged at the earliest possible point in the process, the
need for multiple meetings between stakeholders throughout the process, expand the
powers of the Director, all while giving the Host Neighborhood residents a seat at the
decision-making table.
For clarification the “Neighborhood Meetings,” title needs to be revised. Citizen
involvement in the development review process involves more than just Neighborhood
Meetings. The title of the Code should accurately reflect its purpose and a more
appropriate title is Public Engagement Process.
The language in the code only requires a single Neighborhood Meeting . It states the
purpose of the Neighborhood Meeting is to present to the citizens the development
proposal and for the citizens to identify, list, and discuss issues related to the
development proposal. That is a heavy lift to occur in a single Neighborhood Meeting
(or two), among strangers. The way to improve this situation is to recognize the need for
a more formal process that includes increasing the number and type of meeting
between stakeholders and work to implement it.
The code must spell out at what level public participation will occur in the process. As
described across multiple models of citizen participation spectrum ladders, the level of
public engagement can range from keeping the public informed to involving the public’s
participation in the decision-making process. Where do we as a community want to be
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
on this ladder? Involving the public early and at the appropriate level helps create buy-
in for both the process and the final decision.
The current code only addresses public participation level by stating, “Citizens are urged
to attend and actively participate in these meetings.” More appropriate language would
recognize citizens participating at the decision-making level.
Increase Director’s level of discretionary authority. Specifically create in the code a
section granting the Director the ability to deny the application based on public input.
The authority to disallow allowing the application to proceed to the Final Development
Plan encourages several things. First, a spirit of cooperation early in the application
process. Second, it discourages the developer from trying to stall and “outwait” the
residents of the Host Neighborhood.
Conclusion
The City of Fort Collins acknowledges throughout many of their guidelines and plans that citizen
engagement is encouraged and an important aspect of local government. CSU’s Center for
Public Deliberation has noted in its article, “Tackling Wicked Problems Through Deliberative
Engagement,” the following:
“Involving citizens earlier in the process to help define the issue and imagine potential
responses also engages them as problem-solvers and innovators – roles many will
relish – rather than simply as supporters or complainers. People are yearning for
genuine, meaningful engagement, something that traditional forms of engagement
rarely deliver.”
There are several avenues for citizens to document their comments in the development review
process (i.e., emails to devreview, letters, calls, etc.). These create feedback opportunities and
that is a positive thing. The problem is that once those comments, questions or concerns are
submitted, there is little to no follow-up. As a result, many members of the community feel that
their efforts were not worth their time because it doesn’t affect the outcome, or their
suggestions were even considered.
“Public engagement is a dialogue not a presentation.” (Fort Collins Public Engagement Guide).
For citizen participation in the development review process to be beneficial to all parties, there
must be a genuine dialogue. Genuine dialogue through an established process must include an
adequate number of discussions between stakeholders . That deliberative process will result in
a better product in the end.
If the impacted Host Neighborhood community does not have the decision-making authority
strong enough to stop the process, then we do not have a public engagement process, we have
two-way communication described at best as collaboration.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
“There must be a leader in the room who enables all opinions to be heard and stimulates
conversation.” (Fort Collins Public Engagement Guide). One final consideration would be the
inclusion of a moderator in the deliberative aspect of the review process. How could this be
accomplished economically? Continuing and expanding the partnership with CSU’s Center for
Public Deliberation and creating a graduate level internship program is a suggestion. Student
moderators from this program were utilized most effectively in this capacity during the Aztlan
Community Center meeting.
Many of the comments, opinions and observations contained in this document are the result of
the writers’ recent participation in a Type II, residential application process.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments,
Bill & Lisa King
6319 Victoria Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
240/997-9325
978/420-5084
Jwkingjr2027@yahoo.com
Lisacking99@yahoo.com
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
City of Fort Collins
Spring 2023 Land Use Code Event
Summary Report
Sabrina Slagowski-Tipton
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins by the Center for Public Deliberation with assistance from
Kimberly Quintana-Prieto.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Executive Summary
This report synthesizes the conversations and themes gathered during a community-wide
conversation about the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code on Wednesday, April 26, 2023. In
total, 49 community members attended this event which addressed topics such as Community
Input in the Development Review Process, Missing Middle Housing, and Affordable Housing.
Below, we report the primary themes identified in table notes.
The analysis portion of this report contains three sections: Community Input in the Development
Review Process, Affordable Housing, and Missing Middle Housing. The main themes from each
section are briefly summarized below, though the full report provides a more thorough
accounting of how community members expressed each theme.
Community Input in the Development Review Process
Main themes:
•Frustration with the current process
•Suggested improvements for the process
Affordable Housing
Main themes:
•The complexity of adding more Affordable Housing
•Location-related concerns for Affordable Housing
Missing Middle Housing
Main themes:
•Concerns about growth and sustainability
•Concerns about the location of Missing Middle Housing
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Methodology
The Center for Public Deliberation and City of Fort Collins partnered to host a community
conversation on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, at the Northside Aztlan Center. The event was
broken into three distinct sections which allowed attendees to have small group conversations
about pertinent topics tied to the land use code. All attendees were randomly assigned to a
small group which was facilitated by a student from the Center for Public Deliberation. There
was also a student note taker present at each table capturing comments and conversations.
The questions and flow of the meeting were designed by the Center for Public Deliberation with
feedback from the City of Fort Collins.
Participants discussed three main topic areas. At the beginning of each section, a member of
City staff gave a brief presentation about the topic before we moved on to small group facilitated
conversations. The three main topic areas were chosen by the City of Fort Collins based on
their analysis of community surveys:
1.Community Input in the Development Review Process
2.Affordable Housing
3.Missing Middle Housing
The data in this report was compiled in real time by student note takers at each table. The
resulting dataset includes notes from 11 separate tables. After data entry each comment was
thematically coded by a student researcher who reviewed themes across questions and tables.
In the sections below, major themes are organized roughly according to the frequency with
which they appeared in the notes, considering the following demographic information and
knowledge that certain communities may be over-represented in the data.
115 total community members submitted an RSVP for this conversation and 49 ultimately
attended. This is a large amount of attrition, so it is worth examining the various reasons for the
considerable drop-off in participants. Of the participants who attended and provided responses
to demographic questions, 40% identified as female, 38% as male, and 1% as gender non-
conforming. Seventy-four percent of respondents identified their race as white, and 1% listed
two or more races. Three percent noted they were Hispanic or Latinx. The age demographics
were as follows: One percent of respondents were between the ages of 18-24, 3% were
between 25-34, 9% were between 35-44, 1% were between 45-54, 20% were between 55-64,
and 38% were 65+. In terms of housing status, 12% of attendees listed themselves as renters
and 70% noted they owned their current home. 72% lived in a detached home, 9% in a
townhome, and 7% in an apartment. When reporting household income, 3% reported making
between $10,000 and $15,000, 1% between $25,000 and $35,000, 9% between $35,000 and
$50,000, 14% between $50,000 and $75,000, 10% between $75,000 and $100,000, and 25%
reported more than $100,000.
Please note where numbers do not equal 100, respondents declined to specify.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
12%
70%
HOUSING STATUSRentOwn
AGE18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
HOUSING TYPEDetached Home Townhome Apartment
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Community Input in the Development Review
Process
Small group conversations began with a discussion about the Development Review Process.
After a brief presentation from City staff about how the current Development Review Process
works, student facilitators guided participants in conversation to address the following questions:
1.What personal experience do you have with notification of development projects,
attendance at neighborhood meetings, or public hearings for development projects?
2.How much impact do you believe neighborhood input currently has on developments
throughout the City?
3.What are some things you find helpful about the current neighborhood meetings and
development review process?
4.What concerns do you have about potential changes to the development review
process?
A vast majority of the attendees at this event had either attended neighborhood meetings or
were familiar with the signage and postcards sent out by the City as part of that process. It
seemed overall this group of community members was fairly involved in conversations
throughout the City about the Land Use Code, Development Review Process, and other
housing-related discussions taking place.
Across tables and groups, participants seemed to discuss the same overarching themes:
Frustration with the Current Process. Most importantly, across all groups it was clear that the
participants at this event wanted to make sure neighborhood meetings were not removed from
the development review process. While several frustrations were addressed throughout our
conversations, most attendees agreed they value the ability to attend neighborhood meetings
and give their input. However, they noted that they often feel as though their input is not taken
into account by the City. Several noted there was limited to no transparency about how the City
considers neighborhood input and what impacts it truly has on the process so they were left
wondering if their time was well spent. Additionally, several groups discussed how they felt
neighborhood involvement happened too late in the process and felt that was another barrier to
their input being fully incorporated into final decisions about what was developed in and around
their neighborhoods. Some also mentioned that neighborhood meetings often feel adversarial in
nature; almost pitting developers against community members which makes them feel less
productive than they might otherwise be. Overall, conversations across tables seemed to
indicate that participants at this event hoped to potentially have more input into these processes
in earlier stages.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Suggested Improvements for the Process. In line with the frustrations voiced by our
participants, they noted earlier involvement in the development review process might be helpful
as well as more transparent communication earlier in other housing-related processes. As noted
in the introductory portion of this section, most of our participants had some previous level of
involvement or at least a general working knowledge of the neighborhood meetings and yellow
signage, however, many discussed making sure information about updates to code, new
developments, and other things throughout the City be included in utility bills or some other
mechanism. The hope here is that would allow as many people as possible to see them rather
than smaller groups of people who actively seek out that information.
Additionally, numerous participants discussed the possibility of introducing clearer ground rules
or a better format for neighborhood meetings that made them more collaborative across groups
rather than adversarial. One participant mentioned that while conversations and deliberation can
be challenging, it’s important to engage with one another in these meaningful ways whenever
possible. Finally, participants hoped the City would work to increase transparency about the
development review process generally; especially as it relates to how neighborhood input is
taken into account while decisions are being made.
Overall, participants at this event felt that there should be increased opportunities for citizen
input and participation and that the City should increase transparency and make sure these
input opportunities are accessible to as many people as possible.
April 26, 2023: A photo of the room during small group conversations
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Affordable Housing*
In the next section, student facilitators guided participants in conversation addressing the
following questions:
1.What are your initial reactions to the way Affordable Housing could be incorporated in
the updated Land Use Code?
2.In your opinion, is it more effective to encourage/incentivize Affordable Housing or
require/mandate it? Why do you feel that way?
3.What types of Affordable Housing would you like to see in your neighborhood? Why do
you prefer those types over others?
The complexity of adding more Affordable Housing. Overall, groups seemed to struggle to
decide whether it would be more effective to incentivize Affordable Housing or require it
because there were many feasibility concerns discussed. Most of the conversations focused on
resource issues throughout the City that could be exacerbated by building more housing
generally, whether it was affordable or not. Groups grappled with concerns about the location of
transit lines and wondered if local transportation would be able to keep up with increased growth
if we added more housing. Additionally, participants mentioned concerns about sustainability
issues tied to water and other resources. Most of the conversations eventually shifted to a focus
on overall density, with many participants voicing their support for added density throughout the
City and others expressing concerns about increased density. Those who voiced concerns
noted the many issues above: lack of access to transportation in certain parts of the city,
concerns about parking in specific neighborhoods if more dense housing was added, and an
overall concern about natural resources.
Many participants also continued to discuss the role CSU played in helping make sure more
affordable housing was available throughout the City. Numerous participants across tables had
conversations about how CSU could make housing more available for students to help with the
strain on housing in general throughout the community. Groups struggled to determine the best
ways to make sure more truly affordable housing could be added in the community.
Participants at certain tables discussed providing incentives that would encourage developers to
use more sustainable materials in their new builds, some also mentioned the need for more
buildings to be fitted with solar panels to address some climate concerns throughout the City.
However, many also noted how expensive it is to build housing and were concerned that
incentives would ultimately not work. For the most part, it seems that participants had robust
conversations about the numerous complexities surrounding affordable housing, natural
resources, and overall sustainability of adding new housing. There was a lot of back and forth
which serves to highlight how challenging these issues are and how important it is to have
continued, thoughtful conversations about paths forward.
*For this section, the conversation focused on the formal definition of affordable which is defined
as housing which cost no more than 30% of a family's gross monthly income for rent and utilities.
Costs for mortgage, utility, taxes, interest, and insurance should be no more than 38% of one's
gross monthly income for housing ownership to be considered affordable.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Concerns about the location and types of Affordable Housing. Conversations about
neighborhood character echoed throughout each section during this event. However, there
wasn’t a consensus about where Affordable Housing should be and where it shouldn’t be.
Numerous participants who live in current low-density zones mentioned they wouldn’t want
duplexes or triplexes near detached homes because of the overall look of the neighborhood and
the potential impacts they might experience related to parking and traffic.
Various tables had conversations about the role of ADUs in improving affordability. Several
groups had conversations noting how they would be useful for aging relatives, children, etc. but
expressed concerns that ADUs would ultimately be used as Airbnb rentals or other types of
short-term rental housing rather than being used by people who currently live in the community.
Numerous participants also said they would like to avoid having ADUs built in their
neighborhood.
Many participants discussed the importance of using more under-utilized spaces throughout the
community like the Mulberry and Harmony corridors. Participants at some tables welcomed the
idea of more diverse types of Affordable Housing throughout their neighborhoods if the design
matched with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Other participants were wary of any new
housing being built in their neighborhoods, affordable or otherwise. Overall, based on the
themes in the notes, it seemed as though participants were cognizant of the fact more housing
needed to be built, but sometimes pushed back on the notion that more density would equal
more affordability.
April 26, 2023: CPD students Catie Marqua (left) and Siena DiGiacomo helping
guide small group conversations.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Missing Middle Housing
In this section, participants were given a map of the City and a collection of Legos which
represented specific types of housing. You can find a sample of the activity handout in the
appendix. For the last part of this conversation, student facilitators guided participants through
an activity and discussion based on the following mock scenario:
1. Your team needs to add 30,000 new housing units throughout the City. 10% of those
must be affordable housing.
2. Work together to identify the areas that are best suited to add more density.
3. Multi-family buildings and townhomes may be placed either in an undeveloped area or
on top of an already developed area, but they will replace whatever is currently there.
4. You may not place any housing on the CSU campus or natural areas.
This activity was adapted from a previous build-out activity used by the City of Fort Collins and
CPD during a 2017 City Plan event. Participants were given the information that, according to
the state demographer, Fort Collins was expected to grow to 240,000 residents by 2040.
Through this activity we hoped to get groups thinking about how they may want the community
to look if that growth trajectory ends up being correct and which types of housing might be most
acceptable to accommodate that growth.
Some groups were initially reluctant to engage in the activity and several pushed back on the
idea that we needed to build in anticipation of increased growth. However, once groups started
talking through and moving Legos around, it was great to walk around the room and see what
each group was working on together. Each group had a vastly different approach to placing
housing and assigning an affordability percentage: some focused on adding housing throughout
the City in specific pockets nearer to transit and amenities, others opted to place higher density
housing nearer to the edges of the City in more underutilized areas. While groups planned out
their housing and talked through things, we noticed a couple main themes that were tied closely
to conversations in previous sections.
To avoid repetition, this section will be slightly shorter than the previous two:
Concerns about growth and sustainability. Again, an overarching concern amongst
participants at this event tied to increased growth throughout the City and whether this
increased growth would be sustainable in the long term. Some participants pushed back on the
idea that the City “needed” to grow; wondering if there could be community oversight in making
sure Fort Collins doesn’t grow beyond a certain point. These conversations also seemed to
focus on a need for the City to address the problems current community members are facing
rather than working to address problems far in the future for people who don’t currently live
here.
Numerous participants echoed transportation and resource concerns from previous sections,
noting that building housing to accommodate more residents could unintentionally create other
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
problems if additional City resources like transportation, grocery stores, etc. were not made
available in those areas. Various participants discussed concerns about added traffic throughout
the City if more dense housing was added, and brought up concerns about parking in their own
neighborhoods if increased density was allowed.
Concerns about the location of Missing Middle Housing. Conversations during this section
largely echoed the concerns shared in the Affordable Housing section: the need to maintain
neighborhood character when adding new housing, concerns about too much density placed in
current low-density neighborhoods, and a desire for the City to focus on building more dense
housing in under-utilized parts of the city rather than in already existing neighborhoods.
Participants and their CPD facilitator with a completed map
Examples of completed maps from this section’s activity.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Conclusion
We would like to extend our gratitude to the community members who attended this event and
engaged in conversation with one another and to our student facilitators and note takers who
helped guide the conversation. None of the work we do would be possible without them! Matters
related to housing and the land use code have become particularly challenging to discuss in our
community, so we would encourage the City and our community members to continue having
these thoughtful and honest conversations about best ways to move forward.
While this report noted several common themes across conversation topics for this particular
group of participants, we are hopeful that the City continues to work on engaging more
community members in conversation about the Land Use Code, focusing especially on the
groups of people who may have been less represented at this meeting. Getting our community
in conversation with one another is a vital piece of this ongoing work.
Student facilitators and note takers from the Center for Public Deliberation with
Meaghan Overton and Em Myler from the City of Fort Collins
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Appendix
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Missing Middle Activity Scenario
Our goal here is to work together to identify the types of neighborhoods throughout the city that
are best suited for additional housing (near transit, close to amenities, desirable for families,
etc.). The city is continuing to grow; in fact, it’s estimated that we will grow to a population of
approximately 240,000 by 2040. Having these problem-solving conversations now is helpful
because we can work together to envision a city that can accommodate this population growth
while retaining the characteristics we all love so much about living here. We can work together
to decide how much and what types of housing feels doable in certain neighborhoods and talk
through some of the benefits and concerns that come up.
Assumptions:
For the purposes of these exercises, we are operating under the following assumption:
1.The population of Fort Collins in 2040 is projected to be approximately 240,000 people.
2.We cannot grow outside of the growth management area.
Rules:
1.We must add a minimum of 30,000 new units. 10% of those must be affordable
housing.
2.You must work as a team to identify the areas throughout the city that are best suited to
add additional density.
3.Multifamily buildings and townhouses may be placed either in an undeveloped area or
on top of an already developed area, but they will replace whatever is currently there.
4.You may not place any housing on the CSU campus or natural areas.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
LEGO GUIDE
Residence LEGO Units Example
10% Affordable
Housing
Requirement
These can be placed on top of any new development your team
adds to mark a 10% affordable housing requirement
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
(ADU)=500
213 S. Sherwood Street
1.5 people total in building,
accessed from alley
Small
Multifamily
Buildings =1,000
223. W Mulberry Street
Approximately 10 people
total in 1 building/4 units
Townhouses =1,000
Bucking Horse Townhomes
Approximately 195 people
in 78 buildings/units; 2.5
people per building
Medium
Multifamily
Buildings =2,000
700 E. Myrtle Street
Approximately 25 people
in 1 building
Large
Multifamily
Buildings =2,000
Caribou Apartments
Approximately 500 people
total in 7 buildings; 50-100
people per building
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Lo
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 1
1
Katie Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 4:57 PM
To:Katie Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Land use code changes
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Administration Services Manager
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: Bob Hucker <bob.hucker@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 4:23 PM
To: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Land use code changes
To the Planning and Zoning Commission:
I own a house at 518 Bentley Place in Fort Collins.
I would like to add my voice to others opposing the rushed process to impose a new land use code on Fort Collins
residents, all in the name of some supposed housing crisis.
There is no crisis, although liberal activists throughout the United States claim that there is a shortage of "affordable"
housing. Their answer is to ruin good neighborhoods with auxiliary dwelling units and even RVs jammed into streets and
alleys designed for normal, single‐family homes. Many neighborhoods have homeowners associations whose job is to
maintain neighborhood quality and support property values; the liberal activists ‐‐ certain that they know better than
longtime residents of a city ‐‐ try to outdo each other with ideas that waste taxpayers' money and diminish the quality of
life for everyone.
Housing is affordable to people who think enough of themselves to acquire training in valuable skills and work toward
career goals. Housing will never be affordable to homeless people who will not work and spend what they have on
drugs. It also is not affordable to those who have many children without first acquiring job skills that allow them to
support their families. It also is not affordable to those who are unwilling to move to less expensive areas.
These self‐imposed problems are not a reason for the Fort Collins government to ruin good neighborhoods and diminish
the property values of responsible residents who have worked and saved and invested their life savings in nice homes.
The new land use code is only a start for the woke urban activists that are plaguing cities everywhere. If this code is
adopted, it is only a matter of time before the city establishes homeless encampments in city parks and natural areas.
The woke activists will insist that "compassion" requires turning over these public assets to people who refuse to work
or take any responsibility.
Please reject this assault on the hard‐working people that built Fort Collins into the city it is today.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 2
2
‐‐Bob Hucker
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 2
1
Katie Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 4:57 PM
To:Katie Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] 2023 LUC Revision Issues
Attachments:Planning and Zoning Department.pdf
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Administration Services Manager
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: Jeff <jeffemmel@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2023 LUC Revision Issues
Shar Manno,
I would like to submit to the P&Z Department the following concerns regarding the planned LUC changes. I would like for
them to be considered in the P&Z meeting on Sept 27th. I am sorry for the late delivery but I did not receive the updated
24 hour delivery requirement until this afternoon.
I know that the P&Z work is just a part of the bigger issue and some of my concerns need to be addressed at higher
levels.
Thank you for your work on our behalf in such an important issue.
Thank you,
Jeff Emmel
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Land Use Code Revision Issues
Planning and Zoning Department
City of Fort Collins
Jeff Emmel
1518 Peterson Str
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Hello,
I live in City of Fort Collins, 1518 Peterson St, Historic District. We have an investment property
in my prior neighborhood in the Landings Cove Island. I have listed my concerns and supporting
arguments on your proposed changes to the LUC.
Bottoms up approach at the P&Z level.
• This size ADU on this size lot, this tall…
• Equivalent to designing a living space based on the span of dimensional lumber
• Needs to be combined with a Tops down Approach that includes the
characteristics of the street. Not all high densities fit on any given street in the
city
• Ex: A townhouse community already medium density housing, w/30 ft frontage
lot, has no room for parking if any house adds an internal ADU w/now U+5
occupancy and limited required off street parking.
Limited approval process for neighborhood
• The immediate neighbors need to be aware/approve external and internal ADUs.
They will be directly affected by the change.
Parking is critical factor
• There are 918 registered vehicles for every 1000 man,women and child in CO.
• You may consider that every one that will fill a dwelling or ADU will add a vehicle.
• There are RP3 programs required to keep a community in Old Town from becoming
a parking nightmare. Prior to RP3 on Peterson Str we had to compete with every
CSU student for parking at our own home and the street was lined w/vehicles 24/7.
A mess.
• By adding an internal ADU it becomes U+5 in neighborhoods that have limited on
street parking.
Primary residence requirement is not enforceable
• The primary residence requirement of the current Short Term Rental program is
not being enforced. The requirement is not in the ord in such a way as being
enforceable.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 3
• STR owners are easily bypassing the Primary residence requirement w/substitute
drivers lic, elec bills, car registration…
• Ex: Spindrift Ct – 3 out of the 4 STR’s are secondary owners and live other places
like WY, IL, Loveland… Only 1 actually lives as primary resident in his STR.
• The City sponsored report on STRs, “Rental Market Study” Corona Insights, 2021
shows major increase in primary residence unit STR’s and away from single room
STR.
• The residents have discovered that they can easily bypass the primary requirement
and rent the whole house via STR instead of a single room where they have to be
there.
• Internal ADUs require primary residence but that will be easily worked around w/o
being enforceable
Attached/Internal ADUs can add additional U+2
• This could mean that a single-family house could now have U+5
• Parking, traffic and none neighborhood activity could easily overwhelm a family-
oriented neighborhood.
Highly targeted at Old Town and Historic Districts.
• OT and HD are the city pride and jewels. The residents have maintained their
properties under Historic Reviews, zoning requirements and with support of the
neighborhood character
• The encouragement of ADUs both internal and external throws all these efforts
and priorities under the bus and will possibly destroy the community spirit.
Very unclear the impact on UE zone
• The UE zone is the zone that has the most underutilized area in the city.
• Yet it is very unclear how this zone will be impacted if at all.
ITEM 1, CORRESPONDENCE 3