Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/27/2009 - OCCUPANCY ORDINANCE TWO-YEAR REVIEW AND POLICY DIS DATE: October 27, 2009 STAFF: Beth Sowder WORK SESSION ITEM Peter Barnes FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerWagendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Occupancy Ordinance Two-Year Review and Policy Discussion EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2005,City Council amended the Occupancy Ordinance which prohibits more than three unrelated persons from inhabiting a single dwelling unit. At that time, Council indicated that they wanted to review the ordinance after two years of enforcement. Since enforcement of the revised ordinance began in 2007, this two-year review includes 2007-2008. The August 25, 2009 Council work session reviewed the"Economic and Market Impact Study" conducted by Corona Research which concluded that violator households have decreased significantly, neighborhood conditions have improved, rental vacancies and prices have been impacted by factors other than the occupancy ordinance, and stakeholders have some concerns about enforcement. Council also provided staff with direction regarding additional information desired for the occupancy ordinance two-year review and policy discussion. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Staff seeks direction from Council in response to the following questions: 1. Are the Occupancy Ordinance and its enforcement meeting intended goals? 2. Does Council wish to continue the ordinance? 3. If so, are there any changes to the ordinance Council would like to consider? a. Does Council wish to amend the Occupancy Limit definition? b. Does Council wish to consider any zoning changes? BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins first adopted an occupancy ordinance in 1964. The occupancy limit was determined within the definition of family, and limited occupancy to no more than three unrelated people in any dwelling unit. Enforcement was difficult and the City heard increasing concerns about occupancy-related issues in neighborhoods. As a result,between 2003 and 2005,City Council took October 27, 2009 Page 2 an in-depth look at a variety of ordinances and process changes in an effort to improve neighborhood quality of life. Some of the Code changes and process improvements included: • Increased enforcement of the Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) • Improved enforcement of existing nuisance laws • Increased fines for noise/party violations • Party Patrol Project implemented • Amendments and revisions to existing codes:Unreasonable Noise,Animal Control,Weeds, Rubbish, Outdoor Storage, Public Nuisance, Parking on Unimproved Surfaces, Occupancy Ordinance • Adopted Nuisance Gathering Ordinance • Ongoing coordination with Colorado State University(CSU),especially with the Offices of Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services and Off-Campus Life • Community Noise Workshop (similar to CSU "Party Partners" class) • Community Liaison (position shared by CSU and the City) increased educational programming for students living and moving off campus • Landlord Training Education Series • Adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) • Adopted Dilapidated Fence and Dirt Yard Ordinances The Code changes and process improvements have given the City a variety of different tools to address neighborhood concerns. The Occupancy Ordinance was one of the items Council discussed and ultimately chose to revise. Council adopted revisions to the Occupancy Ordinance in 2005 and, following a public outreach and education campaign, those revisions became effective January 1, 2007. The primary changes to the ordinance included: 1. Occupancy Limit defined as: a. One family and not more than one additional person; or b. Two adults and their dependents (if any) and not more than one additional person. 2. Decriminalization—changed from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction. 3. Occupancy Limit Disclosure Statement requirement-to be provided by the landlord or seller to the tenants or buyers at time of lease-signing or sale. 4. Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (EORH), formerly known as Boarding Houses,allowed in zoning districts planned for high or medium density. To date, 33 single-family dwellings and five apartment buildings have converted to EORHs (see Attachment 1 for map). In 2005 and 2009, the City contracted with Corona Research to conduct a market analysis of the Occupancy Ordinance (see Attachments 2 and 3 for detailed findings). The 2005 study provided a baseline of data and projections about the impacts of enforcement. The 2009 study determined the actual impacts of enforcement of the revised ordinance to various stakeholders. The primary conclusions of the 2009 study included: October 27, 2009 Page 3 • Violator households have decreased 46% • Improvements in neighborhood conditions have coincided with a decrease in violator households • Rental vacancies and rental prices have been impacted but this is due to a variety of factors and it is difficult to determine the extent of the affects of the Occupancy Ordinance • Stakeholders have some concerns about enforcement In May 2009,City Council approved an amendment to the ordinance to improve effectiveness. That change eliminated the requirement that persons cited for violation of the occupancy ordinance must first receive a written notice of the violation. This has been especially helpful for repeat violations or when the evidence shows a clear disregard for the ordinance. In addition,administrative changes to the enforcement process were approved. Since this revision in May, there were three cases where staff was able to prove that the landlords knowingly over-occupied their properties. Each landlord was issued citations. The caseload increased significantly in September, and there are currently more than 30 open cases. August 25, 2009 Council Work Session During the August 25, 2009 Work Session, Council directed staff to provide the following information (see Attachment 4 for work session summary): • Map of the survey area conducted by Corona Research. Kevin Raines, Corona Research, confirmed that it is difficult to get an exact border for the survey area, but the data shows that it includes the entire City with the southern border more or less slightly north of Trilby Road. • Information from the Board of Realtors about how the Occupancy Ordinance impacts property values and whether they support the ordinance. The Fort Collins Board ofRealtors (FCBR) stated that it would be difficult to estimate the impact of only the occupancy ordinance on property values. The intrinsic value of a neighborhood is skewed by many other factors (economic, location, overall life cycle of the neighborhood, etc.) much more than the occupancy ordinance. The FCBR also provided a document stating that they have not and will not, during the current review process,advocate for a reduction in enforcement or repeal of the existing Occupancy Ordinance. (See Attachment 5) • Description of how enforcement is conducted in all scenarios since enforcement changes were implemented in May 2009. (See Attachment 6) • The number of people issued citations since enforcement changes in May 2009. Three citations have been issued since the Code revisions in May. • Homeowner Association(HOA)covenants restricting occupancy—what exists and what are the options for these neighborhoods? Neighborhood Services contacted over 50 HOA representatives who have attended HOA Training Sessions and only one response was October 27, 2009 Page 4 received. It stated that very few HOAs try to regulate occupancy and those that do are not successful. If covenants exist, the HOA board would have the duty to enforce it. If no HOA board exists, then individual neighbors would have to file a suit against each other seeking compliance with the covenant. The Mantz neighborhood covenants do not mention occupancy rules, but they do indicate that only single family residences could be built there. • Data regarding possible zoning options, including "Fraternity or Sorority Lodge" as an option. (See Attachment 7) • Data regarding student housing provided by CSU—past,present,and future. CSUprovided the following information: Year Total Student Population Beds Apartments 1963 8,460 2,996 217 1975 16,809 5,403 511 1985 18,084 5,403 711 *1989 *1,000 beds off campus 1995 21,914 4,991 909 2005 24,947 5,526 909 2009 25,413 5,757 909 * In 1989, CSU sold land to a private developer to build 1,000 beds — Ram's Village. This would not have happened without CSU involvement. Future projections were included in the CSU Stretch Goals but the economic situation has impacted these goals. Program Plans are currently occurring for additional on campus housing. After those are complete they will review enrollment numbers and projections, the economic situation of the State and CSU, and the bonding capacity of CSU before moving forward. • Data regarding "student housing" off-campus where possible. Any housing within the community would be considered available for "student housing. " There are some apartment complexes (e.g., Ram's Village, Ram's Point, Cambridge House, etc.) that are geared toward students due to their location and amenities, but any rental property could be a potential location for a student to live. • Citizen input from all perspectives. Citizen input varies significantly. See "Outreach and Feedback"section for more details. (See Attachments 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 for detailed information). • Look at occupancy limit definition to make sure it is all-inclusive. See "Occupancy Limit Definition" section for more information (page 5 of this Agenda Item Summary). • Options to increase enforcement and education. The Stakeholder Committee report includes agreement among Stakeholders to increase education, and the options matrix includes options that increase enforcement. Staff is committed to continue educational efforts to students and landlords and will increase efforts to educate neighborhood groups and long- term residents. October 27, 2009 Page 5 2007—2008 Review The Occupancy Ordinance violation data for 2007—2008 is as follows(see Attachment 9 for map): Occupancy Ordinance Violation Data 2007-2008 203 —Total number of occupancy complaints 88 —Total number of unfounded occupancy complaints (not enough evidence to prove a violation 115 —Total number of occupancy violation notices sent P. 95 —came into compliance once notified ► 20—citations issued The majority of property owners and tenants corrected the occupancy violation once they were notified by the City that a violation existed. Both"voluntary compliance" and the revisions made to the ordinance in May have played a role in lowering the number of violator households. In addition, there are an unknown number of people who comply with the ordinance just because it exists and is enforceable and this has likely lowered the number of violator households,as noted in the Corona Report. Further,the Corona Report concludes that this reduction in violator households has coincided with an increase in neighborhood quality. Staff also analyzed nuisance and noise violations that occurred at properties that had been notified of occupancy violations. Data showed that the number of properties that had multiple nuisance and noise violations decreased 24% in the 12-month period after occupancy ordinance enforcement occurred. Occupancy Limit Definition Options The current occupancy limit was not intended to allow a family to house two additional people. It was brought to the City's attention last year that this creates a hardship in certain situations (e.g., a family wishing to house two missionaries,foreign exchange students,etc.). The current definition states that the Occupancy Limit is: a. One family plus one additional person; or b. Two adults and their dependents, if any, plus one additional person. After close examination of the current definition,section(b)would actually allow a family to house two additional people. (One spouse could be one of the adults and the other would be one of the first spouse's dependents,plus they could have one more adult and their dependents,if any,plus one additional person). This interpretation of the definition is not consistent with the original intent of the ordinance,which was to allow both a family and a group that is the functional equivalent of a family to have only one additional adult. If Council wishes to amend the current Occupancy Limit definition to be consistent with the original intent but to also allow for a second adult in situations where the increased occupancy would not October 27, 2009 Page 6 likely cause neighborhood problems, staff recommends the following. (See Attachment 10 for detailed matrix). Step 1: Clarify Original Definition—This would change the definition to: a. One family plus one additional person; or b. Two adults, not falling into (a) above, and their dependents plus one additional person. This change would clarify the definition to meet Council's original intent and provide a clear definition;however,it would eliminate the opportunity for certain family situations to accommodate two additional adults. Step 2: Allow a permit to be issued for "host families" to temporarily house two additional persons as long as certain criteria were met. The criteria might include the following: 1. The residence is owner-occupied; and 2. The additional persons do not pay rent or provide services in exchange for housing. This change would allow the opportunity for certain family situations to accommodate two additional adults while maintaining the original intent in terms of traditional family arrangements. However, this option only extends that opportunity to situations meeting the criteria which could feel unfair to young, single renters. OTHER POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Zoning Options In response to stakeholder feedback and Council's request, staff explored potential zoning changes that would expand options for higher-occupancy housing. Those that may be worthy of further study include the following (see Attachment 7 for more detailed descriptions): • Option 1: Add Extra Occupancy Rental House (EORH) as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium-Density (NCM)zone. The NCM zone is the only zone which currently allows multi-family dwellings, but does not allow EORHs. Adding the use to this zone would not increase the density beyond what is already allowed and would be consistent with the other zoning districts that allow both multi-family and EORH. This would be consistent with one of the stated purposes of the occupancy ordinance, which is to preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods. Additionally, converting a house to an EORH would ensure that the house is inspected for compliance with the rental housing standards which would increase the supply of safe housing. Allowing EORHs in this zone would allow for an additional, affordable housing option close to campus which may also reduce vehicle trips and miles. However,some areas of the NCM zone have converted from rental homes to owner-occupied homes in the last 10 years resulting in a greater"single family neighborhood" character. This may cause some owner-occupants to feel that they would be adversely impacted by allowing EORHs in these areas. It is also easier and less expensive to convert a home to an EORH than to a duplex or 1 October 27, 2009 Page 7 other multi-family use. The addition of duplexes or multi-family units could increase the number of people more rapidly and adversely impact neighbors. • Option 2: Amend the Residential Low-Density (RL), Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density (NCL), and NCM zones to allow EORHs as a permitted use only in specifically defined geographical areas, and limit the number of EORHs allowed in those defined areas to no more than 25% per block. This concept would allow a use in a zone while limiting where in the zone such a use is permitted, which is a tool currently used in the Land Use Code. Limiting the number of EORHs allowed within the specifically defined area to no more than 25%per block(in the same manner as is currently the case for the LMN, Low-density Mixed-use Neighborhood, zone) will allow the use, but in a way which would limit the degree that the use might detract from the single-family character of some affected neighborhoods. Adding the use, even on a limited basis, may allow for additional affordable housing options close to campus and may reduce vehicle miles and trips. However,this type of zoning change would require an amendment to some neighborhood plans especially since RL and NCL zones were planned to be single-family, low-density neighborhoods. In addition, neighborhoods chosen to allow for this use could feel disregarded and not protected by the City in accordance with zoning plans already in place, and owner-occupants could be adversely impacted by having higher occupancy homes near them. • Option 3: Add a definition for"Fraternity/Sorority Lodge"in the Land Use Code and add Fraternity/Sorority Lodge as a permitted use in certain zones. Staff has received a specific request to allow such a use on a lot in the NCL zone. Since the NCL zone is the most restrictive zone, adding the use to the zone would probably mean having to add it to all the other zones since they are currently less restrictive. A possible definition would be: "Fraternity/Sorority Lodge shall mean a dwelling the residents of which number no more than six (6) and are all members of the same fraternity or sorority, and which fraternity or sorority is formally affiliated with Colorado State University. Such lodge also may serve as a place of assembly where all members of the fraternity or sorority, whether they reside in the dwelling or not, may conduct meetings, study together, and assemble for meals and social gatherings." This option would allow an alternative housing type and would increase the diversity of residential neighborhoods. However,this use is essentially the same as an EORH and a place of assembly,uses that are allowed in many zones already. The higher density zones which already allow similar uses would be more suitable for the "lodge" concept. The probable number of such lodges is very limited, and the need to expand the number of zones where this use should be allowed is minimal. Adding this use to low density zones would negatively impact the single-family character of the neighborhoods. Additionally, the assembly aspect of this use would be a greater negative impact on neighboring properties than an EORH due to parking,noise and other similar adverse conditions. October 27, 2009 Page 8 • Option 4: Do not change existing zoning regulations. Zoning and neighborhood plans are adopted through lengthy and public processes. The EORH use is already allowed in many zones where the character of the neighborhood expects higher density and multi family units. The current zoning regulations assist with keeping affordable housing available in moderate single-family neighborhoods. However, keeping the zoning regulations the same would not address the benefit of allowing the EORH use in the NCM zone, and it does not expand affordable housing options for non single-family renters near campus. OUTREACH CONDUCTED AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED Stakeholder Committee The Occupancy Ordinance Stakeholder Committee included stakeholders from three main groups: CSU students and renters, neighborhood representatives, and "industry" representatives (property managers, Board of Realtors, landlords, etc.). This group began meeting in March/April and met numerous times in an effort to gain understanding about the various perspectives of stakeholders. They have provided a memo which reflects the factors of general agreement, an options matrix that reflects where the group had different opinions and included pros and cons of the options, and individual proposals,ideas and solicited feedback from members(see Attachment 11 for full report). The stakeholders found common ground in three areas: 1. Educational efforts towards students and landlords should continue and similar efforts geared toward neighbors should be implemented. 2. Enforcement of all existing codes impacting neighborhoods is critical. 3. Do not repeal the ordinance. The group discussed and provided differing opinions about several options including: • No change to the Ordinance • Allowing the number of people to equal the number of legal bedrooms • Allowing an exemption for two couples living together • Rezoning or adding additional uses in certain zones • Rental Registration in RL zones or in all zones • Rental Licensing in RL zones or in all zones • Short-term waiver for hardship cases Occupancy Complainant Survey Staff conducted an additional, concentrated survey of 60 occupancy violation complainants in an effort to understand how enforcement directly impacted them and the degree to which it has been effective. (See Attachment 12 for full survey results). October 27 , 2009 Page 9 CSU Forum and Round Table Discussion An open forum was held on April 16, 2009 at CSU to provide an opportunity for students to discuss the Occupancy Ordinance with City staff. An additional round table discussion occurred on September 28 , 2009 . (See Attachment 13 for detailed notes) Your Voice web feedback tool Citizens were encouraged to provide feedback on the Your Voice web tool from August 26 - October 1 , 2009 . (See Attachment 14 for all responses) The total number of surveys submitted was 283 . Results from the questions asked include : Question 1 : Have you been directly impacted by the Occupancy Ordinance? Impact 14% 45% ■ Yes , Pbsitive ■ Yes , Negative %I(IoH) [] No Question 2 : Do you think the Occupancy Ordinance is effective in improving quality of life issues (e. g. , neighborhood disturbances, parking issues, upkeep and appearance of residential properties, etc .)? Effective 49% 51 /o° ■ Yes ■ No October 27, 2009 Page 10 Public Open House A public open house was held on September 30, 2009. Participants were encouraged to provide feedback regarding how the Occupancy Ordinance has impacted them and provide input about possible options. Key comments included keeping the ordinance as it is, changing it to make it stronger and more enforceable, focusing more on education and compromise, adding rental licensing, and focusing on respect and consideration. (See Attachment 15 for input/comments received) Affordable Housing Board Staff met with the Affordable Housing Board on September 3,2009,to provide an update regarding the Corona Report'and the August 25, 2009 Council Work Session. The Board expressed concern about the potential impact of the Occupancy Ordinance on affordable housing. CONCLUSION All of the information gathered provides the City with a valuable mix of quantitative and qualitative information regarding the Occupancy Ordinance and its enforcement. The Economic and Market Impact Study concluded that since the change in the occupancy ordinance in 2005, there has been a significant decrease in violator households and most of the decline has been due to voluntary compliance. Improvements in neighborhood quality and a decrease in violator households have coincided. The occupancy violation data and comparison with nuisance violations are intended to help Council determine whether the ordinance is achieving the desired results. The occupancy violation data indicates that the majority of violator households comply with the ordinance once they are notified by the City about the violation. Data also shows that multiple nuisance and noise violations decreased in over-occupied households after occupancy enforcement occurred. The outreach and feedback received from various stakeholders and citizens provides real input about how the Occupancy Ordinance has impacted them. It is clear that opinions and perspectives regarding the Occupancy Ordinance are strong and personal because it impacts the heart of our neighborhoods, people's homes, their quality of life and their rights. Feedback has varied from extreme displeasure to full support of the ordinance. Staff looks forward to the work session discussion with and direction from City Council regarding the Occupancy Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Extra Occupancy Rental House (EORH) map 2. 2005 Occupancy Ordinance Economic and Market Impact Study Executive Summary 3. 2009 Occupancy Ordinance Economic and Market Impact Study Executive Summary 4. August 25, 2009 Council Work Session Summary 5. Fort Collins Board of Realtors' Statement 6. Occupancy Enforcement Process Description October 27, 2009 Page 11 7. Zoning Options Descriptions 8. General Citizen Feedback 9. Map of Occupancy Complaints 2007-2008 10. Occupancy Limit Definition Matrix 11. Stakeholder Committee Report 12. Occupancy Complainant Survey Results 13. CSU Forum and Round Table Discussion notes 14. Your Voice Web Feedback Tool Results 15. Public Open House notes 16. PowerPoint presentation Attachment 1 Neighborhood & Building Services Approved Extra Occupancy Rental Houses COUNTRY CLUB RD c ❑ X rn ' I J m c9 z O 4ILL Lam_ J C9 ''• �ZN J I w I W Q I j r LL r • i w I H ; J z t I r* � k. p j 1 •✓ p VJE DR' t� -I ~•� %tz z j j E VINE DI,Z rJ , _ J _J Ill I_� �' y'1 \ la `. ej jINCOLN AVE LAPORTE ' ' a \ — — MOUNTAIN AVE \ .\ W Mf hERRY ST _7 'F E MULBERRY ST W LAUREL ST I I W PROSPECT OSPECT RD * ♦t E PROSPEC I_ J ❑ >lif f ❑ w w J_ z Q J _y LL 2' W Q w m r _I to In 9 I U) �I , W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD r t o w Ilk W J = J (A O rn N W HORSETOOTH RD E HORSETOOTH RD I I -I , — — j N ti ,1COUNTY ROAD 38E W HA j 00 yQ w 10. 0 — Q O c9 Z 9 w I I -< rn �'f N , � O Approved Extra Occupancy Rental Houses t Rentals noes Apartments 0 0. 15 0.3 04 0.9 1.2 Arse naPc�dsaw W ,asOelMrp 6a4 ara OrNopCl¢ uv n. CryolFM CdaOb bu.emY City of q purposlaony. ant .e.am,4sgsMaawnaObgrualwgmemears II Fort Collins cane W Mc. 1De Cry maaaa ro rapasMaton w .arOry as b ea a¢vary. finelms. a [OmyHaneia. an0 n grla,W. ,6 a¢vaoYin hDeiq a 4'sOlsYn] Omentiws. cMous. / t� Ma OFaa EFORYcem.nidb"FeOE. EA ESSCORW THE CITY RESKCCOU ESE %E51q WARRAIRY OF 4ERC1WfTA8DAT ORWMRAI(TY FOR FIPIE650F USE FOR PARTICIAAA PIgPOSE. EJtPRESSEOOR MPUEO. W1i11 RESPECT TO THESE 4AP PROdICT50R 1HE UIOERlYI1G DATA Myuiws dfrse maP N I f � GIS uoEu�. maP apFar Dross. or 6Ya. awpG same A515, VIrTH ALL FAUL15, afd assvrea a1 respawDlry d M vfa tMnd. ant Mf,er arwr6lnG aplen 10 Mtl Vr Cay Faim4aa Dem artl >pamt,al mmr e. bfa. a b0it/ lle.np Isom airy iaa d Vn maD PDT. n rewOerlDon d Its Ua'f Mrrq mats tn .brmafon avalaW IrgepenOpa MfhafOn d al hta ttvaanlE Dents lau,Mbdrnnee DYaq �aafs Dlarsa peSfrb, rrvWry.q QaY TM Cay Qntlains. artl arvD no,De MtlfaDY br arry attl YUamayl. bss. am4h �neDrf Srect 5 Printed: October 13 , 2009 Attachment 2 I 2005 ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY .:i .- . ..:f. *. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF "-THREE :UNRELATED PERSONS" O;RDINANCE .EN,FORCEMENT.-IN .THE CITY 'OF FORT=GOI;I,.ZNS Submitted by: Corona Research;16c. 1630 Weltoti Street,Siute 525 . Di_-i er,C010202. Phone: 03-891 8246 Fax: 303-0 5... E-mail: Kevin(@ 8ronaiesearch.com .Web Site: mryAmoronaresearch.com. Economic and Market Study IMPACT ANALYSIS OF " THREE UNRELATED PERSONS " ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT IN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS 09 INTRODUCTION In January of 2005, Corona Research was retained by the City of Fort Collins to examine the impacts of a strong enforcement of the City's "Three Unrelated Persons" ordinance. This ordinance states that no more than three unrelated adults may share one housing unit. The ordinance is currently in place, but has historically been enforced at a very low level, if at all. As a result, a large number of households are currently in violation. This executive summary offers an overview of the key findings and conclusions of the study. The full report provides much more information and detail to support these findings and conclusions. THE ORDINANCE The following language was provided for this report by the City of Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code stipulates that any dwelling unit, renter- and owner- occupied alike, cannot be occupied by more than one family. There are three distinct types of "families" that are defined in the Code that are legally permitted to live in one dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. These are: Any number of persons related biologically or through marriage, adoption, guardianship, legal custody, etc. Any unrelated group of not more than two adults and their (biological or otherwise related as noted above) children. Any unrelated group of not more than three persons. This means that in most cases, if more than three persons occupy a rental dwelling unit, they MUST ALL be related to each other. Conversely, if they were not all related to each other, then such occupancy would be considered to be a zoning violation. The exception to this rule applies ONLY to owner-occupied dwelling units. City Code allows an owner-occupant who is a member of either of the three types of "legal families" defined above to rent rooms to two additional people, provided the owner obtains a Fort Collins "Home Occupation License" from the City Building & Zoning Department. Such licenses cost $ 10 and are valid for two years. Additionally, to qualify for the license, one off-street parking space must be provided for each additional person and any bedroom for that use must have an approved emergency escape window. As a nomenclature note, households currently in violation of the ordinance are referred to as "violator households" in this executive summary and in the full report. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 1 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . PART 1 , DEFINING THE SITUATION As an initial step, the research team developed estimates of the number of households currently in violation of the "Three Unrelated People" ordinance. The research team also documented the relationship between the presence of violating households and other neighborhood nuisances . THE NUMBER OF VIOLATING HOUSEHOLDS There are an estimated 1,070 violator households in Fort Collins. Overall, 5,003 renters will be affected by the enforcement of the ordinance, either by moving or by downsizing their household. As an initial step in examining the impacts of the ordinance, it is first necessary to know the number of households that are currently in violation of the ordinance. The research team used three methods to estimate this figure: an analysis of individual Year 2000 Census records (updated to 2004) ; an analysis of summary Census data from the Year 2000 (updated to 2004); and analysis of a public telephone survey conducted for this project. The three methods of estimation produced somewhat similar estimates, ranging from 905 households to 1 ,266 households. Because none of the estimates is judged to be a flawless estimator, none takes precedence over the others. As a figure for continuing the impact analysis, the research team chose to average these three estimates, yielding a final estimate of 1 ,070 violator households . At an average of 4.46 people per household, the 1 ,070 violator households contain approximately 4,773 people. Additionally, another estimated 168 owner-occupied units would need to shed a total of 230 renters to satisfy the ordinance. When this figure is added to the figure for renters currently living in rental violator households, the total impact of the ordinance will be changes in households among an estimated 5,003 renters. IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOODS Residents living in close proximity to violator households are significantly more likely to identify problems with their neighbors in numerous areas, such as disruptive parties, noise , parking issues and other neighbor-to-neighbor problems. Residents living in close proximity to violator households are also more likely to have negative perceptions of their neighborhood on specific issues . During the public survey, households were asked whether any of the four houses nearest to their own home contain more than three unrelated people. They were also asked independently whether any of the four nearby houses experience other types of neighborhood problems. While the findings do not necessarily prove causation or link negative behaviors directly to violator households, there is a strong correlation between residents' proximity to violator households and their reporting of problems such as disruptive parties, loud noise, inappropriate parking of vehicles, unkempt lawns, trash or junk in yards, poorly maintained houses, and criminal activity. Actual figures from the survey are reported in the full report. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 2 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . SUPPORT FOR ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT A majority of public survey respondents would support stronger enforcement of the ordinance. More than half of respondents (56 percent) would support stronger enforcement of an existing city ordinance that limits the number of unrelated adults who can share a house to three people. The figure rises to 69 percent among households that have two or more violator households among the four houses nearest to them. It should be noted that this is an un-weighted survey of residents and does not differentiate between registered voters and non-voters. PART 2 A PROFILE OF VIOLAT R POPULATION The following are selected key attributes of the violator population, both in terms of households and the people who live in those households. Additional information is provided in the full report. 1. Approximately two-thirds of violator households occupy single-family homes. One striking difference between violator households and other rental households is their choice of housing units. Single-family homes are the housing of choice for two-thirds of violator households, compared to only 22 percent of non-violator households. 2. Most violator households (64 percent) are only slightly over the three-person ordinance limit, with four people sharing a housing unit. Only nine percent of violator households have six or more people, and another 27 percent have five people. 3. The majority of violators (86 percent) live in three-bedroom units or larger. Violator households make up 29 percent of the market for four-bedroom units, and 51 percent of the market for five-bedroom units. They make up 4 percent of the market for three-bedroom units, and less than one percent of the market for smaller units. 4. The average household incomes of violator household are generally higher than those of other renters, despite the fact that individual tenants' incomes are lower and individual tenants in violator households are more likely to be below the poverty line. Violator households tend to have higher incomes than other rental households, in large part because they have more people generating income. A total of 62 percent have household incomes above $34,000, in comparison to only 40 percent of other rental households. However, taken individually, 52 percent of the people living in these households would be below the poverty line. 5. Household rent levels tend to be high among violator households. When examining rent levels, violator households tend to pay higher rent levels. Nearly half (49 percent) of violator households pay rents of $ 1 ,102 per month or more, compared to only 10 percent of non-violator rental households. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 3 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . Interestingly, a significant subset of violator households pay low rent levels as well. Violator households are more likely than other households to pay rents of less than $550, and also far more likely to pay rents of more than $ 1 ,102. 6. The rent per person in violator households is nearly 50 percent less than that paid by other renters, on a per-adult basis . While violator households may pay more total rent, they have more adults who are contributing to that rental payment. While nearly half of other renters have payment obligations of $400 per month or more (in the Year 2000) , nearly half of violator households paid less than S200 per month. On the whole, the median rent obligation of a tenant in a violator household is almost exactly half that of a person living in a non-violator household. 7. Overall, 71 percent of violator household tenants are college students. Among tenants in violator households, 63 percent are undergraduate students, 8 percent are graduate students, and 29 percent are non-students. 8. Seventy percent of the tenants in violator households are males and 82 percent of the tenants are under the age of 25. Regardless of their student status, tenants in violator households are young. Only five percent of these tenants are over the age of 27, and 82 percent are between the ages of 19 and 24, inclusive. Tenants in violating households are also disproportionately male, with more than twice as many males as females in this population. This skewing is not true for other renters, who are evenly divided between males and females. PART 3 . IMMEDIATE IMPACTS OF ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT Corona developed an extensive impact analysis to identify the impacts of ordinance enforcement, including impacts on rental vacancy rates, rental prices, and home values. The analysis was conducted via seven distinct steps. 1 . Corona developed a profile of the rental market, as it existed during the 2000 Census. 2. Corona developed an updated estimate of the rental market, as it exists today, using a variety of sources and techniques. 3. Corona used the profiles of violator households to identify the market presence of violator households within the rental market. 4. Corona developed estimates for how violator households will reform if broken up by the ordinance, and what the housing preferences will be for the newly formed (and smaller) households that will result. 5. Corona altered the existing profile of the rental market to reflect the loss of violator households and the addition of newly formed non-violator households. 6. Corona assessed the rental market's reaction to these shifts in demand. 7. Corona examined the impacts of these shifts on rental vacancy rates, pricing, and property values. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 4 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . A SUMMARY OF RENTAL MARKET IMPACTS After taking into account the number of violator households, their demographics, the supply of rental housing, and the rental preferences of households at various income levels, the research team determined that a strong enforcement of the "three unrelated people" ordinance will have the following impact on the rental market. A total of 1 ,070 rental units are in violation of the ordinance and would be forced to downsize or dissolve. These households contain a total of 4,773 renters. In addition, another 230 tenants would be forced to vacate owner-occupied housing so that those homes would satisfy the ordinance. A total of 5,003 renters would need to change their living arrangements. These 5,003 renters would reform into 1 , 2, or 3-person households. The research team estimates that the ratio will be as follows : 260 of these people will form new one-person households, for a total of 260 new one-person households. 2,518 of these people will form new two-person households, for a total of 1 ,259 new two-person households 2,225 of these people will form new three-person households, for a total of 742 new households. In essence, 1 ,070 large households will disappear from the Fort Collins housing market, and 2,261 new smaller households will appear, for a net gain of 1 , 191 households (with no change in total population) . ■ When examined by income, strong ordinance enforcement will result in the net loss of nearly 250 households with incomes over approximately $60,000 per year, and the net creation of approximately 190 new households with incomes from $30,000 to $60,000 per year. The number of households with incomes below $30,000 will increase by over 1 ,250. As a means of comparison, the total city's number of households with incomes below approximately $22,000 per year will increase by approximately 10 percent. The city's total number of households with incomes between $22,00 and $33,000 will increase by approximately 5 percent. The change in the number of households with incomes over $33,000 will decrease by approximately 1 percent. However, the change on the rental market will be much larger. ■ When translated to rental demand, these changes in households will produce a significant increase in demand for units in the $550 to $775 price range, and a decrease in demand among units priced above $1 ,100. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 5 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . Exhibit ES-1 Change in Rental Demand by Price Level Rental Unit Lost Rental Unit Demand of New Demand of Violator Net Change in Rental Price Households Households Demand Under $222 68 0 68 $222 to $332 103 101 2 $333 to $387 115 54 61 $388 to $442 130 136 -6 $443 to $498 117 0 117 $499to $553 120 16 104 $554 to $609 252 31 221 $610 to $664 187 0 187 $665to $720 270 19 251 $721 to $775 202 35 167 $776to $831 165 23 142 $832 to $886 103 74 29 $887to $997 135 25 110 $998 to $1 , 108 105 35 70 $1 , 109 to $ 1 ,385 124 299 -175 $1 ,386 to $ 1 ,662 19 140 -121 $1 ,663 to $2,217 36 82 -46 $2,218 and Up 10 0 10 21261 1 ,070 1 , 191 When these changes in rental demand are entered into the current Fort Collins rental market, the impacts will be quite significant. The overall rental vacancy rate will drop by five percentage points, and the initial impact will produce negative vacancy rates in several market segments, which of course are not possible. The various market scenarios to deal with this situation are discussed later in the analysis of affected parties. Exhibit ES-2 Impact of Ordinance on Rental Market Baseline Scenario Scenario with Ordinance 2004 Baseline Change in Change in 2004 Occupied 2004 Renter- 2004 Occupied Demand Demand Units with Preferred Vacancy Rental Rate Vacancy Rates Supply Units (Units) (Percent) Ordinance Rate with Ordinance Under $222 11 .0% 636 566 68 12% 634 0.3% $222 to $332 10.2% 794 713 2 0% 715 9.9% $333 to $387 6.9% 11061 988 61 6% 11049 1 . 1 % $388 to $442 6.4% 814 762 -6 -1 % 756 7. 1 % $443 to $498 9.6% 959 867 117 13% 984 -2.6% $499 to $553 4.3% 11270 13216 104 9% 11320 -3.9% $554 to $609 4.5% 11840 1 ,756 221 13% 11977 -7.4% $610 to $664 9.2% 11943 13764 187 11 % 11951 -0.4% $665 to $720 10.3% 21499 2,242 251 11 % 21493 0.2% $721 to $775 4.8% 21630 23504 167 7% 21671 -1 .6% $776 to $831 5.3% 1 ,452 15375 142 10% 1 ,517 4.5% $832 to $886 12.0% 17244 13095 29 3% 13124 9.6% $887 to $997 17.3% 1 ,613 15333 110 8% 1 ,443 10.5% $998 to $1 , 108 13.4% 17456 1 ,261 70 6% 13331 8.6% $1 , 109 to $1 ,385 11 .7% 11966 13735 -175 -10% 13560 20.7% $1 ,386 to $1 ,662 7.0% 377 351 -121 -34% 230 39.0% $1 ,663 to $2,217 7.6% 401 370 -36 -10% 334 16.7% $2,218 and Up 0.0% 66 66 0 0% 66 0.0% Total Rental Market 8.9% 23,021 20,964 11191 5.7% 22,155 3.8% ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 6 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . IMPACTS ON AFFECTED POPULATIONS The impacts of this market shift will now be discussed for each of nine affected parties. KEY MARKET 1 : RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE LOW-RANGE MARKET (UNDER $440) Default Market Size: 3,300 housing units, 3, 1 SO rental bousebolds (before market sbiing) Landlords in the low-rent market will gain immensely in the short-term from ordinance enforcement. On the other hand, renters in this price range will suffer from extreme competition for housing and higher prices even to stay in their current units. These units typically have a high vacancy rate as they are generally less desirable units, and most rental households can afford to pay a higher price for a nicer or larger unit. In a post-ordinance environment, three strong factors will change this market: First, the large increase in demand will create a net increase in demand at this price level, reducing natural vacancy rates for the group from over 8 percent to the 4 to 5 percent range even before a secondary market reaction (below) . ■ Second, the price levels above this market range will face huge supply shortages. As a result, the best units in this price range will be able to increase into the price range above $440, with a subsequent shift upward in price through the entire supply of low-market rentals. The research team predicts that approximately 15 percent of this low-cost housing supply will move up to the medium-range market and the supply will be lost to low-range renters, and pricing levels for these units will increase by a minimum of 5 to 20 percent. Third, the pricing movement of housing supply out of this market will cause even greater shortages at the lowest end of the low-range market. This change in supply will essentially lower the vacancy rate to zero, with more demand than supply. It is likely that approximately 150 to 250 households at this extreme low end of the market will be unable to compete for housing, requiring either public assistance or creating a market for "non-standard" housing or illegal overcrowding. Another option, albeit unlikely for this income group, is that the lowest-income households will simply leave the city. In the long run, increased construction in the mid-range market will almost certainly push back the units that priced themselves out of this market. However, with the increased demand and the likelihood that few new units will be built in this price range, the long-term return of these units will merely return vacancy rates to a healthy level in the 4 to 5 percent range. This segment will most likely not be directly served by new market-level construction, but will benefit only indirectly by increases in supply in the mid-market range. KEY MARKET 2: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE MID-RANGE MARKET ($440 TO $830) Default Market Size: 12,600 housing units, 12,900 rental households (before market shifting) ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 7 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . Landlords in the mid-range rental market will gain somewhat in the short-term from ordinance enforcement, though to a lesser extent than landlords of low-rent properties . Once again, the situation will be detrimental to renters, due to extreme competition for housing. However, pricing for these units may not increase dramatically due to downward price pressure from upper-end rentals. In this price range, pre-ordinance vacancy levels were somewhat high in some price segments and were moderately healthy in others. However, the addition of over 1 ,100 new households into this market range alone will completely swamp the housing supply, with demand for units outstripping supply throughout the range. Aside from competing fiercely to find units, renters in this price range will have four options: Pay more money to rent larger units, an option that is only available to those at the top end of this price range. This will happen to some extent, since the vacancy rate for units in the $830 to $1 ,100 range will be higher than a healthy rate. However, vacancy rates at those levels are not high enough to provoke a full-scale downsizing, so price cutting of upper-middle units into the mid-range market will be limited. Similarly, relatively few renters will venture out of the competitive mid-range market into the somewhat stagnant upper-middle market. Another option is to move down and rent cheaper units that are less desirable, and which typically have high vacancy rates for that reason. However, the competition for those units will be even more fierce, and a significant part of that supply will have already risen to mid- range prices. As a result, this will not happen. Move out of the area, either permanently or on a commuting basis. This may actually be an attractive option for some of these households, particularly if there is an oversupply of mid- range rentals in other nearby communities. Depending on other factors such as the availability of rental housing in the unincorporated county and/or nearby communities, one to two percent of the market could relocate out of the city, equating to 100 to 300 mid-range renters. We caution that this is merely a rough estimate. ■ One- and two-person households can double up and obtain roommates, while staying under the limit set by the ordinance. This is a probable scenario as well, and has the potential to create overcrowding to some extent in one- and two-bedroom rental units where two or three renters share a unit. On the positive side, price pressure from upper mid-range units may dampen the price increases that will be prevalent in the low-range market. Units in the $800 range cannot significandy increase prices without running into competition from the upper mid-range market, which will still have a relatively high vacancy rate. Therefore, landlords will benefit from extremely low vacancy rates (on the order of 0 to 1 percent), but will not be able to use that to price units up significantly. Even so, some price increases are likely, perhaps in the five to ten percent range, as the entire market shifts upward in response to competition. In the long term, the housing construction market will almost certainly correct for this intense shortage of housing by increasing new construction. In the short term, some additional low-end owner-occupied units could be converted to rentals as well. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 8 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . KEY MARKET 3: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE UPPER MIDDLE MARKET ($830 TO $ 1 , 100) Default Market Side: 4,300 housing units, 3,900 rental households (before market shifting) Landlords and tenants in this price range will exist somewhat on the tipping point of the market, between the high vacancies and lost demand at the upper end of the market and the saturated market and increased demand in the mid-range market. As a result, the impact on this market segment will be relatively small. Vacancy rates at this price range are currently high, estimated in the 14 to 15 percent range. With the breakup of larger households formerly renting upper-end housing, this market segment will benefit as some of those households downsize and move down into the upper middle market. Even so, most of the demand will bypass them and move further down the price scale, so rental rates will remain somewhat high, in the 8 to 10 percent range. This market will be impacted by two key factors that cannot be predicted with great confidence: 1 . Landlords' willingness to discount pricing at the lower end of the scale will be an important factor. A move down into the $800 price range will produce large demand and low vacancies. However, history shows that landlords in this price range are hesitant to discount prices, while renters in the $800 range are hesitant to move up. The research team predicts some crossover, but history indicates that landlords in this price range are willing to tolerate vacancies in the ten percent range in exchange for keeping their rental rates high. 2. A threat to this market exists from above. Upper-end rentals will be facing extraordinarily high vacancy rates, and landlords will be facing decisions about whether to sell their units, wait until demand increases again, or lower their prices. If they lower their prices, they then transfer that market stress to the upper middle market. However, the upper middle market is approximately 50 percent larger than the upper end market (4,300 units versus 2,800 units) , and the upper end landlords may have little interest in dropping their prices to compete in a market that already has high vacancy rates. 3. A third potential factor is that the research team assumed that roughly 5 percent of the tenants in the dissolved households will reform as one-person households, 50 percent as two-person households, and 45 percent as three-person households, based on existing patterns among other renters (with adjustments to denote this population's propensity for having roommates) . It is possible that some of those one- and two-person households will merge to escape the competition at the mid-market and low-rent levels, and will, in combination, have enough household income to afford upper middle range housing. This would be a positive in many respects, as it would ease the demand pressures at the lower and middle price levels . However, it may lead to overcrowding to some degree as three renters move into two-bedroom units. Overall, this market will probably not be impacted significantly by the ordinance. Demand will increase, which will aid landlords, but vacancy rates will remain high enough that renters who can afford this price range will have an ample opportunity to rent at stable prices. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 9 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . KEY MARKET 4: RENTERS AND LANDLORDS IN THE UPPER-END MARKET ($ 1 ,100 AND UP) Default Market Si.Ze: 2,800 housing units, 2,200 rental households (before market shiing) This market will essentially see exactly the opposite effect of the low-end market. The breakup of violator households will disproportionately impact the upper end rental market, and most of the reformed smaller households will not be able to afford these larger, more expensive properties . Enforcement of the ordinance would be expected to more than double vacancy rates in this market segment, from a current level in the 10 percent range to an expected 22 percent level. Housing in the $ 1 ,400 to $ 1 ,700 range would be particularly hard-hit, with vacancies approaching 40 percent. Landlords in this market segment will have three primary choices: 1 . Thy can hold on to their properties and attempt to "Wait out" the housing glut created by the ordinance enforcement. In order to consider this option, it is important to estimate how long it will take for the vacancy rate in that sector to fall back to a reasonable level. For this analysis, a reasonable level is assumed to be 10 percent. Assuming constant growth in the city that is proportionate by owner/renter households and price demand, and assuming that the number of rental units in the higher end of the market remains the same (i.e., no new construction or conversion takes place) , it will take approximately 7.4 years to reach a 10 percent vacancy rate. 2. They can loaner their rental price. This may not be an option to some landlords who have to cover mortgage costs. However, for others who have held their properties for some time, it may be feasible. In considering the mechanics of price dynamics at this end of the market, one can consider the various property levels and their "natural' vacancy rate if the ordinance is passed. For landlords at the low end of the upper end market, there is significant potential for lowering their rental prices, because that would move them into the $998 to $ 1 ,108 category, which has an acceptable (if slightly high) vacancy rate. Since their unit was previously priced higher, it is presumably a larger or higher quality unit and could compete well in that range. On median, though, this would represent a 16 percent price discount. At higher rent levels, the same mechanism holds true: a discounted unit of higher quality should be more desirable than a non-discounted unit of lower quality. However, the dynamics are made difficult by the high vacancy rates at higher levels . For example, discounting a $ 1 ,900 per month rental down to $ 1 ,525 will certainly make it desirable, but at the same time it is difficult even to lease desirable units in an atmosphere with a 39 percent vacancy rate. In summary, lowering prices is an option, particularly to landlords on the lower end of the market, but it may not be feasible from a business perspective. 3. Thy can sell theirpmpery. Obviously, this is not a preferred approach for a person who has invested in a rental property, but it remains a feasible option. As a rental property, these large units will lose value as a result of the ordinance, because their market size will drop significantly. Decreases of 15 to 25 percent may be necessary to lease an upper-end unit, with a proportional decrease in property value. However, this does not reflect the true picture. Most rental units at this price range are single-family homes, and were originally built to be owner-occupied units. In most cases, a ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 10 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . conversion back from rental to single-family home would be painless, and the ownership market is much larger than the rental market for houses in this value range. Additionally, the impacts of ordinance enforcement on the owner-occupied housing market will be negligible, so it is likely that the home could be sold for its pre-ordinance value as an owner-occupied home. (Of course, this depends on some property-specific attributes such as location, condition, and home layout.) Another bonus for sellers would be the potential impact of the sale of multiple single-family rentals in a neighborhood. According to the research team's analysis (described later in this section), it appears that a neighborhood's median home value declines by $391 for every percent of the single-family home inventory that is a rental property. In other words, a house in a neighborhood where all single-family homes are rentals can be estimated to be valued at $39, 100 less than a house in a neighborhood where no single-family homes are rentals. ' If multiple landlords opt to sell their properties, those who sell later may reap the benefits of the neighborhood's return to single-family occupant status. The above impacts all relate to landlords . As a closing note, it should be observed that renters in this price category would benefit from ordinance enforcement, as they will have many more homes to choose from, and potentially lower pricing. KEY MARKET 5: DISPLACED TENANTS FROM VIOLATOR HOUSEHOLDS MarketSiZe: 5, 003 individuals This market consists of the 5,003 individuals who will have to change their housing situations as a result of the ordinance. While they are included in the rental markets that have already been discussed in Key Markets 1 through 4, they warrant additional analysis because of their nature as the focal point of the ordinance. From a game theory perspective, these individuals are by definition losers in the ordinance enforcement, because they will be banned from pursuing a housing arrangement that they have already decided to be in their best interest. They have already decided that living in a household with three or more other people is their best housing option, and will be forced to abandon that option if the ordinance is enforced. Not only is this true in theory, but it is also true in practice. The tenants in violator households currently average approximately $211 per person in rental costs. In their new living situations after ordinance enforcement, it is estimates that their rental costs will increase by over $ 100 per month as they relocate to smaller households. These figures do not include any "new market" rent changes as described in Key Markets 1 through 4, which could further increase rents and will affect low-income individuals more than high-income individuals. Keeping in mind that a significant portion of current tenants in violator households has incomes that would place them below the poverty line, the ordinance will have a strong negative impact on housing for some portions of this population. 1 Note that the model used to develop the figure of $391 explains only 58 percent of the variation in median home values across neighborhoods. This figure should be considered a "ballpark estimate" rather than a firm figure. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 11 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . In addition to ongoing rental costs, these households will face increased costs in other ways as well. For example, some fixed household expenses such as cable television, Internet access, and telephone service will be split among a smaller number of people. Further, the individual will have to absorb the cost of moving their household. In summary, enforcement of the ordinance would produce strong negative outcomes for the tenants currently residing in violator households. KEY MARKET 6: OWNERS IN OWNER-OCCUPIED VIOLATOR HOUSEHOLDS Market Size: 168 individuals Less than 200 housing units are owner-occupied, but take on renters in a number that is in violation of the ordinance. It is unlikely that these households would dissolve, but they would have to shed one or more tenants to satisfy the ordinance. Because this is such a small population, little data is available through which to draw conclusions about the impact of the ordinance. Certainly, the ejection of one or more renters will reduce cash flow to the owner, but it is not clear whether that loss of income will also result in the owner not being able to maintain the mortgage. The impact of the ordinance on this population is therefore limited to stating that the owner will generally lose at a minimum 25 percent of his or her rental income. In the limited data that is available, it should be pointed out that the stated owners of these properties might be predominantly college students themselves . In the few data records that are available, the majority of property owners were undergraduate college students. KEY MARKET 7: NON-VIOLATOR HOUSEHOLDS Market Si.Ze: City households This market consists of all city households other than violator households. Aside from the impacts on rental markets discussed earlier, this group will receive two primary benefits from ordinance enforcement, at the cost of one potential risk. The first benefit is that there may be an increase in "peace and quiet" in neighborhoods that currently host violator households, and a decrease in negative activities that cause problems for neighbors, such as inappropriate parking, loud noise, disruptive parties, and poor lawn and home maintenance. While the data from the public survey in Section 1 of this report cannot definitively identify violator households as the cause of neighborhood problems, there is a strong correlation between neighborhood problems and proximity to violator households. The second benefit is in property values. As noted earlier, the research team has identified a potential relationship between median home values in a neighborhood and the presence of single- family rental units. For each percentage point of single-family housing that is rented out, the median value of homes in the neighborhood drops by $391 . If the number of single-family rentals declines, the value of homes in the neighborhood will increase by a like amount. Citywide, it is estimated that about two-thirds of violator households live in single-family homes, which means that about 800 such homes exist. This represents less than three percent of all single-family homes. While impacts ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 12 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . would vary greatly by neighborhood, the model suggests that, on a citywide average, home values are diminished by about $ 1 ,200 per home due to the presence of single-family rental units . The potential risk involves the transition of violator households to new households. The individuals in violator households will reform new households of three people or less, and will move to different housing units in many cases. With the expected increase in their costs, they may be more likely to overcrowd small housing units as long as the overcrowding involves only two or three people. With the increase in demand for those smaller units, a neighborhood could conceivably end up with more overcrowded units than were present before the ordinance enforcement took place. Those units will merely be smaller and hold fewer people. KEY MARKET 8: LOCAL COMPANIES The local economy will be impacted by the ordinance as well. While a quantification of the impact is beyond the scope of this study, it can easily be noted that companies that sell household products will benefit from the spontaneous creation of over 1 ,100 new households . Companies that provide services such as Internet connections, telephone service, and television services will benefit as more households come into being to purchase their services. On the other hand, many tenants from violator households will face increasing demands for their limited funds. This will cut their discretionary spending, which will impact firms that provide discretionary goods and services . KEY MARKET 9: HOUSING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY The enforcement of this ordinance will be a boon to the local housing construction industry. The creation of nearly 1 ,200 new households in a short period of time will have profound implications on vacancy rates, as noted earlier, with strong housing shortages in all price ranges below $830 where no such shortage existed before. In order to bring the housing supply in those price ranges back up to a healthy level, new construction of over 970 rental units would be needed. This equates to nearly two years of multi-family unit construction above and beyond the normal construction growth. If the multi-family construction industry ramps up 50 percent above current capacity, it would then take four years to bring vacancy rates in the low-end and mid-range price levels back to healthy levels. Of course, this new construction would generate significant additional economic benefits to the community in terms of jobs, spending, and taxes. PART 4 . LONG - TERM IMPACTS As seen above, a strong enforcement of the ordinance would have a significant and immediate impact on the housing market. The next key question was whether this change would permanently alter the housing market in the city. The study examined case studies of other communities that have experienced similar types of household change, and described changes in those markets' rental vacancy rates, rental costs, and home values. Fort Collins' population growth was calculated using census data for 1990 and 2000 and county population projections. Two special issues were also addressed: ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 13 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . The growth in households due to the implementation of the ordinance (without a corresponding increase in population) ; and ■ An estimated growth of the Colorado State University population by 4,000 students between 2005 and 2015. The goal of this analysis is to find cities that experienced a growth profile from 1990 to 2000 that was similar to the projected future growth profile for Fort Collins, and then examine changes in vacancy rates, housing costs, and housing stock in those cities during that time period. CASE STUDIES - COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR PAST GROWTH The growth pattern predicted for Fort Collins is not unique. Sixteen cities of similar size experienced similar growth patterns between 1990 and 2000, and can be studied to learn best practices. (One of these sixteen cities was Fort Collins itself.) A total of 16 cities were identified to have exhibited highly similar household growth patterns to those projected for Fort Collins, based on total household growth, household growth among traditional college-age students, and a higher growth rate among the second group than the first. Interestingly, one of these similar cities was Fort Collins itself. Exhibit ES-3 Cities with Similar Past Growth Patterns Ratio of Annual Household Annual Household Young/Total Growth Growth, Ages 15-24 Household Growth Fort Collins, 2005-2015 2.43% 3.32% 1 .38 Communities with Similar Growth, 1990-2000 Greensboro, North Carolina 2. 12% 3.34% 1 .58 Provo, Utah 2. 13% 3.06% 1 .44 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 2.22% 2.93% 1 .32 Salem , Oregon 2.09% 3.39% 1 .63 Winston-Salem , North Carolina 2.49% 2.94% 1 . 18 Eugene, Oregon 2.26% 3.68% 1 .63 Durham , North Carolina 2.95% 3.33% 1 . 13 Fort Wayne, Indiana 1 .86% 3.20% 1 .72 Fort Collins, Colorado 3.07% 3.34% 1 .08 Joliet, Illinois 3.06% 3. 10% 1 .01 Lincoln, Nebraska 1 .83% 2.73% 1 .49 Raleigh, North Carolina 2.77% 2.69% 0.97 Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky 1 .93% 3.73% 1 .93 Mesquite, Texas 2.03% 2.52% 1 .24 Columbia, South Carolina 2. 19% 4. 14% 1 .89 Lakewood, Colorado 1 .59% 2.74% 1 .73 Housing attributes of these cities were compared to those of 141 other cities to examine differences and similarities in their housing markets. CHANGES IN VACANCY RATES In cities that have experienced similar growth patterns in the past, new housing construction has risen to meet demand. In fact, cities with this growth pattern are almost as likely to see increases in vacancy rates over the long term as decreases . ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 14 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . When changes in rental vacancy rates were compared over the 10-year time period from 1990 to 2000, a majority of cities in both groups saw declines in vacancies . However, the median change in the cities with similar growth patterns was -0.5 percent (a 0.5 percentage point decrease in vacancies), while the decrease in other cities was -2. 9 percent. More than 75 percent of dissimilar cities saw declines, and the median decline was higher in those cities. CHANGES IN RENTAL PRICES Rental prices in cities with similar past growth patterns have risen at a rate about one- third faster than in cities with different growth patterns. While cities with differing growth patterns saw rental increases of 33 percent over their ten-year period of growth, cities with growth patterns similar to those predicted for Fort Collins saw higher increases on average. Half of the cities with similar growth patterns saw rental increases of 42 percent or more, and half of the cities saw increases within a narrow band of 37 to 49 percent. CHANGES IN HOUSING STOCK Over a ten-year period of experiencing the growth pattern predicted for the city, one would expect to see an increase in the housing inventory of 20 to 28 percent. Cities that have experienced growth patterns similar to the pattern forecast for Fort Collins have seen significant housing growth. On average, these cities saw increases in their entire housing inventory of 25 percent or more, on average, over the course of the ten-year growth period. This is more than three times higher than the typical growth (8 percent) of other cities. ECONOMIC AND MARKET STUDY — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 15 CORONA RESEARCH , INC . Attachment 3 R E S E R C H 2009 ECONOMIC AND MARKET IMPACT STUDY FOLLOW - UP STUDY : IMPACT OF THE " THREE UNRELATED PERSONS ORDINANCE " ENFORCEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Corona Research, Inc. © Corona Research, 2009 w%vw. coronaresearch. com FOLLOW-UP STUDY: IMPACT OF THE " THREE UNRELATED PERSONS ORDINANCE " ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Corona Research conducted a study in 2005 to analyze the potential impacts of the enforcement of the "three unrelated" ordinance in Fort Collins. The study included an estimation of the number of violators, a profile of these violators, potential rental impacts from full-scale enforcement, and the perception of Fort Collins residents on various neighborhood issues. Corona Research conducted a follow-up study in 2009, which is described in this executive summary. This study estimated the number of violators in 2009, included a second public perception survey (and comparison to 2005 survey results), examined changes in rental prices and vacancy rates, and included interviews with key groups affected by the ordinance to examine its real-world impacts and any unanticipated outcomes. METHODOLOGY For the public survey, Corona surveyed 387 people living in Fort Collins in single family homes or townhomes. The questions and sampling procedure were very similar to those used in the 2005 made including the screening questions and the mode of the survey (telephone) so that comparisons could be made. Several additional questions were added so the effect of the ordinance could be evaluated. The survey results were not weighed, keeping consistent with the previous study. The survey was used to develop an estimate of the number of violator households and to examine neighborhood issues and opinions about the ordinance. Corona used special US Census data as another means to calculate the number of violators in Fort Collins. The procedure was the same as used in the 2005 study, and was compared to the survey data to triangulate on an accurate estimate of violator households. Colorado Department of Housing data was utilized to capture rental prices and vacancy rates for multifamily units in Fort Collins and four other similar Colorado cities. The data was available for the units in aggregate as well as for efficiencies, and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. The increase or decrease in the rental prices and vacancy rates were analyzed to see if they changed in Fort Collins differently than in the other cities, to assess whether enforcement of the "three unrelated" ordinance had a significant exogenous impact on the rental market. Interviews were conducted with three stakeholder groups: landlords of various property types, tenants with various experiences, and residents who have or have not filed complaints citing the ordinance. The goal was to gather the unique perspective and experiences of each group as related to the ordinance, and to possibly learn about unanticipated outcomes and suggestions for improvement to implementation. NOMENCLATURE As a nomenclature note, households currently in violation of the ordinance are referred to as "violator households" or `violators" in the executive summary and in the full. report. This statement _ . PAGE 1 e t. n u c 14 is not intended as a judgment, but merely represents a technical description of these households to differentiate them from other households. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS The research team presents the following list of 15 key findings for easy digestion by the reader. These findings represent the research team's most notable observations, with the recognition that other readers may find different findings to be more notable. An expanded summary is presented in the following section with additional detail. 1 . The number of violator rental households has dropped by about 46 percent since initiation of the ordinance. The research estimates that there are approximately 579 violator households in existence, down from 1,070 in 2005. Up to 97 owner-occupied households may have "downsized" as well, which can be compared to 168 estimated owner-occupied households in violation in 2005. 2. Only about 20 percent of that drop is due to active enforcement. The remainder is likely voluntary compliance on behalf of landlords and tenants. 3. Given that roughly 70 percent of violator households are college student households, it should be recognized that the drop in violator households may not be the breakup of existing households, but rather the lack of formation of new large households as the relatively transient student population flows through the community. 4. Rental vacancy rates have declined rapidly, but have gone from unhealthy high levels to what is generally considered a healthy range for both tenants and landlords. One-bedroom apartments are on the verge of being unhealthily low in availability, though. Trends in rental vacancy rates warrant continued monitoring as vacancy rates have declined strongly. 5. The ordinance is not responsible for most of the drop in vacancy rates, as other forces (economy, foreclosures, etc.) appear to have had at least an equal or larger impact. The likely estimate is that the ordinance has produced about one-sixth to one-fifth of the decline in vacancy xates (but one data source shows that it could be as much as half). 6. Rental prices are increasing, but not disproportionately to other comparable Colorado cities. It is likely that this is due to the fact that vacancy rates were high when the ordinance was initially enforced. 7. Neighborhood problems have declined and positive indicators have risen since enactment of the ordinance, but the research does not conclusively show that the changes are due (or not due) to the impacts of the ordinance. There remains a correlation between proximity to violator households and neighborhood problems, but this could be neighborhood-specific and not property-specific. 8. Among households who reported that a neighbor violating the ordinance had to move out, 67 percent said the moving had a positive impact on the neighborhood while only 11 percent said the impact was negative. However, there were only 9 survey respondents who were in this situation. 9. A total of 41 percent of single-family/duplex home dwellers believe the current enforcement is taking place at the right level, 27 percent would prefer more strict enforcement, 14 percent {t.�L'n': innd4.`-L•:�eiL`:F_�.�•.�<_SY`.ic[�:L'�J.Ye':Y_r:Y_�h'Gu l_Y�>i•.xij. yv�sl �y' _ � PAGE 2 R E 5 r A k r_ H would prefer less strict enforcement, and 18 percent have no opinion. However, support for stricter enforcement rises dramatically with proximity to violator households — 67 percent for those near two or more, 49 percent for those near one, and 22 percent for those not near any. 10. All groups recognize that neighborhoods have a right to peace and. quiet. However, some groups question the full intent of the ordinance. College students tend to think the ordinance is aimed at keeping students out of neighborhoods, while landlords tend to think the ordinance is aimed at preventing rentals out of neighborhoods. Some neighbors also tend to view the ordinance positively as a way to help plan or control neighborhood change. 11 . The number "three" makes all major constituent groups — tenants, landlords, and neighbors — somewhat uncomfortable, in that they do not understand why the number `three' was chosen over, say, 2 or 4. 12. Landlords note that non-students are a significant portion of people affected by the ordinance, especially households where two couples hope to live together. Landlords question whether this impact is fully recognized. 13. Landlords and tenants note that the ordinance is indirect and that other ordinances addressing noise and parking actually tackle the core problems. Neighbors noted that "loud parties" are often thought of as the issue, when in reality other issues are also important. Some neighbors also noted that tenants in larger households are more likely to be active late at night and that talking, parking, and vehicle noise are also negative impacts on their neighborhoods. 14. Tenants, and to some extent landlords, agree that landlords can drive the culture of the law. Landlords either participate in the ordinance or they "wink" at the fourth or fifth tenant and only put three tenants on the lease. Tenants draw their cues from the landlords. 15. All constituent groups had concerns with the complaint-based nature of the ordinance. Tenants believe that the actual enforcement causes hardships on tenants who are forced to move out on short notices, and that it can create friction in neighborhoods. Meanwhile, some neighbors express frustration that the enforcement process allows ample time to hide evidence and temporarily move one or more tenants out. Neighbors are also often wary of filing a complaint because of concerns about neighborhood conflict. Landlords note that other landlords are easily able to hide violators from the ordinance, and that the ordinance creates competitive advantages for unethical landlords. � PAGE 3 S Attachment 4 City of Planning , Development & Transportation Neighborhood & Building Services Fort Call o ns P.O.North College Avenue P. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 �. 970,221 ,6760 970.224. 6134- fax fcgov.com Memorandum Date: August 28, 2009 To : Mayor and City Council Members Thru : Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager„ Jeff Scheick, PDT Director P Felix Lee, Neighborhood & Building Services D ' for From: Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager F Re : Work Session Summary - August 25 , 2009 re: Occupancy Ordinance "Economic and Market Impact Study" The Mayor and all Council Members were present. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, presented an overview of the key findings from the Occupancy Ordinance 2009 Economic and Market Impact Study conducted by Corona Research. Kevin Raines and Joe Fitzler from Corona Research were also present to answer questions. Council generally agreed that the following questions are appropriate for the October 27, 2009 work session for the Occupancy Ordinance policy discussion : 1 . Is the Occupancy Ordinance working? 2 . Does Council wish to continue the ordinance? 3 . If so, are there any changes Council would like to consider to the ordinance? There was some discussion about changing the first question to specifically refer to the enforcement of the ordinance. Council would like the following additional information for the October 27 °i work session: ■ Map of the survey area conducted by Corona Research. Information from the Board of Realtors about how the Occupancy Ordinance impacts property values and whether they support the ordinance. ■ Description of how enforcement is conducted in all scenarios since enforcement changes were implemented in May 2009. ■ The number of people issued citations since enforcement changes in May 2009 . ■ Homeowner Association covenants restricting occupancy — what exists and what are the options for these neighborhoods? ■ Data regarding possible zoning options. ■ Data regarding student housing provided by CSU — past, present, and future. ■ Data regarding "student housing" off campus where possible. ■ Information regarding "Fraternity or Sorority Lodge" as an option. ■ Citizen input from all sides. ■ Look at occupancy limit definition to make sure it is all-inclusive . 0 Options to increase enforcement and education. Attachment 5 Representatives from the Fort Collins Board of REALTORS@ are participating in the Occupancy Ordinance Stakeholders Committee that has been meeting since April Fort Collins ' City Council will be discussing the impacts of the Ordinance , and possible improvements to the Ordinance , at a work session on October 27tn In lieu of this , FCBR would like to state publicly for the record that : The Fort Collins Board of REALTORS@ has not, and will not, during the current review process , advocate for a reduction in enforcement or repeal of the existing Occupancy Ordinance . Attachment 6 Occupancy Enforcement Process 1 . The City first receives a complaint from a neighbor or other concerned citizen about a potential occupancy violation. Complaints can be submitted in writing, on-line, or by phone. Citizens can file their complaints anonymously, but are encouraged to include their contact information, which can be helpful to the investigation. They are also encouraged, but not required, to provide license plate numbers from the subject address. (The City no longer requires complainants to keep a 30 day vehicle log. The log is still available on-line for those complainants who wish to provide that additional information) . 2. Upon receipt of a complaint, staff will begin an investigation. 3 . At any point during the investigation, the housing inspector may go to the subject address unannounced, explain to the occupants that they are under investigation for over-occupancy, and simply ask who is living there. This technique has been very successful in determining who is occupying the address. 4. The owner/property manager will be sent an Investigation Notice, and asked for a copy of the Disclosure Statement, which should list all occupants of the dwelling. S . As part of the investigation, the occupancy inspector collects information from CSU, Fort Collins Utilities, Larimer County Tax Assessor' s office, and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) . 6. If the investigation determines that the dwelling is over-occupied, the inspector will issue Violation Notices to all tenants, the owner, and the property manager. The Violation Notice requires them to bring the property into compliance with the Occupancy Ordinance within 30 days . 7. If the violation is corrected within the time frame, the case is closed. An inspection by the occupancy inspector is required to confirm compliance. The inspector also performs a Rental Housing inspection to verify that the property meets minimum habitability standards. 8. In cases where the inspector can clearly demonstrate that the property owner knowingly over-occupied his or her property, (e. g. — repeat violation by the same property owner, more than 3 tenants on a lease, statements provided by the tenants that the owner rented to more than 3 , etc.), the inspector may immediately issue a citation to the owner. Before this enforcement practice, many owners would over-occupy their properties, knowing that if they were caught, they would have time to correct the violation before being cited. 9. After being cited, the parties have 10 days to pay the fine or request a hearing. Correcting the occupancy violation does not relieve the parties of the fine. 10. If the cited parties request a hearing they will be scheduled to appear before the court appointed hearing officer, or at their request, before the Municipal Court Judge. Attachment 7 ZONING OPTIONS FOR EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSES AND FRATERNITY/SORORITY LODGES 1 , Add Extra Occupancy Rental House ( EORH ) as permitted use in the NCM zone . Pros : • The NCM zone is the only zone which currently allows multi -family dwellings , but not EORH ' s . Adding the use to this zone would not increase the density beyond what is already allowed , and would be consistent with the other zoning districts which allow both multi -family and EORH . • The NCM areas are in close proximity to the CSU campus . Adding the use would allow for an additional , affordable housing option for non - single family renters . • Close - in housing to the university may reduce vehicle trips and miles . • This would be consistent with the purpose of the occupancy ordinance , which is to preserve the character of single -family neighborhoods . • Allowing a home to be occupied by more than 3 unrelated people will not have any more of an impact than would a house being converted to a duplex or multi - family , which is something that is already allowed . In fact , having 4 or 5 unrelated in a home may actually be less impactful than a duplex or multi -family . • Converting a house to an EORH will ensure that the house is inspected for compliance with the rental housing standards and increase the supply of safe housing . • The number of off- street parking spaces in congested areas will increase since converting to an EORH will usually require additional off- street parking beyond what may already exist on a lot . • The density ( dwelling units per acre ) of the NCM neighborhoods is similar to the density of the other zones which already allow EORH ' s . ( See maps 1 and 2 ) . Adding the use to the NCM should not result in increasing the density of NCM neighborhoods . In fact it would probably result in maintaining the existing density or even in lowering the density since property owners may be inclined to convert an existing single family home to an EORH instead of to a duplex or multi -family use which would result in additional dwelling units . • The number of occupants per dwelling unit in the NCM zone is similar to the number of occupants per dwelling unit in the other zones which already allow EORH ' s . ( See maps 5 and 6 ) . Adding the use to the zone would probably not increase the existing overall " intensity" of NCM neighborhoods to a point where the intensity would no longer be similar to the intensity of the other zones . Cons : • Some areas of the NCM zone have converted from rental homes to owner- occupied homes in the last 10 years resulting in greater ' ' single family neighborhood " character . Owner- occupants may feel that they would be adversely impacted by allowing EORHs in these areas . • Easier and less expensive to convert to EORHs than to duplexes or other multi family uses . Some owners might be more willing to increase occupancy by converting to an EOHR ( rather than converting to a multi -family dwelling ) which would increase the number of persons more rapidly and adversely impact neighbors . • No public hearing for conversions to EORHs contemplating 5 or fewer persons . • The percent of non -owner occupied dwelling units in the NCM is considerably less than the percent of non - owner occupied dwelling units in the other zones which allow EORH ' s . ( See maps 3 and 4 ) . Allowing the use in the NCM could increase the percentage of non -owner occupied dwelling units if owner occupied homes are converted to this type of rental home . 2 . Amend the RL , NCL , and NCM zones to allow EORH ' s as a permitted use only in specifically defined geographical areas , and limit the number of EORH ' s allowed in those defined areas to no more than 25 % per block . .Pros .- Allows a use in a zone while at the same time limiting where in the zone such use is permitted . This is a land use tool that is already being used in the LUC for other zones . • Less of an impact than rezoning as this option permits only one higher density use , EORH , instead of rezoning to a higher density zone that allows multi -family dwellings as well . • Limiting the number of EORH ' s allowed within the specifically defined area to no more than 25 % per block ( in the same manner as is currently the case for the LMN zone ) will allow the use , but in a way which would limit the degree to which the use might detract from the single -family character of some affected neighborhoods . • Adding the use , even on a limited basis , will allow for an additional affordable housing option for non - single family renters . • Allowing the use in neighborhoods in close proximity to CSU will reduce vehicle miles and trips . • The number of occupants per dwelling unit in the RL , NCL , and NCM zones is similar to the number of occupants per dwelling unit in the other zones which already allow EORH ' s . ( See maps 5 and 6 ) . Adding the use to these zones would probably not increase the existing overall " intensity " of neighborhoods to a point where the intensity would no longer be similar to the intensity in the other zones which allow EORH ' s . Cons : • An amendment to some neighborhood plans would be required . • If the specifically defined geographical areas are all in neighborhoods close to campus , property owners could feel that they are being picked on , and that they ' re neighborhoods could become even more over- populated . • Owner- occupants could be impacted by having higher occupancy homes near them . • The percent of non - owner occupied dwelling units in the RL , NCL and NCM zones is considerably less than the percent of non - owner occupied dwelling units in the other zones which allow EORH ' s . ( See maps 3 and 4 ) . Allowing the use in the RL , NCL and NCM could increase the percentage of non - owner occupied dwelling units if owner occupied homes are converted to this type of rental . 3 . Add definition for Fraternity/Sorority Lodge in the Land Use Code and add Fraternity/Sorority Lodge as a permitted use in certain zones . Staff has received a specific request to allow such a use on a lot in the NCL zone . Since the NCL zone is our most restrictive residential zone , adding the use to the zone would probably mean having to add it to all the other zones since they are currently less restrictive . The possible definition is : Fraternity/Sorority Lodge shall mean a dwelling the residents of which number no more than six (6 ) and are all members of the same fraternity or sorority , and which fraternity or sorority is affiliated with Colorado State University . Such lodge also may serve as a place of assembly where all members of the fraternity or sorority , whether they reside in the dwelling or not , may conduct meetings , study together , and assemble for meals and social gatherings . Pros • Allows an alternative housing type and increases the diversity of residential neighborhoods . Cons • The use is essentially an extra occupancy rental house and a place of assembly , which uses are allowed in many zones already . Adding the use to low density zones would negatively impact the single -family character of neighborhoods . The higher density zones which already allow similar uses would be the appropriate areas for such a lodge . • The probable number of such lodges is very limited , and therefore there is no need to expand the number of zones where this " extra occupancy rental and assembly use " should be allowed . The few lodges that may want to be established have adequate areas they can locate in , and the code shouldn ' t be changed to accommodate one potential lodge which happened to buy a home in the wrong zone . • This type of residential use is out of character with the other types of residential uses allowed in low density zones and has impacts similar to extra occupancy rental houses . Therefore , it should be added only to the zones which allow extra occupancy rental houses . • An amendment to some neighborhood plans would be required . • The assembly aspect of the use would be a greater negative impact than an extra occupancy rental due to parking , noise and other similar adverse conditions . 4 . No change to the existing regulations . Pros : • Zoning and neighborhood plans are already in place and should be respected . • EORH ' s are already allowed in many zones . • Puts single -families on more equal footing with non - single families in terms of access to affordable housing . Cons : • Wouldn ' t address the benefit of allowing the use in the NCM zone , a zone which already allows higher density uses . • Doesn ' t expand affordable housing options for non single family renters near campus . Jj fMiD &Rd i 3 Nd'an,Hil M JCZD cr it = vil9 C Z CL 221 (( I N � , ials � �• S^o Z z � n — z I c it ; t � -- — —1 S�S $s t 1I1I �:NShleldiSt 0 jijt � � s1J CD i _ % / �Z � C J— I -- 1 'Z, j rr # t � 06) n o 3 4 • � a \ I3 � y � m ' � L_ �o 7 _i , 4 ' W - -----� J OZ I _ owesst • m II _ I �T- — n — •MasonSt �MasonSN x Z S =College Ave ^N Irege'Avc • If � o 0 CD 7 _ ! 1 z f n v • J ° V cn co S ::_emeyAz ve _ a�91hS1 (p s p ' L! C www• j • Z Ca i , I %Ovetf Mdh I •0Yp11Bnd ��I " r �• T = c c -' O N Q CD CL A i S •Flip b=iaft-HiPA =N Ta`= iH II:Rd to I � 100 W IN © i ri � n (p m = D O ® N:Shields :St � � I go tJ , J N S MasonSt� _ m W W froom v y Remington St z z 0 0 n a p r fl0 ; \ , 0 o t a = N _ ,Le�7a ti A i�,� �$t .1Bmey C� N M < i j 14 ij • _ _ r- - - � . :NZO!HillRd= Z p z -1 v cr lit � i , E1 ; y- , - i i � ' o� t 1 i ti O ; n CD V 3 F ,fir �� Z � -�z o Z - ( (/) CD-, —S Shields t I I SLtieks S2 z its i ! ( z n O ( { � { { L Q �I I IIii I C ; I —h � t L I R II V � ' ice. - $ � n n _ ` I I o z \ I ,� �_ 1 ��- 3i -� y � -� O O '=—;--. >Hlsson.StN Mason �t M 0 �tt CoNegeAve , Remin N • oAage-Ave co ,y S - - - O ' ° n ZL CD z i 7 a CJ1 �j � - �W � or CD 3 " Q ® I - Z verland t1 ' f D.O LQ. t a tD , z I n J i�1� (AO T i� • . r p � I III Saft Hfll •Taft+Mfll+R +>N�aft Fdin Rd N P J ' ;' m r+ CO W I ! II !- S $ — _� ? cn tD �o _ n ® _ Jw _ O +StueldstStCD ` IJ,Shieids+St �,^ [ � to C 0 'i; 3 D W N c O go 3 _IGO m r� t� tr t to a) Oo J - S,MasoniSj N / —r X S+G Ilege •Ave m� co NZ- oilegey4ve !V p Remi on St V _ z , r -7.Z , li ilt , J o m n �o N 0 QQ tv o i 7 N v i �91h.St +I emey.A _ n 1 �J z !t iCD � ` 11 i I i i 1 a�tl.iamRa r `l z l AMMMAd . La j car rk r 1 {{ I z r- z I • ff ; � l "a I--� S z z 0 Z I I � 3 C co S .Shi dsSt I a�NShiElds t G CD I a } itsN -i0 LA D— C _ � ` W < e { i (D _�• -- .___J o z� _ _� W , -� W I Sty m ! t I _ c> N Mason St �, - GoGeq n -N :College Ave ,XI z eAve �_ La f f j —� ;— — Reminoton :St '' r � � CD 07 IL °. -- • 1 � I m v O 1 7 O •Overian rl .OveAend�ti-1-' N CD r � . X - I < =r Tt O• V N 1 r �.� -I 0 CD CD N S=afl il^I d tq 1 O •Taft�idill,Rd�N-- fl•HiIIrRd Q m r C c I S CD CD m ^ ? `-�_a I — SS 8'St- -N Shie!Cs:St O r•i W -r- I -- CL M D n 0>v m 03 (/1 cn 70 i �' - S MM so SI-�' C X �M .College Ave l�-1 0C pp 14pitege � X� N Remington:St �I I y m rm rm mn n z �5 O - p r n n (O m 0 I 3 a f f; m N a A o 0 9th:St N,L•emay,A N I ZI kp _ -- _ - -_ _ - _ - -- -- - Overland Trl - _:_N;Overland Trl = _D CD eF , y "jd CD f � PA < Q E Y1X CD aa 0 CEr cp 6 CIO - S Taft•HilltRd y Z j r - : � v 3 N Taft=Hill Rd - : � z . ' s = l e g s n - $ � a 01 1 t § ?+ al � t4s Z 3 (D z � _�M z n zm S ShieldsSt N= Shieids-St9 a z U 0 - I ; >_ z C II .a CAn 4 _ M V 3 � Z - nD 31 cn m= � z 3=Howes•St,nw 11 � 0 n =S%Mason=St=tS.uos8WW � � C S College Ave - _ -- — L =- N)N ` _ __� Remington St e'�0C l�S O m z �5 as MEN 0 �0 m CD m� $ � w � D or n —S°Lemay=Ave end ��We1•t49th-St- 0 a � CD � n� _ CD �1 r - i U POOL C O I � C)'1 n cn 0 � n -S =Timberline=Rd CD 0 v Cr CAa / 0M0 W p W t0 no E � i o tD E HIS ! = - IS !. I S f lia ' s - Cr L a L Yata Sg Q S=Overland Trl N=Overland Td Q it $ 7t � � t ( Q fiSpl N Z < < O 2) i jjssss ie ar � e9 i (D 3 e i w (A S= . Taft:Hill_Rd Nraft=Hill-Rd C aIL m � r � m r f a O I V N S-Shields=St-- Shields St-=- - n n 0 n z c z C 0 - - C C o < prn m -' n fmIlL cD ai CD S-Howes-St=N Howes St yL CS-Mason-St= N Mason St "1L O D IL_S__Goliege:Ave C—J�=— IS -College Ave 0 RemingtorrSt: l� 0 ) L W N CD z = s pp m r m n n 3 x El El �O 0c a + 0Q� m n 0rd o. W W N I p m` S=L-emal Ave - gth=St—m rook o �4 a) cn N 3 m mph o OD Timbertine=Rd N q 1 3 A NO - . . i i 4 € i ! — S=Overland Trl N-Overland Trl CD • a Y 4 v } ; to - : . at I 3 CL S ilt € a Ili 3 a e ` a �S-Taft--Hill=Rd N Z t � � v 3 N Taft-Hill Rd (D Z d ' 9a ° e a IF Y 3 rEr + Ys7 � , i 3 cn n t Z .� C ry i Q 3 T 3 l�l O � 0 S Shields St N-Shields=St \ll� a z 40 i c y CD n � m z s to W z wS-Howes St � -Mason :St IS u0sey4=N= J S=College Ave — Remington m CD o� ""Ix El p rF CD 5 � � m z 1 n ~ m O :3 - rn C N0111111116 Z �0r* n a m O a C c 0 0 z ; `C A � � � O a A < or m S-L-emay-Ave � lwal N9th-.St n N CD end° N rn m � coCD �—� iv m a O a ONO _n I L N -S Timberline Rd OWO ( hL N D o/ tr w tc383c Y � E tq = wi ° yyd ' � tAt c E % gRRt9 ' I O 3riieP =r S.Overland Trl [N =Overland Trl --- O Is I• r a CL � 1r � 8t } iP I I N g = ; gMID I Z agtaFP } M a C CID 51 " % ! S Taft Hill =Rd N Taft%Hill=Rd x m : A a N O 3 r v r r CD n r cn < 3 o _ � S Shields St �NTShields-St ? oa _ I a N z O O t'D ;o C r n C N W '* LJ 0 rr 3 m Z = � x — cn CD rm#L -- S Howes StmN•Mowes=St O � P S•Mason=St�N=Mr sonrSt O tV=Gollege.gve a n cD (A (D emington-St n 0) N _ Z C 3 LI r l m T r 7 r� i D A < Ave --9th =St—m - N 0) ILM 0) 00 T _ Z N co �j O m a c CID CD m ° Q OD U. N :3 W O O N I cD 2 a 8 = a a o o f }} } t y � � ! ; • � it � i S Overland Trl - N ;Overland Trl — � m `- o m D - - -t- c Q. ( ) ff } } 11Rt LU } z3 " � N s . � � � S Taft"MiII:Rd � Z 3 N Taft:Mill =Rd M Z iY 4 a • bx 1 � • > } O' _ , s cD V) z * , Z n -- �. Z c �7tirf 0SShields•S T N=Shields St= a Z 0aw - 113 C _ y CD 0 1 Q. c w 0 :3 C � n = D = y coo < (D ZS Howes Stan 0 n =S Mason=St=tS:uoseyy-W co - &College Ave J Remingt- to 6t °C); , � i m O m o m O n Fftok n 0 m n 0 o Ora y ,� - c C 0 D N CD S°Lemay°Ave end"�e}ua'1"N9th:St N � CDCD p CD m e�-f o �. c CD C- a 0 a � S Timberline"Rd � N 3 ... � 00 r- O N,w / O 5s i f CD i � t' sjilt • 0 fratE � I € gip Sj ' Y , = � a 0 a � 3 � fet3 v 0 S=OvertandTrl CL iO 1I i ➢ rt � � f ^ 4 L__ . -� S Taft Hill-Rd N NTaft=Hitl=Rd - O m m n ra �' n : r C . m r m 0 � a a � N CMD 0 CD r S-Shields St N-Shields St � D n � a N 0 z CDC r � N C7 M 0 3 c Er m S CD CZ � jV Q rn LS,Howes=St " ►' � C CSIMJas1 j nlStr=N Maso1 �D S=College Ave r r �N'IGallege Ave O a _ Remington:St �t n �F z z I I I ILI 0 N r r n n = +A m�a0 0 ` C� M A < S=l emayAve -a m 9th_St=C - ID v � m T c T O v i y _ a CL ^ N W 0 n CD CD ml S Timbene=Rd �0 N N o ^ N O - O 13 Lodge -Style Fraternity Facility The Phi Kappa Chapter of Phi Gamma Delta here at Colorado State University re - colonized in the spring of 2006 with only a handful of men, and a lot of local graduate, alumni brother support . During the course of the last 3 years, our Chapter has grown immensely and is recognized on campus as being very respectful and hardworking, and we are determined to become the best Fraternity on campus . During that time , our Chapter never had a fraternity house, and having a chapter house is the hallmark of the fraternity experience . This is the place where brotherhood truly grows, along with boosting of GPA at the university level , and where boys grow up to be respectable men of society . Within the last couple months, our Chapter has finally gained something that we thought was a long time coming and that is a chapter house . As this might sound like an extravagant thing in itself, however, the problem with the situation is the fact that our chapter house is located on the north- east corner of Laurel Street and Shields Street in an area that is not zoned to allow more than 3 unrelated people to live . Economically, this won ' t work for a house this size ( 4 - bedrooms and 3 bathrooms) by limiting the occupancy to 3 people . Our Chapter' s vision is to use this property for a lodge-style fraternity facility that will " house" no more than 6 individuals and will serve the rest of the Chapter as a "lodge" . This is in contrast to the traditional "fraternity house" model, which has proven to not be successful recently at CSU . Many people might see this as a negative thing, having a bunch of college males living under the same roof, but this is just not the case for our vision . Our Fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta ( aka FIJI, is nationally known as the "gentlemen on campus" and our Chapter here at CSU holds true to that name . Having the house re- zoned so that it would allow this lodge -style fraternity facility has many positives for the men of the Chapter, the CSU campus and the City of Fort Collins . Before our chapter acquired this property at 640 S . Shields Street, this corner on Laurel and Shields was nothing short of an eye sore . Since FIJI has had the property under its control, that corner is no longer an embarrassment and has transformed into something that is very pleasant to look at . Instead of the dead, brown grass and overgrown shrubbery, our Chapter has cleaned - up the exterior of the property and put in a new, lush , green lawn with an automatic sprinkler system . Guests that enter the house have an immediate feeling of being comfortable as there is new carpet and a substantial renovation of the inside of the premises . Our Chapter has made it an upmost priority to have this house clean and be in showcase appeal since the day FIJI acquired it. The brothers of the Chapter gain much more from this house than just having it as a place to live and meet . It is a house where young boys will grow up to be men before they graduate . When our new freshman recruits get introduced to the house , it will become a second home away from home . They will meet all the FIJI brothers from each age and class level, both undergraduate and graduate, and these gentlemen will eventually be considered as actual family where a concept of brotherhood will forever be developed from then on . Additionally, this house will be a place of communion for our entire Chapter . It will be vital to our new freshmen brothers that they see the good behavior and good aspects in character that each brother in our Chapter holds, and in turn, they will know how they should act in college . Above all, this house will be a place where each brother can continue to build on five values that Phi Gamma Delta was built upon , and they are : Friendship, Knowledge, Service, Morality, and Excellence . Academics have always been of the upmost importance to our organization . In the past, the chapter had to have study hours in the Morgan Library, and at times, it is very difficult to find the room to place even 5- 10 guys at the same table . Having this " lodge - style " house , it will be an easy way to enforce, and have the entire chapter come together throughout the week and study . When study hours were in the library, it was very difficult to enforce because of the size of the library. Currently at Colorado State University, our chapter ranks second in academics out of the entire fraternity community. Having study hours at this house, that "second " could easily turn into being ranked first in this category . More importantly, when a brother is having a problem in a certain class, or concentration of study, they can easily get help from other brothers, or put their question up on our scholarship board that is easily viewed by everyone in our Chapter. One of the benefits that our chapter and our community can benefit from having our house be considered a " lodge- style" facility is that we can do many community service projects in and around our neighborhood . The neighborhood that we are located in is currently occupied by older individuals, some being senior citizen . Knowing this information, our Chapter is coming up with community service projects to do that will benefit these individuals as our neighbors . This positive interaction with just this small neighborhood will help clean the stereotype of Fraternities . Every chapter needs to develop pride in what they consider theirs, and by having this " lodge - style" fraternity house ; our Chapter can truly have what we call " FIJI Pride" . This house will be a place that we can essentially show - off to potential new members, the CSU community, Fort Collins community and all of our guests . Additionally, this will be the place where graduates can come back to visit and look back to what they have accomplished while they were at school at CSU as FIJI brothers . This is something that should be considered special for the mere fact that once current undergraduate brothers see graduate brothers come back, they will truly understand that FIJI isn' t for college days alone, and that is something that our national organization truly takes to heart. Our chapter house will be considered a safe, "dry" house . This entails that alcohol is not to be permitted on, or around the premises at any time . This sends a positive message to the CSU campus, the Fort Collins community and above all, our parents. Additionally, this "lodge-style" house will be a place that is considered safe for all our members to come to whenever they are in need . lust having a place that each brother can call their own can mean the world to them . Every Monday, our house will be a place for FIJI brothers to assemble for dinner, and then conduct "lodge-style" chapter meetings after dinner. In the past, we have been going to Canino' s for our chapter dinners after meeting at the Lory Student Center on campus . The reason why Canino' s was chosen in the past is because it used to be the original FIJI house years ago at CSU . By having our new house for chapter meetings and Monday night dinners, we can start to develop fraternity traditions that will be passed on from year to year, brotherhood, and above all, memories of college days. Additionally, we can use our "lodge-style" house as a common place to meet for important events such as fundraisers, community service projects, intramural sports, and other Chapter events. There are currently 30 active undergraduate FIJI brothers in the Phi Kappa Chapter, and we anticipate future growth to 40-50 brothers. Although a maximum of 6 people could live in this house ( 2 smaller single rooms and 2 larger double rooms), it would be used as a place of assembly for the rest of the Chapter. The nice thing about this location for a "lodge-style" fraternity facility is that abundant parking for visitors is available directly across the street from this property to both the south and west in two CSU "A" parking lots ( numbered 110 and 650 respectively) that allow for public parking after 4pm on school days and all day when classes are not in session . The Phi Kappa Chapter of Phi Gamma Delta here at Colorado State University will benefit immensely from having our house considered as a lodge-style fraternity facility that will not house more than 6 individuals . Since the re-colonization of our Phi Kappa Chapter four years ago, we have put in countless hours to first regain our Charter, and then finding a suitable facility this close to campus. The CSU campus and Fort Collins community will immediately feel the positive impact once the house is considered a lodge-style fraternity facility Attachment 8 General Citizen Feedback General feedback received from citizens outside of the other formal outreach efforts include: I live in the Caroline Mantz subdivision between Laurel and Mulberry and Shields and Washington. I've been here S years and have seen the neighborhood start to change, with more owner occupied sales being made. On my block there are a number of rentals, including both houses adjacent to me and a number of 4 bedroom rentals. The home to the north is being rented to families only and the south rental to college students. The students have had a mixed review from me - some being good and the current 3 young men off to a rocky start - I've already had 4 conversations about parties, have called the police once, and have called the landlord as well. All that in a 3 bedroom house. The 4 bedroom houses 2 and 3 doors down have been a continuous problem. If it's not noise, it's trash in the yard, weeds, and in one case a big dying willow tree which was hacked down by a handyman and a huge stump left. If you drive down the street you can easily identify the rentals where the landlords don't care. Not surprisingly, they have a majority of the problem tenants. The Corona Report clearly stated that neighborhoods with more rentals have more problems, and decreases in home values. Declining home values mean that tax assessments will decrease as well. It was also stated that the 4 bedroom homes had a disproportionate number of complaints. With that information alone, I believe that there is no reason to have this discussion at all . I think it is in the best interest of the city and its government to help protect property values, not contribute to issues which de-value the MOST IMPORTANT financial decision that most of us make - purchasing a home. I believe that rental registry (not licensing) is an appropriate measure. In many cases properties are owned by LLCs and no local contact is available. Neighbors need to be able to contact owners. Landlords need to become more accountable, as do renters. I think the $ 1000 fine has been a great deterrent to parties. I am a Realtor at The Group . I work with investors and I have 2 rentals myself. If Clint Skutchen from the Board of Realtors reports that a majority of the Realtors in town would be in favor of repeal of this ordinance (as I suspect he will) I would have to disagree with him. The Realtors who live in Old Town most likely have the same issues that I do. I'm not 20 years old. I've been out of school a long time. I don't know what the financial stresses are on college students. I worked through undergraduate and grad schools. But take a look at the parking lots at CSU - what you'll see are a preponderance of newer cars. Most everyone has a laptop and cell phone, let alone an i-pod and a credit card. Where does the money come from to buy beer, eat at moderately expensive restaurants, sit at Starbucks to drink coffee? I'm having a hard time believing that $ 100/month increase in 1 rent, if everyone had to live in a 3 bedroom home (or less,) couldn't be accounted for in other ways. I'm asking that the ordinance not be changed, for the good of the neighborhoods and the good of the city. Thank you. Resident on Pioneer Ave. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> First of all, one thing you should know is that we, the residents of the Caroline Mantz subdivision, north of campus, have a bit of a chip on our shoulder. The City Council and the P & Z commission have made it clear, if not in direct language, that our neighborhood is not considered with much priority relative to the whole "livable neighborhoods" concept that one hears often in Fort Collins council meetings. Almost without exception, every request to maintain, or increase, the safety/livability/child friendliness of this little hamlet has been ignored. I have a lengthy list if you would ever like to see it. Our neighborhood is peopled with young families, CSU and Front Range faculty, teachers, pilots, marketing professionals, lawyers, retirees and business owners . The ,founder of the Peace Corps lived here, and his widow is still here. Yet it seems we are only viewed as a neighborhood of rentals and potential fraternity zones. Actually, there are far more owner/occupant houses here than rentals. We don't completely object to student rentals and fraternities, but we insist that they strictly adhere to the 3 -unrelated law, keep their yards in some semblance of order, and keep parties to a dull and infrequent roar. We make a point of getting to know the students who move in, giving them some sense of personal investment in the area. We also like to see people drive in our neighborhood at speeds below 60 mph--which seems to be less of a priority for Ft. Collins' substantial police force. Remember, our neighborhood is bordered by two major intersections. Anyway, now we are facing the potential of a small-scale fraternity invasion, and some serious discussion to rezone our neighborhood to accommodate higher occupancy rentals and increased fraternity activity. If you think this is a reasonable idea, I encourage you to come take a walk down Monte Vista or Pioneer and see what kinds of houses are there. This neighborhood deserves to be respected by the councils in Ft. Collins as a wonderful, semi-historic area of cute retro houses, and a highly evolved atmosphere that we have all worked hard to make happen. Not a rezone disaster, which is what it would become if some of the ideas being floated right now become reality. The fact that out�of--state owners of rental properties have *any say at all* in a neighborhood where they have no investment other than their own financial gain is really shocking, and if this is true it shows a remarkable lack of commitment on the part of local government to encourage a livable, diverse and well-managed local culture. What it really shows is a group of people who aren't really in touch with the local flavor of neighborhoods they have pledged to represent, and their foregone conclusion of which areas that they consider to be high priority. 2 Please remember that students are * guests* here--they should not be able to write the rules. The neighborhoods where they live need to be respected and a neighborhood atmosphere supported by the local government. If more students want fraternity or high" occupancy housing, then maybe CSU could renovate a couple of the closed fraternity buildings around campus in zones designated for that kind of occupancy. That this is even a discussion is somewhat surprising. Resident on Monte Vista Ave. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> I watched the City Council Work Session last night (August 25, 2009), and from the questions directed at you and other staff members it was implied that you are working on this ill-advised "compromise" to create high density zones near CSU . I have written to the City Council with my concerns about this idea, but feel that city staff involved in this should also be made aware of home owner's concerns (letter attached). I'm attaching the letter that I sent last week to the entire City Council. Since writing this letter some additional thoughts and concerns have occurred to me: 1 . The neighborhoods near campus do not belong to CSU students. There are hundreds of adult employees (faculty and staff) of the University and associated research facilities who deserve to have nice single-family low density neighborhoods within walking or biking distance of their work. The city and the university have in other venues made it clear that they encourage residents to use alternative transportation. Creating a student ghetto around the university will force faculty and staff to move farther and farther from their work places, potentially bringing more and more cars into an already congested area. 2. Several times in the meeting last night council members mentioned the idea of "boarding houses. " I would like to point out that a boarding house is not the same thing as a 5 or 6 bedroom house with 5 or 6 roommates. The boardinghouse concept implies to me that there is a permanent resident manager who oversees the property and the leasing of individual rooms to tenants. While this still may create neighborhood problems (and I do not condone it), there would at least be a point of contact. As it is now, we often have to do a great deal of "detective" work to find out who even owns some of the worst rental properties in our neighborhood. If the city does proceed with licensing boarding houses (which I hope it does not), I would only very reluctantly support such an idea with the very strictest enforcement and monitoring, and only under the condition that it applies to a house with a permanent resident manager. This concept should never be used to allow over-occupancy of single-family residences owned by absentee landlords. Resident on Monte Vista Ave. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> A few thoughts : 1 . I'm not convinced that the three groups in the Stakeholder group should have equal weight. Homeowners have made a decision to plant roots in a neighborhood and 3 community based on the expectation that the current zoning and enforcement of U+2 will be respected. Students are only interested in saving money for the year, maybe two, that they are in a house with no interest in establishing roots in a neighborhood. Landlords are only interested in profiting off the students will little interest m insuring that their properties are maintained to the level that they maintain the houses they live in. Homeowners should carry more weight. 2. The argument that "it decreases the value and appearance of properties by causing landlords to garner loss of a gross profit and subsequently have less money to spend on the upkeep of the home" is telling. So, it is about gross profit! Nothing about being a member of, or contributing to a neighborhood community. 3 . What percentage of the extra "profits" would go into maintaining the house? A specious argument at best. That' s a HUGE assumption that the profits will go into the rental. It a landlord can't maintain a rental property in these economic times, maybe they shouldn't be in the rental business. 4. This two couples argument is a new talking point. They just want to be able to define a boyfriend/girlfriend situation as a couple to get around the ordinance. I can't imagine that this situation, if it exists, is more than a fraction of a percent of the population. 5 . The behavior exhibited by the students around campus after CSU defeated CU should give pause to any thought of denser student housing. Crowd more students into these areas and situations like this will happen more often with the potential of greater problems. Resident on Monte Vista »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> I think it bears mention that there are car issues associated with multiple renter houses, and as far as I can tell these have not been addressed and would not be addressed. Namely, students have boyfriends and girlfriends, and even though they may only be 3 unrelated people "renting" a house, it usually means at least 2 additional people who park their vehicles outside regularly. What happens when it' s 4? Also, it should be remembered that no matter how many outreach programs/off campus enforcement/etc. the University sponsors, renters do not have a vested interest in the health of their neighborhood, and probably 50% act accordingly. I appreciate the university outreach efforts at the beginning of the semester. But for the duration of the semester, I pick up cigarette butts off my front lawn, hose down vomit (yup, just recently) off my sidewalk, and pick up fast food containers from the streets as I drive or run through the neighborhood (most of which is in front of the same rental houses) . I don't see the CSU outreach/good neighbor programs making much difference in these sorts of problems, which only increase with the number of people. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> My two cents on the occupancy ordinance and regulating the number of people in houses. I believe that regulating the number of tenants in dwellings is not the answer to neighborhood problems related to delinquent tenants. 4 To be sure, many people, mostly tenants, and many of which are students, shirk responsibilities and decency. These issues need addressing. No question. I believe that imposing restrictive numbers is not the best approach. Fostering a sense of community in group houses is a wonderful thing. Group living should not be infringed. Responsibility ought to be encouraged, perhaps incentivized if need be. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> I have read the materials prepared by Rolland Moore Neighborhood and am in full agreement with their analyses of the issues and suggestions for improvements. I would like to point out that in South Meadowlark compliance with the 3 -unrelated may not be all that good. It is clear that there are numbers of non-conforming rental properties but the resident neighbors have not seen fit to address the situation perhaps due to the difficulty of obtaining evidence but also perhaps due to greater vetting of tenants by (usually absentee) property owners so that there are fewer noise/party issues to disturb the neighbors. However, the rental properties, in general, tend to be those that have poor building and landscape maintenance and that affect the property values of resident owners. That, of course, represents an illegal taking that ought to be an important reason for putting more teeth in the neighborhood livability ordinances. Resident, W. Swallow »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> The impact of the occupancy ordinance has been mostly positive. First, it gives residents in our neighborhood some hope that things will improve and they're less likely to move. Second, it is a tool to deal with problem rentals. Disturbances and poor upkeep are almost always accompanied by over occupancy so it is leverage to coax problem renters and/or landlords to clean up their act. So far, the degree of improving our quality of life has been moderate. This is largely due to the fact that most over occupancy in our neighborhood is not even reported and thus not corrected. However, for some properties, we do see fewer parking problems, we' ve noticed traffic has subsided a little, and major parties have gone down. Basis for our conclusions . . . . .largely visual evidence, but this is a no-brainer. More renters in a property zoned and designed for a single family residence means more noise, more cars, more traffic, more corning and going, more friends visiting at all hours, more potential for partying and so on. Unfortunately, we see an inverse relationship between the number of people in the property and property upkeep such as timely mowing, broken fences, screen doors falling off, and no snow removal. I believe this is largely due to landlord ethics. Those property owners that are less likely to make their tenants obey the ordinance also are the ones that are not concerned with property upkeep. Suggestions for improvements include making the ordinance easier for citizens to help city staff enforce. It is extremely time consuming to collect the evidence the city asks for on an occupancy complaint. Often, by the time you have enough ` evidence ' gathered, there is a turn over or move in the property. Additionally, citizens don't like to be 5 ` snoops' or `tell on' or make life difficult for our rental neighbors. This doesn't foster good neighborly relations and some elderly people fear reprisals for occupancy and other complaints. When we make an occupancy complaint online or over the phone, I think the least the City could do is send out an inspector to simply do a drive-by early in the day to see for themselves the generally obvious violation. Then they could follow-up with the complaining party and work with them to gather the necessary evidence. I think it' s unreasonable to expect citizens to be the primary investigative entity for this ordinance. It all boils down to whether the City believes the single family zoning means anything. If there isn't an enforced ordinance, get rid of it and stop having realtors mislead people when using this designation when they're selling homes. Resident, S . Bryan »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> The Occupancy Ordinance has had little impact on the vast majority of homes we own or manage and a major impact on a very small percentage of homes. The same relative percentages apply to the many tenants we work with. The Occupancy Ordinance has, in part, increased operating costs. We had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to comply with the law. The homes we improved were always rented to more than three unrelated people. So the money spend was not in anticipation of increasing occupancy and therefore rent, but rather to comply with the new City standards. A lot of time and public debate went into creating the Occupancy Ordinance. I felt that City Council did a great job carefully considering all input. The rules to convert a home to high occupancy and the zoning districts are well defined. I suggest City Council to leave the law alone. Any change will result in increased costs for landlords and tenants, and then only the CSU tenants who are impacted financially by changes in this law. The only requests we ever receive for High Occupancy are from CSU students, they are a significant and key component to our City' s health. I would also make sure that rules are adopted to help define the law are carefully studied. For example, after the law was adopted I converted four homes to High Occupancy Homes. About one year later, I spoke with Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, about converting another home in the same student only neighborhood. Peter informed me that a minimum square foot requirement was added to the law, making my specific proposal unfeasible. Modifying the law has the same effect as rewriting the law. Changes to the law without careful review by those of us impacted should be discouraged. I feel a certain segment of our student populous likes and should be able to rent high occupancy homes. But, they do not work well in all neighborhoods. In close proximity to campus, higher density is a benefit to our community. Neighborhood disturbances, 6 reduces vehicle traffic, parking and congestion are localized issues. The same number of students will live in Fort Collins regardless of the occupancy ordinance. Does the City want them disbursed all over town forced to drive to and from classes and work or would we prefer to see them closer to campus where they can walk or bike? Is our City better served if more residents live closer to work and school? Resident, Fort Collins »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> 7 Michelle Haefele 623 Monte Vista Ave. michhaef@frii.com Fort Collins CO 80521 970.493-7898 August 18, 2009 Mayor Hutchinson & City Council Members Fort Collins City Council PO Box S80 Fort Collins, CO 80S22-OS80 I have contacted my councilmember about this issue, but feel it bears repeating to the rest of our elected city representatives . I have heard that the city is very seriously considering designating zones near the CSU campus where the housing density would be increased, including allowing single family homes to house more than 3 unrelated people (so-called boarding houses) . I am absolutely opposed to this idea. We live in a great single-family neighborhood on the border of campus which, because of proximity, we fear will be targeted by the city for this inappropriate down- zoning. The Mantz neighborhood is unique and special. This small subdivision dates back to the 1950s and has, for over 50 years, been home to many CSU professors and their families as well as others from many walks of life. It continues to be a diverse neighborhood with a range of ages and households. We have a few student rentals, many elderly people and a large number of young and not-so-young professionals and families. Many residents have lived here for decades. Assuming our neighborhood's quality is preserved, we plan to as well. Although we are relatively new to the neighborhood we have learned that in the recent past there have been serious problems with student rentals. While there are still occasional problems, the worst have been addressed through a combination of the enhanced enforcement of the three-unrelated ordinance and the enactment of the city's nuisance ordinance along with diligent effort on the part of dedicated, responsible residents . We will fight any proposal that would reverse these improvements. The language used by many people referring to rentals as "investment" properties is outrageous. Our home is our biggest investment and it is threatened by the unkempt, overcrowded, noisy rental properties already in our neighborhood. To even consider actually facilitating this sort of decline is to betray the responsible homeowners and residents in our neighborhood and throughout the city. Allowing certain areas to deteriorate into student ghettos would be unconscionable. Furthermore, the notion that there is a lack of student housing is, I believe, inaccurate . Just this week I read in the newspaper that there are a higher than usual number of rental vacancies. The push to weaken or revoke the density ordinance stems from nothing but greed. These landlords do not live in our a . • a neighborhood, and the students who, for the most part, have no interest in being a part of the neighborhood. It is not the responsibility of the city to provide housing for CSU students. Rather, it is the city's job to ensure the safety, protection of property and quality of life for all residents, especially those who have chosen to make Fort Collins our permanent home . I believe the course of action that the city should pursue to address the problems associated with student rentals is to continue, even increase, enforcement of the ordinances already in place . Empower neighbors to assist if necessary. I'm quite willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that unsightly properties and inconsiderate tenants do not result in an unlivable situation for the responsible residents and homeowners like my husband and I and our many conscientious neighbors. Sincerely, Michelle Haefele 1 Impacts and Effectiveness of the Occupancy Ordinance from a Neighborhood Perspective 1 . The unanimous decision by City Council to improve enforcement and reaffirm the 45 year old occupancy ordinance limiting housing to three unrelated adults (a limit common in municipalities of our size) sent a strong message of the public policy direction desired by the citizens of Fort Collins . It also helped restore public trust in the City' s strong commitment to enforce its zoning code. 2. Enforcement of the zoning code improves neighborhood livability for over 50,000 residents of the Low Density Residential (RL) zoning district. Neighborhoods enjoy a marked improvement in quality of life since the occupancy ordinance is being enforced. This has been noted by observations and comments of many neighbors. It has to do with a noted improvement in the management and appearance of rental property as well as an improvement in the behavior of tenants . This outcome is one of the primary objectives of the 2005 occupancy ordinance. This result is in part due to voluntary compliance with this and other quality of life ordinances as well as improved enforcement. The occupancy ordinance combined with these other ordinances (e.g. noise, property management, public nuisance, etc) makes an effective package of laws to maintain the quality of life in neighborhoods. They work together to address problems in neighborhoods and should be considered an effective package that should be maintained. The combination of these ordinances is the most cost effective method for the City to maintain the integrity of neighborhoods . 3 . The City ' s Neighborhood Services Office continues to play a very important role in education and outreach resulting in improved compliance with the ordinance. Of particular note is the collaboration between this office and CSU in presenting programs on the issue to CSU students. The effectiveness of code enforcement is also a very important factor in improved compliance. 4 . Some investors claim that they have to raise rents to recoup the costs of compliance with the building and zoning codes . However, rental_ rates are driven by supply and demand, not operating costs. 5 . Effective enforcement of the current building and zoning codes has helped to "level the playing field" between responsible investors and their competitors who inflate their profit margin by violating these codes . i � 6 . A continuing problem is the difficulty in contacting landlords . There is no reliable, consistent or easy way for a neighbor or the City to contact a landlord about an issue. In some cases landlords choose to make contact difficult, making it virtually impossible to contact them in a timely fashion 7 . The 2005 occupancy ordinance is more effectively enforcing the long-standing zoning code, which is making single-family housing more affordable to moderate income families . 8 . The 2005 Corona report (page 55) estimates that "home values are diminished by about $ 1 ,200 per home due to the presence of single-family rental units." Since rental investors reduce value of adjacent properties , then those investors should be held accountable for being good neighbors . Responsible investors are already good neighbors . Only the City can enforce this accountability on the irresponsible investors . 9. Proposals for elimination of the occupancy ordinance or changing the limit on unrelated adults are misguided, short-sighted, fraught with legal complexity and divisive. Such proposals would have additional renters accommodated in existing housing resulting in many negative effects including: 1 ) reducing economic activity in the construction sector; 2) again stressing single family neighborhoods and schools; 3) reducing occupancy rates in apartments; 4) effectively rezoning over half the single family neighborhoods in the City; and 5) not looking to the future in the solution of our housing needs. Protecting and enhancing single family neighborhoods needs to be an important part of any changes to the ordinance. 10. The current zoning structure and occupancy ordinance provides a diversity of residents in a neighborhood while keeping the intensity of use at appropriate levels for which the neighborhood is zoned and designed. Residents bought or are renting homes with certain expectations afforded by zoning and neighborhood-oriented ordinances dating back 45 years . A change in occupancy standards is literally a rezoning of the RL District, which is home to over 50,000 family members, both home owners and home renters . Intensifying the use through a change in occupancy limits smacks of a property rights taking for both property owners and renters who choose to live in an area because they believe such rights are respected by the City 11 . At least six higher density residential projects proposed within walking distance of campus have come to the City staff for comment ( Including projects proposed for the Mason Corridor) . These are job creating developments meeting a community need. The enforced occupancy ordinance, in part, fostered this growth environment through the reduction in uncertainty in business decision making. 12 . CSU' s ongoing redevelopment of its on-campus housing is another important element in meeting the housing needs of students . �,Z The West Central Neighborhoods Plan on Housing and Neighborhood Character In the current review of the occupancy ordinance it is useful to reference the West Central Neighborhoods (WCN) Plan. This is a working document that continues to guide the planning decisions of the City. The Plan was adopted by Fort Collins City Council on May 18, 1999 after a rigorous public process which included active involvement of a Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning and Zoning Board, City Council members and City staff. It has relevance today as a comprehensive look at the situation and solutions to the issue of housing and neighborhood character in the West Central Neighborhoods and more broadly in Fort Collins. The West Central Neighborhoods are bounded by Mulberry and the CSU campus on the north, the railroad tracks on the east, Drake Road on the south and Taft Hill Road on the west. The WCN Plan describes the situation regarding housing and neighborhood character in its appendices. Relevant excerpts include . Intensity of use in a neighborhood refers to the number of people expected to occupy the housing units and their individual and collective lifestyles . For example a residential complex housing only young, single adults has different impact than one housing an equal number of retired couples. As a result existing neighborhoods have sometimes been affected or threatened by the problem of intensity of use. While no judgment is placed on respective lifestyles, a difference exists in their impacts on compatibility. CSU students can bring vitality and certainly contribute to the diversity of the area but also add problems to the WCN. The largely unregulated conditions under which students and other short term residents occupy off-campus housing become a seriously negative factor in developing and maintaining a sense of community in some of the WCN neighborhoods . The problem stems less from students as individual residents of rental housing than from their itineracy and characteristic lifestyles that differ significantly from those of a neighborhood ' s longer-term residents. Financial incentives to create and overload rental housing are another facet of the problem . Under such circumstances , the historic cohesion that previously existed in neighborhood has often evaporated, leaving long time owner residents with the option of adjusting to less stable living conditions or leaving the neighborhood. As these trends progress, some of the WCN are threatened with instability and decline. The lack of responsible property management is an ongoing problem in some areas of the WCN. The lack of responsiveness on the part of absentee property owners presents a growing problem. Absentee property owners may respond initially to neighborhood complaints and comply with City occupancy requirements . However over time the probability is that the same problems will resurface again due to the inability of the owners to monitor renters and the condition of the property. Where occupancy has been exceeded, the result is tension between residents within the neighborhoods because of unresolved impacts. Over-occupancy of rental properties can contribute to problems of maintenance, traffic and parking congestion and a strain on public facilities. 15 The absence of appropriate student housing significantly impacts intensity of use in the WCN in terms of over-occupancy, declining levels of property maintenance, increased on-street parking and higher volumes of traffic and congestion. The following are excerpts from the plan focused on the issues of character of the neighborhoods and housing in response to the situation described above: -CSU has significantly influenced the area' s land use and character in the past and is expected to continue to do so in the future especially in the need for housing and services near the campus -A vision for the area includes determining what is good about the area' s characteristics that should be preserved, what can be added that will improve the current state of the area and allow it to function better, and what facilities within the area have outlived their usefulness and should be revamped for future use. -The vision statement for the West Central Neighborhoods : Maintain and enhance the diverse character of the West Central Neighborhoods comprised of long and short-term residents such as families , senior citizens, and students as well as small business, schools, and public/private institutions and facilities . Strengthen the collaboration between the City CSU and the West Central Neighborhoods . Continue to provide housing opportunities, infrastructure, and lifestyle options to meet the needs of this diverse group of neighborhoods . Facilitate and improve existing transportation systems to allow all residents to have a good, safe convenient, and multi-modal transportation options. Adapt to meet the needs of the dynamic and ever-changing West Central Neighborhoods and provide balanced opportunities in development, redevelopment, and maintenance. -The area has the highest population density of any area in Fort Collins. It houses about 20% of the city's population ( 1998 figures) . City policies that encourage populations in core areas will encourage increasingly intense usage in the area. Such intensity can either be exciting and rewarding or degrading and devastating depending on how it is managed. -Regarding character of the neighborhoods, the following goals are in place : --Utilize the area' s land more efficiently to meet and accommodate the growing demands of CSU and the City without destroying the positive characteristics of existing neighborhoods. --Insure that high density infill development is sensitive to existing neighborhoods, preserves appropriate open space and creates or maintains a desirable character for the neighborhoods. --Define and enforce the responsibility of property owners, managers, and tenants toward rental properties as a means of stabilizing and enhancing the character of the neighborhoods. --Identify opportunities for mixed-use : development, revitalization and economic growth in existing underutilized areas to encourage more efficient use of land. I� -- Sustain or increase the inventory of affordable rental housing near campus without destroying the positive residential characteristics of the neighborhoods -Regarding neighborhood appearance and design, the following goal is in place: --Encourage property owners to maintain, and commit to improving individual property appearance and landscaping -Regarding sense of community, the following goals are in place: --Seek solutions to problems associated with short-term tenancy, differing lifestyles, and overcrowded living conditions in areas within the West Central Neighborhoods --Establish the expectations that that all individuals and groups will adhere to acceptable neighborhood behavioral norms and foster respect for other individuals ' lifestyles -Regarding housing, the following goals are in place : --Preserve existing housing and single-family character of the neighborhoods in designated areas by ensuring that new development is compatible with the positive values of the surrounding buildings and the urban landscape --Create development opportunities for multifamily housing in appropriate locations including but not limited to, vacant and/or deteriorated properties close to CSU --Encourage mixed- use housing as a component of redevelopment activities within the Campus West Shopping Area --Maintain a wide range of housing opportunities and support home-ownership for households of all economic levels in the area --Encourage and support CSU in development of student housing on the CSU campus and CSU Research Foundation property --Encourage responsible rental property ownership, occupancy and management -The West Central Neighborhoods Plan identifies three land use areas : I ) Conservation areas; 2) New development areas, and 3) Redevelopment areas . Conservation areas include single-family neighborhoods where the predominant use is the most appropriate use of land. New development areas are primarily on the CSURF land south of Prospect. Redevelopment areas are primarily along Shields street west of campus (including Campus West Shopping Area and land north of Prospect and south of campus . Redevelopment is encouraged by 1 ) Rezoning land along Shields to allow conversion to multi-family residential and lower intensity commercial uses, and 2) Creating a new zoning district along the north side of Prospect between Shields and Whitcomb which allows high density housing up to five stories in height. -The West Central Neighborhoods Plan proposes the following implementation actions : --A combination of education and regulation should be provided to resolve conflicts that occur due to short-term residential occupancy in the area --The City should take a more aggressive stance of code enforcement in the area. Enforcement strategies should be developed to handle violations of existing laws, ordinances and policies that do not farther the cultural, social and economic diversity goal policies in the area. Enforcement of City ordinances dealing with nuisances, health 15 i and safety, housing standards and the Land Use Code should be increased in problem areas . --Provide a framework and resources through which community members can nurture and teach each other about what it means to live in and be a part of a neighborhood and the larger community. An information sheet on City ordinances dealing with issues related to nuisances, health and safety, and housing standards should be prepared by the City and distributed to tenants, property managers and property owners, specifically targeting known problem areas . --Encourage programs which assist low income and first-time home buyers with home purchases in the area -Certain target areas should be designated to buffer single-family neighborhoods from high volume streets and commercial or high density multi-family areas. These buffer areas could be redeveloped to include lower density multi-family housing and professional and service offices uses . -The City should develop a long-range plan to facilitate the acquisition of properties to assist in redevelopment activities for housing development. The City should adopt an incentives policy that would encourage developers to redevelop designated parcels in the West Central Neighborhoods . Incentives might include tax abatement programs, higher densities in designated areas, waiver or deferment of some of the development fees, and expediting the development review and approval process . 167 Attachment 9 Neighborhood & Building Services 0C upancy Complaint Cases 2007 =2008 N U ' HIG �lRIl HARD LAKE RD I COUNTY ROAD 52 COU TRY CLUB RIf O J p W WILLOX,,LN E11V L x J Oki" c� E WNTY ROAD 50 LL w �! N MOUNTAIN VISTA DR Q = ZZ I w w r•___•l ; S w I I Z r•••v %• � J Wril E •� - I I E6 1NE DR �•— Z _ ..---- 7 ... f' = �, r-- a — W I LBER YST ++ QiL � l LA CREL � 1'! O�•rrr G E MULBE J ST - - o YIWJJIZ ET AST �! ! �'! ELF ` ►. All a /!fill t! 1'li�! - _-_` }t f! t _E P ECT RD I �l f]6P fi! fir! �! 'PROSP T RD �; r , ° lirl. �! ! ft i►� fir! Q t �! J O f oat tt. r!Ifi RD Ki fit rl O �' Z r t! ' \oldl W HORSEToc �! B E HO SETOOTH D ! q , ROpb 38EI 0 W H ONY RD OQ E HARMO Y Rj� 1 ; I I 1 w US cq r aw i W I r o IW a Q Z .go I . �i II }�! ECHTER A all 0 — — O — t — I E TRILBY RD _ J N l z i— r-• — W TRII} D lll`llll / ` O U) llldl.0 " � —E IAes 0 0.25 0.5 1 15 2 i a Tuna maD�mane ap,npa mNa�a Ga Legtmtl Y of rMM '.ebpaUlawbYtK Cryol Fc+t Golan MM1s iraamalpvpp,es mN. aM .en ln14a4M< w .YnEeE4 Wnenlue MmamOen Ooa K nb con%p 07C C///Ct ` Collinsdne p,dc Tl�e Cly masearo npnadabnw �arnraY asbbarAvary.tsylMfa. awmdNantss. and nparEorW. M1as¢vacym kbVq o• i,pkyay 6manvonf. wnwn. J PaMMEanda^es. apYanRnidbcaxnolarry maPhatvesverecn TMECITYOFFORTCOWNS "K SIDMURR MOFUERC 4TASUTTORWARRAiWFOR lM/o,rslad GIS FONESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR "POSE. "MESSED OR WP EO WITH RESPECT TH ECT TO ESE s PRODUCTS OR TIE UNOERLWaS OATA. Anyusna dnasa m p y prpLurts. mapap[luEpro. praah. amW uma AS iS. WIM ALL FAULTS. arNsssvruf al raspmPoaNdMpsa llnrtd. artl Nh,r wxrort nUapreas to Mtltl,e Cry lumkn F! IDm aM � tFI mmapa bn. a wboff *ro 1l airy laa dtM map Me . nconka dna Dqs 1u MWE tas nlormatan *r "4 I cnd al Gal tprb�.aOAertn slwl0 h o4unM DY arty usMs of Mw VOCaCs. w Iatlerlyalp mn TM Cry Mtlaani. aro sIW1 M b Mtl 60k br ury arN Y mmags. bsa. or bury. ��en« Sreot a ?W, pr suaaPa+nN. .l,cn arnasamay a.aa lnxn Pne maDpWstf ornaWnMlad Dy ury Arson orerKY Printed : October 13 . 2009 ATTACHMENT 10 Occupancy Limit Proposed Amendment Steps Pros Cons Possible Scenarios 1 . Original language clarified: Meets Council ' s original ■ Without Step 2, Allowed: a. One family plus one additional intent eliminates the Family (any size or degree person; or ■ Clear definition — each opportunity for of relatedness) + 1 person b. Two adults, not falling into (a) situation is either (a) or certain family (e. g. caregiver, nanny, above, and their dependents plus (b) situations to student, friend, etc .) one additional person. ■ Treats all situations the accommodate two ■ 1 couple + 1 person same in terms of additional adults 3 cousins + 1 person allowing an additional ■ 2 sisters, 1 cousin + 1 person person ■ 2 single parents plus their children + 1 person ■ 3 unrelated adults Not allowed: ■ Family + 2 people (e. g. missionaries, student athletes, etc. ) ■ 2 couples ■ 4 friends ■ 2 brothers + 2 friends 1 Steps Pros Cons Possible Scenarios 2 . In combination with Step 1 , allow a Allows the opportunity Only extends this Allowed with permit: permit to be issued for "host for certain family opportunity to ■ Family (of any size or families" to temporarily house one situations to situations meeting degree of relatedness) + 1 or more additional persons as long accommodate two the criteria which permanent additional as certain criteria were met. additional adults could feel unfair to resident (nanny, caregiver, those who do not tenant etc . Maintains the original Criteria might include the following: ■ intent in terms of meet the criteria Family (of any size or 1 . The residence is owner- traditional family ■ Available only to degree of relatedness) + 1 occupied; and arrangements traditional families or more temporary 2 . The additional persons do not additional people (e. g. 2 pay rent or provide services in missionaries, foreign exchange for housing. exchange students, athletes, etc. ) ■ 3 unrelated adults ■ 2 single adults plus their children + 1 additional person Not allowed: ■ family + 3 people ■ 2 couples ■ 4 unrelated adults 2 F Gity of � Neighborhood Services Attachment 11 6rt Collins F B°x580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 www,fegov.com/neighborhoodservices i MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and members of City Council From: Occupancy Ordinance Stakeholder Committee Date: September 30, 2009 Re: Occupancy Stakeholder Working Committee As part of the Occupancy Comprehensive review, a Stakeholder Committee was convened to discuss impacts and effectiveness of the ordinance and possible ordinance changes. The group met monthly from April through September and consisted of neighborhood, industry, and student/tenant representatives. See attached committee roster. The divergent views and interests represented on this committee resulted in no consensus regarding changes to the current occupancy ordinance. The committee did present many options and ideas, which are reflected in the attached matrix, and engaged in lively discussion regarding these options. As mentioned, none of these options gained support from the group as a whole but they did agree to present them in this matrix format with the associated pros and cons listed. The committee slid, however, agree in three areas: ► Educational efforts towards students, tenants and landlords should continue and similar efforts geared towards neighbors should be implemented. -These educational campaigns help tenants to be more savvy consumers, and they inform landlords of the rules and consequences of not. complying. New and greater outreach to neighbors would empower long term residents to stay engaged in the quality and integrity of their neighborhoods. ► Enforcement of all existing codes impacting neighborhoods is critical. Enforcement not only corrects existing violations, it also encourages greater voluntary compliance when the threat of being caught is real. The changes to enforcement of occupancy, nuisance, and noise violations have had a positive impact in many neighborhoods. ► Do not repeal the ordinance. While some in the group question the ordinance at a fundamental level, a majority agree it should be continued. Everyone involved with the committee, and the observers that attended, are committed to bettering this community. Included in the Council packet are individual proposals, ideas, and solicited feedback from members, i Occupancy Ordinance Stakeholder Committee List March thru October 2009 Student/Renters Representatives : Katie Freudenthal — former Director of Community Affairs with ASCSU Courtney Sullivan — current Director of Community Affairs with ASCSU Kathy Harward — CSU Student Legal Services Tim Adams — CSU student Cheryl Distaso — Center for Peace, Justice and the Environment Neighborhood Representatives: Lloyd Walker — Rolland Moore Neighborhood Network Sally Lee — Mantz Neighborhood Patty Jeffities — West Elizabeth area Doug Brobst — community member Stuart Steinmark — southwest area of town IndusLry R resentatives: Carrie Gillis — Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association Michelle Jacobs — Fort Collins Board of Realtors Kris Ticnor — property manager (big) Lori Roland — property manager/owner (small) Chris Guillan — Fort Collins Board of Realtors James Vanshaar/Brad Johnson — LDS church members i a � � n o ° �• O o n� o O O G ro R v W v n (D m O O cn 011d m y mot, h W H rt Om m m m G G O (D m w ro M En •Cron d ro m aQ � m rt ro � y w En w O 'Ls Z 0 fD Z CD cn ° � Z R+ C ao r r.> w O O �. v C. (D m O ro a q Q r�i G O .o O ,� rD n a, ,roy ga (D01 crop rP ¢ m ro rt m A) m cD w CT rn "ty O m n w m G r. C m u' ID 0 CD 0 0CD M (D m rD ow In m f+ rt (D '� w w h N od cn w �*� r rt m rnD O �� ai' G Q. O rn w w ro R. .`�'.. G• rt ` cnrt w Qp� fCDr (p 5 � 0m ? mO w m ■ ■ ■ r 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ (D 5 d n X ro m M p O v Y ro ¢ rt 0 ry m O w X p w �� O cn p m n m Q. P. Q. -t G rt (D G m m ro W to A . �s O '* F G (Drn rt G w w rn (D w � �, m rt p w "' �, �. 'C w w � "' p, 5 m (n G �rt Q 01 CrQro pi n o p Q. �1. ti O rt O y O n (Dro G (GD O y m O m p m (D w w Cron �� O w Q ^ n � O ro�S'' `%U9 L ° �m O Gy G ri . O Ch O 0G mm pOwj rtO. m UQ o ►!�C+ir m O Ou' O �O � O �iti pn O p N O mw m CS 'C3 m O O �. O 0 aQ � � o Q' �r rDa n m ro m a m o .0 rt cn 3 ' rD Lh 0 n O A. FA rD @ ° R. O w m (D w ■ in ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r ■ ■ (D ojv aQ o m �, o m ° w � y lD w O .O 0 rn �' aQ . D 0 o O o 0 O 0 O n fA] rt rt ° U CD (D m ° (D a ? w p � � `° vim, M � m o o� (D m O ° t�pp A. �' ° R (D rt � CL rn cn O w .O « �, p n w H A C+ rr R (D (D CP �, . i-n (D `y (D w r O (D '� .b �m a. p C ' O p fD h tip cn ` Lr- O O� '° 0 m O 0 O O O w w ° O rt r w (D rt (D G 1 Oy (E1 rt M M p m O ON p (D CD G w CC 'r (ED C M fir" "o o G Ln �O 0 O_ c i� a"- O r; H w A rr �' r* (D �, .w-+ p h H �, ¢ (D O Q' w p aQ .rt m O w n N w aQ " O 2 GbaQ 0 c O L � am (D M � O O inj oO (D p (D v ro O GQ rtw � ° y Sri w N Y aQ ... ro rt 0 G Q- C o �t '"�' N rt (w. O O ¢ p b o ° c cn o cn IJQ bG (D .w. u Q w oaQ rr aQ m 2 m O " x ' w a.(Q n M art b � • n D. �rta,iGQ .(D B�. A. � Ow m O h eb a cOii O n rt rt '� m rt Q 0w O ID m O rt rD 'C3 qq a m n fi °� �� ro mom+ O g 2 �s cD a4 O G w w h CD w ¢ ° O O n PU � (D aQ '�� G � m Oh O (D v, O o to Q (D Q. tOD O n0 aQ f0+ N (D C ¢ pRG� A� tV n `� aQ aQ � rt Oa rt z �. w (D (D ¢ lD (D aQ 0, m r z w U) w M N O O �o O o m C' o "d C crq rD w yN Ct ` . O NHpO o cnD O � 054 ' j o u D • EnJ= op (D o � sHrr, 0"� N n mOO cQ Sal ¢ O O .. ¢ O rOi n O rD ,y w x CD rt Q n o rD t n rp - rD `C v, ro tD > ti cn SD tr p' ¢ '� I 0 9 rt m O ` ,' � K lad O O O '� rr" Q vroi o ¢ IQ z O .O� O �. R ¢ 'L5 p tin ,w.r, M to I'D C OID IM" 'UQ G p m O tr PU r v �, O O D O W0 H n H Prlad U p. fL rt v,° o �o w a4 p 0 o Q. o o 0, � op LOU) m �H, OQ o v4 O yn O OR 7C 0 o o w� ,om cr m w m o 0 En w n o 0 m ¢ rD '* rt w � OH In y O � . � m o n CO O O o ry 7, �' d o m w m O � O w« (D ¢ a A' ti O O rD m O O 0 0 n C p "�i �' rD ai ro o m rD ar4 Q' tD p rD p pi 0 rD oO ss rD R. m m Nei ¢ w O O rrDD � N• 0 p O p r b ¢ ca o 0 N O f]' 'C3 O fHD rD w rn CtR * 0 y m I ro m rt e�•r Fq ro 1. n O } . ro lid rn Ny p 5y �• N N O O O m �d �n-e O rr 0 ro y h w M ro ro ro ' �' C m � N to ro n •-- n CD �' O'' .•' fD (b ro C3' W N F,-• Ln 0 Y t� fFD O Lo fD O Q H P'y cn tv C n -• Q O p ,n p O iL N �� ro O O O t� 0 (n (�D Q 'M O N p (DEA fD O ¢ p o croii O. O p, (nD O S1 W PL p On n p A. n � , p v, �t cn CD m En Ell) rn Fy, O rD R 0 �h � (DD O 3 Q, rQ+ O t�D O ON '� En (Dc7n r�D R" Q N ¢ O m O Cf0 (D rt ro � cn Oq ((DD C to �• r* rn En G ¢ n o U r a> M o o 14 n � � o 0 IaA 0 Y is 0 ow M En o W m O cn Fe ro � ym p. OQ (or n cn rrD ��� ° rf N. O R Cr w m �, m p r+ ro Q, O (D � �. m (n n0 tn. fi• n (Dm rWn ro R. 3 ` b � n (D FA ... rt ¢r _ ad CD (D c N � o as c 0 z o (D CrQcn • En w O, U4 p vp $ajo N 0 a ¢ ¢W (D ° O O _ I CD chO r Q chi, O n ro m p n (D O �tIna O O W i U) r-t O O `* ' w r ro Ln r 3 IQ a. N o0 ro r"O": ■ ■ ■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �. EnO -- n n N cn ro n ro .s ��w w O O (D rt O n o pa M rim Fl ry O" O Q. ¢, O y rt �. N O ¢. O o• � M FD r (D P, phi pro, ¢ w n PaO OK O �� '"O rDD *,y w O � 0 O ro d ro� 6 R. m ro ` � J p .� p, rL O psi A rt rL UOQ �' croii r�Lrt CD a r+ rm) �l ". m m n ¢• 0 m D y m ■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ O x ¢ f¢D � ° n n 0 O �j d N H y C7 � p rt ro rt ro w O G M O C pros ro ro w �- O ro p� v, w w o tT 0O vt '* O ro GQ (D W Ili (n ro iV at (D R ¢ n' v, R' .Y R .O O N �' (R rt O r rorD 0 C N rro] ro ro O p> m N w `C �. `" O ID p) n n' dq C `C{ CD iv H, (D cp 0 rL OEn t ' va {D O rD ~ p .* ¢ O w. p O n U4 p• (D A. m G 'J � O i Members of City Council, As a member of the Occupancy Ordinance Review Committee I want to share ideas based on the discussions of the committee and proposals before you. These remarks represent not only my thoughts but also contributions from neighbors and neighborhoods . These remarks can be summarized as follows : - favoring rental licensing in the RL zone, -against selective rezoning of RL zones for extra occupancy rental housing (EORH), -against changing the occupancy limits to aflow more than 3 unrelated adults in a dwelling unit . Highlights from the West Central Neighborhood Plan, an active planning document that has relevance to your discussions are also included. Thank you, L Lloyd Walker REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO : IMPLEMENT RENTAL LICENSING IN THE RL ZONE The recent Corona report re-emphasizes that two thirds of the violator households occur in single family homes as found in the 2005 report . This suggests that any solution should focus in neighborhoods with RL (Low Density, Residential) zoning or similar environments (i . e. predominately 4ingle family homes) . This proposal would create more effective enforcement of the current building and zoning codes , and the rental housing standards which are needed to "level the playing j field" between responsible landlords and their competitors who inflate their profit margin by violating these codes . Since rental investors reduce value of each adjacent property (by $ 1200 per nearby rental house according to the 2005 Corona report), then those investors should be held accountable for being good neighbors . Responsible investors are already good neighbors. Only the City can enforce this accountability on the irresponsible investors and this can be accomplished through this proposal. Most people agree and there is recognition in the Corona report that providing rental services is a business enterprise. Landlords commented that they wanted all property owners and managers held to same standards . This proposal will level the playing field of this business enterprise. As a business operating in the RL zone, rental properties should be subject to licensing as is any other business operating in this residential zone. The $ 12 . 50 home occupation is an example of similar measures in place in the RL zone. i Benefits of implementing licensing of rental properties operating in the RL zone (and areas in other zoning districts with similar single family character) include : Assure rental property standards are followed Provide oversight regarding tenant health and safety issues Sanction residential rental businesses that knowingly and flagrantly violate municipal law (a benefit that would be lacking in rental registration) Create a level playing field for landlords and homeowners Familiarize new landlords on responsibilities as defined in City ordinances Communicate more effectively with the rental property owner Provide a basis for the development of a landlord code of ethics A landlord with a flawed business plan that may be predicated on violation of City ordinances such that the property cannot be maintained properly should be encouraged by the market and licensing to exit from that rental property enterprise. Neighbors should not have to bear the consequences of bad business decisions and a failed business plan. And the health and safety of tenants should not be put at risk REGARDING PROPOSALS TO REZONE SELECTED RL DISTRICTS FOR EORH OR ALLOW 4- 5 UNRELATED ADULTS IN A DWELLING UNIT BASED ON NUMBER OF BEDROOMS These proposals show a lack of understanding on the concept of zoning as a tool in municipal policy, management and preservation of neighborhoods. Zoning is meant to differentiate uses in a city for a variety of health, safety and neighborhood livability reasons. Zoning is supported by a variety of ordinances and definitions including "family". Designating three unrelated adults as a family and restricting EORH are ways to accommodate households of unrelated people at level of intensity of use that is suitable for the intent and design of a zoning district. This city-wide change to the occupancy limit would unnecessarily and fundamentally change the character of RL zones which is home to over 65 ,000 family members. The proclaimed benefits would not be worth the detrimental impacts on family neighborhoods. Intensity of use in a neighborhood refers to the number of people expected to occupy the housing units and their individual and collective lifestyles. For example a residential complex housing only young, single adults has different impact than one housing an equal number of retired couples . As a result existing neighborhoods are sometimes affected or threatened by the problem of intensity of use . While no judgment is placed on respective lifestyles, a difference exists in their impacts on compatibility. These proposals would allow renters the amenities of a single-family dwelling without the associated costs . Rather, they are unfairly shifting those costs to law abiding neighbors. The 2005 Corona report found that the market value of a single- family house decreases $ 1 ,200 for each rental house in the immediate vicinity. If the ultimate goal is to increase affordable rentals close to the CSU campus, wilt.landlords increase rent on extra occupancy housing? If the current 3 tenant properties that rent for $ 1200 today would rent for $ 1600 with 4 legal tenants , the landlord makes more profit, the tenants are no better off economically, the home is unavailable to moderate income families to rent while the neighborhood bears the cost of the increased intensity of use of the properties. The occupancy ordinance and related zoning has over forty five years of precedent in Fort Collins . Many personal, business and municipal decisions were made over that time based on that ordinance and zoning districts . Residents bought or are renting homes with certain expectations afforded by zoning and neighborhood-oriented ordinances. This proposal would ignore this precedent. The current zoning structure provides a diversity of residents in a neighborhood while keeping the intensity of use at appropriate levels for which the neighborhood is zoned and designed. Intensifying the use through a change by these proposals constitutes a property rights taking for both property owners and renters who choose to live in an area because they believe such rights are respected by the City, In single family neighborhoods where occupancy is exceeded, often the result is tension between residents because of unresolved impacts. Increased occupancy levels of rental properties would contribute to problems of behavior, maintenance, traffic and parking congestion and a strain on public facilities . Current zoning already permits conversion of single-family homes into extra occupancy rental housing in the vast majority of Fort Collins zoning districts. These include Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN), High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN), Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) , Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and 9 other zoning districts. There is no need to expand the districts allowing EORH. Investors have currently not taken advantage of all the opportunities for creating EORH due to inadequate enforcement of the occupancy ordinance . They seem willing to take the risk of creating illegal EORH so as to not incur costs associated with legal conversion to such i housing. There is no reason to think that this proposal would create any additional EORH. i j By these proposals, City resources are going into managing extra occupancy rentals and a more complex occupancy ordinance. Better use of our limited City dollars would be by thinking outside the box to find ways to increase affordable rentals in higher density zones that have not been developed. In today' s business model with government involved in private companies, is there something the CITY/CSU/State of Colorado can do the help these developers get affordable, high density, student oriented projects moving thus adding jobs for Fort Collins businesses and workers . j i One of the positives put forward for this proposal is improved environmental , impact due to less driving. Is this telling us the City mass transit is not working for the CSU students/staff .? i f� How about encouraging high density development along the mass transit oriented Mason Corridor to serve CSU? To make an impact on affordable rentals around the CSU campus it is going to take more than a few extra occupancy single family homes or increased occupancy limits . With many of the rentals already having 4 tenants, the zoning change will only make it legal, not adding to availability. The only agency gaining from this change are the landlords who will receive higher rents . Proposals for changing the limit on unrelated adults are misguided, short-sighted, fraught with legal complexity and divisive. Such proposals would have additional renters accommodated in existing housing resulting in many negative effects including: 1 ) subjecting tenants to potentially unsafe housing; 2) stressing single family neighborhoods and schools ; 3 ) effectively rezoning over half the single family neighborhoods in the City and fundamentally changing the character of family neighborhoods city-wide; 4) reducing occupancy rates in apartments ; 5) reducing economic activity in the construction sectors and 6) not looking to the future in the solution of our housing needs. Protecting and enhancing single family neighborhoods needs to be an important part of any changes to the ordinance and these proposals do not accomplish that goal. The unanimous decision by City Council to improve enforcement and reaffirm the 45 year old occupancy ordinance limiting housing to three unrelated adults (a limit common in municipalities of our size) sent a strong message of the public policy direction desired by the citizens of Fort Collins . It also helped restore public trust in the City' s strong commitment to enforce its zoning code . The previous decades of no enforcement of the occupancy ordinance resulting in 4 or more unrelated adults sharing a house did not produce desirable results. Neighborhoods near the university became over-occupied, often in inadequate and sometimes unsafe housing. Problems of property management, appearance and behavior resulting from too intense a use for the housing caused many to move, especially long term elderly residents and families with school age children. Consequences of this change in neighborhood composition included decreases in enrollment in local schools creating budget and resource problems for the school district. Changing the limits of the occupancy ordinance in the RL District or rezoning to allow EORH effectively subsidizes conversion of single family neighborhoods into student -housing. Hundreds of real estate investors and 1 ,000s of students benefit; 10,000s of law- abiding homeowners bear the cost , Fort Collins needs to address the fundamental issue of providing safe, affordable housing for all residents including those associated with Colorado State University and those wishing to live near it. This includes the approximately 20, 000 students living off-campus, the work force of CSU and their dependents (totaling about 20, 000), and those wishing to live in such neighborhoods . These proposals only focus on the needs of students, ignoring the needs of the i CSU work force and other citizens. The City and CSU promote "green" solutions which include housing near work or school and providing needed services nearby. This suggests a focused effort which. could include incentives by the City for redevelopment, public/private partnerships and participation by CSU to develop and redevelop its properties . In fact this is happening now. At least six higher density residential projects proposed within walking distance of campus have come to the City staff for comment. These are job creating developments meeting a community need. The enforced occupancy ordinance, in part, fostered this growth environment through the reduction in uncertainty in business decision making. These proposals would undo these positive results. Economic activity in the student oriented housing sector is improving since 2005 . Multi-family rental vacancy rates declined from unhealthy high levels to a healthy 'range . Up to half of this decline may be attributed to ordinance enforcement. This is a positive development in the utilization of apartment capacity and a positive economic trend which would be reversed by this proposal. Neighborhoods enjoy a marked improvement in quality of life since the occupancy ordinance is being enforced. These proposals would reverse this positive trend. THE WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN In the current review of the occupancy ordinance it is useful to reference the West Central Neighborhoods (WCN) Plan. This is a working document that continues to guide the planning decisions of the City. The Plan was adopted . by Fort Collins City Council on May 18, 1999 after a rigorous public process which included active involvement of a Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning -and Zoning Board, City Council members and City staff. It has relevance today as a comprehensive look at the situation and solutions to the issue of housing and neighborhood character in the West Central Neighborhoods and more broadly; in Fort Collins . The West Central Neighborhoods are bounded by Mulberry and the CSU campus on the north, the railroad tracks on the east, Drake Road on the south and Taft Hill Road on the west. The WCN Plan describes the situation regarding housing and neighborhood character in its appendices. Relevant excerpts include: CSU students can bring vitality and certainly contribute to the diversity of the area but also add problems to the WCN. The largely unregulated conditions under which students and other short term residents occupy off-campus housing become a seriously negative factor in developing and maintaining a sense of community in some of the WCN neighborhoods . The problem stems less from students as individual residents of rental housing than from their itineracy and characteristic lifestyles that differ significantly from I those of a neighborhood ' s longer-term residents . Financial incentives to create and overload rental housing are another facet of the problem. i i Under such circumstances, the historic cohesion that previously existed in neighborhood has often evaporated, leaving long time owner residents with the option of adjusting to less stable living conditions or leaving the neighborhood . As these trends progress, some of the WCN are threatened with instability and decline. The lack of responsible property management is an ongoing problem in some areas of the WCN. The lack of responsiveness on the part of absentee property owners presents a growing problem. Absentee property owners may respond initially to neighborhood complaints and comply with City occupancy requirements. However over time the probability is that the same problems will resurface again due to the inability of the owners to monitor renters and the condition of the property. Where occupancy has been exceeded, the result is tension between residents within the neighborhoods because of unresolved impacts. Over-occupancy of rental properties can contribute to problems of maintenance, traffic and parking congestion and a strain on public facilities . The absence of appropriate student housing significantly impacts intensity of use in the WCN in terms of over-occupancy, declining levels of property maintenance, increased on-street parking and higher volumes of traffic and congestion. The following are excerpts from the plan focused on the issues of character of the neighborhoods and housing in response to the situation described above: -CSU has significantly influenced the area' s land use and character in the past and is expected to continue to do so in the future especially in the need for housing and services near the campus -The vision statement for the West Central Neighborhoods : Maintain and enhance the diverse character of the West Central Neighborhoods comprised of long and short-term , residents such as families, senior citizens, and students as well as small business, schools, and public/private institutions and facilities . Strengthen the collaboration between the City, CSU and the West Central Neighborhoods. Continue to provide housing opportunities, infrastructure, and lifestyle options to meet *the needs of this diverse group of neighborhoods . Facilitate and improve existing transportation systems to allow all residents to have a good, safe convenient, and multi-modal transportation options . Adapt to meet the needs of the dynamic and ever- changing West Central Neighborhoods and provide balanced opportunities in development, redevelopment, and maintenance. -The area has the highest population density of any area in Fort Collins. It houses about 20% of the city' s population ( 1998 figures) . City policies that encourage populations in core areas will encourage increasingly intense usage in the area. Such intensity can either be exciting and rewarding or degrading and devastating depending on how it is managed. -Regarding character of the neighborhoods, the following goals are in place : --Utilize the area' s land more efficiently to meet and accommodate the growing demands of CSU and the City without destroying the positive characteristics of existing neighborhoods. --Insure that high density infill development is sensitive to existing neighborhoods, preserves appropriate open space and creates or maintains a desirable character for the neighborhoods. --Define and enforce the responsibility of property owners, managers, and tenants toward rental properties as a means of stabilizing and enhancing the character of the neighborhoods . --Identify opportunities for mixed-use development, revitalization and economic growth in existing underutilized areas to encourage more efficient use of land. -- Sustain or increase the inventory of affordable rental housing near campus without destroying the positive residential characteristics of the neighborhoods -Regarding housing, the following goals are in place : --Preserve existing housing and single-family character of the neighborhoods in designated areas by ensuring that new development is compatible with the positive values of the surrounding buildings and the urban landscape --Create development opportunities for multi-family housing in appropriate locations including but not limited to, vacant and/or deteriorated properties close to CSU --Encourage mixed- use housing as a component of redevelopment activities within the Campus West Shopping Area --Maintain a wide range of housing opportunities and support home-ownership for households of all economic levels in the area --Encourage and support CSU in development of student housing on the CSU campus and CSU Research Foundation property --Encourage responsible rental property ownership, occupancy and management -The West Central Neighborhoods Plan proposes the following implementation actions : --A combination of education and regulation should be provided to resolve conflicts that occur due to short-term residential occupancy in the area { --The City should take a more aggressive stance of code enforcement in the area. Enforcement strategies should be developed to handle violations of existing laws, ordinances and policies that do not further the cultural, social and economic diversity goal policies in the area. Enforcement of City ordinances dealing with nuisances, health and safety, housing standards and the Land Use Code should be increased in problem areas , -Certain target areas should be designated to buffer single-family neighborhoods from high volume streets and commercial or high density multifamily areas . These buffer areas could be redeveloped to include lower density multi-family housing and professional and service offices uses . r -The City should develop a long-range plan to facilitate the acquisition of properties to assist in redevelopment activities for housing development. The City should adopt an incentives policy that would encourage developers to redevelop designated parcels in the West Central Neighborhoods. i Occupancy Ordinance � { (Three Unrelated) Proposal The Associated Students of Colorado State University ** This is a working document * �* Introduction In January 2007 Fort Collins City Council made significant changes to the Occupancy Ordinance, more commonly known as Three Unrelated, that have garnered negative outcomes. The Associated Students of Colorado State University align with Fort Collins City Staff and the Corona Research group on their division of the various interests into three stakeholder groups; students/tenants, neighbors, and landlords/investors. It is important for policy makers to realize that all of these groups should hold equal weight in their final decision on the necessary changes to the ordinance. With this in mind, the Associated Students of Colorado State University would like to propose a series of possible changes for Fort Collins City Staff and City Council to consider. Goals The suggestions for changes to the Three Unrelated Ordinance were written within the Department of Community Affairs. These suggestions were chosen with three major goals in mind: ` 1 . To lessen the cost of living for citizens of Fort Collins that are more heavily affected by the weakening economy, including the low-income populations, minority populations, and the disabled and-elderly who, often times, live on fixed incomes . 2. To avoid sprawl in the City of Fort Collins and make transportation corridors, school and work closer and more accessible to Fort Collins citizens. 3. To improve the living environment within neighborhoods of the City of Fort Collins by making living safer, increasing property appearance and values, and improving neighborhood relations and livability. Recognized Problems The Occupancy Ordinance, like many other ordinances, has negative consequences, although created with noble intent. The Associated Students of Colorado State University have identified the problems with the ordinance that we are asking to be resolved through the review and decision-making process ; 1. It increases the cost of living by requiring individual renters to pay more per month than before the changes made in 2007. � S I 2. Extra Occupancy Rentals are not permitted in certain areas of the City of Fort Collins that have converted from single-family to rental housing by a majority. 3. It is causing renters to move further away from the more accessible areas in town in order to be able to afford housing. 4. It discriminates against couples who would like to live together, but choose not to or cannot legally get married under Colorado law, by defining the term "family." 5. The time in which violators are required to correct, which is currently seven days, is unfair and unsafe for residents who choose to rent or are forced into rental housing in Fort Collins. b. It decreases the value and appearance of properties by causing landlords to garner less of a gross profit and subsequently have less money to spend on the upkeep of the home. 7. The "whereas" clause that defines the problems Fort Collins City Council was looking to solve by revising the ordinance, effective January 2007, are not directly addressed by the enforcement of the ordinance. For example, one of the problems that was suggested would be solved in the ordinance is noise; there are no provisions laid out in the ordinance that directly address noise in the neighborhoods. The Associated Students of Colorado State University acknowledges that the solutions to the problems above would not be to do away with the ordinance entirely, but rather to make changes that would be helpful for all populations directly and indirectly effectedpy the Ordinance. Recommendations for Solutions i There are several ways to go about solving each of-the problems with the Over Occupancy Ordinance (stated above) . The Associated Students of Colorado State University would like to group some of these solutions together to create three major packages that we would be comfortable compromising on. Solutions No, 1 : Four Unrelated and Expansion of Extra Occupancy Rentals 1. Increase the number of unrelated people who are allowed to live in a dwelling from three to four. Benefit: This change would allow for two couples to live together and would eliminate the discrimination that the number three currently allows for. Benefit: It would allow landlords who are in full compliance of the law to fill an extra bedroom ; which will subsequently make it easier on tenants to find ; affordable housing and for the landlords to maintain property appearance and value. j 1b Benefit: This solution would begin to close the gap on the competitive advantage that non-compliantlandlords and investors have over those who choose to abide by the law. 2 . Allow for Extra Occupancy Rentals to be more widely accessible throughout the City of Fort Collins by geographically specifying areas that have converted from single-family to rental housing by a majority. The Associated Student of Colorado State University propose that Extra Occupancy Rentals be geographically specified to the following areas with the limitation of 25 percent per block4ace: a. All NCM Zones b. All NCL Zones converted to NCM zones c. RL zone between W. Prospect Rd, to Wellenberg Dr, and S. Sheilds St. and S. Whitcomb St. d. RL zone between W. Elizabeth St. and W. Prospect Rd. and Castlerock Dr. and Sheilds St. e. RL zone between W. Mulberry St. and W. Elizabeth St, and S. Overland Trl. and N. Taft Hill Rd. f. RL zone between Prospect Rd. and Drake Rd. and S. Overland Trl, and S. Taft Rd. g. RL zone between W. Elizabeth St. and W. Prospect Rd. and S. Overland Trl. and Castlerock Dr. h. RL zone between W. Drake Rd. and W. Horsetooth Rd. and S. Sheilds St. and S. College Ave. Benefit; This would allow for properties that are capable of housing more than four unrelated people to apply for additional occupancy and be permitted through the City of Fort. Collins . Benefit; This would allow for properties to be inspected for minimum rental housing safety standards and would make affordable housing more accessible without having to sacrifice location and accessibility or safety. 3. Extend the correction time for the Occupancy Ordinance from seven days to 30 days . Benefit: This would allow for those who are found in violation of the ordinance by the City Code Enforcement Officer a reasonable amount of time to move out of their current housing situation and to find a new, safe, and accessible affordable housing alternative. 4. Increase the education and enforcement of other ordinances that relate directly to the problems outlined in the "whereas" clauses of the revisions made effective in January 2007, i i I i Benefit; This would be helpful because it would directly solve the problems that were originally defined by Fort Collins City Council when making changes to this ordinance. Education through the Community Liaison Program has proven to be highly effective in downsizing the problems within the neighborhoods, coupled with stricter and heavier enforcement of the Public Nuisance Ordinance, Property Maintenance Codes, and the Noise Ordinance, Solutions No. 2 . Wide-Spread Expansion of Extra Occupancy Rentals 1. Allow for Extra Occupancy Rentals to be accessible throughout the entire City of Fort Collins (excluding "Industrial" zones) through an application and inspection process administered by City Staff. This option would be applied with the Iimitation of 25 percent Extra Occupancy Rentals per block4ace. Benefit: This would allow for the most properties that are capable of housing more than three unrelated people to apply for additional occupancy and be permitted through the City of Fort Collins. Benefit: This would allow for properties to be inspected for minimum rental housing safety standards and would make affordable housing more accessible without having to sacrifice location and accessiblity or safety. 2. Extend the correction time for the Over Occupancy Ordinance from seven days to 30 days. Benefit, This would allow for those who are found in violation of the ordinance by the City Inspector a reasonable amount of time to move out of their current housing situation and to find a new, safe, and accessible affordable housing alternative, . 3. Increase the education and enforcement of other ordinances that relate directly to the problems outlined in the "whereas" clauses -of the revisions made effective in January 2007. Benefit, This would be helpful in that it would directly solve the problems that were originally defined by Fort Collins City Council when creating this ordinance. Education through the Community Liaison Program has proven to be highly effective in downsizing the problems within the neighborhoods, } coupled with stricter and heavier enforcement of the Public Nuisence Ordinance, Property Maintenance Codes, and the Noise Ordinance, i Solution No, 3 . Expansion of Extra Occupancy Rentals 1. Allow for Extra Occupancy Rentals to be more widely accessible throughout the City of Fort Collins by geographically specifying areas that have converted from single-family to rental housing-by a majority. The Associated Student of Colorado State University propose that Extra Occupancy Rentals be geographically specified to the following areas with the limitation of 25 percent per block-face: a. All NCM Zones b. All NCL Zones converted to NCM Zones. c. RL zone between W. Prospect Rd. to WelIenberg Dr, and S. Sheilds St. and S. Whitcomb St. d. RL zone between W. Elizabeth St. and W. Prospect Rd. and Castlerock Dr, and Sheilds St. e. RL zone between W. Mulberry St. and W. Elizabeth St. and S. Shields and Taft Hill Rd. f. RL zone between Prospect Rd. and Drake Rd. and S. Overland Tri. and S. Taft Rd. g. RL zone between W. Elizabeth St. and W. Prospect Rd. and S. Overland Trl. and Castlerock Dr. h. RL zone between W. Drake Rd. and W. Horsetooth Rd. and S. Sheilds St. and S. College Ave. Benefit This would allow for the most properties that are capable of housing more than three unrelated people to apply for additional occupancy and he permitted through the City of Fort Collins. Benefit: This would allow for properties to be inspected for minimum rental housing safety standards and would make affordable housing more accessible without having to sacrifice location or safety. 2. Extend the correction time for the Over Occupancy Ordinance from seven days to 30 days. Benefit: This would allow for those who are found in violation of the ordinance by the City Inspector a reasonable amount of time to move out of their current housing situation and to find a new, safe, and accessible affordable housing alternative. 3. Increase the education and enforcement of other ordinances that relate directly to the problems outlined in the "whereas" clauses of the revisions made effective in January 2007, Benefit: This would be helpful in that it would directly solve the problems that were originally defined by Fort Collins City Council when creating this ordinance. Education through the Community Liaison Program has proven to be highly effective in downsizing the problems within the neighborhoods, coupled with stricter and heavier enforcement of the Public Nuisence Ordinance, Property Maintenance Codes, and the Noise Ordinance. i � q i Patty Jeffries Response to the Proposals Brought Forth from Our Stakeholder Committee Repeal of Occupancy .Ordinance There are numerous negative repercussions if the ordinance is repealed. Increasing the population density in neighborhoods : • increases traffic • increases on-street parking • increases noise and civil disturbances • increases uncontained trash • decreases home values • decreases the neighborhood quality we vested citizens desire Allow 4-5 tenants or two couples • Comments are the same as above. • Neighborhoods with 4 -5 bedroom houses were not built to accommodate the extra on-street parking. • From my experience with the rental property next door — two basement bedrooms were added without city permits . The two bedrooms are currently out of code. Now the new landlord can use those bedrooms for increased occupancy as long as they are upgraded to meet building and life safety codes . So, a 3 -bedroom house turns into a 5-bedroom house in an RL neighborhood. Rezoning neighborhoods For the long-term citizens, rezoning neighborhoods would be sending the message that the quality of life long-term residents desire and enjoy don't carry much weight with the city council. I suggest that if neighborhoods are to be rezoned, start with the southeast and southwest neighborhoods and see if those homeowners would tolerate rezoning and/or EORH. Don't expect those of us in other neighborhoods to submissively surrender our neighborhood character and quality. Affordable housing "near" campus seems to be expanding its perimeter. Rental Licensing/Registration in RL Zones Licensing or registration would assist in placing accountability and responsibility more on those they have the leverage over their tenants . Places the onus of controlling tenant behavior on the landlords/property managers, where it belongs . Controlling tenant behavior should not be relegated to neighbors or the police department to maintain quality of our neighborhoods . I prefer that our police department spend their time reducing true crime rather than spending their time enforcing noise complaints . Rental Licensing in All Zones Same opinion as above. D No Change to Ordinance For me, this is the best option with one caveat. I would support a system where waivers can be obtained to the occupancy ordinance in extraordinary (hardship) circumstances. I propose that the system include neighborhood representatives that are impacted by the waiver, proof of the need for a waiver, and the duration of the waiver would have a short life — six months to one year. The proposed waiver should be open to a public hearing. The waiver appeal period can be open for a month prior to the peak rental seasons — May or June for August terms and October or November for January terms . I don' t support a change to the ordinance to allow landlords/property owners to unilaterally petition for EORH without a public hearing from impacted neighbors . Any proposed change to zoning should be open to the public . I don't support an option of EORH in RL zones based on the boarding house formula of 25 % of houses on a block. This would be an unwelcome change to the integrity of our neighborhoods . Since August 1 , 2009, with an increase in rental properties in my neighborhood, nuisances have increased. These are trash, speeding, noise, parties, and fireworks . Increasing_ the occupancy will ultimately increase the nuisances. I do support educating landlords and tenants on the "art of being a good neighbor" or a "primer in neighborhood etiquette." I realize CSU and Fort Collins are attempting to alleviate the housing crunch. However, the solution is not diluting intact, low-density neighborhoods with higher density housing options. i I i I Stakeholder Committee Solicited Feedback I guess it goes without saying that I'm in favor of keeping the "three-unrelated" on the books. As pointed out in the latest Corona reports not all improvements can be traced back to it but there is no doubt that it has helped our neighborhoods. My three top choices for consideration are as follows: 1 . Licensing of rental units in at least the RL zones. This would be a very valuable tool for the city and affected neighbors making sure landlords are held accountable and are identifiable when problems arise. Although some would try, it can not be disputed that renting of a dwelling is a business and therefore should be subject to licensing just as many other businesses are. Efforts were made to put rental licensing in place in 2005 , it did not happen then, it needs to happen now. 2. Keeping long standing land use zones in place. I and other homeowners in Fort Collins bought our homes in the zone they were in assuming we were protected against "invasion" by properties being used for other than their intended purpose. It is out-of� the-question for such business enterprises as boarding houses to come into areas that are not so zoned. i 3 . Education, Education, Education. Need I say more? One other point that I think is important to convey is that even in this time of tight budgets I would hope that resources are kept available for the protection of neighborhoods. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> My top three solutions would be: 1 . Repeal the occupancy limit: it' s arbitrary and not in line with the American freedoms most people assume them have: freedom of association, privacy, etc. The ordinance breeds contempt for the law. 2 . Continue strong enforcement against the violations that are at the root of this issue: nuisance, trespass, noise, destruction of property, trash, yards/grass/weeds, parking, snow removal, animals, outside furniture . 3 . If we must live with an occupancy limit law, at least increase the number of allowed unrelated to 4 or 5 to match the size of many properties and take some of i the contention out of this issue between tenants and home owners. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> My top choices for solutions would be : 1 . Repeal the ordinance and use taxpayer money for more pressing issues. The other ordinance that Council has put into place have helped resolve neighborhood issues. 2. Permit the number of legal bedrooms. 3 . Rezone the area around campus. I acx� »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>>>>> »»»»»»»> Here are 3 points for your consideration. ( 1 ) Strengthen current occupancy ordinance, with "3 -unrelated" at its core. Increasing occupancy would constitute the most massive re-zoning of Fort Collins in its 136-year history. It would negatively impact the approximately 65,000 residents of the RL zoning District, including increasing cost to single-family renters and reducing property values of owner-occupants. (2) Encourage more suitable high-density residential redevelopment near CSU to accommodate housing needs of CSU students. This could improve safety and affordability of student housing. RL District was never designed to accommodate high- density occupancy by ephemeral households composed of unrelated adults. (3) Institute rental licensing, at least in RL District. Level the playing field between responsible real estate investors and unprincipled " slumlords. " »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> I offer the following three recommendations to be considered by the occupancy committee with accompanying rationale. 1 ) Recommend implementing licensing of rental properties operating in the RL zone (and areas in other zoning districts with similar single family character). Benefits of such a program include: ■ Provide oversight regarding tenant health and safety issues j • Communicate more effectively with the rental property owner ■ Assure rental property standards are followed ■ Create a level playing field for landlords and homeowners ■ Familiarize new landlords on responsibilities as defined in City ordinances I ■ Provide a basis for the development of a landlord code of ethics i ■ Sanction residential rental businesses that knowingly and flagrantly violate municipal law (while assuring due process through municipal court) Providing rental services is a business enterprise. As a business operating in the RL zone, rental properties should be subject to licensing. A continuing problem is the difficulty in contacting landlords. There is no reliable, consistent or easy way for a neighbor or the City to contact a landlord about an issue. 2) Recommend the Neighborhood Services staff continue and expand the educational outreach to landlords and tenants regarding responsibilities associated with offering rental services and living in neighborhoods and add outreach programs targeting neighbors in areas most affected by occupancy and nuisance ordinance violations, and criminal activity. a3 Existing programs addressing student tenants should continue and expand as a collaborative effort between CSU and the City. CSU has done a good job in educating the students and making an effort to discipline off-campus students. This has proven effective and should be continued due to the nature of short term tenancy created by the continual influx and turnover of students as occurs in any college town. Neighborhood Services should expand their outreach to new landlords such as parents of students. For affected neighborhoods, Neighborhood Services should collaborate with the Police to foster the training and development of Neighborhood Watch committees. This would build on the documented positive effect on neighborhood quality of life though implementation of Neighborhood Watch programs. 3) Recommend the City adopt incentive policies to encourage higher density development near the CSU campus. Such development must be sensitive to existing neighborhoods, preserve appropriate open space and create or maintain a desirable character for the neighborhoods as articulated in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. A significant number of new higher density multi-family units within walking distance of the CSU campus are in various states of planning and development by the private sector j and CSU. Enforcement of the occupancy ordinance contributed to the reduction in uncertainty in business decision-making regarding such projects . This trend should be encouraged to utilize the area' s land more efficiently to meet and accommodate the i growing demands of CSU and the City without destroying the positive characteristics of existing neighborhoods. To assure public engagement in any proposed zoning change associated with this recommendation, the existing zoning review and appeal processes must be followed. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> My top 3 choices: 1 ) Even with your excellent meeting facilitation and process you have established, I don't feel safe or comfortable bringing this up in our group, but in a perfect world, I would like to see the over-occupancy ordinance go away. I would like to see us become a community where neighbors don't threaten to take their conflicts to the housing inspector, but work things out, chat over the fence, and get to know each other so that conflicts rarely get heated in the first place. It seems as though we have law on top of law, on top of law. If I'm looking at the info correctly, parking is the only issue related to over- occupancy that isn't covered by another law. 2) Rent every bedroom to at least one person. 3) Allow exemptions for couples, so that 2 couples can live together. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> F6rt City of Attachment 12 Collins Neighborhood July 30, 2009 Services Dear Interested Citizen : Neighborhood Services is in the process of collecting and compiling data for an extensive review of the "Three-Unrelated" Occupancy Ordinance. Our records indicate that you filed an over- occupancy complaint. Please take a moment to complete this questionnaire and return it in the stamped, return address envelop. 1 . Following your complaint and resulting enforcement, did the number of occupants at the address decrease ? Yes . 20 No : 11 *They just got permitted for the 4 people already living there. *There are different tenants living in the home now. *Don't know. *Home at 1125 Robertson is now in compliance and has been for 2 years. The owner continues to rent to CSU students, 3 young women at a time with the owner's daughter spending very little time there any more. Home at 1121 Robertson remained incompliant but has subsequently reverted to a rental to single families. *Yes, after several months and the matter was scheduled for a hearing. *Yes - No . August 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008 (3) January 1, 2009 July 31, 2009 (4) * 1 was sent a follow up later stating that "the property appears to be in compliance. " 2. To your knowledge, is the house now in compliance with the ordinance? Yes 25 No 2 Don't Know 4 *Doesn't appear to be more than 4 renters there right now, as per the landlord's permit. *Owner's son graduated - new renter last summer. *There are not as many cars there but still lots of people coming and going all hours of the night. *Don't know for sure . People are in the process of moving in now. *New tenants moving in today (August 1, 2009) Don't know if 3 or 4. *The former tenants moved out and the owners sold the property. *The renters have moved out. * Problem tenants moved out 1 . 5 years after original complaint. 3 . At the time of your complaint, what were your concerns? Noise Yes 26 No 2 NC 3 Parking Yes 29 No NC 3 Property appearance Yes 27 No NC 4 Other *Safety *More than 3 occupants *The owner had taken a three story unit and converted the garden level to a separate apartment from ground - first floor. *Trash left from drinking parties, etc. *Failure to follow and respect city ordinances and act as good neighbors. *Roommates were nasty to us a couple of times . *Disrespect for the law and attendant inappropriate behavior. *Disregard for private homeowners' parking space including blocked driveway and dogs off-leash. * Over occupancy! (This should have been an option.) This survey will be skewed since this wasn't an option. *From 2 - 6 automobiles . *Parties began at 10 PM weekdays . Drugs, unemployed non-student, "extra tenants." Aberrant behaviors, fire crackers, broken bottles on sidewalk, gutter, mice infestation that migrated to my home, trash in my yard because theirs wasn't secured from wildlife. *Drug use, urinating in the front driveway. * Properties look run down, don't mow grass, don't shovel in the winter, CSU students are lazy. 4. Since the enforcement process, have you noticed improvements in any of the following? Noise Yes 22 No 6 NC 3 Parking Yes 24 No 6 NC 1 Property appearance Yes 15 No 11 Somewhat 3 NC 2 Other * 1125 Robertson still has at least 3 cars and male visitor cars. * 1121 Robertson always has 4 to 6 cars in front of home. *Adhere to the law; greater sensitivity to neighbor concerns, especially by student renters. * Residents were required to use garage for one car - this has NEVER occurred . It was part of condition for variance and never been used for parking (in the garage) . *Weeds in garden. *Property appearance is not directly related but in general this improved as part of the landlord' s adherence to the law. *Frequent barking dogs /almost everyday. Old cars. Lawn is cared for. *Thank goodness for rain - the weeds are green this year and the lawn has been mowed several times. *Lawn mowed periodically, most part snow removed from public sidewalk, trash OK, and not noise at all, no loud parties. . *Police department and city of Fort Collins need to enforce this stuff, need to quit letting students live in neighborhoods. *The improvements are the result of new owners and not the enforcement. *The improvements are the result of new owners, not the enforcement. 5 . Has the overall outcome of the enforcement process been positive or negative? Positive 21 Negative 7 Neither 3 Please explain : *Houses are kept up better, parking has been reduced, noise is down, street traffic is less . *Less chaos in neighborhood, the home had 8 cars at any given time. *My impression is there is a somewhat greater respect for the neighborhood integrity (at least in our neighborhood), though other neighborhoods obviously show little or no improvement. *Post investigation: the number of occupants did decrease and they held the noise down more. *The renters did a much better job as neighbors in a family oriented neighborhood. *Parking has improved, not out in cul-de-sac now. Park 4 cars in driveway. Last tenants just moved out. We'll see how the next batch does . *Enforcement has changed attitudes for the better among some student renters and landlords. *May be too slow, property given so many chances to comply, police should have given noise ticket and kept giving them chances , *Willful violators have been stopped; new households have formed in compliance with the law; there is greater tolerance and respect among neighbors . *There seems to be a bit fewer vehicles - although there are two old vehicles that look like they belong in a junk yard. The lawn is being taken care of and watered, however. *Landlord has quit renting to 6- 7 people. * But some landlords still do not improve their property. *Area returned to normal for zone. *1 am a totally firm believer that this ordinance was and remains necessary. We need to keep single family housing areas oriented toward single family. Keep This Ordinance . *The property owner realized that the city and surrounding property owners weren't going to back off. *Not positive or negative. I would say it has been frustrating. *No action. *Response from Sowder and Green excellent. Slum lord pulled out of Fort Collins rental market. New tenants and property owner more aware of neighborhood expectations . *Our efforts to change these violations in our neighborhood has been very time consuming and stressful. The burden of proof is very time consuming to document everyday because there are so many variables . *The city is too relaxed on the student population. *Nothing happened, nothing was done to enforce the law, keeping a 30 -day log was a complete waste of my time. *Unfortunately the situation remained the same even after I filed a complaint. I think it's a great program if it can be enforced but that is difficult when people aren't honest about where they are living. *The city contacted the owners before the inspection. Shortly after the inspection, the over occupancy still existed. Since then a new "Family" has moved in. *Nothing appeared to change. 6. Is it important to have the option to file an occupancy complaint anonymously? Yes 27 No 2 NC 2 . *Many people would not file otherwise. *Three or more people in a house has no bearing on noise violations, etc. I am in favor of just enforcing laws already in place - this is a great form for doing so . *Probably need more inspectors to investigate complaints. *I contacted the landlord before I contacted the city so they know who complained. *This was my second time doing this. First time was a nightmare. This was not so bad, but it still took 2 months to get them out. But it is working and I am willing to do what it takes to get the landlord to comply with the occupancy ordinance. 7. Please provide any suggestions you have for improving the enforcement process : *Should tell complainer that city is in process of dealing with complaint. *1 suggest more continued follow through. Post investigation that occupants cleared the garage and parked one of the four vehicles in it so as to give the appearance of compliance. * Email versus FAX submittal form. *Police and other city employees could note and report apparent/obvious violations during the course of their daily work routines. *Please make it simpler - it' s a pain the neck to document the vehicles for 30 days. *Better follow up regarding findings. *I could have spent way less time, paperwork and documentation just by calling the police .directly regarding the parking violations . There are other (over 3) violations on my street, but I will not do any more paperwork regarding these violations. If parking is a problem, I will just call police instead - solves the problem pronto ! Good luck, and I hope you continue to enforce this law, even though it is hard to make it work. *License rentals in single family neighborhoods to provide better means of communication with landlords. Ensure health and safety of tenants and sanction landlords who continue to follow the law. * Extend your education to neighborhood residents so they more fully understand the methods of enforcement. *No warning - if the owner is guilty of occupancy violation - the fine should be required to be paid . When I filed, the owner and tenants were in violation of the law and got off without having to pay for the grief they caused. *A lot of landlords are not complying - licensing rental property would be the next step . . ..other college towns have done this . * It should take less time and evidence for the city to act - Make this more enforceable. *If I take the time to report a likely abuse of an ordinance, then I deserve feedback as to actions taken on the city' s part. There are other properties that are in violation of this rule within the University Heights single family housing area. But apparently the neighbors do not or are unwilling to report the very visible multiple cars parked in front of area homes . We ought to make the code enforcement folks on staff drive the streets in the late evening/early morning hours and write down those homes with numerous vehicles parked in front of each unit. Families (usually 4 to 6 occupants, most with out-of-state license plates) in the University Heights area. How these may be "family" but they are move likely to be multiple families sharing the rent to cover their living expenses. This is a smoldering ember about to burst into a flame when a fire erupts and innocent lives are lost. I see some possible evidence of multiple illegal immigrants (look at 821 Pitkin) . *I would suggest more follow- up and maybe conversations with the landlord/property owners. If the renters are not responsible, maybe the Iandlords should be - rather than just letting houses, yards and neighborhoods continue to be trashed. *Mobile home park, so as far as you are concerned we are 4ch class citizens . We have houses with from 1 -4 families living in them. One has people living in a tool shed. No utilities. *All property managers need to enforce the 3 unrelated rule, they don't care . They just want to get the property rented some way with landlords. *Multiple extensions during hearing process was out of order. Had to keep multiple car logs. For tenant response of "spying, " they were called on for all ordinances - - Comply with ordinances and no citations issued . The other ordinances are definitely tied to number of occupants, especially noise, parking. Less "investigation" by complainants . *You guys need to check your file because me and my family left Fort Collins because the city is all talk and no show. We lived with CSU students all around us. Everyone was a jerk student. (Letter attached) *Actually enforce it. *Doesn't seem anything will work. Even when we kept a log of vehicles, it was to no avail. The judge deemed the evidence not credible. So basically the ordinance is a joke since nobody can enforce it. *Send out this questionnaire shortly after the enforcement process . I filed my complaint over 2 years ago . Perhaps have penalties (fines) for property owners who have more than one complaint against them. *Do not pre- contact landlord before inspection - only give at max a 1-hour notice. After the inspection the additional occupants parked around the corner and walked into the property - still over occupied at that time. `4 *Follow up with occupancy inspections, spontaneously. Contact Iandlord at first complaint. Thank you for completing this questionnaire and returning it by Friday, August 10th. If you have questions or additional comments please contact either Derf Green at v dgreen@fcgov.com or 416-2305 or Beth Sowder at bsowder@fcgov. com or 221 - 6676. Additional Comments: *Thank you for your interest and action in this matter. *Derf Green was very professional . Thanks ! *Derf Green was always very nice to work with. Thanks ! *Thank you for sending this to me. I know you are working for us. 51 Surveys mailed to 3- Unrelated Complainants (60 sent; 9 returned by UPSS) 31 Surveys were completed and returned. NC = No comment i I I Attachment 13 3Unrelated SPEAK OUT April 16th 2009 : Comments • Houses aren't being filled to capacity • The money students could be saving can be spent in FC • If you want the price point you can afford , you must occupy illegally • Puts landlords in a position of leverage and students in disparity • Fix on campus/ upperclassmen housing • Spending excess money we don't have • Bold of policy makers to define "a family' ie: GLBT, Latino Population • Enforcing a law that was made before civil rights laws • If you don't vote ( or speak up ), you don 't matter, we don 't have to listen — attitude by Council • Council has said , "This mere presence offends me. " + More landlord accountability • Council does NOT look out for students • Higher vacancy, city looks worse • 3 UR causes sprawl , transportation is not good enough to handle this • Overdevelopment ( largely due to U+2 ) • Has made FC voice or council look inconsiderate • People for U +2 are a vocal minority Responsibility lies on landlords • Just b/c people don 't vote doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to them • Student "Poop" zoning r • Re-zoning would tear FC apart • Even upping the occupancy doesn 't address the problem • There are already rules in place to deal with noise • Unconstitutional • Hurts homeowners • What does this do for lower class populations ? it seems to protect higher "elitist" and "exclusive" • Violation of privacy • Prejudice/discriminatory • Higher density is a solution to the foreclosure problems • Suite-style living creates a culture of living for students in residence halls ( res hall suites — 4 people live together) • Bigger desire to fill extra bedrooms • Public transportation does not even address the sprawl , so we need better transportation • Puts students against neighbors and turns neighbors into spies • Effects the environment, students drive from further distances to campus • Affects Mormon missionaries, they come in 2' s • What are we trying to address, what is the problem ? • Compliance is low, reflects bad policy • Owner will turn it into a duplex • People don't know about the 30 days for occupancy • Students look to break the law • How does occupancy affect the "fiber" of the neighborhood ? • What about couples, they can maintain a house as well as anyone else c�. i J • If someone is breaking the law they are less likely to go through proper channels for other problems ( afraid to call the police because they are over-occupying) • If there does need to be a limit it should be based on the # of bedrooms in the property • Related people do not necessarily keep better yards + Would save extra $ 1, 000. 00/year if x room was filled (could spend the extra money downtown and help the economy) • Landlords are winning the lawsuits • Students don 't live in safe houses • Boarding house compromise is weak • Causes sprawl, still same # of cars • Statistical data to prove correlation between occupancy • Is more than 3 unrelated people in a house really the root of the problem • Modify it ! Don 't just keep it or get rid of it • Trapped in a bad situatidn and did not have anywhere to go • Two couples wanted to move in together and couldn't • Clear geographic focus of people being hit by this (ticketed ) • Boarding houses don 't work • Excessive law, there are already laws • Tuition is going up — we can't afford higher rent — need to live with others to lower rent • There are other rules for noise/cars, underlying "thing" • Language is vague • Families have more people living in units in some cases • A lot of people are violating and not getting caught i • Partying happens in units with few people too • Targets students * Recession - causing families to couple up • Heavy weight on lower class families • Transient Population • Affects the Latino/a population , specifically on the north side of town • Not respecting what property owners want • Targets people who are not already financially stable • Occupancy doesn't make a difference in upkeep • Students, lower income struggle to live here, while everyone else can afford to enjoy it • Tolerance by local residents needed • Pressure for University to raise the upperclassman housing • Don 't live in safe houses . • Is not addressing the problem • We don 't want to live next to that party either + We are here to enjoy FC • Tearing apart our community • People that don 't understand and remember when they were in college • Families live together to afford living • Renters can have their occupancy increased • Problem is not about how many people • Target a population — address • Lived i 'n Chicago, doesn't think that highpopulation g , g affects living standards L}. • Lived in college towns that don 't have it • Ordinance does not take into account the number of bedrooms in the house • Around campus the people that are greatest impacted are not long-term residents • FC has taken a combative approach to "student lifestyles" • More proactive in our relations with neighbors • Treated like a student, raise hell and leave and give nothing back • Economically as students, this is a problem • What people do in their homes/bedrooms is their business • WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ? REDEFINE ITI I • Solutions- raise limit for number of bedrooms, mixed use apts ( affordable)- redefine • The problem -address the real problems like parties, cars parked in street. End goal is better community for all • EORs ( Boarding Houses) 'not available very much w/in 1mi radius of CSU • More student housing close to campus • Allow renters to apply for over-occupancy (modify? How many bedrooms?) • Other solutions? Rezoning? • What' s the real purpose of the ordinance ? • Not listening to students-other ways to address behaviors, cars, nuisances . Easier to enforce . Bad policy hurts homeowners and students, especially in hard economy. Not sure this is the solution - need data to support. • Low-income residents=feel negative impact . Elitist/exclusive ordinance . • Work with all landlords • Enforce what already is the law • Safety issues-need a place to go but then over-occupied • What is the market capacity for bedrooms? • How many universities who do this are state institutions ? • Update upper class on campus housing, increasing vacancy? • Economy and hard times—feels less safe to call PD if a problem . Combative approach toward student lifestyle, do more to bridge relationships between residents • Are having more than 3 in a house the root cause of problems in neighborhoods? Less rent can spend more $ in town . • Parking by campus issue no matter what • Doesn 't see correlation between # of people and effects on neighborhoods • Concerned that it targets certain demographic, tearing apart the citizens of FC - address real issues • Overdevelopment due to ordinance is pushing more renters into single-family neighborhoods creating sprawl-students want to be looking for unsafe housing and can get fined or out of lease . • Compliance low-bad policy-step back-what are we trying to address ? Wait for enf. Changes until 10/27 cc review. Ordinance encourages sprawl- miles traveled . Rent up, pits neighbors against students, not the right solution • Compliance low, encourages sprawl, higher rent • More landlord accountability I I CSU Roundtable Discussion Notes - Occupancy Ordinance September 28 , 2009 What is the impact of the Ordinance ? Students generally agreed that the impact of the ordinance has been negative; one student in attendance said that it was positive. A student said that they were living in the residence halls because of the ordinance. Renters are living under pressure. Forces people to break the law who cannot afford to not live in compliance. Landlords have the ability to threaten renters and hold occupancy over their head. Most of the neighborhoods that college students live in have four bedroom houses. Creates hostile neighborhoods. Law created for college students One student said that they had no noise, and had five people in the house. The neighbors randomly chose 12 houses in the neighborhood and now they have to move out. In one case, Derf came to the house and gave the notice to have it fixed in 50 days - Taft and Prospect. One student said that they live in a four bedroom and three bath house; doesn't have parties, always keeps one car in the garage and they are primarily college students . The ordinance seems like it was designed to discriminate against immigrants. Another student said they have four people living in a five bedroom; no noise violations, people around them also have four people, $375 plus utilities. Another student explained that they live in a two bedroom house because he couldn't find a house that would be affordable. One of the other students said that they have only three people in a house that has four bedrooms and the landlord makes no money. ri One person said they thought that the ordinance was a joke two years ago and said that this ordinance has a theme of "don't ask, don't tell" in the neighborhoods; just live under the radar. Students said that they think this ordinance is intended to protect family neighborhoods. A student was called based on cars out in front of their house; the neighbors wrote down license plate numbers. A student said that more than three people sometimes is a problem . It limits affordable housing opportunities in the City; with only three people, rent is too expensive. If you add an extra person, it becomes less expensive. Less money for students to spend in Fort Collins businesses. With rising tuition and rising rents, this is a hard time for students. Compliance of renters depends on what the landlord says; if they are okay with four, so is the renter most times. This is unfair to landlords. They don't cause noise problems . Landlords who have a six bedroom house have a difficult decision to make (comply or not) . The seven day correction time is more like four days; it is impossible for someone to find other affordable housing so quickly. One student said that their rent increased from $325 to $ 467 plus utilities because of the ordinance . This ordinance punishes people that don't really deserve it. This has more to do with students than City Council will acknowledge. People moving out of houses close to campus causes urban sprawl; doesn't the City want to be "green?" Is the ordinance effective? Student generally agreed that the ordinance was not effective. There are laws in place that already correct the problems that 3Unrelated is trying to solve. Unclear on the "quality of life" definition. Is quality of life having green grass or having a place to live? Complaints can be easily fabricated . Sometimes this happens because of a bad relationship with neighbors. Three people can destroy a house just as well as four or more. There is a misconception as to whether renters or landlords are responsible for the looks; landlords are generally responsible. The Corona study said that the ordinance is helping with appearance. The fees are not going into neighborhood improvements. More people are getting away with it than complying. A student said that because of their high rent, they have less money to contribute to the Fort Collins community. One student said that they are living out of their car because they couldn't find affordable housing in time. If one person has a party with 30 people; being related doesn't have anything to do with it. Students want good quality of life too; places like Ram's Village are crowded. Good behavior means that you probably won't get caught. It is all contextual and behavior-based. Recommendations ? The students liked "me + 3" (4Unrelated) . Change the limit number to be consistent with the number of bedrooms. Renters should have rights too . If they have a house with four bedrooms, they should be allowed to fill it. Another student wants more crack down on landlords: Students were concerned about the definition of a family and a couple. What defines a couple/relationship ? What about the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) community? I Exemptions for couples could present opportunities for a loophole. Couples are fluid and arbitrary. I Ifextra-occupancy rentals were to be expanded, could provide tenants with the opportunity to do so instead of landlords . i Students wanted them to crack down on noise violations instead, l Punish the people who are causing the problem, not everybody. Need to change the enforcement to investigate the validity of complaint because houses are going up for investigation that aren't violating. There needs to be compromise between students/renters and long-term community members . Take the money the City makes from 3Unrelated and put it toward fixing behavior problems . Boost the education campaign on how to comply with other ordinances, Your Voice Web Feedback Tool — Responses Attachment 14 Question 1 : Have you been directly impacted by the Occupancy Ordinance ? Yes , Positive — 127 Yes , Negative — 116 No - 40 Impact W4 I 45% ❑ Yes , Positive a Yes , Negative o No 41 % Question 2: Do you think the Occupancy Ordinance is effective in improving quality of life issues ( e . gl neighborhood disturbances , parking issues , upkeep and appearance of residential properties , etc . ) ? Yes — 145 No — 138 Effective 49% 51 /o u ■ Yes `.. ■ No Question 3 : What are your recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the Occupancy Ordinance ? ► It is very important to maintain and enforce the occupancy ordinance . We moved to Fort Collins and brought our telecommuting jobs because of the quality of life and the neighborhood feel of the old town area . We conducted an extensive search of candidate cities in the United States before selecting Fort Collins as our new home . Those who have lived here for a while may take the quality of life for granted . Don ' t ! It is rare and Fort Collins , especially the old town area , is a residential gem . The current ordinance seems to strike a good balance between the needs of students and those of families and professionals . We need the mix of residents to keep the vitality of the community and to keep it attractive . The long -term economic health of Fort Collins depends on this balance . If the ordinance were to be changed ( or not enforced ) to allow higher density and an increase of mini-dorms converted from residential homes then the overall quality of the community would degrade quickly . We live four blocks from campus and we see the homes that are now used for student residences . Each house is physically deteriorated compared to houses used by families . The yards are not as well kept and often have paraphernalia left out . If a relaxation of the ordinance restrictions were allowed then larger parts of the neighborhoods would deteriorate and house values would 1 decrease and the careful balance of types of residents would shift away from that which keeps this city such a great place. ► Keep it the way it is. ► Fort Collins' Old Town residential area is a gem that needs to be preserved. The Occupancy Ordinance allows for a good mix of families and students that provides a good balance of lifestyles being present in the neighborhood without encouraging turning the area into "mini-dorm" housing that would quickly deteriorate the neighborhood . The houses that are student rentals are not kept up as well as the family homes and we are at critical mass now with the eye sore "party" houses. Altering the Ordinance will encourage more single family homes being turned into mini dorms and the quality of life in the Old Town residential area will plummet. We must guard against property developers on this issue; they have money and therefore will have loud voices for change . ► It's a simple fact that nice, quiet neighbors don't drive out overcrowded student renters . Those of us that simply want to live a quiet life in a nice neighborhood have very little protection from being overrun by student rentals and all the problems they bring with them . There is not much you can do to control renters , once they move in , so there has to be consequences for the owners of the property who let them move in . Make the fines for violations so stiff that the landlords will enforce the rule before the city gets involved . Make violation cumulative with the options of seizure for repeated violations. That might get their attention . Thanks ► Make sure budget cuts do not effect enforcement of occupancy ordinance. ► Keep up the education about it for incoming students. ► I think it is effective as it is. I would hope it doesn 't change to one occupant per bedroom -- that is what created the chaos in the first place. Our neighborhood has calmed down dramatically, and it is fun and safe for families and kids again . I agree that not all larger households create problems . I understand that the city council and staff have actually considered creating special zoning around CSU where higher numbers of tenants will be allowed . This is certainly not the answer. I also understand the some people feel that this ordinance is unfair to economically disadvantaged residents and to certain unusual households. My suggestion to address these issues is to apply permission for over- occupancy to households rather than to properties. Such households could apply for the variation , undergo a brief trial period , and ultimately be granted permission as a household to occupy single family residences throughout the city. These households could be periodically reviewed for compliance (for example, change in membership should require a revision of the application and perhaps another brief trial period) . This will address the issue of unusual situations like two couples who want to share a house, or an unmarried couple who provides_ assistance to two or more Gateway clients (two situations I've heard described as unfairly burdened by the ordinance) . It would also allow groups of students who can prove that a large household can comply with all the city ordinances on behavior and building standards and be generally good neighbors to receive permission to live together. For example , if a group of five roommates or another large household can show the city and the neighborhood that they can be respectful, keep their parties quiet, their pets under control and properly cleaned up after, the yard mowed and watered and if they can successfully avoid or mitigate the inevitable parking problems, then let that household as a group be permitted to occupy a single-family dwelling . Do not give this blanket permission to the house or building . Once a household (as a stable unit) has proven that they can be respectful members of the community, let the particular household carry their permission with them if they move . If a household cannot prove that they will not create problems in the neighborhood they will not receive long- term permission to continue as a designated over-size household . Require landlords to accommodate the trial periods for these over-occupancy households and to break leases if they fail to meet standards. 2 ► The Occupancy Ordinance has had a very positive impact on out neighborhood . We have a number of rentals that are ideal for families with children . Because the neighborhood is family oriented , a house full of students does not "fit". I think the ordinance should be kept in place to ensure that family oriented neighborhoods remain just that. thanks ► My recommendation would be for the city to keep the ordinance as it is and make a commitment to strongly enforce the occupancy ordinance. While I ' m not tied to three limit, the Corona Report does lend credence to it as 41 % feel three is the right number and an additional 27% would like stronger enforcement. As a homeowner in the Mantz neighborhood , 1 feel that if the ordinance is changed it should be changed citywide and not just for a select set of neighborhoods surrounding campus. While there may be more students living near campus than in outlying areas , the arguments to relieve the ordinance would apply to any renter/landlord in FC. Why should one who attends Front Range and wants to live near that campus not be afforded the same as a student living near CSU ? The same with a landlord . Let those that live in Clarendon Hills, with their large houses be allowed to rent them out to 5 students attending Front Range. The underlying argument in only allowing higher densities near CSU is that those neighborhoods belong to students, which they donT ! They belong to everyone ! ! ► The main reason that I support the ordinance is that if investors can put many people in one house, property values are driven up artificially & families cannot afford to purchase them . Many of the neighborhoods with student housing have houses that would make excellent first homes for families if the prices were at a reasonable level . ► More strictly enforce the ordinance through proactive patrols by officers . Also, require landlords to register their rental property with the city so that potential trouble spots can be monitored . There is no sense is patrolling a neighborhood if there are no rentals there. Allow approved residences to have more than 3 unrelated renters in them if the property has been inspected by the city and it is determined that it is safe for more than 3 people to live there as well as there is ample parking for the renters. I believe that this ordinance cuts down on parking issues as well as keeps neighborhoods cleaner. While it costs renters more it results in higher property values in single family home neighborhoods and in general keeps neighborhoods cleaner. ► The City needs to be more proactive in making sure that Landlords know the rules . The house next door to us was advertising 4 rooms for rent we called the office and asked if the landlord could be contacted by the City to make sure he/she knows about the rules and the office told us no. Great law it helps protect our neighborhoods ! ► Institute mandatory rental licensing for detached single-family houses in the RL zoning district. Revocation of a license would be the tool of last resort to sanction those few real estate investors who routinely ignore the zoning and building codes in Fort Collins . Rental licensing would improve compliance with health and safety codes that protect renters from avoidable tragedies. Licensing would make it easier for neighbors and code compliance officers to contact the out-of-town investors and others whose properties in Fort Collins cause chronic problems. Licensing would level the playing field between responsible investors and the "slum lords". ► More strict enforcement of the ordinance, there are a number of homes on our block that have 5 to 7 cars parked around the house , you know that there are more than 3 people living in these places, and nothing is being done about it. Put some teeth in the ordinance ! ! ! ! ! ! ► Please seek help from Denver; these Ordinances are Very Important to property values. I also own property in the University district of Denver. My property is 5 blocks off campus from the University of Denver. Every student has at least one boy or girlfriend with a car. Example would be a home with 3 students = 6 cars overnight! That's for 1 house ! I ' m sorry, that's the way it is. WE NEED THIS ORDINANCE Please don't let greedy landlords cram a zillion people into 1 house. It's wrong ! This is Fort Collins not China. 3 ► Make sure the ordinance is enforced . Implement Rental Licensing to make landlords more accountable . ► It is essential to maintain the U +2 ordinance . While cumbersome to enforce, the direct impact of quality of life on owner-occupied residents of the city has been undoubtedly positive . Limiting the number of cars parked on the street (no more than 3 per household), and the reduction in noise complaints are direct benefits from this program. Living conditions for renters are drastically improved , and this shouldn 't go overlooked either . it is critical to , have a sense of place and a sense of responsibility, and U+2 does its part to endow both of these important qualities. while it is not clear to me why students feel that this is an impingement on their liberties, I think that it is absolutely critical that you do not fall victim to the voice of the slumlord landlords who live in the high-end parts of town who are not DIRECTLY affected (other than their pocketbook) . Students have absolutely nothing to gain in this, other than guaranteed better living conditions. There is not a shortage of rentals in the city, and that argument should fall on deaf ears . Maintaining the quality of all parts of the city of Fort Collins requires that the u+2 remain enforced . eric. a.odell mail . corn ► Please keep the ordinance and continue enforcement. This ordinance is key to keeping my neighborhood clean , safe, and free of late night partying. ► Make the reporting procedures uncomplicated and provide feedback to the person reporting . ► Keep up the good work_ My family and I live in a cul-de-sac--close to CSU--that doesn't have much parking or space. We've had two homes in the cul-de-sac that have been fined for violating U +2. When a new house full of college kids move in , neighbors let it be known that violations of the law will not be tolerated which keeps partying and noise down , I suspect. The college renters usually have heard of the law, and seem more eager to be good neighbors. Bravo, City of Fort Collins for having a law with enough teeth to make living in our fine town an easier and more enjoyable thing . ► go after the property owner and make them clean up these rental houses. ► I'm a landlord and I'm in favor of this ordinance . It helps me rent to the right people and enforce limits as to how many people can live at my rental property. I 'm also in favor of the ordinance as a homeowner. There is a house next door to me where the owner rents out rooms to at least three other people . This causes disturbances, parking issues , etc. I'm in the process of tracking vehicles to file a complaint. ► We live in a neighborhood in which about 40% of the houses are rental units. Much of the transition from single family home ownership to rental properties for students has occurred in the last 5 or 6 years. Prior to the U +2 ordinance, the number of cars, parking congestion , noise issues, and traffic increased significantly on an annual basis . At the same time, neighborhood quality of life was rapidly decreasing. The U+2 has had a positive impact in terms of the number of vehicles and noise related issues. The quality of life has improved since the U +2 ordinance went into effect. We appreciate this fact. Awareness and enforcement of the ordinance has had a positive impact. However, we believe there are still many residences within several blocks of our home that have 4 , 5, and j even 6 unrelated students living . We have one house with 4 unrelated students right next to out property. They told us so. The problem is the amount of paperwork and evidence required to prove to the City's satisfaction that more than 3 unrelated individuals live at the same address. Just saying that there are 4 (or more) cars in the driveway on a regular basis is not enough . Therefore, we believe that increased education about the ordinance for renters, rental management 4 companies, and rental owners as well continued enforcement is critical to the longer term success of the program. Enforcement alone will not lead to continued success. Thank you for the opportunity for us to share our thoughts on this important issue and the U +2 ordinance. ► The city should stay the course and not succumb to the pressure that it needs to generate "high occupancy" zones to accommodate the renters. The occupancy ordinance has done wonders in restoring the older neighborhoods in the city. Let's not forget that what makes Fort Collins unique is its diversity and equality, and that we don't have residential areas of "haves" and "have-nots". Creating " high occupancy" zones amounts to creating a ghetto area for the students, and that is the worst form of discrimination . I also want to point out that high density areas correspond to high number of neighborhood problems. Just look at the noise complaint map that is published in the Coloradoan on Aug 31 . Why in the world would City Council wants to put in even higher problem area? The proper course should be to NOT have any more of this high density area so that our police and city resources can be spent on better things. Sometimes I wonder if certain City Council members want to squeeze all the rentals into the older neighborhoods so that their own area would not be impacted by the "undesirables". The occupancy ordinance has an absolutely positive effect on the quality of life in my neighborhood. I have lived in the Mantz neighborhood since 1982 . 1 have seen the neighborhood going from a highly desirable area, with good property value in the 1980 's , to a "war-zone" in the 90's due to irresponsible landlords and renters, and now again to a desirable place to live, due to the three unrelated ordinances. Anyone (including certain city council members) that thinks the U+2 rule has no positive impact has NO idea what it was like to be living near campus, and how much good the U+2 rule has enriched both homeowners and renters. Too often the discussions on rentals focus on students , and some city council members portray them as "victims". This view cannot be farther from the truth . With the U+2 rule, what we see is that quite a number of students are quite happy that they are not forced to live with a lot of other students. Because landlords can no longer arbitrarily jack up the rents due to the U +2 law, the serious students can afford the rents and not have to live like cattle. We are also seeing young families with children moving in . Again because the rents are now more equitable, the young families can rent closer to CSU and old town . One final thing . The city seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate the students. What about people like me who works at CSU? What about the young families? Don 't we have the right to live near CSU and Old Town , in a single family residential area ? Don 't get rid of the Occupancy Ordinance , and don 't try to offer up the older neighborhoods around CSU as sacrificial goats for special interest groups_ When the older neighborhoods go down the drain, Fort Collins would be just like any other faceless suburbia . ► I think the ordinance needs to be more strictly and consistently enforced . I also feel that improvement in response to disturbances associated with certain households would indirectly discourage houses that are in violation of the occupancy ordinance. I understand the pros and cons of this ordinance but I do strongly feel that fewer students in a household is correlated with decreased disturbance issues. ► Please do not "water down" this ordinance. In neighborhoods with a significant amount of rental properties , it is clear that enforcement of the ordinance has decreased problems such as noise complaints, deterioration of rental property with subsequent effects on neighboring properties , and crowded street parking . As far as stakeholders' concerns are addressed, I suggest that if landlords lived next door to their rental property they would not put up with the problems of irresponsible renters such as they are asking a neighborhood to do by ignoring their landlord responsibilities. There are a lot of responsible landlords; I believe that a minority of irresponsible landlords create a need for this ordinance protecting owner-occupied neighborhood properties. j 5 I At this time neighbors are the police and informers, We need to PROVE that the ordinance is being broken, such as, car licenses and record of number of cars parked. We are willing to report a problem , but need to "prove" it? ► Implement a licensing program for all rentals in the RL zone ► Woops - hit submit before 1 was done . Residents need to be better informed about how to work in concert with the city of Fort Collins to help with reporting and enforcement. We are very grateful for this ordinance , because without it our neighborhood would be a lot worse than it is now. We have seen landlords really get better about policing their own properties . ► Please continue the 3 unrelated ordinance. It has made a big difference in my neighborhood . Thank you . ► Keep Ordinance as is. Go to licensing if we see lots of abuses Point out the benefits so people have a clear idea of why this is working for Fort Collins. . . .and that this will be the future for the city. We need to stop this move by council people to attempt to change it with each election . We need a solid statement so that the citizens are engage in this . 1 . Ordinance helps to keep Rental prices down for families. Allowing 4 or 5 or more students in house means landlords can charge more for the house. . . pricing out families . 2. Ordinance promotes development of student housing near campus. Allowing more .students to live in houses competes with developers ability to fill units. . . thus dissuading their development. 3 . Student housing promotes a GREEN solution . Eliminates car use and driving . 4 . Ordinance promotes families living near core city which promotes downtown businesses. Opening up housing in a 1 to 2 mile radius to CSU is not good economics for city_ 5. Key employers, CSU , Vet School, CDC, PVH , US Government need to have good neighborhoods near their place of employment. Opening up neighborhoods to unregulated density of students will drive these people out to neighborhoods far from center of city. NOT A GREEN SOLUTION ! ! M Thanks you . ► Have a clear, non -confrontational process for working with students in the neighborhood when I am aware of a violation . Can there be any process for helping a student move out when 4 or more are living together? I support the ordinance, but at the same time, prefer not to cause CSU students to become homeless. ► Greater enforcement of the Ordinance! ! ! ! ! I My neighborhood has experienced increased rental properties and it has definitely impacted my property value negatively due to deterioration and non-upkeep - of the over crowded rental properties. Cars at these rental properties (single family dwellings) number 5+ , all of which are driven daily. This Ordinance is critical to maintain and enforce! The landlords must be held accountable and fined when they break the law! ► Good Enforcementl ► Must be enforced - especially true in neighborhoods surrounding CSU that have slowly changed from family neighborhoods to increased rental properties . The CSU students are a real asset to the community, but so are established family neighborhoods. Some houses and streets adjacent to CSU have severely suffered in appearance and liveability over the past decade and do not reflect well on the city . Some family neighborhoods that remain in the vicinity of CSU had started to decline, and I believe the ordinance helped to revitalize some of these established older neighborhoods. 6 ► You people worry about trash trucks in the neighborhoods, yet with students and all their friends who come and go at all hours making noise and pollution you don 't seem to get that this is a lot worse than some trash trucks coming around once a week. The students go 24171 Before the ordinance was passed I had 10-12 students living in the lower part of an illegal duplex that the city would do nothing about. There was constant traffic at all hours, no parking and lots of noise. So I have no sympathy for students who whine about this being aimed at them as they say Its my right to party ! All of the students I have lived around had no respect for anyone else and no consideration . ► I feel there is a direct corrilation between # of occupants and noise violations. Make landlords more responsible for policing their rental property. Insist landlords have a personal involvement with who they are renting to and the landlord voice their concerns on occupancy limits to renters - esp large houses for rent. ► I am in favor of keeping the +2 ordinance with stepped up education and enforcement. I think the City and University should continue explore high density housing options near campus or perhaps along the North College corridor. ► In my opinion this isn't strict enough but if this seems fair to all I can deal. Thanks! ► License all rental properties. They are basically businesses and need to be regulated . This would benefit both neighbors and rental occupants. ► Work to get CSU students to understand that they are welcome in family neighborhoods if they don't disrupt those neighborhoods; this is not about discrimination , it is about having a neighborhood friendly to families which is what these homes were built for. > Keep the Ordinance as is. It has saved our neighborhood (Rolland Moore West) . Do not water it down or do away with it. ► Consistent and responsive enforcement ► I think it should stay the way it is. While I do see houses with more people in them , for example the house that burned down on the other side of the neighborhood off Stuart, I think overall there is less rowdiness, fast driving cars, loud music, etc. since we have had the ordinance in place. I really think any kind of change that would permit more people per house would create the "fraternity" effect of getting too many college students together and creating a mess, much like the houses used to be off of Stuart on Constitution previously. CSU should also take personal responsibility for the housing needs of their students if they are going to permit more students to attend CSU . As .far as changing zoning laws to allow more "group homes" I think that is only feasible if they are directly across from the university and don 't impact others that live there, i.e. beer cans/bottles, trash, cars, etc . I don't think this is realistic and therefore think it is a bad idea . Thank you for your time on this, John and Denise Timby 1718 Constitution Court, Fort Collins, CO 80526 ► Keep the Occupancy Ordinance as is . There has been a very definite improvement in our neighborhood. ► Continue in its current form . Do not allow zoning changes for current single family neighborhoods. ► The ordinance seems to be doing what it was intended to do. It has greatly improved our quality of life. by this I mean we can go to bed at 10pm and sleep all night. We had a rental across the street that had five young adults. We were guaranteed a party every Friday and sat. One Friday eve. I counted 43 cars up and down the street. Now, that home is a daycare, what a relief. We now rest in peace in our home of 37yrs. Quality of life has been restored . Let' s not go backwards . Rich and Wanda Larson ► I think the occupancy ordinance is effective and is working fine the way it is and no further action or changes needs to take place . ► We are very happy with the U +2' ordinance. We can now park in front of our own house. We can now sleep at night without all the beer parties and loud noise going on . Neighborhood problems have decreased and quality has improved on our street and in the surrounding area. We now have our quality of life back again . Thank you John and Beverly Biggs 1321 Southridge Dr, Fort Collins, Co 80521 7 ► In our neighborhood we have a large family with untold numbers of people and cars where there doesn't seem to be a limit on the number of folks in the house and their cars , noise, etc. is a bigger bother to me than if five civilized college students occupied the five bedroom houses that might be available to rent. Many of the folks that are following the three occupant rule are frequently having three of&the opposite sex over, so it seems to be a moot point to me . I think the emphasis needs to be on being considerate neighbors, not getting drunk and disorderly and watching the noise , no matter how many folks live there. > better way to enforce the three unrelated occupancy, definitely do not allow greater occupancy in family neigh borhoods(example Rolland Moore West) , licensing of rentals, education and outreach to tenants and landlords including occupancy rules and care of the property and being a good and considerate neighbor ► It would be nice to have an effective way to enforce this ordinance when 4-5 cars are parked out in front of a residence; in this case, it would appear that more than 3 unrelated occupants are living on the premises. We definitely don't want the zoning or the occupancy limits changed in the Rolland Moore West neighborhood . The Occupancy Ordinance has definitely improved life here in the past few years not nearly as many noisy parties or houses sold with the intention of turning them into " boarding houses". It sure would be nice if there was a way to encourage the rental properties and student-filled houses to take care of their yards, Many properties on West Stuart Street in particular, are looking very neglected and lawns are full of weeds. It brings down the property values for the rest of us and is just a visual "downer" when passing through our neighborhood . We've lived here for over twenty-five years and would like to remain here if our quality of life can be preserved. > Maintain the U+2 policy, Set clear rules about party size/noise, parking no to a law allowing unrelated persons to equal the number of bedrooms in the house no to licensing all apt/rentals ► I ' m a resident homeowner in the middle of the student hot zone near Myrtle & Meldrum. I am also an owner of student housing adjacent to my home and I work for a property management company that exclusively provides student housing . The 3 unrelated has had a positive affect on my neighborhood , but the biggest positive impact have been from the noise and nuisance ordinances and their enforcement by Police and education & tracking by Neighborhood Services. I have friends who live in areas outside the main student areas who are very pleased with the 3-unrelated ordinance. I do see a lot of owners & property managers who skirt the ordinance by allowing additional residents who are not on the lease. This causes serious problems for the additional resident's rights and can cause a potential financial hardship for those on the lease in case the non-lease resident should move or cause problems. I recommend having a zone around CSU that would allow 4-unrelated . There are some obvious boundaries, like Mulberry and College, which seem to separate major student areas from non-students. The south and west boundaries could be messy. see less negative impact from houses with 4 people compared to duplexes with 6 or 8 students effectively living together as one unit. My direct experience as a neighbor & property manager is when you get more than 4 people living together as a group , trouble happens . Thanks for accepting my input. Jim Norman 422 West Myrtle Street 690- 1675 ► The only option I support is NO CHANGE . I DO NOT support any changes that would allow extra occupancy in NCL , NCM , or RL zones. 8 DO NOT support the "fraternity lodge" option ► Keep family neighborhoods FAMILY no matter what system it takes to achieve . ► Our Roland Moore neighborhood used to be beautiful, ie, perfect front yards and care of the house. Now some streets look good but some are awful and we would like to see more restrictions on yard care to discontinue the weed patches . ► An ordinance is only effective to the degree it is enforced . Given adequate enforcement, I think it is fine as is. ► WHATEVER PROBLEMS NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE WITH ABSENTEE OWNERS , OR WI TENANTS WHO DON 'T KEEP-UP THE PROPERTY, OR WHO ARE OTHERWISE LOUD , UNCARING, RECKLESS , LITTERING , WEED-HARBORING , UNKIND OR OTHERWISE OBNOXIOUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE THERE. THESE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES NEED ADDRESSING FOR SURE, BUT LEGISLATING NUMBERS ONLY ASSURES THAT RICH SPOILED KIDS WHO CAN AFFORD TO TRASH PLACES MOVE INTO GROUP HOUSES . WE NEED TO FOSTER NEIGHBORLINESS, COOPERATION . I 'M A MIDDLE-AGED HOMEOWNER AND FAMILYMAN IN A NEIGBORHOOD ADJACENT TO CSU ► Maintain the quality of neighborhoods by respecting those who own homes there . My area ( Rolland Moore West) is only about a mile and a half from CSU which makes it attractive to students , In other words, because I live where houses have 4 bedrooms it would be back to the same nightmare it was before the ordinance if rooms are considered in the allowed occupancy. I was severely affected by noise, traffic and parties before the restrictions were passed. I do not want a return to misery and fear. I live alone now and having constant drunken college students next door will not create a safe environment for me. I continue to believe that making landlords responsible for who they rent to will always work. Making the renters themselves responsible for their behavior will always work as well . There is no need to see lawns deteriorate and noise increase simply because a house is now a rental. When I was a student and renter it was simply understood that the property was maintained and the neighborhood respected . Education and repercussions are elements that should be continued . Thank you , please do not gut the ordinance, it works. ► Continue outreach and education and require all properties that are rented to be licensed. ► Continue with education of college students. Do not succumb to watering down the Ordinance. Do not weaken neighborhood zoning . ► Better enforcement. Any system that can help limit the overall use of on street parking that blocks driveways and creates noise and trash when multiple people visit student houses for parties on a regular basis ► It needs to be easier to enforce. Right now I live by two houses that are over the limit. I haven't done anything to report them because the process takes too long . ► Leave the Occupancy Ordinance conditions as they are, and encourage residents to report violations. The Occupancy Ordinance has had a very positive effect on the quality of life our neighborhood , and families are actually starting to move back into (rather than out of) the neighborhood . I believe that individuals who have made what may be a once in a lifetime investment to purchase a home in an area zoned for single family residential use have the right to expect that the quality of life issues associated with this zoning will not be changed , simply because some investors see an opportunity to make money by turning single family homes into apartment units . G . Rex Smith , 1624 Independence Court ► I personally had to complain to the city regarding this issue, There were 7 college age students living in a house next to me. Since we lived on the curve of a horse shoe street, the parking was bad to begin with . We keep the records required by the city to file a complaint. It worked , the SECOND time. The first time we filed the complaint it did not work due to the fact that the city informed the owner that there had been a complaint and that they would be inspecting the property and gave the owner the date and time of the inspection . Of course the owner was prepared and prepared the tenants. This "Following of the Rules" by the landlord and tenant lasted about 2 weeks before the next wave of 4 additional people moved in, again 9 making it a home of 7 college students . 1 have children , I know that they need to live on their own and have help paying the rent, but I believe that the actual owner occupants of their homes should not have to suffer the issues associated with over-occupied homes_ Thank you . A native of Fort Collins. ► Continue existing enforcement and DO NOT change the ordinance. A side note : a survey that does not require people to post their name lends itself to ballot stuffing and may skew results . ► I think there should be more flexibility in the locations of where higher occupancy (i.e . Boarding Houses) could be allowed . The current zoning restrictions are not an accurate reflection of current usage and need . This is especially true around the neighborhood and streets immediately adjacent to CSU. ► Rental License for RL zoned investment property. Financed by fee for the license. Keep rental safe for tenants. With 2 houses already condemned in the Avery Park area, you have to wonder how may more have issue. Some landlords only care about income cash , not keep the property safe for the tenants. ► More strict enforcement. Do not allow the greedy slumlords in the south end of town to bully the city into changing an ordinance that has protected resident investors ! I am absolutely opposed to any weakening of the occupancy ordinance, I'm opposed to any zoning changes that would allow for additional over-occupancy and I DO NOT support this ridiculous "fraternity lodge" option . NO CHANGESMI ! Protect our neighborhoods! ! ! ! ! ► Do not change the zoning code to allow boarding houses where they are currently prohibited . Continue education and outreach to tenants and landlords and expand this effort to neighbors and neighborhoods most affected by occupancy violations . Implement licensing of all rental housing in single family neighborhoods . ► I have read the proposed changes from ASCSU and I strongly object to these changes. Students have the same rights as everyone to live in reasonable sized households. Those of us who live near campus should not be forced to endure the inevitable negative consequences of more and larger student households. This fall has been especially bad in our neighborhood and all the noisy partying started the day the dorms opened and culminated with the post-CU game nonsensel Students en mass are a problem . I do not want my single family neighborhood turned over to these children who clearly still need adult supervision . If they desire "safe affordable housing near campus they should remain in the dorms. Also this proposal to allow fraternities to cram 6 boys into a house (call it whatever you want its' still a frat house) in single family neighborhoods is ludicrous ! Take a look the Pi Kappa Alpha houses on Laurel . We DO NOT want that in our neighborhood ! ► Continue the educational efforts that reach students (primarily) and educates them on the rules, and also gets neighbors involved in checking on rental properties and reporting violators. Do not change to allow a person in every bedroom . This is the problem in our neighborhood - too many bedrooms! Only do licensing if it will step up enforcement, not just to collect money from landlords ! ► Please maintain and enforce the Ordinance . 10 ► Continue positive neighbor to neighbor interaction , education of tenants and landlords. Fully enforce the ordinance if there is blatant disregard for it - and/or after personal or intermediary negotiations with noncompliance are exhausted . ► PLEASE keep it as is -- our neighborhood has improved immensely -- less cars, no major parties , and no vomit in the street or red cups all over the place . ► Areas zoned "Single family" should be just one single family. Put pressure on CSU to provide more housing for students. Freshman should be required to live on campus. Now, mom or dad can buy a house in town for their kid and somehow this exempts the student from this requirement. > Continue with the ordinance. It has helped our subdivision tremendously. ► The Occupancy Ordinance helps maintain quality of life in neighborhoods which would otherwise be negatively impacted by renters and other transient residents. I strongly urge the Council to maintain the present ordinance. > I think it's working just fine . I especially think the fine of the owner of 2008 Manchester will help make owners think twice about ignoring the ordinance. ► Please continue enforcement, making the requirements very public. Thanks ► Do not change a thing , except maybe increase enforcement. This ordinance has done much to improve the quality of life in our neighborhood adjacent to campus. One thing to keep in mind is that students are transient and have little, to no, interest in becoming a part of the neighborhood and landlords have little interest in meeting the neighbors in the neighborhood of their rental. We homeowners have made the decision to live in these neighborhoods with hopes of staying for years . ► Continue to enforce it. The only rental on Independence Rd . is growing Canadian thistles which are one of three noxious species banned by a county ordinance. No one is home in the daytime . I keep pulling them up but am losing the battle. The yard is a mess. ► First of all, I do see the need for college students to keep their houses clean and observe parking rules. However, I don't think the 3 -unrelated ordinance is the answer. In this economy, college students are finding it increasingly difficult to pay tuition as well as rent. Therefore, this ordinance hurts the student body. It also hurts low-income families and families affected by the economy who may want to share a house to save costs. We must be attuned to these needs as well. My recommendation is to add an initiative that would unite students and community by allowing both parties to improve each other's lives. Allowing more than three occupants to live together would decrease many students' rent. Adding a community service option for students in certain neighborhoods to this ordinance would help students give back to the community. I recommend the city of Fort Collins speak to the community affairs staff at ASCSU to work out specifics . Allowing students to earn credit for community service they do in their neighborhoods such as lawn-mowing, babysitting , etc. would encourage students to assist families that do sacrifice parking spaces on their street to accommodate their housing . I ► Ist question : I have been impacted. If it were enforced it would have a positive impact. Rental licensing is imperative . Investment property is a business; not just a secdnd income/retirement income hobby . The "character quality of the month" published in the October City News is most fitting : "Responsibility" . Landlords need to "know and do what is expected, " as do tenants. I believe this would be achieved through rental licensing . Education , education , education (and I ' m tired of doing it) . With rental licensing , tenants would be educated on the ordinances (because, hopefully, landlords would feel the need for tenants to comply!) And the reality of enforcement if ordinances are neglected . Grow up, be responsible; the entitlement generation needs to hear this! ! It's not all about you ; homeowners value their property and location in the city. In a perfect world CSU employees would see the value of living close to their work site (in our environmentally conscious world ) as opposed to living across town in Claredon Hills; and students would understand that their time at 11 university be focused and valued as an opportunity for education rather than a messed up transition to adulthood. Unfortunately, for the stakeholders that remain in the high density rental areas, we are the educators , parents and enforcers of these neighborhoods. ► Encourage enforcement of ALL ordinances . They are more affective in combination . The problems from stuffing of houses are enormously exacerbated by under-aged drinking and public drunkenness. Where are our police when young people to drunk to walk a straight line are screaming at the top of their lungs back and forth along W. Elizabeth ? Keep the city employees working on neighborhood quality of life FUNDED ! They are such a tiny group and do SO MUCH to help. It is ridiculous that they can sometimes only work part time, due to lack of funding . Encourage development in areas already appropriately ZONED so that there are attractive alternatives. People who bought their homes in Residential Low Density should be able to trust their government to protect THEIR investment. . . . . not just money, but years and years put into a neighborhood. Some Universities require students to live in University approved housing which must renew licensing yearly . Not only would that prevent stuffing, but would also make it possible for renters to be protected from poor maintenance safety issues. Why couldn't F. C. require licenses for rentals . Other businesses in our neighborhoods are regulated . Want more? Call Donna Fairbank 493-2486 I 've lived here for 34 years and this is NOT a problem about students and town folk. It is a conflict between students and others who wish to live in a law-abiding and pleasant manner and those students & investors who care only for their own greed and self-indulgence. MOST CSU students and rental managers are not like that, but those who are give everyone else a bad name. ► Emphasize the enforcement part of the ordnance. ► This is just a beginning . The occupancy ordinance is a good start, but I understand with the current budget, it is not on the top of the list to monitor. In our neighborhood noise is still a big issue as well as appearance of property. ► I believe that the Occupancy Ordinance is already effective ! It may be helpful to frame the discussion as a zoning issue. Single family residential zoning means those who wish to operate rental properties with occupancy numbers above the O. O. limits need to look to a different zone to do business. Fort Collins City, CSU , and businesses can look to provide more student housing that meets the needs/interests of students. ► Agree with Ordinance but very strongly disagree with a rental licensing program . ► It is of utmost importance to continue to uphold the current Occupancy Ordinance ! In every case I have observed --- their are problems with the upkeep of the property, parking issues with too many cars, and noise and partying in late night hours when there are more than the legal number of persons renting/occupying a single family residence . Currently there are regularly 4 and often 5 cars parked all night long on an ongoing basis at 1312 Pitkin Street. And , there have been loud late night disturbances at this residence as well . I suspect that the occupants of 1312 Pitkin are in violation of the current Occupancy Ordinance. Thank you Ben Manvel for your stance on this issue ! Sincerely, Dave and Joan Yust 1301 Patton Street ► Get more active enforcing it! It's the first thing that has made a noticeable difference . 12 ► Keep the level as at present this is the best help we have had. begin to license rental properties so the landlords can be held accountable get the police to enforce other related issues " noise & public drunkenness ► We need more of this! And more enforcement. Thanks ! v ► Rental homes should be regulated like any other business. ► I think it helps to some degree. We still experience neighborhood disturbances in the form of loud parties, loud music and fire crackers on a weekly basis. We purchased this home two years ago without the „ knowledge of the excessive number of college rentals on our street. I propose the idea of requiring property owners to obtain some form of rental license which would hold them accountable for out-of-control tenants. I'm very tired of calling the police over and over again . ► The ordinance has helped even with its lack of desired effectiveness , it is still better than no ordinance at all . ► I don't know that it has been as effective as it has been helpful. We live , and have lived for more than 50 years , one block north of CSU . Through those years we have survived hoards of kids living in houses, out- of-control parties, and numerous acts of vandalism and parking problems. When the ordinance was put in place it at least helped. Although it is rarely regulated as we currently are aware of five houses in violation and no one seems to care, the ordinance has at least helped . Through the course of these 50 years we have seen the neighborhood go from families, to out of control packed rentals, to at least now some degree of control. If the City would appropriately control the upkeep of neighborhood properties as well as U +2, the neighborhoods might stand a chance of normalcy. Rarely does a Friday or Saturday night go by that law enforcement is not called either during the evening for noise control or vandalism to property the following morning . We can always tell when the bars close as there are nightly bands of kids wandering back through the streets - the good news is that they are walking and not driving given their ability to put one foot in front of the other. If those who choose to take advantage of the culture and neighborhoods we have in the City would also take responsibility at the same time, discussions such as this would not even be necessary. Unfortunately, that is not the case . ' The U+2 has not been a silver bullet, but it has helped_ Thank you for your consideration of our comments . ► As a homeowner and landlord , this ordinance has greatly improved the quality of life in the neighborhood where I live and have a rental . It is much quieter, cleaner, less crowded , and has a more peaceful atmosphere. To increase its effectiveness showcase (on the city website) the successful improvement to the quality of life that many have experienced because of having a sound occupancy ordinance. • Don't allow fraternities/other organizations to operate houses they own as lodges, where effectively they can party, create havoc in the neighborhood , and call it a "meeting". * KEEP THE THREE UNRELATED RULE IN PLACE! Houses around campus are not just occupied by students ! There is a mixed group - families, young couples , and retired folks. People live around campus for the Old Town location , the easy, low-impact commute to work, and the great neighborhoods. The streets around campus are already crowded by daily student vehicle parking - relaxing the occupancy rule, even in only some areas , would increase traffic. (Relaxing the rule in only some areas will be confusing . ) Remember, the traffic is not only the additional students living in these areas , but also their visiting friends and family. Many neighborhoods around campus are willing to show students how to properly and respectfully live in a neighborhood, as this is the first time they've been on their own . With increased occupancy, it is not setting this learning to live in a neighborhood experience up for success ! 1 believe is our responsibility to create positive neighborhood settings for all. i * Advertise the positive aspects of the three-unrelated rule more prominently! • As the ordinance has had tweeks to improve enforcement, the clear next step is to have rental licensing. This does not have to be an onerous , expensive program as many reasonable proposals 13 have been made. While it will not solve all the problems, it will go a long ways to dealing with many of the problems that are clearly out of control. 2) For neighborhoods such as Avery Park , where the situation is clearly out of control, a strict enforcement of all ordinances is needed. This means focusing city resources on& this area. When the message gets out that flagrant disregard of city ordinances, zoning , and basic respect for others will no longer be tolerated , progress will be made that will influence other areas. Then, repeat this in the next area , etc. 3) Homeowners need to be educated on what they can do to protest themselves from the flagrant , violations, and that they indeed are not helpless victims. However, the city must provide real support to have these people " risk" coming forward . 4) ASCSUIRocky Mountain Collegian/etc. need to be told to "grow up" and recognize that this problem affects more than them , and realistically, that they are also victims of the many unregulated investment property owners that are showing disregard for anyone other than themselves and have created this problem . Yes , the ordinance has flaws, but what is the solution if you cannot get a handle on these businesses that do not have a viable business mode[ that observes the ordinances and respects others? ► I recommend that the ordinance not be altered . Life on our street and in our neighborhood has been much improved since the 2007 implementation of the new version of the Occupancy Ordinance: there are fewer cars parked on our streets, fewer wild parties, and more families (fewer sets of young unrelated people) renting . ► After attending the open house yesterday and seeing the map with the zones in Fort Collins where over occupancy is already allowed I 'm appalled that the city is even studying this. The majority of the city (including plenty of areas near campus) is already zoned to allow this . Do not make any more "student ghettos." Preserve the few remaining single family neighborhoods in the city - including those that are near campus. It is not just students who need housing near campus. There are thousands of faculty, staff and researchers who work at CSU or nearby at the Natural Resources Research Center, who also deserve clean, quiet, attractive, safe neighborhoods free from the noise and filth of these students. ► This is not just about quality of life. It is also about property values. Violators are stealing from neighborhoods by reducing their property values. Landlords who are unethical are stealing from homeowners by not following the ordinance. Why don 't you have a question in your survey about that? If the city could help itself tremendously by focusing less on quality of life and more on how violators are monetarily harming their neighbors by lowering property values. There should be an effort to look at other properties owned by a landlord found in violation . This might help weed out the unethical ones who figure so what if I get caught once . I ' m still making lots of money off the other 5 houses I own in violation . ► The occupancy ordinance is doing what it is suppose to do . Just keep enforcing it. On our block we have 12 houses and only 4 are owner occupied . That makes 8 home's that are rentals, and they are all students. It would be nice if we could get some police to patrol our area on Friday and Sat nights . Our area is West of CSU . From Shields West to Taft Hill . ► If noise violations are the biggest issue then why not increase the fines and penalties for it ► I believe the Occupancy Ordinance is a short-sighted approach to solving these neighborhood issues . The number of people in a household does not have a direct correlation with disturbances , upkeep and appearance of residential properties. Overcrowding in a building *may* result in disturbance and unkempt property issues; but the goal of the council should be to curb these issues without such a "broad-stroke" solution. This ordinance totally ignores the capacity of building , e . g . a 5-bedroom house should be exempt from such strict rulings. It also assumes that fewer people living in a single residence will magically solve these issues. This ordinance wrongly punishes otherwise law-abiding citizens by enforcing an arbitrary law with no relation to the underlying problem (e. g. 4 people living in a single residence, could be fined for being in violation of this ordinance, yet have no other issues with neighbors ; they could keep the property in proper order and well within the acceptable sound levels). This unfairly penalizes owners of large rental property, where their original premise of rental income is severely limited by the number of legal occupants. 14 This is not an effective solution to the problem at hand. The ordinance *may* have an effect on minimizing some of these problems, but I believe that it is an unfair way to accomplish the task. In addition , there is no guarantee whatsoever that these restrictions will improve the quality of life issues. ► I suggest expanding the current "Extra Occupancy Rental Home" certificate process to all zones , or at least those in a given radius around the CSU campus. The restrictions already in place for the "Extra Occupancy Rental Home" certificate will help those who favor the U+2 law, but take into consideration more variables then just the number of occupants. The certification process ensures ample parking space so that neighbors will not see a decrease in parking . It always ensures that there is enough space inside the house to safely support its occupants . As for noise complaints, the Public Nuisance Ordinance can ensure quite neighborhoods. These changes will take into consideration houses that have room for more than three occupants while still not affecting neighbors. It will also help decrease renting rates for students that are paying higher and higher tuition rates in a poor economic time. All that is required is expanding the zones allowed to apply for an " Extra Occupancy Rental Home" certificate. Thank you for your time. -Student and active member of the Fort Collins community > I would like to see a new ordinance allowing up to 4 unrelated persons (adults) living in the same house. ► I understand the need for such a regulation , but U + 2 seems unreasonable. I would recommend altering the law to allow for up to 4 unrelated individuals or one family plus 2 additional individuals. This preserves the effects and intentions of the original regulation while allowing a reasonable amount of flexibility for temporary living situations that may last longer than the currently allowed 2 weeks . Changing the ordinance as so would also remove the harmful effects the ordinance has had on owner of rental properties with more than 3 bed rooms. 4 and 5 bedroom rental home have become substantially less desirable and harder to rent given the restrictions imposed by the current regulation . Ultimately there is an issue of community rights vs individual home owners rights, and it is clear that the current regulation has been unsuccessful in finding a fair compromise between the two. ► Revoke it. Limiting the amount of people in a house violates a home owners rites. Also - Density is fine for community as long as people go out and meettgreat each other. It also has positive affects on the environment - requiring less space for someone to live that might be living in a whole other single family home. ► It seems to me, after three years of off campus living , that the general attitude towards college students in Fort Collins held by the non -student population is strong dislike. Many ordinances , including the noise ordinance, and especially including the U +2 law, are unfairly targeted at the student population . This group of people may be the majority cause of such perceived problems as overcrowded parking , slummy houses, noise violations, however it is not the majority of this group that is causing these issues . It is often a select few. However, the over-arching ordinances dictating people's lives and stripping freedoms of association, expression , and privacy away are harmful to everyone, especially the honest college age person trying to better his or herself through education and who probably is as much an outstanding member of the community as little Ms. Johnson who has been a resident for fifty years . We take out our garbage on time, water our lawns to keep up the green , and respect our neighbors' schedules, taking special care during the weekdays to keep our noise to a minimum . The few repeat offenders causing the majority of the issues should be removed from the community if they are not willing to live as a functioning member. And although that would be stripping those rights away from the select few, it would protect the rights of the responsible, college age population , as well as those members of the communities affected by the disruptions. The only thing the current ordinance does is raise rents on one of the poorest sections of the populations, students , displace low-mobility individuals, students , and ostracize those of us striving for greatness, students . If Fort Collins wants to retain any shadow of its reputation as "Number One City to Live in" (which has already been damaged by the hierarchical social structure of this municipality that places no value on higher ; education), it had better stop treating a fifth of it's population as second hand citizens. I will no longer take the abuse. I ► Get ride of the 3 rule . As a college student, MANY college students can not afford to rent a whole entire house with 5-6 bedrooms and have 3 people live there. For instance, a house of 5 bedrooms is $ 1500, which is not even too pricey. However with three roommates this comes out to $500 each. You put utilities on top of that your looking at $550-600 just for your living situation . Add school , food, entertainment, 15 insurance , car payments , gas money, beer, credit card debt, and a mountain pass , prices start jumping. Going to school full time and working full time is very hard . in college, we don't even spend that much time at home, your doing everything else. So you have to scramble for money, what do you end up doing? Looking for other ways to get money, which could involve selling drugs to pay rent. It' s not unheard of. 11 ► In my opinion , this policy is a blunt instrument that does have a correlation to its objectives. However, it impedes on freedoms that do not correlate to its objectives due to the policy's indiscretionary reach . I think it's the equivalent of saying we don't want obese children , so we are going to make soda drinks and candy bars illegal for everyone. Yes, it will probably help the objective, but will come at an expense because the policy is not sophisticated enough for a challenging problem . I think occupancy limits should be allowed to reasonably scale with the situation. If a dwelling can support more than 3 tenants and meet the various values of safety, upkeep, parking , disturbances, etc. , then we shouldn't take that candy bar away from the proverbial "in shape adult, " It would seem that the city already has a certification process in place that could handle most of this . It's called the Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations. I would propose that to mitigate some of the inequities of this policy, the city should allow RL zone dwellings with no more than 4 tenants to apply for this certification . ► Occupancy limits should be based on the number of bedrooms in a house, not some arbitrary formula. There is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between "quality of life" issues and the number of people in a home - one inconsiderate neighbor can easily cause many more problems than a house full of several conscientious adults. While there are obviously bad apples in any group, to make sweeping legislation based on a selected group of negative cases is absolutely wrong - especially when these rules affect many caring and thoughtful citizens outside the group which is causing the legislation to be created . If overcrowding , excessive vehicles parked at one location , etc, are truly the issues the occupancy rule is intended to address, then each issue should be dealt with on its own , with its own specific rules and regulations, instead of instituting a broad umbrella policy which doesn't address the actual root problems. If "disturbances" at a property are a problem , the police can issue noise violations . If yards are not being properly kept up , the City can issue a citation for overgrown grass, excessive trash , etc. If occupancy limits were based on the number of legal bedrooms in a home, this would also cut down on overcrowding and excessive vehicles. This occupancy limit is just wrong , wrong, wrong , and unjustly punishes many for the actions of a few. ► In addition to Family+ 1 , you should allow 1 adult per bedroom in instances where there is no family living in the dwelling . I don't see how occupancy limits would help improve the upkeep and appearance of a rental property. Only the owners of the property have control over that. ► It creates more problems than it solves, as renters end up with the 4th+ roommate not being on the lease , then having an issue with a move out or what not, which cannot be legally resolved because no binding document can be created without violating the ordinance. For minimum wage worker it is very difficult to find a rental in Fort Collins that is affordable without having more than 2 roommates . Regulate the issues separately, covenants , parking in no parking areas, weeds over grown are already things that can be ticketed . Enforce those and stop punishing people who can't find jobs for more than i minimum wage. This is an example of over regulation . There are already laws against noise, partying to late, not maintaining a property, causing disturbances. Adding a second law to stop the others from being violated is redundant and only punishes those who are already in a hardship situation. Landlords need to be responsible when renting their properties, if the house has 2 bedrooms, and 3+ people want on the lease. . . then maybe they should think about that not being a good situation instead of relying on government to step in . 16 ► The occupancy ordinance is too restricting and should be more like Boulders. If rent has not increased significantly , it will . Landlord ► I agree with occupancy limits to some extent but the current limit seems arbitrary and discriminatory by assigning a number that does not reflect what the house or neighborhood can sustain . A house with 4 legal bedrooms is forced to leave one of the rooms empty. A more realistic occupancy limit would be to limit the number of occupants to the number of legal bedrooms . . . one per bedroom . A legal bedroom must meet the city code for safety, etc. There are many 4 legal bedroom houses affected by this ordinance. There probably are not many 5+ bedroom houses affected . An ordnance could establish the limit as "no more than 4 legal bedrooms" since 4 seems to be where the impact will be felt the most. I hope the Council will seriously consider raising the limit along the lines I am suggesting . Three seems too arbitrary when there are ways to better define the limits to achieve the same result that are not arbitrary nor discriminatory. ► There is obviously some benefit to having occupancy limits . The only problem I see is the way in which i occupancy is limited . Instead of limiting the number of unrelated people who can live together to three across the board , I think it would be wiser to make the limit of unrelated persons living in one house or apartment the same as the number of bedrooms in said house or apartment; three bedrooms to three people , five bedrooms to five people . It is ridiculous that four (or more) bedroom houses in the city have to be rented to only three people . Either these three people have to pay much more to live in this larger house, or property owners have to charge less for their rent in order to make it possible and worthwhile for fewer j people to live on the property . ► the only way to police this ordinance is hold the homeowners responsible for how many people live in their rented homes . Property management companies also have to be held accountable if the house they rent becomes over run with numerous occupants . For the last 3 years we have had nothing but problems with an alley home located next to our back yard . Too many students , numerous police complaints , loud parties j and nothing ever changes -- only new renters every fall and spring . I ► Dump it. I 2 . Worried about the "quality of life" in a given neighborhood ? Let the person who leases to the renters screen the people up front before he or she rents the place. If you rent to a bunch of irresponsible yahoos , you should be held accountable for your poor judgment. If the tenants are or turn out to be a nuisance, kick them out--but having an ordinance--give me a break--who's to say that those who are in compliance with said ordinance aren 't also the same kind of irresponsible yahoos mentioned above. I 3 . Once again , lose the ordinance. It is presumptive to the point of being discriminatory. i ► I feel the ordinance should be eliminated and new ordinances adopted/revised to individually focus on the true issues the ordinance is really geared towards: Noise Violations , Upkeep of Properties , Parking and Overcrowding . i j If a house has four bedrooms , and four parking spots, then what is the problem ? I do not see why the local government feels it needs to step in . It's anti-American and makes me irate. If a house is often loud and is disrespectful of neighbors , then the noise ordinance is designed to handle the situation . If a house has tall weeds and trash , a separate ordinance is designed to handle that situation . The amount of people in the house is independent of these problems . A house with three people can just as easily have loud parties and unkempt premises . I think the city needs to adopt an ordinance that allows the appropriate number of people to live in a house based on the available rooms and parking , not based on an arbitrary governmental imposed number. A Concerned Resident of Fort Collins who has lived here for 35 Years . ► The ordinance has had a negative impact on me as a Landlord . Reason being , with less tenants I am able to collect less rent; 1 am leveraged in the property , i . e . i have a mortgage , which at this point consumes all of the rental income. Where I to be able to add one more person to the " roster", I would be able to apply that additional rent to the property in the way of improvements and upkeep , something I know my neighbor's would appreciate. I purchased the home(s) anticipating a certain amount of ROI which has .been cut-short i I 17 i I i I by this ordinance. Please consider repealing it! There are other mechanisms at the disposal of the city, i. e. noise ordinance violations and such that the city could use to &#8220; reign-in &#8221 ; unruly tenants. ► Enforce the three unrelated adults provision of the ordinance when appropriate . ► The occupancy ordinance has created a battle to pay rent each month for many students. Houses that were designed to fit 4 + students have high rental rates. If the students have less people living with them , rent can skyrocket to $450+ monthly. Most students cannot pay this; if there were 4 students in a place that charged $ 1350 monthly, rent for each tenant would decrease by at least $ 100 per month . Not every student has access to money from their parents, or student loans that would make paying a $450 rent possible each month, not including utilities. Also, access for boarding houses is in limited areas of Fort Collins where students are less likely to live_ Lastly, I have lived with 4 people in my house and know friends who have for 3 years+, I have never received a noise violation, ticket for improper upkeep or parking problem. I shouldn't be punished with higher rent rates because of past issues. The key to success in single-family home neighborhoods with students in them is communication. If students as well as families respect each other and boundaries from the beginning , all can live peacefully and happily no matter the amount of people living in a house. All people in Fort Collins, including students and families should make compromises. We are living together, it isn't fair to have the students suffering unfathomable rental rates without families making some compromise, after all, this is as much a great college town as it is a place to live and raise a family, in which we have all CHOSEN to live. ► More allowance , since some of us can't afford rent in some areas, where more than 3 roomates sharing rent + expenses could have a more flexible budget. Keep your regulations and an eye out for disturbances but with this economy we have to realize that everyone needs more economic help. So by allowing maybe more than 3, just 4 that would have a much more positive impact on the young community. ► Those properties/landlords/renters who cause problems (all the above mentioned ones) should be cited. Limiting the number of renters does not ensure a landlord will take care of their property or take control of disturbance situations, but does limit good landlords in the amount of rent they can collect to pay their mortgages for 3 or 4+ bedroom properties . 1 would be for an ordinance based on numbers of bedrooms over the current one , but even more .for an ordinance that enforced rules on properties that are not kept up to standard and renters that cause problems or disturbances. Landlords/management companies should be in charge/control of their own properties, not the city , if a landlord/management company can't meet the city's code than they should be fined or cited (similar to the way noise violations are handled). ► Very strict license at a fee that really means something . Why? So a hired FC agent can inspect each rental property for: 3 Un . , safety of the building and includes how they keep it up including in and outside. We know there are more then three un , but we must go through so many hoops you give up. Charge an annual fee of $ 1 , 000 . 00 for each rental property as they are now commercial properties . Any violation should have some stiff dollar fines to let the absentee owners what they are doing to our values. Why should the realtors own so many rentals and not give a damn about the people that have been here worked to keep up their homes while the rental owners live in area where they have no renters . There will be none in the gated communities or the country club area . Owners where they have the most renters should have the most say and not other areas which don 't want them and then want to drop standards for more around the CSU area . Not in my backyard is their mantra. i ► The damage is done, the good rental neighbors are split up and gone , and repeal won 't do any good . Implement licensing of rental housing in single family neighborhoods. There are too many landlords who don't care one whit about near-term property values or quality of life issues (thumping music, knee-high weeds, dogs barking until the tenants come home from the bars at 2 : 30am , dog feces never picked up, damaged fences, trash thrown over the fence, drunken party fights , domestic violence arrests, non-op vehicles) . It needs to be easier to submit complaints and penalties need to be stronger on the landlord. A common theme of bad-dog households is more than two dogs . i would go so far as to propose a one-dog maximum for rental houses. This isn't a place for you and all your friends to drop off your dogs for the whole day or weekend . 18 The problem tenants are not just college students. All but two of the items listed above have occurred at a house that has only had families with children since the ordinance was implemented . It's not the quantity of people , it's the accountability. Quantity is certainly a simple metricto observe and enforce, but it doesn't address _any_ of the actual problems with the rental houses in my neighborhood. The landlord needs to have a stronger and more direct interest in the quality of life at and around the properties. Thank you for making this opportunity available for feedback via a web form . ► Change the occupancy limits on occupancy based on number of bedrooms in a house. So a five bedroom house would be permitted to have five unrelated adults living there . I > Think about the economy and our students needs . ► Limit it to if there are 5 bedrooms in a home then you can have 5 unrelated adults in it_ Spend more energy on policing the noise policy, etc. so that those that are not behaving are punished and not 5 quiet girls (for ex). ► Allow at least a 4 bedroom home to be rented to 4 tenants. This would allow property owners to meet the financial challenges of the payment and upkeep associated with such a unit . Most homes will not be more than a 4 bedroom , and it is being used at its highest and best use as such. If the landlord had the extra income from that fourth person perhaps they would have money enough to keep up the "OUTSIDE" of the house, which is where the real problem lies. _ . . I hire out all my mowing , because the tenants will not do it to my satisfaction, and if they wish to live in a messy house inside, at least it does not affect my neighbors , whom I want to keep happy and do not wish to negatively impact their lives by being next to my rental . Put in place a provision that is stricter on ALL exteriors ! There are many, many owner occupied homes that also have horrible exteriors . These people need to fall under the same provisions as rentals! That is what affects the neighborhood--its the only thing the public sees. The "weed " or "too high grass" length is way too lenient! ! ! ! Now, rental licensing . . . we do not need rental licensing in Fort Collins . . . it does absolutely no good to be " registered" with the City. Just implement stricter exterior standards] ! ► get rid of the law. . . especially since it's a college town ► I don 't like it. I think college students should be able to have at least four people in a house. It helps us save money on rent. Plus, a lot of houses are made for four people (four bedrooms) . ► It is far more important to do more outreach programs like the CSU welcome programs than punish people ► There are neighborhoods that are made up by college students. It is ridiculous to force a college student to only have 2 roommates when a large majority of houses around campus have more than 3 bedrooms. College students simply cannot afford it. A possible solution would be to zone certain neighborhoods and allow residents to have as many people living in the hose equal to the number of bedrooms in the house. Fort Collins should expand the use of Extra Occupancy Rentals to more , if not all areas of the City. This law simply does not make since. ► The occupancy ordinance targets a specific segment of the population . That being the lower income people often just starting out their careers. To improve the ordinance I would seek to remove it and enforce the current noise ordinance. > I believe in personal property rights. I resent that you have neighbors that are basically "ratting out" their own neighbors. If you have a problem with noise, appearance of the home, etc. , contact the landlord and it will be taken care of. Many, many students are quite responsible and they are suffering at the hands of those who are not. I totally dislike this ordinance and our neighborhood is at the forefront of tattling on these homes ! It's pathetic. Big brother is watching is alive and well in our neighborhood ! 19 ► 4 unrelated -change to Four Unrelated - expand the possibility to apply for extra occupancy rental housing permits - increase education and enforcement of other ordinances that directly solve neighborhood problems - extend correction time from seven to 30 days ► Occupancy should be based on the number of bedrooms a house has . Because of the Occupancy Ordinance there are many houses near campus that have more than three bedrooms and only three people are allowed to live there regardless. Not only should the number of occupants allowed per house be based on bedrooms but there should be some way to receive a boarding permit. ► Enforce nuisance ordinances ; focus on education of renter, landlords and neighborhoods to create diversity. Economic times are difficult at best, this causes undo burden on the renter and an adversarial environment in neighborhoods. ► Having more neighborhoods zoned for multiple families . Allow houses to have fill rooms. ► i live in a 3000 plus sq feet house, with four full bathrooms within a half mile of campus, we bought the house for what we feel is a great price . It is extremely comfortable with 4 people living there. as far as parking is concerned the cars fit easily in the garage and drive way. If you are worried about appearances, enforce parking restrictions and other city codes to make the city nicer. I feel personally discriminated against by older people in the city who don 't seem to understand the importance of CSU , College students in Fort Collins . This policy is an attempt to regulate issues indirectly, why not deal with parking issues head on ? ► Considering behavior the root of the problem , resources should be directly applied through aggressive enforcement of nuisance ordinances. I fail to understand how behavior is affected in any way by limiting the number of people in the house. -Change the ordinance to Four Unrelated to allow for two couples to reside in the same residence. -Expand the use of Extra Occupancy Rentals to more, if not all areas of the City. - Change the correction time from seven to 30 days to allow tenants and landlords a reasonable amount of time to correct. - Increase education and outreach for students about how to be good neighbors in their neighborhoods. ► HUD regulations say 2 people per bedroom . The city counsel need to step back and enforce what the law is today, and stop micromanaging the issue. Too many regulations are going to force investors to walk away from the rentals and the city and the university may have bigger problems . Plus enforcement is costly. You need to look at the whole scope of the problem , and not listen to the vocal minority, who has an ax to grind. The repercussions of the problem can magnify. ► 1 think the Occupancy Ordinance drives up the cost of living in Fort Collins and unjustly discriminates against certain populaces . There needs to be more micro-level conversations instead of relying on an unjust system to control quality life issues. ► The ideal is the least gov. interference with the rental industry however if you must then enforce what you have on the books or remove it before spending more tax payers dollars to interfere and intrude. Please spend dollars to enforce the noise ordinance and do your revenue enhancing through fines for violators 20 instead of rental licensing which only penalizes the responsible landlord . The only way quality of life will improve is if people take responsibility for their own actions . ► Increase unrelated law so that four unrelated people may live in a house. Too many properties our under used making them more expense for just three people to rent. ► I think the Occupancy Ordinance should be repealed. There are sufficient ordinances to take care of any behavior based problems. They just need to be enforced . It is a waste of city resources and my tax payer dollars that are devoted to enforce the Occupancy Ordinance , when the police are already funded and can respond to easily enforce the behavior and noise issues. ► I think that the ordinance does not take into consideration that if a home has 4 , 5 bedrooms you should be able to rent each bedroom - zones for rentals close to campus might work - there are so many student in this area - the ordinance has cut the sale of many of the 4 bedroom homes because of the economy. ► If your goals are to create a community here within Fort Collins based on neighborliness, you must look at the issue from all angles . It is undoubtedly not only the students who have issues with their neighbors, and those problem neighbors are not always students. It seems to me that areas with high population concentration of students generally tend to have less intervention from the authorities because students seem to the the only members of the community mature enough to deal with a neighborhood issue by directly involving the people affected by the issue; their neighbors. Too often there is one single person with impossible standards for noise levels within a confined space housing multiple families who is always the one to resort too early and too often to involving the authorities in a neighborhood issue. If the volume is too high , or if the insulation on that garage isn 't as thick as maybe the tenants previously thought, wouldn't a mature, calm person seek to inform the people who have most likely let it slip their minds that not everyone stays up that late , instead of immediately crawling to the Larimer Sheriff and whining like a five year old? Wouldn't it be much less a waste of our resources if we all followed the student's examples and acted like we lived in a community with other people, and not instead in a battleground of property lines and personal prides? Would Fort Collins not be able to reclaim its former glory as a happy place welcoming all walks of life, instead of a retirement home overrun by helpless people who depend on others for all of their bidding ( like calling the police the first time your new neighbors are in their garage after 9 in the evening)? Please, Fort Collins Community, have patience with your neighbors; they are on a journey through life too , and no one wants to get a ticket on the way. ► My wife and I own our home located at 600 S . Washington Ave. We are one block north of the University on the corner of Washington Ave and Myrtle Street. Our area is saturated with rentals - most of which are owned by absent landlords or property management companies. These houses are, for the most part, ill kept and a nuisance. Tenants flow in and out of these homes without any regard to the City ordinance limiting the number of tenants in a home . The U+2 City ordinance does not work. It is not enforced . The number of vehicles parked on the lawns of the homes in our area indicates that more than three unrelated people live in these houses . Large parties are the norm . Trash litters our streets . Graffiti decorates the Stop signs and streets . Fireworks go off in the middle of the night throughout the year. Vandalism and vehicle break-ins are common. We have had two of our vehicles keyed ; a drunk driver who fled without capture struck one of our cars requiring extensive repairs. Our vehicle windows have been smashed and items stolen from within . We have had items stolen from our lawn and from our front porch. One night the police apprehended a suspect in our back yard after the student jumped over our back yard fence. Twice in the last seven years , my wife and I have had riot police walk down our street banging their batons on their shields. Twice we have smelled the distinct odor of tear gas from our yard . Our 9-month-old daughter should not have to grow up in this environment. The University continues to increase the size of the incoming freshman class without increasing student housing . CSU has a responsibility to the surrounding neighborhoods and to this community at large to ensure that students have a place to live without spilling into the neighborhoods and destroying what were once beautiful old homes, Our property values are at risk. My family's right to peace and quite and to enjoy our home is a risk. My wife and I are proud graduates and continued supporters of the University. CSU's success is important to us. Colorado State is a wonderful asset to this community ; however, the University also needs to be a good neighbor. The City and the University needs to work together and develop a solution to the ever-growing student body and the ever-decreasing student housing. 21 Our neighborhoods need to be protected. Please stop giving preferential treatment to the University at the expense of the citizens that surround the school . Stop approving high-density projects and alley houses. Start enforcing the U+2 ordinance. We are taxpayers. We are voters. We live and work in this community . University students are, for the most part, transient guests here. We deserve protection , -Remember, we chose to live in Fort Collins. We can choose to leave. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to express our thoughts, Todd and Nichelle Field > As written , the occupancy ordinance is harsh on families with multiple children trying to find affordable housing . Case in point, 2 brothers (one was Kory Sperry and his brother) tried to room with two other brothers (unrelated) and the four were told they were non-compliant with the U +2 ordinance. Now how silly is that. I know of several other instances of student/siblings that can't find just one roommate and there is no recognition of their relatedness under the rules. But most of all, I am a property owner as well as a parent of a CSU student. This comes across as snobby and it is certainly a HUGE burden on students. Fort Collins is in political denial to purport this does not unduly burden students . It is ABOUT students. And it's the political ; financially well off leaders of the community trying to take advantage of the fact that students have to LIVE in the City. The bottom line is you want to force higher occupancies of your investment properties and unburden yourself with selecting high quality renters. Get rid of it. And STOP this immediate fine thing . You guys are true Nazis on this one. ► I believe that this ordinance would be much more effective if a few changes were made. First of all , i believe the allowance of extra occupancy rentals should be allowed in a much greater area of Fort Collins to allow tenants the opportunity to safely make use of their entire 4 or 5 bedroom house. I also believe that raising the allowed number of tenants from 3 to 4 would help solve some of the problems with the ordinance. ► get rid of it. ► Adjust the occupancy ordinance to take into account the size and layout of the home. A 5 bedroom 2 bathroom home can easily accommodate more than 3 people. If the home was built with 5 bedrooms, it seems likely that it was intended to house at least that many people. Building and rental codes already in affect (egress windows, square footage , sufficient number of electrical outlets, acceptable access to bathing facilities) help to insure that residents are not housed in sub-standard , unsafe or over crowded conditions . If the concerns of this ordinance are neighborhood disturbances, parking issues , appearance of property, etc. it seems that there should be legislation in place to more directly impact those areas of community life . There are already tools in place that the city can use to ensure that these concerns do not negatively impact our communities . ( Ordinances concerning noise violations, abandoned vehicles, height of grass/weeds, etc. ) i What this law does seem to do is target members of our community that may not be able to afford a home of their own . In many cases this includes students working to pay for their own education , young adults in the beginning of their careers , and single-parent or otherwise non-traditional families. These members of our community work hard to be a part of Fort Collins. To limit the number of people who may choose to pool funds to improve their surroundings creates an additional and unnecessary hardship. Quality of life in Fort Collins needs to be maintained and protected , and city ordinances are a part of that process. Concerns about "party houses" and excessive parking in our neighborhoods are valid and need to be addressed , I do not believe that limiting the number of people who may live in a residence is the most direct or effective way to address those concerns. ► This policy has led to a negative environmental impact, as students are forced to live farther and farther away from campus , while empty rooms sit vacant in homes right near campus . Furthermore, many homes designed with 4-6 people in mind are arbitrarily contained to only 3 residents. As many of us have experienced , the number of people living in a house is not a direct correlation to those individuals impact on the "serenity, character and quality of life in their neighborhood", rather it is their collective attitude towards their neighbors . This ordinance fosters a sense of "us vs them" in Fort Collins, as many college students feel they are being singled out and not welcomed into the community. Bringing more students into this forum (which I heartily applaud the council for) and creating a policy that works for all 22 stakeholders will go a long way towards improving the quality of life in Fort Collins and ensuring that it remains one of the best places in the country to live . ► Instead of worrying about the number of people living in the home, focus on communication & encouraging communication between neighbors, landlords, tenants, etc. If we want students to stay in the area to help grow the economy & expand upon the culture and diversity, then we need to respect them as the adults they are . Also, investors & landlords are punished with lower rents (can 't charge the same rent for 4 or 5 people that you could for 3. . it's just not affordable for people) & the burden of worrying about enforcing occupancy. I would rather they focus on property upkeep ! ► If this ordinance is going to remain in effect, it should be adjusted to be 4 unrelated . This ordinance prevented my husband and I from renting a house with another couple . 4 seems to make more sense than 3 , because then two couples could save money by renting a house together. I think the ordinance in general infringes on citizen' s rights by not allowing property owners to decide what is best for their own property. This decision should be left to the owner, landlord, or property manager; it is none of the city's business. I imagine many 4 or more bedroom homes have gone unrented because of this ordinance. It is much easier for 4 college students to afford a 4 bedroom home than 3. It is also much easier for two couples to share a home than a couple and a single person . My husband and I are in opposition to this ordinance and have been since it began . I ► Who resides within a home is no ones business. In these economic hard times people need to open there doors to those in need . It is the "Christian " thing to do . I attended some of the meetings that were held on this issue . I was ashamed what I heard come out of some people's mouths. All I could think of was what the bible calls hardening of the heart. Instead of making so many laws/rules , instead neighbors need to reach out and touch one another with their heart and souls . ► I see the righteous intention of the law. However, I feel it is much too extreme. 3 unrelated people in one house? Student targeted? yes. They are the main group of people who would have unrelated people in a house. The law also makes it very hard for people to pay the rent in a 4 or 5 bedroom house where the rent has not been adjusted for only 3 people living there. A better angle to take would be to put a cap on the number of people allowed to live in a house proportionally to the number of rooms in the house. Who came up with the number 3? why not make it 4? and ban a house from having more than 3 or 4 cars . In addition , if there are 5 or 6 rooms in a house then 5 or 6 people should be allowed to live there. Another problem I had is the fact that a "family" related by blood can have 10 people in a house (or even 5 or 6) and make the most noise on the block , and it's okay? but if the same amount of people are in a house but are not related by blood (a traditional "family") then everybody to freaks out and it is no longer okay. Even if those unrelated people are the most ideal neighbors anyone could ask for. ► To be positively effective the occupancy ordinance should expand it's limits to 4 rather than 3 . It makes no sense to limit a household to 3 unrelated roommates when a dwelling has 4 rooms . This would help students and other renters afford more livable spaces . i ► What has been the most effective tool for me as a property manager is the $ 1000 noise violation . THAT has done more to keep kids under control etc. . . . With the 3 unrelated we are having more and more issues with unauthorized tenants moving in . We tell the kids no more than 3 and approve only 3 and have 3 on the ' I 7 lease but then after they move people in . Not having all the tenants legally bound to the property makes it difficult to enforce lease terms . We are legally bound to give notice before touring a property and they can always get someone's room moved out before that tour happens . Catching, proving and evicting the unauthorized parties is a big time consuming nightmare . It makes the cost of the units go up per person as well which is difficult in these tight times for students/parents as well . Enforce the noise violations and get rid of the 3 unrelated. It has also has eliminated many prospective investors because we are limited on what we can charge per bedroom and therefore they do not cash flow well enough to convince someone to invest in Ft. Collins Real Estate 23 ► If there is an occupancy ordinance I believe that it should include things that prevent higher occupancy for the home within reason ; a 5 bed house has five people. Having only 3 unrelated in a home is hurting the college students on a budget. Indeed it is preventing 10 people living in a 4 bed , but such drastic measures are overkill . v -Paul Barta ► This is college based community! Thus, the students living in these houses are paying for college tuition and then on top of that paying to live in Fort Collins. With 3 people living in a house that can fit more than 3 is a waste of money! ! If student' s can find a house and can actually fill the house, rent is cheaper for each person . Yes , sometimes this difference isn't much , but with a lot of students paying their own tuition, food , rent, etc, this little difference means a lot! If this law was abolished or at least changed , it would benefit the university, community colleges, students and everyone in Fort Collins ! ► It seems very hard to find affordable rent when only 3 people are allowed to live together. ► Allow three or more unrelated to live under the same roof. ► Include at least an additional unrelated person . ► Issue ordinance permits to those that live with more than three unrelated . ► It only makes sense to have the occupancy be one person per legal bedroom . Otherwise, ending up the empty rooms leaves more rooms for larger parties for college students ! Sacrificing the intent of the ordinance. Many Fort Collins rental houses are 4-5 legal bedrooms. Renting only three bedrooms say of 5 bedrooms will result in landlords either selling these houses, or foreclosing on them , and also decrease affordable housing in Fort Collins which is also currently a major issue and only going to get worse. The 3 unrelated law is discriminatory against those who cannot afford to purchase a house, and discriminatory against landlords who have 4-5 bedroom rentals in creating loss of income. I sold a 5 bedroom house after this became informed losing $38, 000 , resulting in less affordable housing around campus. My choice was to lose this money at once, or over time in lowered rents . Since sold , the house is being lived in but has not been maintained well, whereas as a landlord I had the house immaculately maintained . Without changing the ordinance to one person per legal bedroom , you will continue to run into major problems. ► I am a voting homeowner, not a landlord, and I think limiting occupancy of rentals to three persons is silly . Unless the City did a study which found that three renters or less guarantees compliance of current statutes, the U +2 rule is RANDOM ! Why not two, four, or five occupants? I suggest you limit the number of renters to the number of bedrooms ; then enforce the noise and property rules that are already on the books. It doesn't matter how many people live in the house, it matters HOW THEY ACT. If an occupant is loud, causes disturbances, uses a neighbors parking spots, and doesn't keep his property up, then , by all means, the city should cite them for those particular offenses. Limiting a property to three occupants makes it difficult to rent a property with four or more bedrooms. Our town shouldn't be turning away business, especially from college students . I have two college age kids and they are living at home because rents are too high ; small houses and apartments are scarce. There are MANY beautiful, four bedroom homes that they would love to share with three well-behaved friends. Unfortunately, you won't allow the landlords to take our money. In our case, two groups of 4 kids are living at home. That's at least $3200 a month that is not on the tax rolls -- not including other things they would have purchased to make a new home . You have deprived business owners of income and yourselves of taxes collected . You can solve residential problems without being anti-business and anti-student. Think these things through please . I 've never written a letter like this before, and I intend to vote based on this issue . So do my kids and their friends. ► It is much harder to find affordable rent with 3 people. And it gives landlords the upper hand , because they know they can kick us out as opposed to repair something that may be costly. It took our landlord 3 weeks to replace the fridge 24 ► I would change the rule to the 4 unrelated rule . The 4 unrelated rule is more of the norm in college towns across the country instead of the 3 unrelated rule. 1 would also allow individual properties to appeal the ruling if they feel they have adequate space and parking to accommodate more than 4 people. The 3 unrelated rule is having a negative impact on energy consumption , air quality and traffic. The utilities being consumed by large 4 and 5 bedroom houses are occupied by 3 people . The 3 unrelated ,rule is also forcing people to live farther away from campus. If people live farther away from campus they are going to be less likely to take the bus, walk or bike and more likely to drive their car. The increase in driving is going to increase the amount of air pollution and increase the amount of traffic in Fort Collins. Many people move to Fort Collins to get away from air pollution and traffic. ► I don't think that a guest that stays over more than 30 days in a calendar year should be technically considered an occupant. It's not realistic to not spend time with your partner just because you don 't live together. My boyfriend just moved here from Australia and it's ridiculous to not spend at least 2-3 nights together, He does have his own house , but when he is here we do not disturb our neighbors, and there aren't any known parking issues in our neighborhood . The ONLY people who have a problem with it are our neighbors who live directly next door to us. We have never parked on or in front of their property, but just the fact that they seem to dislike us is reason enough to threaten me and my roommates of having too many tenants because of a visiting boyfriend . This should just be completely taken out of the Occupancy Ordinance . ► I think that this ordinance discriminatory. I think that if there are 4 bedrooms in the home 4 people should be allowed even if unrelated . If a family is the occupants there still could be disturbances and more vehicles if children were of driving age . ► Do away with it once and for all . It creates ill feelings in a neighborhood when you know that your very own neighbors are ratting you out! Students cannot afford the high rent that has resulted ! This stupid plan is simply bad during these poor economic times. ► 4 unrelated . Rental prices will go down students especially will then have the money to take better care for their properties. ► Four Unrelated 2. More availability for extra occupancy rentals 3 . Extend correction time from seven to 30 days 4 . Increase education and enforcement of other peace-keeping ordinances ► After I divorced my Husband in 1999, 1 needed a source of extra income to support my two children through college. I purchased a property near campus as a way to make money in addition to my other income. With the change in 2007, part of my property was taken away because my four bedroom house could only be rented out to three people . I now rent the property at mortgage and lose money each year because the market will not allow me to find tenants willing to pay for a four bedroom house that they cannot use. Changing the property ordinance to 4-unrelated would restore property rights that were taken in 2007 because most houses in the area were built with four bedrooms. It would allow my tenants to pay a cheaper rent each month while allowing me to make money on my investment. I take pride upkeeping my property and renting to responsible individuals and see no impact on quality of life issues by renters. ► I believe there are neighborhoods close to the University that do not have any families living in them especially between Laurel and Mulberry , south of Grant street. There are also a few blocks on the east side of College. These neighborhoods should not have to comply with the ordinance. The areas mentioned have been more than 2+ 1 for at least 20 years and there has not been single family movement in this area. I agree areas north of Mulberry should be protected since we have had more single 25 family trends . Thanks for the opportunity to submit feedback ► 3-Unrelated should be changed to 4-Unrelated , the correction time should be extended to 30 days, and more Extra Occupancy Rentals should be available . 3- Unrelated in itself does very little to prevent excessive parking , noise violations , and nuisances like trash and poor property upkeep. City Council can prevent the clear discrimination against students and work toward more affordable housing for all by reconsidering the draconian 3-Unrelated and increasing education and enforcement of other ordinances that will help reduce the real problems. ► I believe that instead of doing 3unrelated , maybe it could be 4unrelated . ► Don't apply it to multi-family buildings. They are already designed for handling the load of several families. If a couple of young adults live together and have their boyfriends/girlfriends over for more than 30 days a year, they have technically violated the ordinance, but no one really cares. It has ended up just generating more paperwork, lease clauses changes (to allow landlords to deal with the issue before it becomes a violation , no matter than no one really minds), questions and confusion on tenants' part for no benefit to anyone. ► the number of people living there should correspond to the number of bedrooms . This would allow rent to be more affordable and would prevent a waste of resources. ► Parking/noise/maintenance is not dependent on "U +2. " There is no consideration for number of bedrooms/baths, off street parking , or personal responsibility. Owner-occupied landlords are currently assumed equal to (spelled "bad character") offsite landlord . Recommendations: Scrap Occupancy Ordinance. Require licensing of all rentals, biannual fee. Occupancy to be determined based on inspection. Do not allow blanket complaints, i.e. "check out the 5 rentals on my street. " Complaints must be specific by property. ► My CSU freshman will transfer to Ft Lewis My High School Jr. will enroll at Ft. Lewis My CSU Jr. will sell his house, rent an apartment, and graduate. i ► If a house was built for more than 3 by code, it should be allowed to house that many as long as there is enough parking . ► I don't believe the quality of life issues are entirely dependant upon the number of residents . 2 or 3 tenants can be just as disruptive and slovenly as 4-5 people. The quality of the neighborhood really comes down to an effective lease and it's implementation not really the number of people living in a house. Parking , upkeep and appearance are already covered by other city codes . A poorly kept house has a negative impact on the homeowner as well as the landlord who has a well maintained home next door. Good tenants do not want to live next to a "dump" and it certainly doesn't help the property value . To improve the quality of the neighborhoods that have been negatively impacted by poorly maintained and poorly managed homes (they could be owner occupied ! ) , make the landlord (some management companies don 't do a very good job either) take the City landlord class as the first step. Additional enforcement may be necessary in some cases . Education is the first step to a better neighborhood . Thank you . ► Please no registration or licensing. . . . . keep with the current codes ► Please enforce the noise ordinance. The number of occupants is not the problem , the problem is how they behave. j The occupancy ordinance has a negative effect on me because I do have the room for an extra roommate i 26 to help me and the tenant get through these rough times. ( I lost my job , one roommate is a student and the other works at a gas station ) . It would be good for the city if people like me do not have to lose their houses . Enforcing the noise ordinance would be the first step . rezoning some areas would also work, but would still leave a lot of people unhappy. A lot of people think that more rentals in their neighborhood decreases the value of their home , I think the opposite is true; Are not the houses near CSU a lot more expensive , especially per sqf than the ones further away? Maybe some education regarding facts like this would help, you could send it with the utility bill . The dwellings need to be safe for the occupants and some kind of control should be in place, I have no opinion on how that should happen , via permit or license. I do think that this should not generate huge burdens for Landlords. ($). For example, if a house was built a long time before the current building code, there should be a way to grandfather in bedrooms that are not built to the IBC 2006 standard. I think there are so many of those kind of houses that trying to enforce the new code on old houses might totally negate the possible change of the ordinance toward more allowed occupants. wish more people realized that students are one of the hearts of the town . > ENFORCEMENTM In the Avery Park neighborhood , 9 out of 10 rental houses have more than 3 people. In most cases there are 7 to 8 people in each house with accompanying cars_ Until the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University hire personnel to enforce the current Over-Occupancy Ordinance and evict the difference so that each house HAS ONLY 3 PEOPLE , there will continue to be degradation of our city's older neighborhoods. Avery Park, bounded on the north by Elizabeth , on the south by Prospect, on the east by Shields and on the west by Taft Hill , is a ghetto. It is run-down , dirty and violent. It is dense with CSU students who willfully destroy their own rental properties , others property, vandalize private and public property, are physically threatening and violent toward any person they perceive as having "gotten them a ticket" or is a homeowner who the students believe should " leave the neighborhood if they don 't want to live in a college town" . Recommendations for improving the Over-Occupancy Ordinance : DO NOT allow the Associated Students of CSU to get permission to have the entire neighborhood (Avery Park) west of CSU to have more than 3 people in a house regardless of the number of bedrooms in a house ! ! Hire more personnel for this city department, so that every complaint can be investigated immediately and effectively. Include CSU departments and the CSU police in the investigation process of over-occupancy complaints so that the ordinance is implemented immediately and effectively. Register all rental landlords so that they KNOW the laws and licensing of rental properties. Registration of rental owners and their properties would give another way to monitor "problem" tenants and "problem" landlords. CSU students should have to take civics classes EVERY semester so they learn what full-fledged citizens of these United States Of America are responsible for: adherence to laws , civic participation and discourse, common courtesy, private property rights, government, personal responsibility for their actions, etc. U + 2 MUST be enforced for the protection of these young adults, because young adults living in a house with more than 3 people get into so many more problems, ie. excessive drinking , hard drugs and unprotected sex. It appears that when these young adults live in congested living conditions they adopt "mob" or "crowd " mentalities that lead to noise , fighting and violence, drinking and drug-use, unsanitary households, no areas in which to study(the primary reason to attend a university) , and so many other physical and psychological damages that arise. ENFORCE the laws of the City of Fort Collins for the protection of the students and young adults, the protection of our permanent residents and the betterment of our civil society. ► If the U+2 was enforced , it would work . But, many of the rental properties where I live definitely have more than three unrelated persons living in the rentals. Allowing students to negotiate with the city to have more 27 i than U+2 in any residential area rental would be ludicrous. Students need to be responsible for their actions , and live by the ordinances we live under. ► Uh , it would make sense if it were 5 or 6 unrelated . Why are we discriminating against four and five bedroom houses? ► I believe it is a good use of resources to have a full house, regardless of residents being related or just roommates . Parking , upkeep , and appearance is a separate issue, directed toward all households, regardless of occupants. ► Return all control to the people ► It' s an unnecessary intrusion. If 'overcrowded" college students are causing problems , there should be other ways of dealing with them . ► Repeal this ordinance. It is perhaps the worst example of intrusive government I 've ever encountered. I am a homeowner and I completely disagree with this ordinance. If you want to improve quality of life, then enforce the existing noise ordinances, the existing 6" lawn ordinance, the existing "can 't park on the lawn" ordinances, etc. Limiting the number of occupants in a house is the wrong approach for several reasons. 1 ) It hurts innocent people who behave well . Imagine four responsible graduate students who want to be roommates for cost-savings , friendship, whatever but cannot due to this ordinance. Now they have to split their group up and pay more in rent, utilities, and yes -- lawn maintenance costs . 2) It is ineffective against people who behave poorly. Two people can neglect a lawn just as easily as four. If a neighbor complains, the resulting fine handed out will be due to the 6" weed ordinance, and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people living there. The "3-unrelated" rule has done nothing to prevent this problem . I agree with correcting BEHAVIOR but this ordinance does NOTHING for that. It is arbitrary, intrusive, and ineffective . 1 repeat: repeal this ordinance and enforce the existing "nuisance" ordinances. Any other course of action is misguided and shortsighted . Alex Chiang 970-988-2827 ► I strongly dislike laws of correlation. Each of the symptoms we are trying to resolve ( noise, parking , etc) can all be resolved with targeted laws and enforcement. There's no reason 3 quiet, responsible individuals should not be able to share a residence . ► Increase the number of people allowed to live in a house to at least 4 - limiting renters to 3 per house is too restrictive. Other existing laws can be used to address party issues and trash (appearance) issues. ► Please use and enforce the existing ordinances rather than originate new ordinances , rules, laws and or statutes. This waster time and money that could and should be used for other and more important issues than a few select and lobbying areas. You are turning City Council into an enforcing entity which is not improving the quality of life in the City of Fort Collins. ► It's none of your damned business who lives in a house you don't own or rent. Number of occupants cannot possibly bother anyone. If some behavior actually bothers people, then deal with that behavior directly and not which entirely different behavior. Repeal this ridiculous , offensive, and unconstitutional ordinance. ► the city only needs to educate people to live a descent lives and respect others . We already have huge problem of divorce, separation etc hitting hard on the social life. Man is a social animal and needs to live together, share etc. People who complain a lot, expect a lot. Are we going to built concrete walls/fence? Its 28 time to say enough is enough -or we going to live in cave/ isolation . Two people living in one house would use same amount of electriclgas than 5 people in the same house. So its hard on the economy and environment. Basically, just teach or enforce decency but not no. of occupancy. 2 unfriendly people could be more annoying than 5 harmonious people-do the math . ► Landlords/property managers should be required to verbally inform , then provide a written occupancy affirmation to the tenant that not more than three unrelated will occupy the premises. Obviously, absentee landlords are more interested in rent receipts than in maintaining the neighborhood's appearance. Nearby neighbors must also be supportive by contacting City authorities when there are four-five vehicles on the streettin the driveway. ► Eliminate it altogether. How can we keep young people in Ft. Collins, if we limit their ability to pay rent by limiting their ability to share rent? It's bad economic development and sends a poor message to our young adults. ► My student neighbors have been very respectful as long as I communicated my expectations for them and my own neighborhood . All students have been more than respectful in keeping my neighborhood quiet and neat. ► As an older resident of this community, I must say that I find this ordinance to be incredible biased against the college student of our community that bring incredible diversity, promise , and skills to our city every year. I didn 't elect a city council that would only support interest groups and outspoken minorities. I am very much in support of an expansion of the ordinance to four individuals so that couples that wished to co- habitate during these hard economic times and, again , the students could be supported like they deserve ► The occupancy ordinance has made a positive impact in the neighborhoods, however it is somewhat unrealistic. By changing to ordinance to four unrelated; two couples would be allowed to live together, making living situations more manageable and desirable. In addition , changing the correction time from 7 days to 30 is more feasible to work out living arrangements . Finally, it's important to educate home owners and renters about how to be respectful neighbors. These simple changes could make this ordinance more manageable and effective for everyone. ► Repeal the ordinance brought forward from 1968 when almost all single-occupancy houses were three- bedroom , one bath , one-car garage.. Codes already cover weeds , unlicensed vehicles on street, unsanitary conditions negatively impacting neighborhood , zoning , etc. City Planning approved homes with many more bedrooms and baths and garage spaces. It is ridiculous for City to be looking into the bedrooms as to whom is sleeping there . Marriage should not determine size of family has no limit but renters must be limited. i If City really has a budget difficulty, would seem cuts could come here as unnecessary spying on residents. Code violations could be from reports and not from a bunch of City employees spying on neighborhoods. ► The ordinance is vague. Is it three unrelated or 4 unrelated ?? The following is a quote from your example page . " How do I avoid being in violation of this occupancy limit? Make sure you ' re complying with the law. If you have a family or do not live with more than 3 adults , then you ' re not in violation . If you want more than the limit in your dwelling unit, then you might want to look into the possibility of becoming a boarding house . " l always thought it meant that no more than 3 unrelated could live in a residence. The above example shows that one person can live with no more than 3 adults. So that is 4 persons in one household. If a college age student is not 21 , is he an adult?? This impacts me as I have a house of 4 students across from my home and they raise cain and party often . I pick up beer bottles out of my yard and sometimes we have puking youngsters on our front lawns. It is not unusual to be awoken in the dead of night by screaming and laughing. There is an intimidation issue here also. Complaining neighbors do not want their cars keyed, or tires 29 flattened by angry students who care not about the neighborhood . The way the ordinance is policed is rather puny, in my estimation . This bunch of 4 across from me have been hiding from the ordinance as well as they can for two years. The burden of proof would have to be on the complaining neighbors. ► It doesn't seem to make sense in a larger rental home that has five or more bedrooms. ► Better communication between landlord and tenants. More effort to integrate students into the neighborhood communities . Absentee landlords and those who only care about the bottom line are often the problem , not just the tenants. ► Don't put the brunt of proving noncompliance on neighbors . The last time I called about this, I was discouraged from reporting anything because "it is so hard to prove" how many people are living in one house. Is this really being enforced? ► Limit number of cars parked outside garages, especially on the street. I Make landlord responsible for upkeep of yard . Limit number of pets, especially large dogs. i ► I agree that there definitely need to be occupancy limits, but I think they need to be structured differently. If a home has 5 legal bedrooms and adequate parking for 5 cars, I think 5 adults should be allowed to live there. I think it would be better if the ordinance limited the number of adult, unrelated occupants by how many legal bedrooms were in the home, apartment etc. , rather than just a broad rule like 3-unrelated/U+2 , It's silly to have the same limit for a home with six bedrooms and a home with one or two bedrooms. ► Unfortunately, as everyone knows, the amount of people in a house is not a direct correlation to improving quality of life issues . For instance, we live next to a family (2 adults, 3 children who have 6 cars and one trailer--2 parked in the driveway, and the rest on the street. This does create parking issues, and it is not because of violating the Occupancy Ordinance. Similarly, we had a group of unrelated renters down the street who took impeccable care of their lawn , while some families don 't. If quality of life is the real issues, I suggest you look for ways to address them , and not create a "false" assumption that more than 3 unrelated persons necessarily results in quality of life issues. For this and many other reasons , I ask that you would repeal the Occupancy Ordinance. ► The Occupancy Ordinance is probably a necessity in most college towns for the reasons stated on the "your voice" page . The statistics show that the first two years of enforcement have been successful at achieving these goals. However, as a 2005 graduate of CSU , I think there is still room for compromise that can well serve the interests of both hard working families and students alike. Adding one additional person to each household will have a slightly more negative impact (one more car in the street, etc) . That negative is a trade-off for more affordability for students . The statistics say rent has not increased , but unless those numbers are based on individual students rates vs. the rates for a residency, I think they are misleading. Having been a student very recently, my experience showed that there are far more 4 bedroom houses in the areas near campus than 3 bedroom houses. Obviously, only 3 students could live in those 4 bedroom houses. And while the cost of renting the house may not have gone up , the cost to the three students living there is now 33% higher than it would be with 4 students there. As someone who had to work 3 jobs while taking a full-time load of classes to keep up with rent in a 4 person household , I would think the enforcement of this ordinance makes it nearly impossible for students to afford a 4 bedroom house. I agree that an occupancy limit is necessary in a college town . In my opinion though , allowing for one more person in the ordinance will support the students more than it causes issues for neighbors, and will leave both parties happy. We all share this great community, and I think a U +3 ordinance can work for everyone, where a U +2 puts an undue burden on students. ► Create a permit for more than three people living together. 30 i ► I do not think that one to two additional unrelated people in a house hold is harmful to the quality of life issues in fort Collins. ► Allow at least an additional roommate , 3 people in a house fit for like 5 is unreasonable, these kids are going to school and can barely survive, and these high rental rates don 't help them. We should be proud of our students and help them as much as they help us! i ► 4 unrelated I ► Enforce the ordinance whenever possible, especially when requested by neighbors . I lived next door to a house inhabited by four students and it was a nightmare . Weekend parties, dogs left unattended in the yard , multiple cars parking everywhere, and cars coming and going at all hours . Once when I asked to have a dog put up after it had barked under my bedroom window from 3: 00 a. m to 4 :00 a. m . , I was told by the bleary-eyed student who answered the door that it was not "his" dog. i This ordinance is reasonable and much needed , to help keep family neighborhoods from becoming an extension of a(n) UNSUPERVISED dorm complex. Many many students are quite reasonable, but the more there are in one place, the less likely they are to be a set of good neighbors, as no one takes responsibility for keeping everyone in line . ► I think that the most effective improvement to this ordinance is to get rid of this discriminatory ordinance all together. ► I don't see it being effective as it is difficult to enforce . It sure seems like there are more than 3 students in many of the rentals in the Avery Park neighborhood . This year the students have been especially disruptive to our family; so much so that we are considering moving to a different community. ► Change zoning , allow 4 unrelated rather than 3, and enforce existing ordinances that are the real problem - noise, trash , parking , etc. Redistribute/refocus work patterns of code enforcement officers - do a work audit (you might be surprised) to see how they can more efficiently do their jobs. ► Do not require rental registration--there are enough regulations that would control this . ► Keep it as it is or establish rental ONLY neighborhoods . In my experience college students are incredibly disrespectful of others and their property. 31 Attachment 15 Occupancv Ordinance Public Open House September 30 , 2009 Add Extra Occu anc Rentals is a Permitted use in more zones Pros Cons • Would allow for zones near • I live close to CSU ( 1 blk) . The transportation corridors and CSU to ordinance greatly improved the be higher density without significantly quality of life in our neighborhood effecting neighborhood quality . ( i .e . parking , quiet , cleanliness) . • Maintains the occupancy limit and The neighborhoods are not really allows for landlords to apply for designated to handle many extra higher occupancy. Also helps bridge people . It reduces the quality when the gap of competitive advantage , homes have more than a • Fort Collins history and charm is a reasonable number of folks in a result of decades of being known as a given house ! "college town" . Let the City thrive how • If this were proposed for the it should . neighborhoods of the Council • This would be one way to make it members who support it, they and better, their neighbors would scream ! Why • YES ! MAKE RENTALS MORE should some neighborhoods be AFFORDABLE , sacrificed so that out-of-town • Will make it easy for me and my 3 landlords reap greater profits? friends to find a place to live together. Most of Fort Collins is zoned to • It is a consequence of living near a allow extra occupancy. but people college campus that students will be who bought in RL zones should be living in your neighborhood . able to trust that it will remain so. • Many areas currently not zoned to • Extra occupancy because of extra allow Extra Occupancy Rentals. bedrooms does not address the Already have a large number of problem of too many people in a rentals and allowing a larger number house and too many cars . of occupants will allow students and • NO ! It feels that homeowners are other renters to live closer to campus continually asked or forced to rather than adding to the sprawl , compromise the value of their • Would be specific neighborhoods property. The occupancy ordinance NOT ALL ! as is , looks fine to me . Condos, • Make renting affordable again ! apartment complexes etc , are • FOR exist in zones that do not work. available for higher density living . FOR would allow 25 % of the block The majority of the city is already face only while keeping the ordinance zoned to allow extra occupancy. for wrongdoers . • There is already an ordinance ! ! • This may be a good idea , but it needs U +2 only! I thing Avery Park a lot more public discussion . Neighborhood Watch should follow • Could provide more affordable Rolland Moore ! Zero tolerance ! housing in areas . No ! It degrades the neighborhood . I • Cuts down on " student spread " into Too much traffic. Too much noise . other areas . Adding more occupants to *family • Less commuting , pollution , and public residences causes too many transportation . vehicles on the street , more noise , and more trash . Allow for # of bedrooms = # of People Pros Cons • Enforce the noise ordinance and NO ! the correlation does not speak change the 3 unrelated rule . to the impact of number of cars on • Why is it ok for a "family" of 5 and not the street and the effect on five unrelated ? property when more people reside • Houses were built for a certain in a single residence (plus the amount of people . Why waste number of pets that can go along resources? with the number of residents) . • Does not make the City of Fort What determines a bedroom ? That Collins define the definition of family . could get way out of hand . • Allowing people to occupy all of the This would be a total disaster for bedrooms will help create more neighborhoods near CSU . These affordable housing in the city while neighborhoods are barely livable also allowing landlords to increase for families . This idea would profits therefore allowing them to produce the Fort Collins slums . Do keep up their property better. you want that? • I don 't think it's fair. As a new student • Landlords often convert a 3 1 can 't find a room in a house with bedroom house to 4 by remodeling affordable renting because the only the garage . This should not be houses left have 4 or 5 bedrooms and allowed . 5 people is TOO MANY need to pay for empty rooms , regardless of the number of • Enforce the nuisance laws already on bedrooms . the books . NO ! We need numbers to be kept • A 4 bedroom apartment with enough down . It allows us to meet each space and bathrooms is perfectly other and work on other issues , adequate to support 4 people . • The issue with houses of more Likewise , a house that has 5 than 3 bedrooms is the increased bedrooms and can support 5 people vehicle traffic and lack of adequate should not be penalized based on the parking . This makes fact that the occupants decide to neighborhoods look like parking share their dwelling . This unfairly lots . targets the low income citizens of Fort Collins , and does little to promote the peace and quiet of neighborhoods . • MAKE RENTING AFFORDABLE ! • Students are already struggling to afford rent . It doesn 't make sense if rooms aren ' t being used , but are being paid for! 2 I i I • This is a good idea as it would allow for maximum capacity utilization and it would help to create more affordable housing options . • This is an excellent option . It would be resourceful for the environment , help with the City's environment, climate, goals , and make housing more affordable . • 64% of violators are living under 5 people -Corona Research 2005 . • Students are living in houses where there are more than 3 bedrooms and paying for the extra bedrooms . Housing is expensive and allowing for the number of bedrooms for the number of people is one solution to lowering the price ! • Fill all the rooms that are in the house. • Takes away the competitive advantage that landlords who don 't comply with the 3 limit over those who currently are violating . • Landlords have valuable investments (the properties they own) . They should be able to use them to their full potential . • Rent would be affordable ! • Houses being used and prevents sprawl ! • This is a great idea because it will save the students a lot of money. The second highest cost of getting an education is housing . The state is paying for a large portion of the costs of tuition , but this is going away. For our State and City to continue to be a leader in higher education we need this . • Would eliminate wasted space . It is more economical and would save tenants money. You wouldn 't have to pay rent on an empty room . • This or 4 unrelated would help to allow more money for landlords to 3 i spend on property maintenance. • A house built with 5 bedrooms + 4 v baths should be allowed to have 5 tenants . • Makes affordable housing more accessible . • Houses are built with a certain number of bedrooms in mind . To not allow for the bedrooms to be filled is unfair to owner. • Need more regulations pertaining to available of street parking and must be conforming bedrooms . No change to current O cupancy Ordinance Pros Cons • This is the first ordinance that has Bedrooms should be occupied , all made working out other problems of them . Noisy people degrade the (neighbor to neighbor) possible . Huge neighborhood , not 4 people who numbers make it impossible . live in a 4 bedroom house . • Let's give it some time . There has not Sprawl would degrade the whole been ample time to see if this is city. If I could have 1 roommate in working or not. each available room , I could get • The ordinance and the greater through these tough times w/out enforcement of it in recent years and selling the house . greater education about, especially . 40 % of reports of violations are by CSU , HAS WORKED . It has false reports and a waste of City turned about the steady decline of our resources , neighborhood due to irresponsible . Students will be broke . No more landlords and tenants . KEEP IT ! taxes , CSU , or students . • YES the ordinance works ! Keep it • Doesn 't allow for compromise with and don 't change it . It helps bring students who are members/citizens peace to neighborhoods , of this community. • It's the best thing on the books to Causes students to look for maintain the integrity of affordable housing farther and neighborhoods ! Couple with rental farther away, which promotes a licensing high rental property areas longer and dirtier commute . may survive and reverse the . It isn 't working . Students need degradation brought on by over help . Not all students (in fact very occupancy and lack of responsibility few) are receiving money from their of tenants and landlords. parents for housing and if they • We have noise ordinances in place . were , they are hurting financially No change . Status Quo . too . • Keep current codes . • This law originated in 1964 before • It's worked well . We have noise the civil RIGHTS movement. It is a ordinance in place . law that discriminates against 4 • Keep the ordinance on the books . many populations . Current occupancy ordinance is the Enforce the nuisance ordinances ! best thing that has happened to our By primarily focusing on number of neighborhoods in a long time . More occupants students (a major than 3 unrelated in a rental house financial contributor to Fort Collins) almost always leads to neighborhood are inappropriately segmented and conflict . classified . Due to this students • Improved neighborhoods and struggle to find affordable housing . neighborhood quality. Promotes sprawl and increases • More enforcement but no change. vehicle use depleting • I agree with this ! It has helped and environmental resources . Fort gives homeowners a way to deal with Collins brown cloud ? problems such as parking , noise , and Quality of life issues? What is traffic, better a place to live or living out of • The Corona Report provides a car? evidence that the U +2 work in I don 't like breaking the law but improving the quality of life for can 't afford anything else . homeowners living in neighborhoods • Enforce parking and noise near CSU . Enforce it ! regulations ! Don 't enforce • If it actually worked and be enforced it discrimination ! would be fine . Enforce it ! . Doesn 't accommodate to students • The survey results in the Corona financial situations . Report already show that the • 7 days is far too short to find a new ordinance has worked to improve place to live . neighborhoods . • Change to number of bedrooms • Corona Report stated 47% drop the house was originally built for "voluntarily" before implementation equals number of tenants . '05- '07. . This ordinance needs adjustments • No change needed . to make it more student friendly in • Ordinance is too new. We need more a college town . Neighborhoods time . have ordinances wfneighborhood • Take 2 more years to re-evaluate . associations . Let' s start enforcing • No Changes, but Police need to those ! enforce all the drunk parties . The complaints about violations are • Pits neighbors against neighbors ! mostly behavior based . Enforce the Great for City relations , nuisance violations and don't target • Current ordinance is needed but with categorically low income people . improvement ( i . e. excessive number • The current ordinance costs low of vehicles parked on streets , income renters many thousands of driveways , and lawns are obviously dollars per year by not allowing indicative of unauthorized more people in a residence. occupancy) . Unauthorized occupants • Nuisance and safety ordinances get around ordinance by frequently should be enforced . Don 't punish moving from on friend 's residence to good people trying to live within a another to "visit" . budget! • The ordinance has made a wonderful This ordinance discriminates 5 I -1 positive impact in the Caroline Mantz against lower income groups as neighborhood . Please keep it as is , currently written and enforced . My perspective is as a homeowner Changes need to be made in order and landlord in this neighborhood to allow for affordable housing prior to this ordinance , the baseball without breaking the law . team of CSU lived in a large house in . The current ordinance invites our neighborhood . The house individuals to break the law and typically had 10- 12 cars parked in consequently sign no lease in order front and down the street. The to "get away with it" . Because of ordinance has improved the parking , this they have no obligation to obey the general atmosphere (cleaner and the rules of the house and other quieter !) of the neighborhood , and the residents suffer the consequences . moral of folks in the neighborhood . if we could increase the ordinance • Thanks so much for the ordinance . to the number of rooms this would Please keep it intact ! not occur. • Corona 2004 report shows ordinance does not cause a change in quality of life issues. Money should be spent on enforcement that increases quality of life (i . e . noise violation , code enforcement) , Rental Re istration Pros Cons • A responsible landlord should have • Doesn 't solve the current problems absolutely no fear of his/her property with the ordinance . being registered . Registration would . Does not build the City revenue up make more easy notification of on the backs of landlords ! ! ! problems , distributing educational . The code administration would be materials on city standards and passed on to the renters . If the expected tenant behavior. renters have more money, they can • Other businesses conducted in take care of their properties better, homes have to be licensed so should . Why are landlords and tenants rentals . This will also assure that being targeted to increase renters will have well maintained and revenue ? safe housing . . Why? • It would be helpful to be able to reach A compromise for rental licensing . landlords . . To make information of neighbors' This is a GREAT way to level the public knowledge is a violation of playing field and make owners privacy, responsible for what goes on at their properties , Rental Licensing Pros Cons • Rentals are a business . Businesses Would make this city as expensive 6 I are licensed , to live as Boulder. • Knowledge of who owns the property If conditions are such that renters • Safety of leasee are forced to move because of e I favor licensing to aid in contacting unsafe conditions they may not be landlords who use LLC's , trusts , etc able to afford suitable housing , as to hide behind . there is not suitable affordable • Good ideal housing here . • You can look up LLC owners on the Investment property is our Secretary of State website . retirement. You do not need a • Landlords who are in violation of license to have stock in the stock safety standards would be enforced market , to comply. • We have current codes to address • Why should some landlords routinely any problems there or now, hide while their properties violate the • Slippery slope allows for too much law? Licensing protects neighbors as power for city officials . well as renters from irresponsible and • Would be a huge waste of money. unresponsive landlords . Many rentals Fort Collins would be too and in substandard condition , expensive to live in , especially for • Rental licensing would be a good students , idea because it is a business . Other Invasion of privacy and businesses have to have a license so EXPENSIVE , should these . • Don 't want more government • This is the answer! Investment agencies , taxes or employees . Use property is a business . It should be the current codes . regulated for benefit of neighborhood , • Owning a rental home IS NOT a tenant , landlord/owner (although they business . The city or the state has don 't realize this) . clear definitions of what a • Could improve quality and safety of " business " is . Being a landlord isn 't properties. a business . • Could provide for a place to Cost of manpower in tough times , determine based on number of • Pass it to landlords ; it gets passed rooms , parking availability and to tenants. If so , more " illegal" 4 , 5 , 6 location , how many people can rent. person homes will pop up . • Landlords ARE licensed as property managers . They pay a lot more fees than a regular business. Short-term waiver for hardship cases Pros Cons • 66 . 3 % of students rely on financial • Wow! How would you define and ' aid and would benefit from this regulate this one ? hardship waiver. Short term waivers lead to long • Good idea with clear rubric. term waivers and then , before you • A short term waiver would allow know it , it becomes permanent, citizens who can 't afford to live in Fort The city should say "At this date, all I Collins without breaking the law to properties must be in compliance" . remain in their houses and pay their . Would take too long . bills . Difficult to prove "hardship " . • Would support if the waiver applied to Everyone is experiencing a the household (the particular people) hardship . NOT the property. This would . I can see potential abuse with this . improve the "fairness" issue . It doesn 't seem like a good idea _ • Interesting . Would need fair How would this be determined ? I application and talking about it . believe there are agencies to support this ? Apartment complexes are often over looked as affordable housing . • You will always have hardship cases . The poor will always be with us ! • Hardship cases often apply to students and students need more than a short term waiver (school year = 9- 12 months) . Hardship falls on students when this law is enforced . i Other ideas and general comments • Make noise violations and public nuisance ordinances more of a priority. • We don 't want to be isolated from the community ! ! • Some of us who live in th6 neighborhoods can see that the U +2 ordinance , noise ordinance , and the educational efforts of CSU and the City have made a difference . The rate of destruction of our neighborhoods has slowed , and a few owner occupants have moved in where irresponsible landlords and tenants created a huge nuisance _ This is what the Corona report got wrong . • Students need to be a part of the community ! We have been since 1870 ! • U +2 discriminated against couples looking for housing together. • This ordinance hurts people who are disabled , low income , or students . Are these people that need to be held down ? • The dedication CSU and its students has to the community is very much being overlooked . Students should be recognized for their hard work and be " rewarded " accordingly. • State funding is going away . For CSU to survive , and for the 168 million in tax revenue to continue , students need a break on the cost of living . • It is personal property . The City has no business telling owners who can live in their house ! • Extra occupancy rentals throughout the entire city . • Regarding the so called fraternity lodge option NO- NO- NO ! We do not believe these places will be any better than other open occupancy houses . Likely they will be worse . We do not want to lease near a frat house no matter what i i 8 I you call it, • The best community is a FREE community. • 1 hope there is some meaningful dialogue about the ongoing tension between homeowners and students. I think this is a symptom of a much bigger community problem . • Community forums ! Can't students/long term residents sit together and have a proper discussion . • Students alone provide 168 million to Fort Collins . Programs such as Transfort and the Mason Corridor are supported by students and are keeping these programs afloat . • 4 unrelated . • CSU and its students are the foundation of Fort Collins . This ordinance effects students everyday , in the ability to find affordable housing . LET'S FIND A COMPROMISE . • Students are an important part of the Fort Collins community. Not a group that should be treated as a separate function . Integrate , don't discriminate. • CSU needs to train all students how to behave in neighborhoods before they are turned loose on us . The present courses are NOT effective . A civics course each semester? • The near riot parties that occurred near CSU after the CU game clearly show that these students are not responsible enough to live unsupervised . • Further evidence — the story in the collegian on 9/25/09 about "drunkorexia" where students purge food in favor of alcohol . • Many of the students who come by our home do not respect property. They have caused damage (vandalize) . • My daughter was threatened by students ,who claimed that we are the ones calling the police in the neighborhood . In retaliation they said they were going to slash our car tires . • From my home , I have overheard: students on their cell phones soliciting drugs . I have overheard them telling where parties are in the process . They warn each other when police are near. • Treat students and renters like EQUAL citizens of Fort Collins . • The quadrant west of Lory Student Center should a used to construct 4 high rise residence halls for students . Get the students out of Fort Collins residential areas . * All students. • The current occupancy ordinance does not work. Most rentals on Constitution Avenue have more than 3 unrelated . • If the University Police have statewide jurisdiction they need to get into our neighborhoods and help us to make a difference for the good . City of Fort Collins Police has other responsibilities . • Families can have virtually unlimited pets and family members . They can cause just as much nuisance as renters . • As an American coming from a Middle Eastern background , it would be great to be able to live under one roof with my new family (students) just like I would in my home country. As an international student I ' m concerned that if 9 the ordinance continues as it is , I might be placed in a situation being forced out of my home leaving me stranded out of my home country. • Please make/help Fort Collins residents to find affordable housing . By allowing for exceptions by using the bedrooms + party SBT3. Let's help students afford Fort Collins ! • Don 't' punish the majority for the few who break the law. • What percentages of renters in the whole rental world in Fort Collins break this law? Seems in last few years , the ordinance has worked . It' s a small amount of renters who ignore this law. • Since U +2 students have moved further from campus and driving further to get to class . Do we not care about emissions? ! • Students are not a separate species. We are all community members and e all care about Fort Collins . • Have any freshmen slipped through the CSU regulations and found their way into neighborhoods? This question because I always receive the response that we can 't tell the students where they can live . • A house built with 5 bedrooms should be allowed to have 5 tenants providing there is enough parking . • Repeal it ! • Are there any CSU freshmen living in the neighborhoods? I thought CSU had a regulation against this . They should not be in the neighborhoods . • For all of these "ideas" , we need people to help train the students , not penalize the landlords , students , and their parents with higher rents . Please , volunteer your time to help TEACH the students. • If the ordinance is going to be changed (which I don't support) it should be changed city wide , not in "specific" neighborhoods . Why should Front Range students not be allowed to live in houses in Clarendon Hills that would support 4 , 51 6 students . All-or- none . Yes ! • I think sometimes people forget the great things CSU (and specifically the students) have done for the Fort Collins community. It is not fair for everyone to be punished for what a few loud individuals have done . U+2 is obviously not working . If we continue down this path students will continue to break the law. Instead of fighting , collaboration needs to occur and all sides should listen to each other. Mutual respect is needed to any solution to occur. • Studies show that more than 3 students/young adults living together have problems living together, paying bills , understanding their responsibilities to each other, civically and legally. Their problems spill out into the neighborhoods with their cars , trash , vomit, arguments , and fights . • It seems that this boils down to the fact that students want as many as possible in a house to decrease costs while landlords want as many in a house to increase profits (which I suspect won 't be reinvested in the house) , For homeowners , it' s a quality of life issue . Does City Council favor catering to students who , on average , will be in town for a few years and have not interest in becoming a part of a neighborhood , or homeowners who have/are making an effort to establish roots in the neighborhoods and city. • The 2009 Corona Report could not find a relationship between changes in 10 i I i i quality of life in neighborhoods and enforcement of U +2 . Why don ' t we spend the quarter million dollars on something that will have an impact suclivas noise ordinances and code violations? Let us not forget that you were all young and in college once so you should have sympathy for students . Remember that students keep the university and the town going . Without them , this town would fall apart. These students are the future leaders that will continue to make this city, our country, and even the world a better place . Remember that and start giving the students more choice and more respect. • The number of rooms should equal the number of people. This eliminates wasted space and saves money . Also , there are many low income families that cannot afford to waste space and pay more rent. There are disabled people who need family members to live with them but can't due to the current ordinance . We need to change it to help students and community members in Fort Collins . • The City of Fort Collins would not be here if it wasn 't for CSU and its students . It is the university and the students that control the economy and support all local businesses . By making students living situations difficult, you are making Fort Collins and CSU less appealing . This would then lead to decreased enrollment and economic issues . Furthermore , the students contribute a great deal to the community through service philanthropy, and running local businesses . • 1 love students . Compromise . • The plot of land south of the new police station on Timberline should be bought by the City Fort Collins . On that land a "city" for the university should be built as a joint collaboration between Fort Collins and the land-grant STATE University. Junior and Seniors will have to live at the new "city"I Freshmen and sophomores should live on campusll 3 . 5 -4 . 0 GPA students of all grades should have the opportunity to live on campus as a reward for their j great work . The "CSU City" should be a closed /gated community of j apartments. Parking should be underground . No alcohol or drugs allowed . Rent paid by the students should be approximately $ 350 . 00 per person . The revenue stream harnessed (of rents) should be split into monies for the City of j Fort Collins , the City Police and the University. • The money governed for the city could go toward getting families into the vacated rental homes . The money for CSU should go toward maintaining the new " CSU City" and also o into their general fund , and money to the police should be used to outfit them properly and hire more officers to keep our city safe and quiet. Let's harness the power of the students for the betterment of the city they live in and have destroyed . I live in a ghetto in the Avery Park Neighborhood . It used to be a beautiful neighborhood . Safe and quiet. Now it's violent and dirty- 11 ATTACHMENT 16 Occupancy Ordinance Two -Year Review and Policy Discussion City Council Work Session October 27 , 2009 • Beth Sowder , Neighborhood Services Manager • Peter Barnes , Zoning Administrator F�t` Collins hit Council Direction Sought 1 . Are the Occupancy Ordinance and its enforcement meeting intended goals ? 2 . Does Council wish to continue the ordinance ? 3 . If so , are there any changes to the ordinance Council would like to consider? a ) Does Council wish to amend the Occupancy Limit definition ? b ) Does Council wish to consider any zoning changes ? City of �F�rt`f� 1 Background • 1964 — first Occupancy Ordinance adopted • Occupancy limit determined within the definition of Family • Enforcement was difficult • City heard increasing concerns about neighborhood quality of life issues of F�t` ns Revisions and Process Changes 2003 — 2005 Public Nuisance Ordinance — increased enforcement Nuisance Hotline — created and increased marketing Noise/party violations — increased fines Party Patrol project — implemented Revisions to existing codes — improve enforcement Nuisance Gathering Ordinance — adopted City of �F�rt`f� 2 Revisions and Process Changes con ' t . 2003 — 2005 con 't . CSU — on -going coordination Community Noise Workshop — Party Partners Community Liaison — increased education 2005 — present Landlord Education Series Adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code Adopted Yard & Fence Ordinance F�t` Collins 2005 Occupancy Ordinance Revisions Revised in 2005 — primary changes included : 1 . Occupancy Limit defined as : a ) One family and not more than one additional person ; or b ) Two adults and their dependants ( if any ) and not more than one additional person City of �F�rt Co ins `f� 3 Occupancy Ordinance Revisions con Ito 2 . Decriminalization — changed from criminal misdemeanor to civil infraction 3 . Occupancy Limit Disclosure Statement required from Landlord to tenant 4 . Extra Occupancy Rental Houses ( EORH ) — allowed in certain zoning districts Fort Collins Neighborhood & Building Services Approved Extra Occupancy Rental Houses mwnn.w.rm @ e eEN ENIE g4NCIXx• W ET f EPEEIWV ST W WI1E1R •H f W Eo f_� EPp Eawew 8 a N.EEmEraomm Ero�nooTww err m•oaE N e - ••Em.remE.a•s••a.rr.• f •� 4 Economic & Market Impact Studies Two studies conducted by Corona Research : • Early 2005 — provided a baseline of data and projections about the impacts of enforcement . • Revised Ordinance took effect 2007 • Early 2009 — determined actual impacts of enforcement of the revised ordinance during the first two years of implementation (2007 -2008 ) . F�t` ns 2009 Economic & Market Impact Study The primary conclusions of the 2009 Study included : • Violator households have decreased 46 % • Improvements in neighborhood conditions coincided • Rental vacancies and rental prices impacted due to a wide variety of factors • Some concerns about enforcement City of �F�rt\f� 5 May 2009 Enforcement Change Council approved an enforcement change May 2009 : • Eliminated the requirement that a notice of violation be given prior to issuing citations — especially for repeat violations or clear disregard for the ordinance . F�t` Collins May 2009 Administrative Changes Administrative changes approved include : • Continue to seek license plate numbers of occupants — no longer require vehicle logs • Disclosure Statements required within 4 days • Contact residents prior to issuing notices or citations ( " Knock and Ask" technique ) . • Cite those persons that the evidence shows are most responsible for the violation . • Issue multiple counts for knowing violations . City of �F�rt\f� 6 August 25 , 2009 Work Session Focused on the Market & Impact Study . Council also directed staff to bring additional information : • Survey area • Board of Realtors information • Enforcement process description • Citations issued since May 2009 • HOA covenants restricting occupancy information F�t` Collins August 25t" work session con ' t . • Data regarding possible zoning options • Data regarding student housing provided by CSU and off-campus • Citizen input from all perspectives • Occupancy Limit definition options • Increased education and enforcement options City of �F�rt`f� 7 2007 — 2008 Two -Year Review Data & Information F�t_ Collins 2007 — 2008 Occupancy Review 203 — Total number of occupancy complaints ➢ 88 — Total number of unfounded occupancy complaints ( not enough evidence to prove a violation ) 115 — Total number of occupancy violations notices sent ► 95 — came into compliance once notified ► 20 — citations issued City of �F�rt`f� 8 Neighborhood & Building Services Occu ancv Complaint Cases 2007 -2008 N NIO/k �� 1A1i qp jpMYgpApQ "'1�O CAI TIYQIrR p ~p f OVR/JN NSTA E NIYRMOEO C I�11 SY 6 EM N rr * € +� W ff= S fr r f y EN rfr f �l' � Irr r Ev LTRO rf*wwf�r r r g, f�Sf .•i s f[<fft flO r r 3<+ r 8 _ wow M QP E 3 8 � f $ y tg EM M N { qpLLtIj GS f Fort CoWns Noise or Nuisance Violations at Occupancy Violation Properties 2007 =2008 0 / /■ � Number of . Repeat /■ ■� / prior to ancy /■ Repeat . _ . Violations- PropertiesNumber of Violation occupancy City 0 Fort Collins Occupancy Limit Definition Options F�t_ Collins Occupancy Limit Definition Current Occupancy Limit is defined as : a ) One family plus one additional person ; or b ) Two adults and their dependants , if any , plus one additional person . After close examination of the ordinance , staff found that it could allow a family to house two additional people which was not Council ' s original intent . City of �F�rt`f� 10 Occupancy Limit Options To match the definition with Council ' s intent : Step 1 : Clarify original definition by this revision : a ) One family plus one additional person ; or b ) Two adults , not falling into ( a ) above , and their dependants plus one additional person . Meets Council ' s original intent , and eliminates the ability for families to accommodate two additional , unrelated people . F�t` Collins Occupancy Limit Options con ' t . Step 2 : Allow a permit to be issued for " host families " to temporarily house two additional persons as long as certain criteria were met . Criteria might include : 1 . The residence is owner-occupied ; and 2 . The additional persons do not pay rent or provide services in exchange for housing . This would allow " host families " to house two additional adults . City of �F�rt`f� 11 Potential Zoning Options `rt Collins Zones For the focus of this discussion , 3 zone types include : • NCM — Neighborhood Conservation Medium-density — Res uses : single-family, duplex, multi-family, group homes — Non-res uses : places of worship & assembly, child care centers , schools , Bed & Breakfasts • RL — Residential Low-density — Res uses : single-family and group homes — Non-res uses : places of worship & assembly, childcare centers , schools • NCL — Neighborhood Conservation Low-density — Res uses : single-family and group homes — Non-res uses : places of worship & assembly, schools Fort Collins 12 Option 1 — Add Extra Occupancy Rental House ( EORH ) in NCM zone Pros : Cons: • Zone already allows multi-family Some NCM conversion recently from rental to owner-occupied • Would not increase density resulting in "single family • Consistent with other zoning neighborhood" character districts that allow EORHs Could cause owner-occupants to feel adversely impacted • Consistent with stated purpose Could increase the number of of Ordinance people more rapidly and • Compliance with rental adversely impact neighbors standards • Additional affordable housing near campus Fiof t Collins 1� CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATED EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL ZONES i 3 b. q i l • d 3 8 i mama o 13 Option 2 - Amend 3 zones ( RL , NCL , and NCM ) to allow EORH in certain areas Pros : Cons : • Allows use while limiting Requires neighborhood plan where allowed in the zone amendments — especially • Limiting use to 25% per since RL and NCL zones block limits degree of impact were planned to be single- Adding the use might add family , low-density affordable housing options Neighborhoods chosen could feel disregarded and not protected • Owner-occupants could be adversely impacted City of Fort Collins Option 3 - Add Fraternity/Sorority Lodge in Certain Zones Staff received a specific request to allow this use in the NCL zone . NCL zone is the most restrictive zone . Possible definition : Fraternity/Sorority Lodge shall mean a dwelling the residents of which number no more than six (6) and are all members of the same fraternity or sorority , formally affiliated with CSU . Such lodge also may serve as a place of assembly where all members may conduct meetings , study together, and assemble for meals and social gathering . City of Fort f� 14 Fraternity/Sorority Lodge Con ' t . Pros : Cons: • Allows another alternative Essentially same as EORH and housing type and would place of assembly increase diversity of residential Higher density zones that neighborhoods already allow for similar uses would be the appropriate areas for such a lodge • Adding this to low-density zones would negatively impact the single-family character • Assembly aspect would create a greater negative impact `e Collins Option 4 - Do not change zoning Pros : Cons : • Zoning and neighborhood Would not address the plans adopted through benefit of allowing EORH in lengthy and public process NCM zone • EORH use already allowed Doesn 't expand affordable in many zones housing options near • Current zoning regulations campus assist with keeping affordable housing available Fort Collins 15 Outreach Conducted and Feedback Received F�t_ ns n . Stakeholder Committee • Three groups represented : — Students/renters — Industry Representatives — Neighborhood Representative • Met numerous times to gain understanding about various perspectives of stakeholders . • Provided memo , options matrix , and individual proposals , ideas and solicited feedback . City of Fort f� 16 Stakeholder Committee Con ' t . Found common ground in three areas : 1 . Educational efforts towards students and landlords should continue and similar efforts geared toward neighbors should be implemented . 2 . Enforcement of all existing codes impacting neighborhoods is critical . 3 . Do not repeal the ordinance . F�t` ns got CSU Forum and Round Table Open Forum — April 16 , 2009 — ASCSU & City - To provide an opportunity for students to discuss the Occupancy Ordinance with City staff. Round Table Discussion — September 28 , 2009 — ASCSU & City - To provide an opportunity for students to discuss possible solutions , options and ideas regarding the Occupancy Ordinance . City of �F�rt` ollins f� 17 Your Voice Web Feedback Tool Total number of surveys completed — 283 Question 1 : Have you been directly impacted by the occupancy Ordinance? Impact 14% i 45% ❑ Yes, Positive ■ Yes, Negative 41 % ❑ No `y Collins Your Voice con ' t . Question 2 : Do you think the Occupancy Ordinance is effective in improving quality of life issues (e . g . neighborhood disturbances , parking issues , upkeep and appearance of residential properties , etc. )? Effective ❑ Yes 49% 4D 51% ■ hlo Fort Collins 18 Additional Outreach • Affordable Housing Board — September 3 , 2009 • Public Open House — September 30 , 2009 Participants encouraged to provide feedback regarding how the Ordinance has impacted them and provide input about possible options . • Occupancy Complainant Survey — To better understand the impacts and degree of effectiveness . F�t` Collins Conclusion • Economic & Market Impact Study showed a significant decrease in violator households with most of the decline due to voluntary compliance . • Improvements in neighborhood quality and a decrease in violator households have coincided . • Occupancy violation data indicates that most violator households comply once notified . • Data shows multiple nuisance and noise violations have decreased in over-occupied households after enforcement . City of Fort f� 19 Conclusion con In • Feedback received from various stakeholders shows that opinions and perspectives regarding the ordinance are strong , passionate , diverse and personal . • Feedback has varied from extreme displeasure to full support of the ordinance . F� of t` Collins Council Direction Sought 1 . Are the Occupancy Ordinance and its enforcement meeting intended goals ? 2 . Does Council wish to continue the ordinance ? 3 . If so , are there any changes to the ordinance Council would like to consider? a ) Does Council wish to amend the Occupancy Limit definition ? b ) Does Council wish to consider any zoning changes ? City of Fort f� bit 20