HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 10/3/2023 - Memorandum From Sylvia Tatman-Burruss And Noah Beals Re: Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation On Land Use Code
City Manager’s Office
City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation
281 N. College Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
www.fcgov.com MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation
Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
FROM: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Policy & Project Manager
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
RE: Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation on Land Use Code and
Additional Materials and Information for the October 3 First Reading of the
Land Use Code
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to update Councilmembers on the discussion
that occurred at the Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”) hearing on September
27, 2023. Other attachments include: Sample motion language for any potential amendments to
the Draft Code; an updated engagement summary; public comments received through the
online feedback form that were not included in the engagement summary; and an updated
Power Point presentation with additions made after the Commission meeting.
Background
On September 27, 2023, the Commission conducted a Special Hearing to make a
recommendation to Council regarding the proposed Land Use Code and the rezoning to rename
the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone districts to the Old Town zone district. The only topic of
discussion was the Land Use Code, including items flagged for further discussion by
Councilmembers at their last work session on August 22, 2023.
Recommendations
The Commission recommended that Council adopt the Land Use Code as presented on a 4-1
vote (Haefele Nay).
The Commission recommended that Council rezone the Neighborhood Conservation Low
Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
zone districts to rename them as the Old Town zone district on a 4-1 vote (Haefele Nay).
Public Comment
14 people gave comment in-person. No comment was provided remotely.
Of these comments, 1 person spoke in favor and the rest in opposition.
Discussion Summary
Following is a list of topics discussed at the Commission hearing. Minutes will be provided by
memorandum as soon as they are available.
Commission discussion included:
o Whether or how to require owner occupancy for houses that have an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADUs).
o How buildings with habitable space work with ADUs and how they relate to other
accessory structures.
o Applicability of raw water and other charges for various types of residential
development.
o The appropriateness of having maximum floor area limits vs a floor area ratio.
o The pros/cons of limiting what HOAs can regulate via their covenants.
o The differences between regulations for the Residential, Low Density (RL) and
Old Town – A (OTA) zone districts.
o The merits of the 4 criteria that would allow for a duplex on Residential, Low
Density (RL) lots, and whether any of them should be mandatory.
o The importance of the new definition of “integrate with existing structure” as a
requirement.
o Desire by one commissioner for the Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density
(NCL)/Old Town – A (OTA) zone district to only allow triplexes if one unit is deed-
restricted as affordable.
o Whether the cottage court building form incentivizes demolition of already
attainable housing.
o A desire by some to require all Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to have owner
occupancy rather than the proposed resident manager.
o The Commission went into executive session for the purpose of discussing
the legal implications of attempting to implement owner occupancy
requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
o Recognition that water utility requirements are not in the Land Use Code, but
recommendation by a Commissioner that staff work with Utilities to find a way to
not assess a raw water charge for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Verbatim Motions from Commission
Member Sass – I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council
adopt the Land Use Code as presented by staff tonight. This recommendation is based on the
agenda materials, staff presentation, public testimony, and the Commission discussion on this
topic. Chair Katz, do I have a second? Member Shepard seconded the motion. Chair Katz, ok,
we have kind of ran through final comments, can I get a roll call please? Vote: 4:1; Shepard –
Yes, Haefele – No, Stegner – Yes, Sass – Yes, Katz - Yes. Chair Katz, with that, the
recommendation to Council passes.
Member Sass – I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council
rezone the neighborhood conservation low density, neighborhood conservation medium density,
and neighborhood conservation buffer zone districts to rename them as old town zone district,
finding that proposed rezoning is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, better aligns the
purpose of the zone district with its name under their advised land use code, and facilitates
public understanding and use of the revised land use code. This recommendation is based on
the agenda materials, staff presentation, public testimony, and the Commission discussion on
this item. Chair Katz, thank you, Adam, do we have a second? Member Shepard seconded the
motion. Chair Katz, roll call, please. Vote 4:11; Stegner – Yes, Sass – Yes, Shepard – Yes,
Haefele – No, Katz – Yes. Chair Katz, with that, the recommendation to Council passes.
Next Steps:
First reading of the Land Use Code is scheduled for a Regular Meeting on October 3
Attachments:
Example Language for Potential Amendments, Final Engagement Summary, Additional
Feedback Form Comments, and revised power point deck with Commission updates.
Example Language for Potential Amendments:
The draft Land Use Code includes code alternatives that were indicated as “green” at the
August 22 Council Work Session. Additionally, code alternatives that were “yellow” are included
in the draft. The yellow alternatives will be the focus of the staff presentation at first reading as
additional discussion around these items were requested.
If the Council proceeds to adopt the Land Use Code and has a desire to change or to remove
any item from the draft code it is suggested that each change be voted on through separate
motions. This can be done by making one motion to approve the draft Land Use Code that is
seconded and before voting making individual motions to amend a specific section. Each
proposed amendment will need to be seconded and voted on. After all amendments have been
voted on a final vote would then be taken on the original motion to approve the draft code as
amended.
The following amendment language will also be included in backup slides within the Power
Point presentation for Council reference the night of the hearing.
The following are example amendments for each of the items that will be presented in detail:
Discussion item #1
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 As Follows: require
all duplex lots to be an affordable housing development.
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 As Follows: remove
duplex as a permitted use and building type in the RL zone district.
Discussion item #2
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 As Follows: remove 3 units
in the OT-A zone district.
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 As Follows: require all
triplexes to be both an affordable housing development and integrate with
existing structure.
Discussion item #3
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 As Follows: limit the OT-B
district to 5 units and require 5 units to both an affordable housing development
and integrate with existing structure.
Discussion item #4
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 As Follows: limit cottage
courts to 5 units.
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 As Follow: remove cottage
court as building type in the OT-B.
Discussion item #5
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 1.3.3 As Follows: remove this
section in its entirety.
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 1.3.3 As Follows: clarify that an
HOA can determine if an ADU is detached or attached.
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 1.3.3 As Follows: remove the
prohibition for Private Housing Covenants to restrict subdivision of property.
Discussion item #6
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 4.3.1 As Follows: remove
requirement for a resident manager for an Accessory Dwelling unit.
Discussion item #7
o e.g. I move to amend Land Use Code Section 4.3.1 As Follows: prohibit a Short
Term Rental license to be issued to both the primary house and the ADU.
These are only examples of possible amendments. And amendments to other sections of code
should use a similar format:
I move to amend Land Use Code [Identify What Portion of the LUC Is Being
Amended by describing the Division, Section, Table, Zone District, etc.] As
Follows: [Describe in Detail the Change]
Report Regarding Public Comments concerning Land Use Code Engagement
Initial Draft June 27,2023 Final September 28,2023
Dr.Martin Carcasson,Director,Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation
Methodology section
The city provided me with the raw data that has been collected mostly this spring
connected to the Land Use Code (LUC)process.This included a wide variety of texts,such as
all the post it notes and written comments from the open house,survey results from those
attending the neighborhood walking tours,data from online feedback forms,and emails sent to
city staff.I’ve also attended all the city council work sessions focused on housing this spring to
follow the conversations there,and included past CPD reports on housing as well.I inputed all
the data into special software called QDA Miner in order to organize it around various themes.I
was then able to print out reports for specific themes in order to get a clearer sense of the public
discussion around each theme across the different events and formats.I will continue to add to
the data set as we move forward,and will work to include data from other sources (such as the
Coloradoan conversations focused on housing and the websites of groups focused on these
issues).Part 1 of this report describes the most common themes that I coded,and then Part 2
offers some of my own analysis about this issue based on the research.
9/28 Update:In the final version of this report,I had the opportunity to engage emails and
documents sent to council or city staff on the issue,as well as submissions to the online
feedback form.I included some additional summary of those comments in
Part 3.
Since this report may be printed or added to an online document that may
lose the hyperlinks,a digital copy of this report is available at
https://col.st/NMQTr,or you can scan the QR code to the right.You can also
email Martin at mcarcas@colostate.edu and he will send a digital copy or any
links you are interested in.
1
Part 1:Descriptive Analysis of Key Themes
In terms of frequency of comments that were coded,the twelve most frequent themes are
below,beginning with the most frequent and working down.It should be noted that this
analysis is focused on the comments collected,which are not necessarily representative
of the community as a whole.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
There were more comments coded as connected to ADUs than any other topic.Commentary
was varied,but overall more positive than negative.Many residents felt that ADUs could provide
additional housing options with the “least noticeable impact”on the neighborhood,particularly
attached ADUs (that are part of an existing structure).There were seen as a “win-win.’Some
were enthusiastic about adding ADUs,and others explained their support more in terms of “I
don’t have a problem with ADUs”(often after comments more negative about other options to
increase density).Those in support at times wanted less restrictions and requirements to make
it easier for people to develop ADU,while others wanted to allow them but have them tightly
controlled.In particular,several argued that rules should be in place to not allow ADUs to
function as short-term rentals or that ADUs should only be allowed in owner-occupied spaces.
A smaller group of commenters were opposed to ADUs overall,particularly in neighborhoods
where they are currently prohibited by HOA covenant.
Transit and transit oriented development
Comments regarding transit were remarkably consistent and in support of additional transit
oriented development (numerous comments that density efforts should be focused and
incentivized along existing and developing transit corridors).Many residents called for
improvements in the Fort Collins public transportation system as density increases.At least in
terms of the comments in this dataset,support for better public transit and transit oriented
development were particular points of common ground.
Parking
Concerns about parking were frequent.Most common were calls for increased density (ADUs or
multi-plexes)to be required to have their own off-street parking.Overall,residents wanted to be
sure that parking was “adequately planned for”as density increased.A smaller subset of
comments pushed back on the focus on parking,wanting fewer barriers to more housing and
more focus on transit options.
Protecting the character of neighborhoods
Numerous comments were coded tied to the idea of protecting the character of neighborhoods.
Residents were “highly concerned”about or “strongly opposed to”or “deeply dissatisfied about”
changes that would impact “established neighborhoods.”A variety of factors were mentioned –
parking,traffic,fit,height,roof style,etc.–though often no specifics were mentioned,only the
broad concept of negative impacts on “character”or “quality of life.”Several comments noted
2
the current high quality of Fort Collins neighborhoods,and the fear of losing something special.
Others mentioned the natural variety of neighborhood styles that people can choose from,and
argued that major changes city-wide would undermine that variety.The point that single family
neighborhoods should remain a choice people can make was made a few times.Alternatively,a
few comments expressed support for changes –ADUs and/or multiplexes—as long as they
were a fit with the existing neighborhood in terms of style and size,and finally a few recognized
that neighborhoods have changed and will continue to change.
Homeowner Associations (HOAs)
Comments regarding HOA’s were overwhelmingly positive (around a 90/10 split).The primary
argument was a simple call to not “override,”“neuter,”or “supersede”the rules of HOAs that
residents agreed to.Several commented that those covenants represented a legal binding
agreement,and strongly opposed those agreements being eliminated.They commented that
the current zoning rules and/or specific HOA covenants were key aspects of their decision to
invest in their particular home.They explicitly chose to live in a low density,single family
neighborhood,and see those covenants as a “guarantee”or “commitment”that would be
“unfair”or a “breach of trust”to undo.Some argued that since HOA covenants are “state
sanctioned,”they believed the city would not be able to override them,and warned of potential
lawsuits if the city attempted to.Overall,based on several comments,the public needs more
clarity and transparency regarding the relationships between HOA covenants and potential LUC
changes.The limited negative comments about HOAs mentioned concerns about fees and
abuse of power.
U+2
Numerous comments focused on U+2,even though the ordinance is not technically part of the
Land Use Code.Comments are mostly supportive of removing U+2,with some strong
arguments to keep it.Calls to repeal were often simple (“get rid of U+2”),with others seeing it as
an easy way to add density and potentially impact affordability without clear consequences.A
few comments explicitly argued removing U+2 should be the initial step made on the overall
affordability issue before more drastic changed are made to zoning laws.
Compliments about the walking tours and open house
Several comments were highly complimentary of the city staff,especially for the open house
and the neighborhood tours.They found the information useful and the staff helpful.A few
comments,on the other hand,pushed back on the engagement process as either not sufficient
or being too inherently supportive or biased in favor of the changes.
Supply and demand issues
A significant number of comments were coded that explicitly discussed the complex cause effect
relationship between density and affordability,which many residents see as a critical to the
issue of land use planning.For some,a very basic tenant of addressing affordability is more
supply of housing.The basic point that housing has not kept up with population increases is
3
seen as an obvious issue.They argue that there simply needs to be more homes,particularly
multi-family options and the “missing middle”to close the gap.For others,however,questions
are raised about the causal relationship.They believe additional housing and density may
simply attract more residents,undermining the impact on affordability while also bringing what
they see as other negative impacts tied to growth and density.In other words,increased supply
will not lead to lower costs if it simply attracts more demand.These arguments at times lead to
calls for more specific policies that would better ensure a direct impact on affordability (such as
direct subsidies or inclusionary zoning policies that would require developers to build a certain
percentage of affordable housing with each project).This issue is somewhat an empirical one
that could benefit from some focused research on impacts.Commenters were clearly working
from different basic assumptions of this relationship.
Review process for developments
A high majority of the comments regarding the review process defended the need for
neighborhood meetings and at times called for additional or improved public engagement
beyond what is currently required .The attempt to remove the meetings was called “draconian,”
“disenfranchising,”and “a slap in the face.”Residents argued that neighbors should have
“meaningful input”and a “genuine say”in changes that would impact their property.Many of the
comments were particularly negative about developers and “outside investors”that were
assumed to not have the best interest of the neighborhood in mind.In addition,a few comments
requested more transparency regarding the process after neighborhood meetings and how any
input was taken into account.Push back on the removal of requiring neighborhood meetings
was limited,but focused on concerns about the overrepresentation of local voices that would
tend to oppose any new development,and the absence of voices of potential new residents.
Multiplexes
Comments regarding multiplexes (duplexes,triplexes,etc.)were rather varied.Several
comments were in favor of more variety of housing overall and the need for more of the “missing
middle”housing that multiplexes represent.Such housing is critical for younger residents as well
as older residents looking to downsize.Some comments were supportive under particular
conditions (such as fitting in to the character of the neighborhood or overall number being
limited).A third group was more explicitly opposed,often due to the negative impact on
neighborhood character and parking.One key concern expressed was if developers bought lots
with smaller homes which are currently more reasonably priced,and demolished them for
several units that may each be less affordable in the end.They argued that allowing multiplexes
would make those lots much more lucrative for outside investors.Overall,the question whether
these new developments would be affordable or simply a benefit to developers was a key
contention.
Growth
Many residents are particularly concerned about growth overall.While they may express
support for the need for affordable housing,efforts that primarily lead to more growth are
4
particularly problematic to them unless the benefits are clear.Some push back on the
predictions of growth,and argue that the city should not be responsible for finding housing for
future potential residents.They believe that working to fill that need will incentivize growth while
not actually impacting affordability (these arguments work closely with the “supply and demand”
arguments summarized above).Many of those expressing these concerns also specifically
mentioned environmental concerns,particularly water.
Water and additional infrastructure
One of the concerns mentioned quite often concerned questions about the infrastructure to
handle the increased density that was being considered.These concerns often focused on
water in particular,but also mentioned the electric grid,wastewater,storm water,transportation
infrastructure,gas supply,etc.These concerns were primarily calls for the need to consider the
infrastructure impacts to increasing density and to address them in any plans,though some
comments argued more than our infrastructure is already taxed and simply cannot handle
additional population.
Secondary themes
Some additional themes that may be of interest.These were not as prevalent as others,but
involved some key issues.
Inclusionary housing policy
A number of comments supported relying on “mandates”or “requirements”for more affordable
housing or deed restricted housing.Some specifically mentioned the concept of “inclusionary
housing,”but others seemed to argue for them without the specific term.The argument here
was often that incentives by themselves would not be sufficient,and that we needed to rely on
“proven,”“intentional,”or “focused”efforts that would insure more affordable housing.Some
comments also wanted to require more specified affordable housing units with new development
than was required in the 2022 changes that were repealed (for example,arguing for 50%or 2 of
3 in new developments).Only one comment pushed back on inclusionary housing.One point of
potential concern here is that it isn’t clear whether proponents of this policy recognize that
requiring inclusionary housing may limit developer interest,especially when nearby communities
do not have such requirements.Overall,more clarity on the pros and cons of inclusionary
housing is likely warranted.
Engagement process for land use code changes
Comments about public engagement were generally split in two ways:engagement in the land
use code changes process itsefl,and then the actual engagement process for specific
developments.This section focuses on the former,and the latter was discussed above.As
mentioned earlier,there were a high number of positive comments specifically about the walking
tours and the open house (and a few complaints),but otherwise broader comments about the
engagement process expressed concerns about the overall process or made suggestions for
improvements.Concerns included being too rushed,too focused on defending the past
5
changes,insufficient communication,or insufficient opportunities.A few comments suggested
the city will not actually listen to the feedback.A number of negative comments about the
engagement before the changes made in the fall of 2022 were also offered,as well as a warning
that changes would be recalled again if not sufficiently limited.
Developers
Developers were generally described in a negative light when mentioned,at times with terms
such as vultures or predators.A few argued that while they support more affordable housing
overall,they fear that measures with such goals will be taken advantage by “outside”developers
or investors that would take the benefits and only leave the costs to the neighborhood.
Support for LUC changes from 2022
A set of comments did express support for the LUC changes made in 2022 that were
subsequently repealed.Some simply expressed their support and called for the changes to be
reinstated.Others provided specific reasons such as the need for more diversity of housing,
support for workers to be able to live in Fort Collins,and wanting to avoid problems caused by
additional sprawl and inequity.Some argued that the negative consequences of the code
changes were exaggerated,and recognized that neighborhoods and cities must adapt as they
grow.
Part 2:Analysis
I have paid particular attention to the discourse around housing at least since a CPD
event with the city in spring of 2018 that was designed to help people understand the various
viewpoints around affordable housing and housing affordability.For that event,I developed this
viewpoints document and wrote this report about the conversations it sparked.During my fall
2022 Civic Engagement graduate class that is part of the Masters in Public Policy and
Administration program,I focused on housing policy as an ongoing example for the class to
engage.For the past year,I have also assisted the Coloradoan with their Coloradoan
Conversations discussions,and there have been numerous questions connected to housing
during those discussions.Those conversations have not yet been added to this analysis,but
those conversations have contributed to my overall understanding of the issue and the public
perspective.
In my work,I use the frame of wicked problems often to try to understand complex
issues and find better ways to engage them.Briefly,a wicked problems lens assumes tough
issues are difficult to discuss and address because they inherently involve competing underlying
values that create difficult tensions and tradeoffs.Psychologically,we prefer clarity,so we tend
to avoid such tensions,and prefer to see issues as if our side is connected to positive values
and the other either rejects those values or has negative motives.Said differently,we prefer to
assume problems are caused by wicked people rather than putting the wickedness in the
problem.A wicked problems analysis works to identify the underlying positive values inherent to
different perspectives on issues,in order to surface the tensions and make them explicit.The
6
hope is that when faced with the tensions,we can then tap into some of the best aspects of
human nature—our creativity—when we attempt to negotiate the tensions (rather than avoid
them or assume they doesn’t exist).This essay provides more background on this perspective.
I’m currently working on a separate essay that makes the argument that housing issues
represent a particularly difficult form of wicked problem.It has numerous underlying values like
all wicked problems,but additional factors make it even more difficult to address productively.
Some initial thoughts that I am working to refine for that essay are available here.
With those perspectives in mind,here are some of my thoughts about the big picture
related to the comments I analyzed focused on the potential Land Use Code updates.Overall,I
see four significant topics that to me warrant some discussion.
Issue #1 Varying perspectives on growth.There are at least three typical positions here that
conflict.Some people are very concerned about growth,whether due to environmental capacity
or quality of life issues,and hope to limit growth if possible.This is a vocal group that generally
opposes measures to increase housing,seeing them as incentivizing growth.They may be
sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing,but either that support is outweighed by
the concerns about growth,or they support very specific policies that would provide more
affordable housing without the need for significant population growth.For this group,the LUC
changes that were passed in 2022—which focused on increasing density and housing
supply—was highly problematic.A second group may hold similar concerns generally,but see
growth as something that is rather inevitable,especially in a quality city in Colorado like Fort
Collins.They focus,therefore,on finding ways to manage the growth they assume is coming
(the first group tends to reject this premise).A third group—one not necessary active in the data
analyzed here—is more apt to welcome growth,as more population equates to more customers
and/or taxpayers,and,in their eyes,a more vibrant city.These different perspectives reveal
fundamentally different starting points and spark distinct reactions to policy ideas.In particular,
in this data,whether the state demographers estimate of a 70,000 increase to the Fort Collins
population by 2040 (cited in City Plan and mentioned by several commenters)is something to
assume and prepare for or something to push back on (or perhaps celebrate)represents a
particular fault line.What isn’t clear is the relative size of each of these groups.It should also be
noted here that the first guiding principle connected to the Land Use Code process (“Increase
overall housing capacity”)is something that members of the first group would not support,
meaning a basic premise of the process that city staff is working from is rejected by some
residents.That is likely causing some of the concerns about the process being biased toward
supporting the changes made in 2022.
Issue #2 Negotiating the tension between increased housing and negative impacts to
neighborhoods.A primary tension across all the comments is between making enough
changes to make a difference (to housing supply and,ideally,affordability)but not
disproportionately changing the character of neighborhoods or significantly altering the situation
people invested in.I would argue that most people,at least theoretically,are in support of more
affordable housing,particularly to help those who work in Fort Collins to live in Fort Collins,and
avoid becoming too exclusive and unequal of a community.The tension is not,in other words,
7
with that goal,but rather with the best path to achieve it and what tradeoffs people are willing to
accept.One way to interpret the pushback on the recalled 2022 changes is that many
considered it a shift regarding that tension that overcorrected too much toward increased
housing.The discussion this spring,therefore,often focused on finding a better balance
between these goals.At the last council work session,city staff explicitly set up the discussion
around this polarity,asking council for their preferences along continua between allowing more
diverse housing choices and protecting neighborhood character.
In the data I analyzed,participants worked to negotiate the tension between increasing
affordability while working to limit negative impacts focus on ideas such as:
●Focusing on ADUs,especially attached ADUs,which add capacity with less
neighborhood impact than other options.
●Focusing on removing U+2 based on the assumption that it would add capacity within
existing houses,thus limiting neighborhood impact (Note:U+2 is not specifically part of
the LUC discussions,but was brought up quite often in the comments).
●Focusing primarily on adding density to new developments rather than to existing
neighborhoods.
●Focusing efforts primarily on transit-oriented development.This would work to
avoid impacting most established neighborhoods,while also potentially reducing
concerns about parking and traffic,two of the most discussed impacts of increased
density.
All four of these policy ideas can be seen in two ways.More optimistically,they may
represent ideas that work to negotiate the increased housing-neighborhood impact tension
creatively,which is exactly what the process of identifying a tension and putting on the table
seeks to do.Less optimistically,they may represent wishful thinking that in reality is avoiding the
tension because they overestimate the practicality or impact of these ideas.Some key
questions arise to discern which view has more merit,such as:How many attached ADUs (or
less intrusive detached ones)could be developed?How much housing capacity would be
added if U+2 was repealed?How much undeveloped space is left in Fort Collins for new
developments and to what degree could the city require most new developments be higher
density?What transit-oriented developments are possible,especially those that would limit
impact on existing neighborhoods?
The case of ADUs is particularly interesting,and ADUs was the most frequent topic of
discussion in the data.Some seem to believe numerous ADUs would be developed –thus
making an impact on housing supply –while others seem to recognize that developing an ADU
has several requirements and can be quite expensive (for example,ADUs require separate
heating/cooling systems,kitchens,and bathrooms,and would incur Capital Expansion Fees that
can be significant).I would argue that perhaps some people are confusing an official ADU with
more general co-housing situations where someone is renting an unused room or portion of a
home.Of course,if somehow too many ADUs are developed,then concerns about negative
impacts about parking and traffic would arise.So for some ADUs are a threat because they will
be too many of them,and for others they are not a solution to the housing problem because
8
there will be far too few.Overall,it seems clear that people are operating under different
assumptions concerning what allowing ADUs can provide.
Issue #3 –The supply and demand relationship between increasing housing and
affordability.
A third key issue that warrants more discussion focuses on the comments summarized
in the supply and demand theme.Similar to Issue #2,this builds off the idea that most residents
theoretically agree with the overall goal of more affordable housing,but some argue that the
policies initially proposed would fail to achieve that goal (while incurring significant other costs).
A key aspect of different views here are assumptions about the impact of increased supply.The
2022 LUC changes were based on the idea that increased supply would lead to affordability,
connecting the first two guiding principles (increase overall housing capacity and enable more
affordability).At mentioned above,for some the clear starting point to address the housing crisis
is simply the need for more housing.Critics disagreed with that argument,and either argued
against increased supply or for more specific policies that directly lead to affordable housing.
Supporters of both perspectives even cited studies and research to back their viewpoint.A
better sense of what the broader literature shows may be helpful,especially since some cities
have made policy changes related to this relationship in recent years.
A second key aspect of this issue is how tenable some policy alternatives are that were
suggested that are specifically tied to affordable housing.Several comments,for example,
argue for either more inclusionary zoning to require developers to build more affordable
housing,for direct subsidies to residents to help them afford housing,or for the city to simply
build more affordable housing themselves.Such policies are seen as desirable to them
precisely because they more explicitly target affordable housing without relying too much on
increased density.Some commenters specifically mentioned a willingness to pay additional
taxes to support such policies.Other comments seem to call for programs that specifically target
groups such as young families or service workers that people want to help live in Fort Collins.
The concern several expressed is that a broad focus on increased density would not ultimately
benefit them but rather simply draw new population in or benefit “outside investors.”Said
differently,people want to help the people that are here.The question is whether these policies
have merit to consider.Similar to above,do these have promise as ideas that can negotiate the
tension creatively and better support affordable housing,or do they represent wishful thinking?
Issue #4 -The unique complexity of public engagement on housing issues
This fourth issue goes beyond the specific data gathered and analyzed and engages
broader questions about the role of public engagement in housing issues.The bottom line is
that engagement around changes such as those involved in the LUC discussion are particularly
challenging.I have run processes on numerous issues across the years (the CPD has run over
500 meetings in our 18 years in northern Colorado),and a key concern about any sort of
engagement is whether you are engaging a broad,somewhat representative cross-section of
the community and relevant stakeholders to the issue.I would argue that housing code changes
represent the most difficult issue I’ve engaged on this question of representativeness,for two
9
key reasons.First,it is clear that some of the most powerful voices on this issue--current home
owners in Fort Collins --are generally supportive of the status quo.The reality of the situation is
the housing “crisis”is not actually a crisis for them.The rising cost of housing mostly benefits
them because it increases their equity and wealth (while for some the increased property taxes
may be an issue if they are on a fixed income).When a significant portion of the population,
particularly the most vocal and willing and able to engage,benefits from the status quo,it is
difficult to engage in the sorts of conversations that are necessary to address the issue well.
That being said,their support of the status quo need not be seen as simply nefarious and selfish
(which critics applying the “NIMBY”--not in my backyard --label to them are apt to do).The
practical reality is increasing density does incur costs to homeowners with little clear benefit.
And from a psychological perspective,changes that are perceived to threaten major choices
people made about their home and change the rules they believe they agreed to are significant
and should not be dismissed.Humans react much more strongly to a perceived loss than
potential gain,and react badly to any sense of loss of autonomy or control.If anything,the
research shows that demonizing such groups generally backfires and stiffens their resolve.So
we both need to recognize the legitimate concerns of current homeowners,while also working
to avoid allowing them to have too much power over the conversation.Obviously this is a
difficult balance to strike.
The second key reason engagement is difficult on this issue is that the primary
beneficiaries of LUC changes are a particularly difficult audience to reach.Generally,they would
be less able to attend public meetings or be involved in public issues (historically lower income
residents are much less likely to participate),and in many cases the primary beneficiaries are
not current residents.They may work in Fort Collins but not currently live here,or they may
simply be future residents that would like to live in Fort Collins.As a result,voices that support
the changes will be rather limited.There is a growing so-called “YIMBY”(yes in my backyard)
perspective across the country,which at times include current homeowners that support
changes that increase density and support more affordable housing even though they would
likely bear the brunt of the tradeoffs.We saw some specific comments from them to this effect,
such as the benefit of living in a more economically diverse community where workers can
afford to live in the community outweigh their concerns about the impacts.
When the LUC changes were recalled,a primary argument was that the city did not
adequately engage the Fort Collins public on the changes,and that the city council should focus
more on the preferences of current residents and voters.Some called for the changes to go to
the public through a referendum process.The reality is that across the country these sort of
changes are unlikely to be supported by a majority of current residents,which is precisely why
some have argued that expecting local municipalities to address the housing crisis is unrealistic
(see this article in the Atlantic that explored how Colorado tried to make these changes at the
state level because of this issue,but ultimately ran into a separate tension,the preference for
local control).
I’ll admit I struggled with this issue and how to address it in my analysis.Many of the key
themes I reported on in part 1 represent basic arguments used to undermine new developments
and efforts at increased density anywhere in the country.It seems clear that the data represents
10
primarily the voices of current homeowners,so in some ways I am potentially simply reinforcing
the inherent bias against these changes.That being said,the concerns of these homeowners
are reasonable and should be taken seriously.
A final related concern here is I fear this issue could easily dissolve into a polarized
adversarial conflict.A NIMBY v.YIMBY battle will likely be very unproductive.Much of my work
is focused on trying to reframe issues away from overly adversarial us v.them frames,which
tend to bring out the worst in human nature.The wicked problems frame,again,attempts to shift
from such adversarial frames to more collaborative ones.Rather than facing an opponent or
enemy and seeking to “win,”we are trying to work together to address a shared problem.
Housing issues are unfortunately naturally situated to fall into an adversarial frame,as the
development of the two opposing interest groups soon after the passage of the changes last fall
show.Considering one “side”would generally be satisfied with the status quo,an adversarial
frame would disproportionaly benefit them.
Too manage this polarization,we must find ways to frame the issue that brings people
together and avoids simple attacks on the motives of the other side.I believe focusing on the
tensions explored in this section of the report is one way to do that.Putting more focus on the
drawbacks of status quo is perhaps another.People are more likely to come together to address
a shared issue if status quo is seen as untenable long term.Most of the comments I analyzed in
this report were reactions to potential changes,often highlighting concerns.There is much less
discussion about the concerns related to non-action.If we are not proactive about addressing
the affordability of housing,what will happen in Fort Collins?Hearing more voices from those
struggling to remain in Fort Collins or forced to commute to work here would likely be helpful as
well.Overall,I’ll be working more on this question of alternative frames that can help limit the
polarization of this issue as the conversations continue.
Part 3:September Update to Analysis
Provided below are additional comments after reviewing emails and submissions to the
online comment form from June to September.Many of the themes summarized in the initial
draft of the report remain,and a few new themes emerged.
Within the new information,there were more comments during this time that were
supportive of making changes to the land use code in order to spark more density and flexibility,
driven primarily by concerns about housing costs and many residents getting priced out of the
community.A series of comments also emphasized preferences for more walkability and being
less car-centric,and raised concerns about sprawl.They saw more development along transit
lines,improved transit,and mixed used development –both in terms of allowing some
businesses in neighborhoods and building housing where businesses currently are –as a key to
increasing walkability.They often specifically called for more ADUs,multiplexes,and less
parking minimums.
11
Opposition comments continue to express the arguments highlighted in the initial draft,
such as:
●They expressed concern about growth (especially the city incentivizing growth)and the
negative impacts on traffic,parking,water resources,and access to recreation.
●At times they expressed support for affordable housing,but strongly questioned whether
the changes being considered would actually impact the cost of housing.
●They expressed concerns about impacts on single family neighborhoods,particularly
because the extent to which the changes in their perspective unfairly alter the situation
for which they originally made a major investment under specific circumstances.
●These comments typically supported maintaining single family neighborhoods,supported
HOA authority,supported U+2,and opposed ADUs.
●There were a few comments (both in the initial data and again in the update)that call for
more discussion and consideration on the causes of the increased housing costs.
In the collection of new comments submitted online (total of 86),overall there were
slightly more comments in favor of changes than there were opposed.In the emails (total of 55),
a significant majority of comments were opposed to land use changes and increased density.
Across both,I coded about 6%of comments that included comments both in favor and in
opposition to various aspects of the changes,and acknowledged the difficulty of the topic.On
the other hand,that means 94%of the comments primarily just expressed one side of the issue,
often with a quite strong sense of clarity that only one side had merit.
One theme that has shown somewhat a shift in arguments has been around HOAs.
There was a series of statements –evidently after at least one HOA sent out a message to their
residents –that specifically argued to support HOAs and “the right for them to self-govern.”
Several comments repeated similar wording around the request for HOAs to maintain authority
on issues such as ADU’s and multi-family housing.
There unfortunately does seem to be an increase in frustration and hostility in many of
the comments,particularly from those opposed.There were quite a few either veiled or explicit
threats of again recalling any changes,voting supporting council members out,or sparking legal
challenges regarding certain code changes (particularly tied to single family neighborhoods and
HOAs).Some comments imply that council members and/or staff are acting on personal bias or
other ulterior motives.Several comments specifically argued that the council and city staff are
not listening at all (are “tone deaf,”or the process was a “sham,”that council has “ignored the
intent of voters”).There was a consistent theme of the need to listen to the voice of the
people—with a declared sense of clarity of what that was.
At least some of this frustration,I would argue,is due to problematic assumptions or lack
of information.It is clear in public engagement if people believe they are not being heard,
frustration increases.A few comments also argued that the new proposal is relatively
unchanged from the code that was recalled in the fall of 2022.I will note here that there has
been several changes made during the council deliberations (city staff has developed this report
to highlight those).Attending work sessions on the code,it is clear council and staff has heard
12
concerns and are working to find strategies that can both work toward the goals established and
respond to concerns.As mentioned in the initial draft,part of the disconnect is also likely tied to
the 5 principles that staff is working off.Similar to my earlier analysis,a few comments push
back on the five principles that staff is using to guide the overall process (particularly principle 1
that calls for increasing housing supply),question how they were developed,and argue that
they do not represent the preferences of Fort Collins residents.It has been explained at work
sessions that they were developed from the City Plan,the Housing Strategic Plan,and Our
Climate Future processes,all three of which included significant public engagement when
developed.
I’ll close by reiterating that the four “issues”I highlighted in part 2 of the initial report (pp.
7 -11)are all still certainly relevant as we work through this issue in our community.The
polarization I expressed concern about has increased,but that may be partly a function of the
loudest,most engaged voices,rather than being representative of the community as a whole.
13
Land Use Code Feedback Form Public Comments from Date of Most Recent Report ‐ (August 24‐August
29, 2023)
The following comments were submiƩed via the online feedback form on the LUC project webpage. They
have been provided as verbaƟm comments and have not been edited beyond text formaƫng for
readability. They are being included as an aƩachment to the Read Before memo because they were not
included in the final Engagement Summary developed by Dr. Carcasson. All other comments and City
Leader emails prior to August 24 have been included in that final Engagement Summary.
Begin Public Comments:
Page 2‐10 (OT‐A zone): Requiring a triplex to integrate an exisƟng structure or have a dedicated
affordable unit will be prohibiƟve to most builders. Also limiƟng CoƩage Courts to dedicated affordable
will prevent smaller scale developers from building much‐needed missing middle housing.
Page 2‐11(OT‐B zone): Is "Floor Area" = area of all floors or footprint only? I get the sense from the
definiƟon on page 7‐6 that it's the former, which means this FAR is way too low.
If Floor Area = FAR, then LimiƟng Apartment Building FAR to 0.85 is preƩy low. A 6‐unit building will
want to be 2 stories and uƟlize a good chunk of the site. FAR of 1.5 would be beƩer. Same for Row
Houses, these need to be at least 2 stories.
If Floor Area = Lot Coverage, then the values shown should be OK Page 2‐14 (OT zones): Applying a bulk
plane above 18' basically makes the 35' height limit unusable for most lots in this
zone. You end up having to scrape so many dwelling units because of the bulk plane that you can barely
build any units on a 2nd story, much less a 3rd story. This will not make many mulƟfamily projects
feasible at the density needed to pencil out.
Page 2‐18 and 2‐19 (LMN zone): Bravo on the density! WOuld be great if mulƟfamily and affordable
developments could be more than 14,000 and 20,000 sf respecƟvely. That's not really enough area to
build the number of units that the maximum density seems to promise. Why can a church (25,000 sf) be
bigger than housing (20,000 sf)? We're not in a church crisis, we're in a housing crisis! Would prefer an
FAR be applied here so the size of building can be proporƟonal to the size of the site.
Page 2‐22 (MMN zone) and 2‐26 (HMN zone): Again, bravo on the density! Page 2‐27 (HMN zone): The
25 Ō upper story setback is a huge bummer. Will just kill number of units possible on smaller infill sites.
Page 2‐47, item 5 (Planning and Zoning Commission Review): Let's add streamlining of enƟtlements and
permiƫng for affordable housing!
Page 3‐8 (CoƩage Court Building Type): Should be allowed everywhere detached single family homes are
allowed. The whole point is that they resemble single family residenƟal, so why should they be excluded
from UE, RL, etc. zones? Page 3‐14 (Duplex Building Type): Same as CoƩage Court, should be allowed
everywhere detached homes are. They can look almost idenƟcal to single family homes.
Page 3‐25 (ADU Building Type): Need separate setbacks for ADUs, making ADUs conform to other
development setbacks is tantamount to prohibiƟng them. Recommend modificaƟon to 4 or 5 Ō.
setbacks for ADUs in all zones.
Page 5‐66 (Parking): I'm confused how the Affordable Housing Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit in the
top table relates to the Demand MiƟgaƟon Strategy allowing a 50% drop. If I have all 1‐bedroom
affordable units, does that mean I will be able to provide 0.375 parking spaces per unit instead of 0.75?
If so this is WONDERFUL, and in line with typical levels of car ownership in affordable housing
developments.
I disagree with the clause that parking cannot have addiƟonal rental or purchase cost. This amounts to
non‐drivers who
use public transit subsidizing the construcƟon and use of parking spaces, when our city is already wildly
over‐parked.
There should be absolutely no parking minimums in T.O.D. areas, period. 10% reducƟon Demand
MiƟgaƟon Strategies of providing transit passes or being within 1000 Ō. of a MAX staƟon is way
too low. This should be at least 50% Page 5‐80 (Tree sizes): Reduced tree size table for affordable
housing just came up on one of my projects and was extremely helpful to our client. Thank you!
Page 6‐12 (Neighborhood MeeƟngs): Should be eliminated or nonbinding for affordable housing
developments.
Page 6‐15 (Review of ApplicaƟons): Recommend streamlining for affordable housing. Ministerial review
only for projects that are in conformance with the objecƟve standards in the Land Use Code with a 60‐
day Ɵcking clock for approval.
Changes document:
A 60‐year deed restricƟon or ¼ mi. Distance from transit requirement is a very steep burden to place on
a duplex in a RL zone, especially since I deeply doubt there are many transit stops in RL zones
The parking counts for duplexes and triplexes are crazy. The whole site will be parking.
There's no reason affordable housing parking reducƟon incenƟves shouldn't be applied to developments
with 6 or fewer units. These missing middle housing type developments will be a vital source of housing
on smaller infill sites, and this high level of parking will kill these important types of developments.
ExempƟng ResidenƟal Foothill District (RF) and Urban Estates (UE) zones is a blatant "preservaƟon"
of privilege.
‐‐‐‐‐
Increased density everywhere will not address housing cost without deed or rent control restricƟons. If
you believe more housing lowers cost without other restricƟons, use the Hughes stadium land or other
open space to build city financed housing. Really poor economic analysis is being used in the raƟonale
for these changes to the code.
‐‐‐‐‐
Why are duplexes allowed in RL if they meet a condiƟon but ADUs are only allowed with a detached
house, not a duplex? It would seem appropriate to allow both an aƩached "duplex" or "ADU", not only
the duplex. This is very frustraƟng as I live adjacent to an Arterial Street, and adjacent to an apartment
complex but will not be able to seek an ADU, which was allowed with the originally approved LUC
update. At least 100' Lot Width
Integrates exisƟng structure**Within 1/4 Mile of High
Frequency transit or higher***Affordable Housing Development
‐‐‐‐‐
I believe the council should expand the 2400 sq Ō single family home limit to cover the RL zone, not just
in Old Town.
This will reduce the risk of older small homes in our most affordable neighborhoods being torn down
and replaced by larger homes (as is the current trend). There is no reason to limit this rule to Old Town.
If homes are to be replaced in this zone, it should be with a duplex (to increase housing capacity), not a
large single family home. Housing density is crucial to making Fort Collins a more walkable and diverse
community.
‐‐‐‐‐
I would like to express strong support for the provisions in the proposed land use code allowing higher
densiƟes of homes to be built in Fort Collins. With the effects of climate change and extreme weather
acceleraƟng across the globe, it's more important than ever that we commit to policy that advances our
net zero goals, and to do this we have to build infrastructure that enables people to take
environmentally‐friendly transportaƟon and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Public transit, pedestrian, and bike infrastructure can only be effecƟve in reducing vehicle miles traveled
when paired with dense, climate‐friendly development. Let's reduce polluƟon and make our community
green by updaƟng our outdated, people‐unfriendly code!
While I support the proposed changes to the code, I would urge for even more progressive changes.
Opponents to the code talk up a storm about 'preserving Fort Collins'. Climate change will by nature
destroy any sense of 'preservaƟon' of the weather and current lifestyle, and threatens our children's
futures. Addressing climate change in our city will require radical changes to the way we build. I believe
Fort Collins should go a step further and remove all parking minimums.
Many ciƟes have already taken this step as part of their climate plan (Portland, OR; San Jose, CA;
Richmond, VA; Cambridge, MA; Burlington, VT). (Note that these ciƟes, like Fort Collins, also have
growing affordability crises ‐ removing parking minimums addresses this crisis too by enabling people
and housing‐friendly, green development and helping reduce our implicit subsidies for car travel).
Along these same lines, while the changes to our zoning code allowing increased density are posiƟve,
most of the city sƟll falls under the most restricƟve, least‐dense, least‐environmentally‐friendly zoning
of single family homes. Even an urban single family home has almost double the carbon footprint of
urban mulƟ‐family housing (Bloomberg CityLab, 2011) ‐ a suburban single family home on a bigger lot in
a primarily residenƟal area has 3x the footprint ‐ and if Fort Collins wants to build for the future, we
should be building the laƩer. Therefore, I would like to see upzoning of all single
family home‐only districts to allow duplexes and triplexes.
Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐
The revised LUC looks to only have one set of winners. Lawyers. One of the most decisive aspects of the
original document is sƟll likely to be the most decisive in this one as it is unchanged. The code overrules
and destroys key aspects of HOA's and the contract they have with their homeowners regarding ADU's
and those rules that the homeowners agreed to when buying their homes is wrong. The city and HOA's
can find a beƩer use for money than to feed lawsuits. Yes, HOA's can be overbearing and I am not really
defending them, but this LUC as wriƩen has all the
signs of an express route to the courts and I don't want my tax dollars or HOA fee dollars going to a legal
baƩle. Very
disappointed that this revised LUC simply ignores the elephant in the room.
‐‐‐‐‐
am in favor of my urban estates being able to divide and sell part to lower my crazy high property
taxes
‐‐‐‐‐
I am in favor of conƟnuing restricƟons related to ADU, DUPLEX, addiƟons because it is important to
retain the historical and architectural designs of Old Town. I would consider the duplex addiƟons, ADU
for area south of Drake and College if property owners can show that the impact for parking addiƟonal
vehicles on the street would not impact safety and accessibility for residents.
Thank you for considering my opinion in this maƩer.
‐‐‐‐‐
Fort Collins should have considered allowing large companies to come in to provide beƩer paying jobs.
Instead they would rather push them away. You can't live off retail and restaurant wages.
Need to consider that we don't have infinite resources to keep support more people. They ate finite.
Road infrastructure cannot sustain more people.
We are giving up green space to keep cramming in more apartments, crime is geƫng worse, speeding in
this town is our of hand, might as well take down all traffic signs, useless!! The city doesn't care about its
long term residents.
Fort Collins is never going to be green because with the influx of more people, the city is looking trashy.
No one cares about doing the right thing, throw away your trash, pick ip aŌer your dogs., take care of
your property. No let's leave masks strewn all over the place, trash every where, dog feces on the side
walks, on our trails, etc. This city is not what it used to be because people coming in don't care. The theŌ
in this town is unbelievable, but again the city does not care.
I live on a 25mph school road, and during drop off/pickup by parents , they are doing 40mph, no care
about other children who live in the area riding or walking to school. Speed bumps put in are too low
and wide to slow people down. Most 40mph roads are now 60mph+. Never see a squad car.
The choice city is no longer, and it is sad that it is changing for the worst.
Hope you actually listen to people who live here and pay taxes. I am all for helping people who really
want it, but you meet beƩer paying jobs. Now everyone wants 20% Ɵps for just taking an order. Had to
be a beƩer soluƟon than building more apartments, and cramming more people in. So much for the
quaint Fort Collins who has become a Boulder want to be. Sad.
‐‐‐‐
oppose adding more housing density to an already‐congested Fort Collins. Over the past few years
traffic has goƩen worse and worse. The city will lose its peaceful small‐town character and will start to
become just another congested suburb of Denver. There is plenty of alternate housing available in
Timnath, Windsor, Evans and other adjoining areas.
‐‐‐‐‐
These changes are a small step in the right direcƟon. I DO NOT support allowing ADUs everywhere. I can
support them in new developments and in the Old Town area but not in exisƟng low density
neighborhoods.
‐‐‐‐‐
I am completely in favor of higher density housing along the major transportaƟon corridors (like Mason,
College), especially near the CSU campus. But I think certain areas should stay more and low‐rise, low
density to protect the character of the historic parts of Old Town and the views of the foothills. I am
specifically opposed to the planned housing development at TaŌ Hill and Laporte streets (Sanctuary on
the Green). Traffic speed is already an issue on that part of TaŌ Hill and Laporte Streets,
‐‐‐‐‐
The character of Ft Collins Neighborhoods is being destroyed by allowing giant mansions to hog the
sunlight from neighbors! "Haves" and "have nots". Character is lost, friendships lost, neighbors and
destroyed! "Us vs them" feelings!!
‐‐‐‐‐
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER AS IT IS!! Not only that, but you're destroying everything good about
FoCo by trying to inflate our already booming populaƟon.Traffic is terrible, there's more trash & liƩer
around than I've seen in the last 30 years of living here. No one's going to use public transportaƟon,
because our public transit here sucks. We all fought against the original draŌ, and I was excited to see it
repealed. But your revisions are minimal and it sƟll sucks. It might be more palatable for people who live
in suburban areas with HOA's, but it will really change the look and feel for us long Ɵme residents here
in old town, and it pisses me off. I chose to buy in this neighborhood because of the diversity, for it's
open lots & streets, and historic charm, and now you want to go in and restructure it to suit your own
selfish needs. It's already starƟng to look & feel like California, please don't encourage it to
conƟnue!!!!!! DO BETTER!
And if you can't, send it to a vote! That's the least you could do.
‐‐‐‐‐
Pleae expand the mulƟ‐family residence use as far as possible. Encourage higher density throughout the
plan and discourage addiƟonal estate and low density uses. Expand to mulƟ‐story structures in the
Harmony and I‐25 districts.
Thanks.
‐‐‐‐‐
I am in full support of the LUC proposed. We must increase housing density and decrease housing prices
to remain a livable city and provide housing opƟons for all economic groups. Even more importantly,
FoCo needs to change the you +2 for rentals to be related to house size/number of rooms to make
housing more affordable for renters and make renƟng more aƩracƟve for homeowners. I live in a
wealthier neighborhood where plenty of NIMBY folks were peƟƟoning against the original rule.
However, we can't let the wealthy and well‐housed exclude others form geƫng and keeping a
roof over their heads. It's OK to change a neighborhoods character, or reduce the house prices with
these changes.
These things only potenƟally hurt those who can most afford it (e.g., my family can afford it), while
helping those who need it most.
‐‐‐‐‐
I am in disagreement with the proposal to increase the density of properƟes in Ft Collins.
‐‐‐‐‐
I am opposed to making it possible to add ADUs to our neighborhood to increase density. We were
established in the
early‐mid 1990s and zoned RL. Our Covenants, CondiƟons and RestricƟons (CC&Rs) do not allow ADUs
or detached sheds. We already have traffic and parking issues with limited driveway and street parking
and homeowner complaints about home‐based businesses. This type of zoning change has led to
investor purchases and short term rental nightmares for communiƟes elsewhere. Our CC&Rs cannot be
changed without a 67% approval of our community. Are you just going to override community
standards? You should exempt HOAs and abide by their CC&Rs that you permiƩed in the first place.
Since the City is approving more and more housing developments governed by Homeowner's
AssociaƟons, why don't you focus on new development and let established neighborhoods maintain
their neighborhoods the way they are to be consistent with their understanding when they purchased
their homes? Who will benefit financially from allowing this‐‐well‐to‐do homeowners with the space and
land to throw up a cheap housing unit to profit by charging whatever the market will bear. It is not an
affordable housing soluƟon but a scheme to benefit those who already have a large enough home and
property to take advantage of others.
‐‐‐‐‐
We must upzone Fort Collins and move away from a predominantly single family zoned automobile
dominated urban sprawl. It is increasingly unaffordable to live in Fort Collins, parƟcularly for younger
people who weren't able to purchase a home many decades ago. It's absurd for homeowners to claim
that they have some sort of right to prevent the enƟre city from ever changing in any aspect. I've seen
and heard similar comments a number of Ɵmes, along the lines of "I bought my single family home 30
years ago, which means that the city can never change in any meaningful capacity, or
it will somehow adversely affect my life". These types of comments are not valuable. Its selfish and
frankly comical to expect a growing city to never change, yet somehow remain affordable and vibrant.
People claim to love Fort Collins' vibrancy and local culture, yet in the same breath deride the types of
changes necessary to make it an affordable place to live, which is necessary to sustain its vibrancy and
culture. I truly hope the city is considering the fact that the vast majority of people who have the free
Ɵme to make public comments at council meeƟngs or on surveys like this are
reƟred older folks who have been homeowners for decades. I think the city should carefully consider
how public comment skews sharply to reƟred and wealthy homeowners. Young people may not be as
acƟve in the civic process for a variety of reasons, but the policy decisions which will be made regarding
these land use code updates will affect young people much more significantly and for a much longer
Ɵme. Change is a natural part of existence in general, but especially for ciƟes. ResisƟng change is to be
expected, but the loud voices of those fearful of any sort of change shouldn't deter the city from doing
what is right and smart.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
to an exisƟng dwelling. That makes sooo much sense. If there’s a house there, we’ll let you increase the
density. But you can’t go scraping expecƟng to put basically the same thing back in again. Scraping
means hewing closer to where we want to see the city go in the long run. Well craŌed.
10) I see lots of other zone types included in the document. I assume there’s been formaƫng changes
and it looks like some descripƟve changes, but have there been any substanƟve changes there? I’m
assuming not, since I haven’t seen anything menƟoned about those in previous discussions or the open
house, but I just wanted to check.
Thank you! This looks beƩer to me than what we had last Ɵme. Thank you especially for including
incenƟves to reusing buildings rather than scraping them. :‐)
Land Use Code: First Reading
October 3, 2023
Paul Sizemore | Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Noah Beals | Development Review Manager
Purpose of the Land Use Code Updates:
To Align the LUC with Adopted City Plans and Policies with a focus on:
•Housing-related changes
•Code Organization
•Equity
2
FIVE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
Revisions to the code will
continue to support the
five guiding principles
confirmed by City Council
in November 2021 with an
emphasis on Equity.
1.Increase overall housing capacity
(market rate and affordable)
and calibrate market-feasible incentives for
deed restricted affordable housing
2.Enable more affordability
especially near high frequency
transit and growth areas
3.Allow for more diverse housing choices
that fit in with the existing context
4.Make the code easier to use
and understand
5.Improve predictability
of the development permit review
process, especially for housing
Engagement Update
5Engagement Update
Engagement to Date:
•50+ meetings and events over the last 4 months
•10+ updates to Council + Boards and Commissions
•200+ emails and general comments received
•60 attendees at the April Virtual Info Session
•70 attendees at the April Deliberative Forum
•175 attendees at the May 8th open house event
•100+ attendees total at 13 neighborhood-specific
walking tours and 1 general walking tour
•Spanish walking tour July 26th
•Alternatives Exhibit on August 9th
6Boards & Commissions
Feedback & Recommendations
•Planning & Zoning Commission – September 27th
•Historic Preservation Commission – September 20th
•Affordable Housing Board
•General support for Affordable Housing Incentives
•Support for extended affordability term, up to 99 years
•Economic Advisory Board – September 20th
7Public Engagement Summary
The attached summary focuses on the most referenced 12 Key Themes:
•Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
•Transit and Transit Oriented Development
•Parking
•Protecting the Character of Neighborhoods
•Homeowners Associations (HOAs)
•U+2
•Compliments About the Walking Tours and Open House
•Supply and Demand Issues
•Review Process for Developments
•Multiplexes
•Growth
•Water and Additional Infrastructure
8Timeline
Stage 1 (March - April)
•Begin outreach
•Identify areas for engagement and potential adjustment
Stage 2 (April - June)
•Gather feedback through dialog
•Listen, Consult & Involve
Stage 3 (June - July)
•Draft Potential Alternatives
•Analysis & Legal Review
Stage 4 (August - October)
•Code drafting
•Recommendations & Adoption
Items that will carry
forward from existing Land
Use Code
10Summary of Topics to Carry Forward
No proposed changes to:
•Basic Development Review (BDR)
•Type 1 Review (Hearing Officer)
•Type 2 Review (Planning and Zoning Commission)
•Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR)
•Existing 12-step review process
•Level of review required for residential
development (except Affordable Housing)
•Non-residential uses
•Historic Preservation requirements
•Environmental/Natural Resources requirements
•Landscaping requirements
•Street design requirements
•Engineering requirements
•Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements
•Addition of Permitted Use (APU) requirements
•Modification and Variance standards
•Adequate Public Facilities
•Occupancy Regulations (i.e., U+2)
Summary of Code
Changes
1.Increase overall housing capacity
(market rate and affordable)
and calibrate market-feasible incentives for
deed restricted affordable housing
Summary of Code Changes
•Increasing housing types and number of units allowed in residential, mixed-use,
and commercial zones
•Reducing parking requirements for studio, one-, and two-bedroom units in multi-
unit developments and for affordable housing developments with 7 or more units
•Requiring parking for ADUs
•Allowing ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zones (with some requirements)
•Creating a menu of building types with zone-specific standards
•Adding form-based regulations to enhance compatibility in RL, NCM, NCL, and NCB
•Clarifying language related to HOAs and private covenants
•Allowing Affordable Housing projects to be reviewed through a BDR process
•Using a consistent, graphic and form-based approach to code standards
•Reorganizing code content and sections to consolidate and simplify information
•Updating definitions and rules of measurement for consistency
•Expanding Affordable housing incentives
•Updating and modifying Affordable housing definitions + requirements
•Requiring 60 years of deed restriction instead of the current 20 years
2.Enable more affordability
especially near high frequency
transit and growth areas
3.Allow for more diverse housing choices
that fit in with the existing context
4.Make the code easier to use
and understand
5.Improve predictability
of the development permit review
process, especially for housing
Summary: Housing capacity 13
#1: Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and affordable)
Key Changes:
•Target increases in housing capacity to zones in transit corridors and zones with the greatest
amount of buildable land
•Increase maximum density in the LMN zone from 9 to approximately 12 dwelling units per acre
•Reduce parking requirements for studio, one- and two-bedroom units in multi-unit developments
•Regulate density through form standards and building types instead of dwelling units per acre
Summary: Housing Affordability 14
Key Changes:
•Expand affordable housing incentives
•Modify income criteria to address the most critical shortages
•Raise the density bonus incentive in the LMN zone
•Create height bonus and parking reduction incentives in mixed use and commercial zones
•Require 60 years of deed restriction instead of the current 20 years
•Continue to require a minimum 10% of units to be affordable for development seeking incentives
#2: Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and
priority growth areas
Summary: Housing choice, compatibility, and diversity 15
#3: Allow for more diverse housing choices
that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority place types
Key Changes:
•Allow ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zones
•Create a menu of building types and form standards to guide compatibility
•Update Land Use Table to permit more housing types
•Adjust standards to enable more small-lot infill development and “missing middle” housing types.
•Update use standards, rules of measurement, and definitions to align with new building types and
standards.
Summary: Code Reorganization 16
#4: Make the code easier to use and understand
Key Changes:
•Introduce more Graphics and tables to describe standards
•Reorganize content so the most used information is first in the Code
•Reformat zone districts with consistent graphics, tables, and illustrations
•Consolidate form standards in new Article 3 – Building Types
•Consolidate use standards into table in new Article 4 – Use Standards
•Update definitions and rules of measurement for consistency
•Rename some zones and create subdistricts to consolidate standards
#5: Improve predictability of the development review process
Items for Discussion
18Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
1.
In RL, Allow duplexes under one of the following site-specific conditions:
•100ft wide lots
•Duplex integrates an existing structure
•Duplex includes one unit of deed-restricted affordable housing
•Lot located within 1/4 mile of current or future high-frequency transit
2.
In OT-A (NCL), allow three units on lots 6,000 sf or larger under one the following site-specific conditions:
•Combination of a duplex + ADU
•Triplex integrates an existing structure
•Triplex includes one deed-restricted affordable housing unit
•A 3-unit Cottage Court includes one deed-restricted affordable housing unit
3.In OT-B (NCM), allow six units on lots 6,000sf or larger under the following site-specific condition:
•Approved building types that both integrate with the existing structure and includes a deed restricted affordable housing unit.
4.In OT-B (NCM), allow six units on lots 9,000sf or larger with under the following site-specific condition:
•A six-unit Cottage Court includes one deed-restricted affordable housing unit
5.Allow a Private Covenant/HOA to regulate site placement of all structures (additional setbacks, separation requirements)
6.Require properties with a new ADU to have a resident manager.
7.Did Council intend for the Short Term Rental prohibition for and ADU include the primary house?
19Items for Discussion
Integrate With Existing Structure
(1) The addition must be the same height as the existing structure or lower;
(2) The addition must be placed to the rear of the existing structure;
(3) The addition must be designed to be compatible with defining features including but not limited to materials, finishes,
windows, doors, entries, porches, decks, and balconies of the existing structure; and
(4) The addition may not increase the footprint of the existing structure by more than 50%.
(C) Any allowed demolition or additions shall be identified in the building permit submittal.
Integrate with existing structure shall mean using the existing structure to achieve a new use and/or using the existing structure to achieve
an increase in the number of dwelling units at an existing use. In order to meet the definition of integrate existing structure, the following
requirements must be met:
(A) Exterior walls must remain and cannot be demolished except for the following:
(1) New windows, doors, or entry features may be added and only the area of the new features may be removed from the
existing wall;
(2) 0% of front walls, 25% of side walls, and 100% of rear walls may be removed; and
(3) Exterior finishes may be maintained or replaced without increasing the footprint.
(B) In conjunction with the demolition exceptions in (A), additions to existing structure may occur. Additions shall be subordinate to the
existing structure by satisfying all of the following requirements:
20Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
1.
In the RL allow duplexes under one of the following site-specific conditions:
•100ft wide lots
•One unit is deed restricted affordable housing
•Converts and integrates an existing structure
•Lots within 1/4 mile of current or future high-frequency transit
Example: 2-unit, side by side
21Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
2.
In OT-A (NCL) allow three units on lots 6,000 sf or larger under one the following site-specific conditions:
•Combination of a duplex + ADU
•Triplex integrates with the existing structure
•Triplex with a deed restricted affordable housing unit
•Cottage Court with a is deed restricted affordable housing unit
Building Type Units Lot Area Additional Site
Requirement
Duplex + ADU 3 units
max.
6,000sf
min.N/A
Cottage Court 3 units
max.
9,000 sf
min.
Affordable Housing
Development
Triplex 3 units
max.
6,000 sf
min.
Must meet one of the
following two
requirements
Integrate with existing
structure
Affordable Housing
Development
22Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
3.In the OT-B (NCM) allow six units on lots 6,000sf or larger under the following site-specific condition:
•Approved building types that both integrate with the existing structure and includes a deed restricted affordable housing unit.
ADU in backyard for 6th unit Old Town –B (OT-B)
Building
Type Units Lot Area Site Specific
Requirement
3 units
min. and
6 units
max.
6,000 sf min.
Must Meet Both of the
requirement below
5plex + ADU; or Integrate with existing
structure
6plex Affordable Housing
Development
23Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
4
In the OT-B (NCM) allow six units on lots 9,000sf or larger under the following site-
specific condition:
•Cottage Court that includes a deed restricted affordable housing unit
Old Town –B (OT-B)
Building Type Units Lot Area
Cottage Court 3 units min. and
6 units max.9,000 sf min.
24Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
5
Allow a Private Covenant/HOA to regulate site placement (additional setbacks,
separation requirements)
1.3.3 CONFLICTS WITH PRIVATE HOUSING COVENANTS
No person shall create, cause to be created, enforce or seek to enforce any provision contained in any contract
or restrictive covenant that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the number and/or type of dwelling units
permitted on a lot when such number and/or type of dwelling unit(s) would otherwise be permitted by the
City’s zoning regulations. A Homeowner’s Association may enforce private covenants which reasonably regulate
external aesthetics including, but not limited to, site placement/setbacks, color, window placement, height, and
materials with the intent of furthering compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
No person shall create, cause to be created, enforce or seek to enforce any provision contained in any contract
or restrictive covenant that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting subdivision of property when such
subdivision would otherwise be permitted by the City’s zoning regulations.
25Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
6 Require properties with a new ADU to have a resident manager.
(1) Accessory dwelling units shall have a resident manager residing on the property in the ADU or primary building, when
the owner does not reside on the property.
(a) The resident manager shall have one (1) primary residence and shall reside on the property
for nine (9) months of the calendar year.
(b) If the designated resident manager no longer resides on the property, a new one shall be established by
the property owner.
(c) If the resident manager shall be authorized by the property owner to manage the property and
all dwelling units.
(d) Before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for an ADU the property owner shall provide the
name, address, and the resident manager’s authorization to manage the property and dwelling units. Any
ongoing verification of such information shall be provided by the owner upon request of the City.
2
6STR Item
Items for Council Discussion
7 Did Council intend for the Short Term Rental prohibition for an ADU to include the primary house?
Section 4.3.1 (N)
On or after January 1, 2024, short term primary and non-primary rentals are
prohibited in both accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units….
27Items for Discussion
Items for Council Discussion
1.
In RL, Allow duplexes under one of the following site-specific conditions:
•100ft wide lots
•Duplex integrates an existing structure
•Duplex includes one unit of deed-restricted affordable housing
•Lot located within 1/4 mile of current or future high-frequency transit
2.
In OT-A (NCL), allow three units on lots 6,000 sf or larger under one the following site-specific conditions:
•Combination of a duplex + ADU
•Triplex integrates an existing structure
•Triplex includes one deed-restricted affordable housing unit
•A 3-unit Cottage Court includes one deed-restricted affordable housing unit
3.In OT-B (NCM), allow six units on lots 6,000sf or larger under the following site-specific condition:
•Approved building types that both integrate with the existing structure and includes a deed restricted affordable housing unit.
4.In OT-B (NCM), allow six units on lots 9,000sf or larger with under the following site-specific condition:
•A six-unit Cottage Court includes one deed-restricted affordable housing unit
5.Allow a Private Covenant/HOA to regulate site placement of all structures (additional setbacks, separation requirements)
6.Require properties with a new ADU to have a resident manager.
7.Did Council intend for the Short Term Rental prohibition for and ADU include the primary house?
Consideration of Adoption
Does Council wish to adopt Ordinance XX-2023 for the
proposed Land Use Code on First Reading?
1
Sarah Kane
From:Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Sent:Friday, September 29, 2023 2:54 PM
To:CCSL
Cc:Caryn M. Champine; Paul S. Sizemore; Noah Beals; Meaghan Overton; Clay Frickey
Subject:Land Use Code Memo - P&Z discussion update
Attachments:LUC_CouncilMemo_PnZ_wattachments_9292023.pdf
Categories:Council Packet Item
Good afternoon, Councilmembers –
Attached is a Memorandum with a summary of the discussion from the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing from
September 27, 2023. There are several attachments included with the memo:
Example language for potential code amendments
Final Engagement Summary from Dr. Carcasson
Additional public feedback collected from the online feedback form that is not included in the engagement
summary
Revised Power Point presentation with updates after the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing
Thank you all and have a good weekend,
Sylvia
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, AICP | Senior Policy & Project Manager
City Manager’s Office, City of Fort Collins
(970) 416.2354| statman-burruss@fcgov.com