The Land Use Code Changes Are Not Ready for Adoption—by former Councilmember and Mayor Pro Tem, Gina Janett
Comments to City Council on 10/18/2022, First Reading of the Land Use Code Updates, by Gina C Janett
The LUC update and rezoning is not ready for adoption and needs much more involvement from the residents of neighborhoods that will be affected.
While it is admirable that the Council is responding to community desires for more affordable housing, I don’t believe the community wants massive changes to their established neighborhoods that this rezoning will bring.
The proposed zoning will increase “infill and densities” in already established neighborhoods. Since these neighborhoods do not have vacant land, the way to increase density is by demolition of existing homes and construction of duplexes, triplexes and more, or the addition of ADU’s to primary homes. I don’t believe residents of established single family neighborhoods support such massive changes to their surroundings.
1. Public Process: The LUC Update has had insufficient public participation by residents of neighborhoods most affected by the changes.
People who live in established neighborhoods do not anticipate new construction in their midst and don’t pay much attention to land use issues. The citizen participation for these massive zoning changes has been dominated by the real estate and development industry, which is part of their jobs. Residents of the most affected neighborhoods such as those around CSU and Old Town are unaware of these proposed changes.
There is a better way. The 2017 rezoning of Old Town east and west residential neighborhoods took many months and included multiple hands-on workshops, consultant studies, and data inventories of existing housing. The result was a largely consensus-driven change to zoning.
2. Where are the metrics? The city prides itself on data driven policies and decision making. The agenda items do not include metrics that describe with data and maps what this means for existing neighborhoods.
For example, how many existing houses/lots across the city might be eligible for ADU’s and where are those lots located? What are the capacities of the roads, parking, water, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructure in the older neighborhoods that are likely to be redeveloped by demolition and higher densities?
3. Equity and Inclusion. The proposed zoning changes put the most pressure for redevelopment on the neighborhoods around CSU and especially Old Town.
While the zoning would allow ADU’s in all zones, it is the older neighborhoods and especially Old Town single family areas that will likely receive the most ADU’s. It is unfair that the oldest and
most affordable single family neighborhoods will take the brunt of density and land uses changes.
Old Town’s established single family neighborhoods are already targeted by buyers who purchase small, historic homes for scrape-off to be replaced by large modern homes. The proposed rezoning allowing demolition of small homes to be replaced by duplexes, triplexes and multi-family will only further the trend of demolition and new construction. I don’t believe the residents of these neighborhoods would support such changes. How about asking them?
4. Preserve Existing Affordable Housing. The first principle of supporting affordable housing is to protect the housing that currently exists.
Having lived in Old Town East and West for 35 years, I am very familiar with these neighborhoods. They are dominated by small, single family homes which house students, young families, and seniors; both renters and homeowners.
The 2017 Old Town rezoning project inventoried 3,096 homes in these neighborhoods and found they are: predominantly single family, 500-1500 square feet, 1 to 1 1/2 stories high. (With W Mountain as the exception.) I would suggest that these smaller homes are still more affordable than most of the newer homes in other parts of the city and the city’s goal should be to protect them for the future. Not everyone wants to live in a multi-family house.
5. Higher density does not equal affordability. The underlying assumption seems to be that multi-family residential units are more affordable.
High density homes in a growing city attract residents with both high and low incomes. I Googled condos for sale today in downtown Fort Collins. Here’s what I found. They are hardly affordable!
- $ 1,395,000, two bedroom, 2562 sf
- $764,000, one bedroom, 1031 sf
- $637,000, one bedroom, 749 sf
- $445,000, one bedroom, 637 sf
- $379,000, one bedroom, 645 sf
The council needs to dive in deeper than simply changing densities to increase the supply of affordable housing. Many cities use long-term deed restrictions to produce and retain affordable housing and real estate transfer taxes to generate income for new construction.
6. Other things not to like.
- Incentives such as fast tracking approvals without the review of the Planning and Zoning Board and reduced parking for affordable units won’t be popular with nearby residents in established neighborhoods. It will likely generate more city council appeals.
- Land use decisions for new development are temporary but the changes to the land are permanent. A family’s home is their greatest investment and the source of generational wealth. They should have the opportunity to speak up about changes to their neighborhood to P&Z, especially when it entails demolishing existing homes and developing new larger multi-family buildings.
- We have seen over and over again, that reducing parking doesn’t reduce the number of cars that residents drive…it just pushes the parking into other neighborhoods.
- The code describes how land is used whether for the purpose of parks, schools, churches, housing or business. Don’t change the name to Land Development Code.
In conclusion, the adoption of the proposed new Land Use Code is likely to have major impacts upon established residential neighborhoods without the knowledge or consent of their residents.
Please take more time for real public participation and buy-in and propose changes that will support affordable housing goals while protecting our existing established neighborhoods. We can and should do better!