As we consider citizen input on neighborhood developments, consider who gets heard and how

One of the most common complaints from vocal residents opposed to the Fort Collins land use code changes — they were repealed in January by City Council — considered public meetings for new developments. Or rather, the lack of routine meetings.

The code changes would have nixed the city's current practice of requiring public hearings for many residential projects.

Under the current code, most residential projects go through a Type 2 review that includes a neighborhood meeting and public hearing, along with a Planning and Zoning Commission decision.

But under the proposed code, public hearings would no longer have been part of the review process. Instead, projects would have gone through a basic development review that includes several rounds of staff review before a determination is made, based on what the code dictates. It's worth noting that residents could still have appealed staff decisions to the Planning & Zoning Commission, and public notification tools like signs and letters still would have been part of the process.

But those changes didn't sit well with many.

Meaghan Overton, housing manager for the city, shared the logic behind that change:

“We have a lot of process in development review, compared to other communities even smaller than us. We go through a lot of rounds of review, we have multiple kinds of hearings and meetings and things,” she told the Coloradoan previously. “So this is trying to streamline the process and make sure that we have the right regulations in the code so that we get the kind of projects we want and don't have to rely as much on multiple kinds of processes to get to a good outcome.”

As overall public outreach about future land use code changes begins again, we asked in our Feb. 18 Coloradoan Conversations question: "How much citizen input should Fort Collins build into reviewing proposed developments?"

Perhaps greater discussion about public meetings for development can influence future modifications to the land use code. Here's what our conversation revealed:

Tension: Public meetings are for everyone, but is everyone represented?

Matthew B. expressed the above concern this way: "The duly elected representatives and the people they employ at the city are the right people to review these projects. The evidence is quite clear that having a project-by-project review process only attracts people who have the time, money, and interest to attend those meetings. That means older, whiter and richer." He even went on to contend that this leads to an "undemocratic" environment ripe for abuse by political insiders.

Eric V. said attendance can be lopsided as it pertains to support or opposition to a project: "Every public meeting is the same. The people who don't want it show up. The people who don't really care don't."

But why should residents who have concerns about a project be ignored simply because others didn't show up, Kimm K. asked: "Those concerned about quality of life aspects such as traffic, noise, property values, and crime — their viewpoint is irrelevant?"

Peter E. clarified: "I don’t have a problem with anyone who shows up to a public hearing. I think they should! But we shouldn’t pretend that their voices are representative."

He shared some examples:

• "Nearly half the population of Fort Collins rents. Only 53% percent of Fort Collins residents own a home. Are the interests of renters equally represented at public hearings?"

• "Fort Collins is hardly upper middle class. The median individual income in Fort Collins is only around $30,000. The median household income is only around $70,000."

• "Lastly, 65-plus-year-olds only make up around 11% of the population. Again: I think it’s great that people turn out to hearings and participate, but we need to be really conscious of the full (breadth) of our community."

What better serves the public: Predictability or a pulpit?

Peter E. said a code-based approval process has this going for it: "In reforming the hearing process, the city was actually trying to create more predictability, both for residents and for home builders. Rather than leave everything up to the whims of whomever is able to show up to a public hearing on a wintry evening downtown, what if we instead had a clear set of rules that city staff could simply apply when someone asked for a building permit?"

With a new code review underway again, now there's an opportunity to reach greater consensus on such rules. Could that be enough to allay more residents' concerns about removing routine public meetings from the approval process?

David R. said the city should honor the places residents call home. "The land use code which was recently repealed gutted some provisions to ensure that the citizens of Fort Collins have a voice in what happens next to their homes, and in their neighborhoods — removing the voice of citizens from what might happen next to their most valued space, their home, is simply wrong."

And Kimm K. said finding out why people oppose projects can lead to getting things done. "Why are these projects opposed? Address the why and perhaps they will not be resisted."

Replace meetings with other avenues?

John W. and Judi T. suggested a different way of giving public feedback on developments: "As topics like this come up, create an easy, online shortcut to send feedback to mayor and council, maybe include a number of options so people could vote their preferences online."

Jessie C. pointed out that there is already a way to do that now via email to City Council The email cityleaders@fcgov.com sends an email to all council members and City Manager Kelly DiMartino. You can even access the email archive online at fcgov.com/council/contactall.

Perhaps a written feedback process could replace public meetings in the development review?

How much sway do public meetings have?

Mimi K. said public meetings make a project better: "There have been many developments that have been improved through public input, both at the neighborhood meeting stage and even at the P&Z hearing."

But how much does feedback at a neighborhood meeting influence a project? How often do the concerns voiced lead to modifications or change the outcome?

Previous Coloradoan reporting indicated that developers of Sanctuary on the Green, a residential project in northwest Fort Collins that drew opposition from some neighbors, modified their plans after getting feedback at neighborhood meetings and said they wanted to hear from neighbors before submitting final plans.

Those modifications didn't satisfy the residents opposed to them, but the project was ultimately approved. (The neighborhood group has filed a lawsuit against Fort Collins City Council, alleging City Council lacked the authority to hear an appeal and exceeded its jurisdiction and/or abused its discretion.)

Coloradoan reporting also shows public comments did influence a Landmark Homes project south of English Ranch.

The Coloradoan has reached out to city staff to understand how public meetings feedback is used and how often it leads to changes on a project, or even its demise.

This article includes information from previous reporting by the Coloradoan's Molly Bohannon and Pat Ferrier.

This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Fort Collins development public meetings open to all but can fall short