What should Fort Collins' development style be? Residents have opinions

The document that directs how development happens in Fort Collins is up for review, and that's sparking some interesting conversations.

Here's some background: It’s been 25 years since Fort Collins last updated its Land Use Code, a rulebook for developing land in the city. What has changed since then? Well, back in 1997, Fort Collins’ population had just crested 100,000 and the average cost of a single-family home was below $175,000. Now our population is closing in on 175,000 and median home prices are surging past $600,000.

You might not know what kinds of things the Land Use Code prescribes. If you don't, check out reporter Jacy Marmaduke's story about the changes to it that council is considering. (One thing to note right away is that the code doesn't dictate things like occupancy limits, which is a separate policy decision.)

In light of Jacy's story, in Coloradoan Conversations last week we asked you: What are the most important changes that should be included in any update? Consider: housing type and size, density and infill development, parking, compatibility, affordable housing incentives and goals, housing capacity and review processes. What should not be included?

Read all the answers:What specific changes should Fort Collins implement in update of Land Use Code?

A case for increased density and mixed uses

Meg D. made a case for mixed uses, not just mixed housing types: "I like that we have a rule (since the '90s) that all large new developments have to include multiple types of housing. Back in the old days, we used to mix duplexes and neighborhood-sized apartment buildings in with single-family homes. So our mixed-housing types rule fits with that. We used to also have corner stores and other neighborhood-friendly development mixed in with housing (churches, schools, small craft or second-hand shops). That's what neighborhoods built after World War II are often lacking … mixed uses. There are sections of our city where people have to get in a car if they want to run out and grab a gallon of milk, or pop into a cafe to sip a coffee and read a book. These neighborhood-friendly services really need to be integrated into our neighborhoods. I would love to see our zoning code allow for these kinds of history-proven, small-scale commercial and nonprofit neighborhood-friendly uses. Let's make every Fort Collins neighborhood walkable and bikeable."

Meg also had a suggestion but noted a challenge on increasing density: "The least dense part of our city is Midtown. The pattern of development in the mid-1900s included lots of cul-de-sacs and oddly shaped lots. It will be hard to increase density in these areas, and yet this is where additional dwelling options have the most room to be inserted. The updated zoning code should suggest creative ways in which folks in mid-century neighborhoods can add (accessory dwelling units) sensitively and discretely so that we use that neighborhood space more effectively while maintaining the character of those neighborhoods.

Still pretty desirable:See how far Fort Collins slid on U.S. News and World Report's annual 'best places to live' list

Is limiting growth the right approach?

Much of the commenter discussion on Jacy's story addressed a notion that came up in council discussion: whether increasing development is the right approach to reduce the cost of housing and what obligations/interest the city has in providing affordable housing. In the commenters' discussion, there was a push and a pull between some values that may conflict:

• Putting the onus on individuals to make it more feasible for themselves to afford living in the city, rather than having government step in

• Maintaining standards that make Fort Collins a desirable place to live, even if that means it leads to a higher cost for housing and less development

• Making it more possible for lower-wage workers whose jobs are critical to city vibrancy to live in the place they work

Here's a sampling of that push and pull:

Keith H. said: "If we keep bringing in more people, it will no longer be a nice place to live. I would love to live in Aspen but since I can't afford a $10 million house, I can't. That keeps Aspen a nice place by keeping out the riffraff like me. I don't think it would be the same with 'affordable' condos and apartments all over the place."

Eric V.: "People who are working here and contributing can't even live here. ... Population growth is a good thing. More people is a good thing. New people have new skills and ideas and perspectives." And he said: "We should strive to eliminate artificial barriers to housing like density, land use code things, etc. We need to make it easier for people to build and for people to buy."

Stephen P. "There are many things I can't do and nobody is 'improving' my choices. They are what they are. I can't afford to fly to see my grandkids as often as I'd like and the airlines aren't 'improving my choices.'

Sidra A. : "... No teachers, no nurses, no servers, no cooks, no grocery workers, basically no one that makes a low income can afford to be in Fort Collins."

James P. "Fort Collins is desirable because of the lifestyle that it represents. Once the population increases beyond a sustainable count the city will lose the very traits that have made it so desirable as a place to raise a family. Some of the hidden costs of increasing population growth and excessive density are the need for massive investments in infrastructure to meet the needs of that growth. That means higher property taxes, increased fees, increased sales taxes, increased water and sewage bills, more government bureaucracy, more city employees, more police and firemen, more schools and teachers, more road usage and repairs, higher electric, gas, and water bills, etc. So, even though housing availability may increase, affordability will continue to decrease as more and more basic cost of living expenses of a growing community are increasing."

Dustan D. "If we price (out) so many service workers, hospitality and restaurant workers, construction workers, laborers', etc., everyone who works on those industries will be forced on commuting from a more affordable place," and, Eric V. said, still adding to the burden on Fort Collins roads and infrastructure.

M_E.: "I don't think the city of Fort Collins owes affordability to potential residents. In fact I view increased housing prices as a testament to the city's desirability. I support building code adjustments that prioritize increasing the city's desirability, and while I'm sympathetic to the fact that it limits some from being able to afford it, I don't think the government's role is to make housing affordable."

Jacy's story was of high interest to Coloradoan readers, generating a large number of social interaction, as well. Over the past five years, her reporting on what Fort Collins city government is up to, and before that, on the environment, has made complex issues much more understandable for everyone. We will miss her and her high-level reporting as she leaves the Coloradoan next week for a new life in Germany.

But you can still join in the discussion on her story and take a deeper look at the land use code.

This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Fort Collins' development style hinges on one big question