Here's what City Council voted to do with Fort Collins' U+2 residential occupancy ordinance
Fort Collins voters won't get an opportunity this November to weigh on relaxing residential occupancy rules in the city after City Council opted Tuesday not to refer a U+2 question to the ballot.
The 2023 ballot question was laid to rest after months of talk and action. In June, a citizen-led effort to repeal and replace U+2 with an occupancy ordinance based on each residence's number of bedrooms and bedroom size fell short of getting the signatures needed to get on the ballot.
After its failure, City Council began discussing whether to refer something to the ballot itself: not a specific ordinance but rather a general question about whether council should increase occupancy and change the parameters U+2 was built upon.
The city's occupancy rules, known as U+2, limit how many people can live together in a single residence this way: no more than three unrelated individuals or one "family" plus an additional person.
In the ordinance, family is defined as people who are "all related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship."
Sean McCoy, a candidate running for the City Council District 2 seat currently held by Julie Pignataro, noted during public comment Tuesday that the definition of family in U+2 was written 60 years ago. It's time to change it and base it on other factors, he said.
Several others in favor or changing the ordinance said it's blatantly discriminatory because of its definitions of family.
Council will take up the issue rather than asking voters
There will be no vote in November, but the issue is far from dead.
Instead of referring the issue to the ballot, council passed a resolution 5-2 to consider alternatives from staff.
Specifically, the resolution asks city staff to draft amendments to the land use code to increase residential occupancy limits, based on the number of adults, building size, number of sleeping rooms or another method no later than June 2024.
Pignataro, though, said there were aspects of U+2 that she was eager to change right away, rather than waiting for a public engagement and study process, such as the family definitions.
Council members Kelly Ohlson and Susan Gutowsky voted against the resolution. But both said they are committed to exploring future language and changes.
Ohlson, who has been vocal about his support for U+2, said the language of the resolution passed Tuesday has already predetermined the outcome because it asks staff to draft new rules that increase occupancy.
"It doesn't say explore, examine," Ohlson said.
Other council members pushed back on that. Mayor pro tem Emily Francis said the wording does not conclude how the process will end and simply conveys that council is open to looking at other options.
Ohlson said he could speak for an hour on the merits of U+2: Its renewal in 2005 brought families back to neighborhoods and made homes more attainable for residents rather than just investors. Prior to the 2005 revamp, he said, single-family low-density neighborhoods had degraded, becoming rooming houses with no upkeep of physical structures and yards. Schools were in danger of closing.
The difference between then and now is night and day in physical appearance and quality, he said.
Gutowsky said she preferred the more simple approach of directing staff without the formal resolution, and that's why she was voting no. Francis, Shirley Peel and Tricia Canonico said they preferred a resolution because it was a formal declaration that holds council to taking action in the future, with a specific time frame in mind.
Canonico said it came to her attention this week that a divorced woman in her district was only able to continue living in her home by having roommates in violation of the occupancy ordinance.
"The only way she can stay in her home, which might be considered a high-end neighborhood, is by taking in renters," she said. Because her neighbors aren't turning her in, this results in unfairness to others violating the rule.
"This comes down to the complaint system ... and how unfair that is system is," she said, noting that 53% of the occupancy violations do not involve students.
In expressing her support of the resolution, Mayor Jeni Arndt said, "We can think really smartly about this," referencing ideas brought up during public comment and by staff Tuesday night.
Resident Lloyd Walker, for example, suggesting keeping U+2 but also refining the process that allows for extra occupancy, tweaking the definition of family, developing a rental licensing program, balancing density with neighborhood capacity, and creating a welcome center to acquaint people to the city.
The city could also take zoning or other nuanced options into consideration, city project and policy manager Ginny Sawyer said.
While the summer effort to gather signatures for the November ballot encouraged people on all sides to support a citywide vote, the appetite for it wasn't as strong Tuesday night.
Nick DeSalvo, president of Associated Students of Colorado State University, said the student government body was against putting it on the ballot and council should pursue the issue itself.
Another person speaking during public comment on the issue said council might believe putting U+2 on the ballot is more democratic, but it's truly not democratic to do so during an off-election year when fewer people vote.
What will be on the ballot? Here's who is officially running for Fort Collins City Council
What is U+2?
The rule has been on the books in Fort Collins since the 1960s but wasn't really enforced until 2005, when it was last revised.
Since then, revising it or throwing it out has been a perennial discussion in the community, and council has undertaken studies and solicited public engagement.
Here's what it does allow, according to the city's Neighborhood Services website:
a family (of any size and configuration)
a family (of any size and configuration) and their nanny
a family (of any size and configuration) and an exchange student
two single parents, their kids, and a friend
two siblings and one friend
two married couples as long as a familial relationship exists linking the two couples
Here's what is not allowed:
two couples, married or not, with no familial relationship linking couple A to couple B
two siblings and their two or more friends
a family (of any size), a caretaker, and an exchange student
Editor's note: This story has a correction. Sean McCoy is running in District 2.
This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Fort Collins residents won't vote on occupancy rules this election
