Greeley Planning Commission reaches compromise on occupancy limits. Next step, city council.

By Kelly Ragan

After significant back-and-forth, the Greeley Planning Commission reached a compromise on its recommendation for changing occupancy limits Tuesday. 

City staff proposed changing the occupancy limits to allow more unrelated folks to live together. In residential estate, low-density and mobile home communities, the city proposed allowing one more unrelated adult, essentially bumping the U+1 limit to U+2 for homes with three or more bedrooms. 

That recommendation lost in a 4-3 vote, though the commission voted unanimously to approve more limited changes. 

The alternative plan leaves low-density residences (think houses in the suburbs) unchanged, meaning they will continue to have U+1 occupancy limits. A family can still have one unrelated person living with them. The alternative plan suggests allowing medium-density residential zones to tie the number of unrelated people living together to the number of bedrooms in the home. 

City council is set to tackle the issue at a June meeting, where councilmembers will vote on whether to change the code. 

As it stands, Greeley is a U+1 city – meaning in residential-low density or residential-medium density areas, a family can have one unrelated person living with them. 

Commissioners Erik Briscoe, Brian Franzen, Larry Modlin and Justin Yeater voted to oppose the broader changes proposed by city staff. Commissioners Louisa Andersen, Christian Schulte and Chelsie Romulo voted to support the changes.  

“In many ways, I feel U+2 is a practical use of code,” Yeater said, “but the community has been loud and clear that they don’t want this.” 

Beyond that, Yeater said city council doesn’t have a lot of appetite to make significant code changes. 

Briscoe agreed, citing “tremendous opposition” to the move. 

But that’s not exactly the whole story. 

While an overwhelming majority of folks spoke out against the changes during the planning commission’s meeting May 12 – which took place at 1:15 p.m. on a Tuesday – a questionnaire conducted by the city showed 57% of the surveys 390 respondents were in favor of those broader changes. 

“I think we’re attempting to solve a problem that can be solved without upsetting established neighborhoods,” Modlin said. 

So, what is the problem? 

Many residents opposing the broader changes cited concerns over increased noise, trash, and parking issues in their neighborhoods. 

“(These changes would) put an undue burden on (residential-low density) zones,” one speaker said at the May 12 meeting. “For those of us who have lived in these zones for 40 years, that is unfair.” 

Several recounted stories of houses in their own neighborhoods being occupied by more people than allowed by code, creating problems.

During the meeting, Commissioner Anderson said that the problem of noise, trash and parking was a separate issue from occupancy limits. 

“It doesn’t matter who moves in or who is related, it matters if they conform to behavioral standards,” Andersen said. “If noise and trash complaints aren’t being enforced, that’s a problem, but that’s not what we’re talking about with this issue.”

Schulte agreed. 

Why is Greeley considering change? 

In 2018, the city put together a housing task force to draft a strategic plan to address Greeley’s affordable housing shortage. That plan was adopted in 2019 and outlined several strategies. Changing occupancy limits is one part of that equation. 

The U+1 standard dates back to 1980, said City Planner Caleb Jackson at a city council meeting in February. 

In 1962, Greeley was a U+Unlimited city. In 1966, it changed to U+2. In 1976, it changed to U+0. In 1980, it changed again to U+1. 

Community Development Director Brad Mueller said the conversation around change has a lot to do with the fact that demographics have changed. 

“A generation ago, over 50% of households were households with children,” Mueller said. “That’s now down to 25%. We know people are waiting longer to have children, expressing a preference for alternative housing situations – having four roommates for example – even as unrelated professionals living together.” 

Cost of housing is also outpacing wage growth, said Jackson.

Greeley has long been seen as an affordable place to live in northern Colorado, Jackson said, but that’s changing. 

In 2010, the median sale price of a house in Greeley was $140,000, Jackson said. By 2019, that increased to $320,000, according to city documents. 

People can argue that Greeley’s and Evans’ housing prices are lower than other northern Colorado communities, Jackson said, but the rate of housing price is increasing faster than in surrounding communities such as Fort Collins, Johnstown, Loveland, Severance, Timnath, Windsor and Berthoud.

“Our advantage in the affordability aspect is declining faster than other communities in northern Colorado,” Jackson said.

Beyond increasing median sale prices in Greeley, rent is also rising. 

“In 1983, you could get a three-bedroom apartment in Greeley for $404 per month,” Jackson said. “In 2020, that’s $1,509 per month. A one-bedroom apartment in the 80s went for $281 per month. In 2020, a one-bedroom apartment went for $845 per month.” 

While rents have tripled or quadrupled, Jackson said, incomes have doubled in that same time. 

Would changing occupancy limits make an impact? 

Planning commissioners disagreed on whether changing occupancy limits would make an impact on the affordable housing situation. 

Briscoe argued that changing occupancy limits wouldn’t address affordability issues in the community. If a married couple rents out their basement, that equates to supplemental income, he said, not more affordable housing. 

Andersen disagreed. 

“I’m not sure how you can say this wouldn’t impact affordability when someone helping you pay your mortgage would make a difference,” Andersen said.