Should Greeley change its occupancy code? The city’s planning commission isn’t sure.
By Kelly Ragan
Greeley hasn’t changed its occupancy code in 40 years. The city’s planning commission — the first step to altering it to allow more unrelated people to live together — paused on a decision after a four-hour virtual meeting Tuesday.
As it stands, Greeley is a U+1 city – meaning in Residential-Low Density or Residential-Medium Density areas (think suburbs rather than college houses or apartments), a family can have one unrelated person living with them.
The city is proposing changing the occupancy limits to essentially tie the number of unrelated people allowed to live together to the number of bedrooms in the home in Residential Low-Density and Residential Medium-Density areas.
So far, Greeley residents seem to be split on the issue.
A questionnaire sent out by the city got 390 responses, Jackson said, in which 57% of respondents wanted to relax occupancy restrictions.
Of the people surveyed by the City of Greeley, 55.88% said they would like to see the number of unrelated people allowed to live together increase. Courtesy photo.
A second questionnaire, which received 232 responses, showed about two thirds of respondents wanted no changes to standards for smaller houses, while two thirds also said they favored relaxing standards for larger houses, Jackson said.
“The rising costs of housing has been putting so many on the streets, which in my opinion ultimately leads to an increase in crime, and also puts a lot of pressure on the social services available to people in trouble,” one questionnaire respondent wrote. “That makes getting help harder and take longer. The amount of people sleeping in tents during these cold winter months is an embarrassment to the city and county. This measure is a great first step to helping all these people get back on their feet with some dignity.”
Another respondent wrote, “There are more family styles than the ‘nuclear family’ that may include several unrelated people. By increasing the limit it will make more chosen family units find homes.”
“I do not think the current standards are reflective of the current economic and cultural climate,” another respondent wrote. “I’d much rather see a change to this standard and better access to housing for members of our community who may not be able to afford the increasing cost of housing.”
Folks participating in public comment at the planning commission meeting were decidedly against making changes to the code.
Several recounted stories of houses in their own neighborhoods being occupied by more people than allowed by code, creating problems with trash, parking, noise complaints, drug use and more.
“(These changes would) put an undue burden on (residential-low density) zones,” one speaker said. “For those of us who have lived in these zones for 40 years, that is unfair.”
Another speaker said after so many houses were foreclosed on and bought up by investors around the Cranford and Fairacres neighbhorhoods in 2005, she’s seen problems personally.
“Unscrupulous people bought these houses for almost nothing and rented out these bedrooms,” she said.
Another speaker said she’s already seen issues with parking as one of her neighbors converted their house into a duplex. The speaker said that’s caused more cars to park on the street and in front of her yard.
“I know it’s public, but it disrupts my peace,” she said. “I have a driveway, but sometimes I want to park on the street.”
Commenters also mentioned issues with absentee landlords who bought up properties and allowed the houses to fall into disrepair.
Planning Commissioner Erik Briscoe, director of business development for Continuum Health Management, said during the meeting Tuesday he was concerned that relaxing restrictions on housing occupancy would weaken the city’s already meager ability to enforce the code.
“We’d be taking away the seemingly toothless enforcement and pulling even more teeth,” Briscoe said.
Briscoe said that people who seek to live in areas zoned for residential low-density housing expect that they can keep that neighborhood character when they make what is often the biggest investment of their lives. Changing that rule now could create “retroactive disappointment” in their neighborhoods, he said.
Commissioner Christian Schulte noted during the meeting that the folks speaking during Tuesday’s meeting – which took place at 1:15 p.m. – were primarily homeowners. Young professionals who might benefit from the change weren’t there.
“If you’re swayed by the voices that show up at meetings like this, you are missing a large number of people who don’t have the time or the energy to do it,” Schulte said. “People who are homeowners and are retired have more time – in all issues, they are the squeakier wheels. But they are not the only ones whose issues we are obligated to think about.”
One thing commissioners did agree on was expanding the city’s interpretation of family.
Several commission members (and this writer) learned and tried to wrap their heads around Tuesday: A married couple does not count as family. A married couple is a whole U+1, according to the city’s interpretation. That means that a married couple could rent a room out to siblings of the married couple but could not rent a room out to anyone unrelated to them.
Is that weird and confusing? Yes.
Commissioners agreed it would be worth expanding the definition of family to include married adults. That would allow married couples to rent a room out to an unrelated person. Expanding that definition would also mean those in civil unions would count as a family by city code too.
That expanded definition would still prevent one married couple from renting a room out to another married couple. While “U” can mean a married couple, “1” still means one.
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 Jackson at a city council meeting in February.
https://www.thenocooptimist.com/news/greeleys-household-occupancy-standards-havet-changed-in-more-than-40-years-should-they-the-city-is-working-to-answer-that-question
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.
Conversation goes beyond Greeley
This conversation is happening in several Colorado communities.
In February, Denver City Council voted to allow more people to live together – opting to move from U+1 to U+5, after a public comment session that stretched late into the night, according to a report by Denverite. Denver first started considering the change in March 2018.
It goes without saying that Denver is very different from Greeley – yet many neighboring or comparable communities also have higher occupancy limits.
Fort Collins, Evans, Pueblo, and Boulder are among cities with U+2 limits.
Windsor, Aurora, Brighton, Grand Junction and Fort Morgan have U+3 limits.
Longmont, Thornton, Arvada and Colorado Springs have U+4 limits.
Cheyenne, Wyoming has no limits on occupancy.
This week, Boulder’s Bedrooms Are For People announced it got enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot asking voters to tie the number of people allowed to occupy a home to the legal number of bedrooms plus one additional person per home.
What’s next?
The Greeley Planning Commission will meet again May 18 to discuss the issue. You can tune in at 1:15 p.m. here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCegM3TAyGPayKBUHIeQCv6w
Once the planning commission decides whether to recommend the proposal, recommend it with changes or recommend against the proposal, city council will discuss the proposal and vote on it. City council is tentatively scheduled to discuss the subject June 15.