Council debates home occupant limit

Loveland’s City Council broadly disagreed on Tuesday over whether and how the city should be capping residential occupancy and if a cap should be tied to the definition of “family.”

Setting the stage for the discussion was a study session on a proposed set of changes to the city’s Unified Development Code, which was prepared by city staff and members of the Loveland Planning Commission.

Principal planner Kerri Burchett told the council that the changes comprise the seventh amendment to the code since it was adopted in November 2018. The authors split the changes up into “major” and “minor” amendment packages for approval, and Loveland’s council reviewed only the major package on Tuesday.

The major package would amend 21 separate sections of the Unified Development Code, including substantial changes to city rules concerning accessory dwelling units (ADUS) and occupancy limits, among other changes meant to streamline and simplify the code.

In addition to allowing ADUS on lots as small as 7,000 square feet, the changes would allow the structures in all residential zones. The size of the units would be capped at 10% of the lot size, with the possibility to occupy up to 20% of a lot through a review process involving members of the public.

Burchett said staffers were “excited” for the ADU changes in particular because of the flexibility they would afford property

owners.

However, most of her presentation was devoted to the recommendation that the city define “family” on the basis of “blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or custodial relationship” for the purpose of residential occupancy limits.

Loveland’s code regulates the number of people who are allowed to live in a “single-family” residence but does not include a definition of “family,” she said.

“The word ‘family’ is used throughout the UDC,” Burchett said. “The need to understand what it means is important to clarify that through the code.”

The city’s previous development code defined the term as “any individual or two or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, or an unrelated group of not more than three persons, living together in a dwelling unit,” including “family foster care of up to four children which is licensed according to the statutes of the state.”

The Unified Development Code also includes definitions of small and large rooming houses, which are restricted to certain zones, allowing four to eight and nine or more unrelated people respectively to live together.

Burchett and staffers recommended an occupancy standard that would allow either an unlimited number of family members and two unrelated people or up to four unrelated people to live together in a single-family home. Only three unrelated people can live together in a single-family home currently.

A small rooming house accommodating five to eight people would also be allowed in estate and low density residential zones after going through the conditional use process.

“That allows folks in that neighborhood to par ticipate in the decision-making process,” she said.

Three alternatives were rejected that would have allowed a greater number of unrelated people to live together, pegging occupancy to the number of bedrooms, the availability of parking or the presence of the property owner on-site.

While a slide in her presentation noted the first alternative was “non-discriminatory,” Burchett said it did not address the issue of parking, which she said is how most investigations into occupancy limit violations star t.

“We’ll get a call, because people will see a whole lot of cars parked along the street, and they’ll ask, ‘How many people can live in there? There’s cars parked in front of my house,’” she said.

The second option was rejected due to concerns that the creation and enforcement of a parking permit system would be complex and time-consuming. The third also prompted concerns about enforcement.

On the flip side, Ward I councilor Rob Molloy asked how the city would enforce its new definition and verify that tenants claiming to be family are, in fact, related.

“If somebody is breaking the rules, are you going to knock on the door and ask them for their papers?,” he asked. “I don’t understand how they’re going to follow through proving who’s family and who’s not family.”

Councilors Steve Olson of Ward III and Don Overcash of Ward IV questioned whether there was any realworld problem that staf f and the Planning Commission were aiming to solve by defining family and limiting occupancy.

“I don’t understand why we’re forcing some definition of family or numbers of people on peoples’ use of their property,” Overcash said. “I haven’t figured out the problem we’re tr ying to avoid.”

After repeated questioning by Overcash, Burchett brought up how a household made up of four unrelated people would have to be permitted as a rooming house currently.

However, Olson said he did not believe it was the city’s place to define the maximum number of tenants that a property owner could welcome onto their property. If parking was the sole concern, he said, the code should only address that.

“Focus on resolving that issue, and let them have as many people as they can fit into the property,” Olson said.

Mayor Jacki Marsh and Ward II councilor Andrea Samson said they believed there should be occupancy limits but that they should be uncoupled from the issue of how tenants are related, with Marsh bringing up fire safety and the amount of street parking as practical criteria to consider when setting a cap.

“I don’t see a need for defining family, and I certainly don’t think it’s our role to define family,” Samson said. “It really could impact a lot of people’s living situations.”

Councilors Richard Ball of Ward I, Kathi Wright of Ward II and John Fogle of Ward III all said they generally supported the recommendations of the commission.

Wright in par ticular noted that the part of the code in question would probably not be enforced unless a neighbor complained.

“We’re not going to be running around counting how many people are in houses, for Pete’s sake,” she said.

Burchett said she would return to the council with more information and research specifically in light of the occupancy discussion as well as other concerns raised over rules for accessor y dwelling units.

Because the item was brought forward in a study session, no formal action was taken.