Loveland planners tell council community would be better served knowing updated plan's direction before significant code changes

Loveland's Planning Commission, in a letter to City Council, said the community would be better served by knowing the direction of an updated Comprehensive Plan, last revised in 2016, before significant changes to the Unified Development Code.

The commission was concerned that changing the code first would put implementing regulations ahead of the policy framework they are meant to carry out. The letter says the community would be better served by learning the updated plan's direction before significant code changes. The plan was due for its ten-year update.

As of Oct. 12, the date of the letter, the council had approved the proposed code amendments on first reading and was expected to consider them on second reading in early November. At first reading, the council raised concerns about higher-density uses in low-density zones. It also requested clearer information on allowable density in R1 zones and on the purpose and requirements of the public meeting. Staff was preparing responses and potential alternatives.

Several commissioners were concerned that the Housing Needs Assessment does not accurately reflect Loveland. Only 481 Loveland residents participated in its survey. The letter says that level of local participation is not a sufficient basis for major regulatory decisions, and it asks the council to weigh the limitation carefully.

Members of the public raised concerns that public participation in the process was insufficient. The commission said it takes those concerns seriously. The letter says the concerns should be reviewed, and staff should respond, before the council takes final action.

The letter says some commissioners have said they were uncertain whether they had the full picture when they voted on the amendments. The commission had not had an opportunity to consider the council's questions or any resulting revisions, because they arose after its review. It was also concerned that the amendments might not fully address the underlying housing and land-use issues they are intended to solve.

The commission took no new vote on the letter at its Nov. 9 meeting. Vice Chair David Herrera said the commission voted at its previous meeting to approve the letter and send it to the council, and that the motion passed. "I don't think that we need to vote on it again," Herrera said.

Chair Sarah Warnock agreed. "Okay, so we don't need a motion or a vote," Warnock said.