HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/23/2022 - WORK SESSIONNOTICE:
Work Sessions of the City Council are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month in
the Colorado Room of the 222 Building. Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format, however
there is no public participation permitted in a work session.
City Council members may participate in this meeting via electronic means pursuant to
their adopted policies and protocol.
Fort Collins City Council
Work Session Agenda
6:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 23, 2022
Colorado Room, 222 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
How to view this Meeting::
Meetings are open to the public
and can be attended in person
by anyone.
Meetings are televised live
on Channels 14 & 881 on cable
television.
Meetings are livestreamed on
the City's website, fcgov.com/fctv
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals
who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with
disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD:
Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when
possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para
personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas
con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la
Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por
favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Meeting agendas, minutes, and archived videos are available on the City's meeting portal at
https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/
While work sessions do not include public comment,
mail comments about any item on the agenda to
cityleaders@fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2
City Council Work Session
Agenda
August 23, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Shirley Peel, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Colorado River Community Room
222 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
6:00 PM
A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Housing Strategic Plan Implementation: Rental Housing Strategies.
(staff: Caryn Champine, Marcy Yoder, Meaghan Overton; 15 minute presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide updates about public engagement to date and present
options for potential next steps to implement three interrelated Housing Strategic Plan (HSP)
strategies:
● Rental licensing/registration (Strategy 20)
● Occupancy ordinance revisions (Strategy 21)
● Small Landlord Incentives (Strategy 26)
2. Potential Stormwater Property Partnership on North Mason.
(staff: Matt Fater; 10 minute presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to seek Council feedback related to a potential land partnership between
the stormwater utility and Bohemian Foundation.
The stormwater utility and Bohemian Foundation own adjacent parcels of land along North Mason
Street. The stormwater utility intends to construct a stormwater detention pond on its parcel, while
Bohemian Foundation intends to partner with Fort Collins Rescue Mission for a 24/7 shelter for
people experiencing homelessness. The site evaluation process for the 24/7 shelter identified
potential opportunities to partner with the stormwater property such that the two properties are
optimized for a greater community benefit.
Page 1
City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2
3. Wireless Telecommunications Code Update.
(staff: Will Lindsey; 10 minute presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session item is to obtain feedback and direction from Council on potential
changes to the Land Use Code to ensure they align with the objectives of the recently adopted
Wireless Telecommunication Master Plan and address feedback received from Council at the
January 25 work session. This information will help guide the development of the draft Land Use
Code updates for wireless telecommunication projects that are anticipated to come to Council for
adoption in Fall 2022.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS
D) ADJOURNMENT
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assis tance. Please provide 48 hours
advance notice when possible.
A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el
idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los
servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para
Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Page 2
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 10
August 23, 2022
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager
Josh Birks, Deputy Sustainability Officer
Caryn Champine, Director of PDT
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Housing Strategic Plan Implementation: Rental Housing Strategies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide updates about public engagement to date and present options for
potential next steps to implement three interrelated Housing Strategic Plan (HSP) strategies:
● Rental licensing/registration (Strategy 20)
● Occupancy ordinance revisions (Strategy 21)
● Small Landlord Incentives (Strategy 26)
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Which potential next steps do Councilmembers support for rental licensing/registration?
2. Which potential next steps do Councilmembers support for occupancy ordinance revisions?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2005, Council has had several in-depth conversations about rental registration/licensing, occupancy,
and nuisance regulation as part of the community dialogue about neighborhood livability. Council has also
reviewed regular evaluations of the occupancy ordinance and its impacts. A list of relevant Council work
sessions and hearings is included as an Attachment for reference.
At the October 26, 2021 work session, staff updated Council about the history of rental housing strategies,
findings from recent demographic and market analysis, a summary of peer cities research, and an outline
of a proposed roadmap to implement rental housing strategies. Several Councilmembers supported
additional community engagement in early 2022 to further explore potential design of a rental
registration/licensing program, revisions to the occupancy ordinance, and development of small landlord
incentives.
Page 3
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 10
Updates to share with Council at this work session focus on providing a community engagement
overview of activities to date and outlining potential next steps for rental licensing/registration and
occupancy ordinance revisions. Key topics for each strategy include a brief overview of existing
conditions, outcomes and themes from community engagement, a summary of recommendations and best
practices, and potential next steps toward implementation of these HSP strategies. Future work on small
landlord incentives is dependent on Council direction for rental licensing/registration and occupancy
ordinance revisions and will not be covered at this work session.
Community Engagement Overview
Fort Collins has had a long-standing community dialogue about the best way(s) to ensure safe, healthy
housing for renters, efficiently use existing housing stock, and address nuisance issues. During
development of the HSP in 2020, extensive community engag ement continued to highlight a need to
explore rental registration/licensing and occupancy ordinance revisions. Over the last year, staff has built
on the HSP community dialogue by engaging with a range of community members to ensure that multiple
perspectives are included in the current exploration of rental housing strategies.
Group Engaged Engagement Activities Conducted
Renters, neighborhood groups,
HOAs
Housing Strategic Plan engagement, 2020-2021
Community Questionnaire, Aug. 2022
Pop-up Engagement, Aug. 2022
Rental Housing Task Force
Landlords, realtors, property
managers
Presentation to Northern CO Rental Housing Association, Feb. 2022
Presentation to Board of Realtors, Feb. 2022
Rental Industry Questionnaire, Feb./March 2022
Rental Housing Task Force
City Departments Convening of Rental Housing and Occupancy Core Team
Conversations with IT, Building Services, Communications and
Public Involvement Office, City Attorney’s Office
Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee discussion, Dec. 2020
Rental Strategies Work Session, Oct. 2021
Summary of Key Engagement Activities
Rental Industry Questionnaire, February/March 2022: This online questionnaire was primarily focused on
soliciting feedback from rental owners, property managers, and landlords to better understand how
potential rental programs (e.g., registry and occupancy regulations) might impact the industry, and to
explore specific elements of program design. Assessor’s data was used to identify and mail flyers to nearly
9,000 likely owners of rental property within Fort Collins to ensure wide awareness of the questionnaire. A
total of 1,912 people responded to the questionnaire: 68% identified themselves as rental owners,
managers, or landlords, 20% were residents who live or work in Fort Collins but do not own or manage
rental property.
Page 4
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 10
Rental Housing Task Force, March-August 2022: In early 2022, the City convened a Task Force to support
deeper exploration of the three strategies and to work collaboratively to propose modifications to current
rental housing policy for consideration by staff, the broader public, and Council. A total of 76 people applied
for 20 spots, and applications were reviewed by a committee of staff. The top scoring applications for
landlord/property managers, renters, and others were invited to participate. Staff consulted with the City
Attorney’s Office on the criteria utilized for selection and the information shared with the selection team.
Demographic information was collected from applicants but was not used in the selection process; it was
considered in aggregate for the entire application pool to evaluate the task force’s representativeness.
A panel of applicants was selected to represent a diversity of perspectives, including rental housing
tenants, property owners/landlords and property managers, and people who fit neither category. Fort
Collins residents Jack Armstrong, Jade Beaty, Julia Berger, Lisa Cunningham, Brannan Davis, Adam
Eggleston, Emily Gallichotte, Carrie Gillis, Cecilia Granby, Sean Haines, Nicole Hanson, Mike Herder,
Torey Lenoch, Robert Long, Lindsay Mason, Amy Pezzani, Jose Luis Ramos, Carolyn J. Rasley, and
Isabella Zapata served as task force members for the duration of ten meetings. One task force member
withdrew from participation due to other commitments. The total composition of the group was 19
members, and all meetings were facilitated by a professional third-party facilitator.
Page 5
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 10
The task force members shared multiple perspectives and affiliations. They are listed below:
Renter Industry Representative Other
Currently renting Realtor Non-profit executive
Single parent Large landlord Immigrant to US
Experienced homelessness Small landlord HOA Board representative
Affordable housing tenant Real estate appraiser Fifth generation Fort Collins
resident
Seeking home ownership Contractor CSU Off-Campus Life
Parent of renters Property Manager
Former CSU student Former Housing authority
employee
The Task Force met a total of ten times between March 30 and August 3, 2022. The 19 Task Force
members attended an average of 8.5 meetings each. Each meeting had an average of 16 Task Force
members present. Task Force members completed homework assignments between meetings to ensure
they were well informed. Early meetings were primarily informational as the Task Force members received
presentations from staff as well as a panel including Paul Anderson, Lloyd Walker, David Roy, and Benton
Roesler to explore opinions about the City’s U+2 Policy.
Community Questionnaire, August 2022: This questionnaire sought opinions about how much the City’s
approach to rental housing regulation and occupancy should change, if at all. The questionnaire also asked
respondents their opinions about a range of potential next steps for rental registration/licensing and
occupancy ordinance revisions. Additional “pop-up” engagement utilizing the Neighborhood Services
lemonade stand was conducted to increase awareness of the community questionnaire and encourage
participation; particularly in areas where changes to occupancy and extra occupancy have been raised as
a concern. A total of 1,739 responded to the questionnaire: 64% indicated that they owned their home,
31% of respondents indicated that they rented their home, 19% of respondents were landlords. The charts
below show respondents by Council District and housing tenure (rent/own):
Council District Total Owners %Owners Renters %Renters
District 1 226 138 61% 82 36%
District 2 223 150 67% 62 27%
District 3 143 94 65% 46 32%
District 4 227 154 68% 63 28%
District 5 373 249 67% 113 30%
District 6 264 144 55% 111 42%
Additional details, including summary reports from the Rental Industry Questionnaire, Rental Housing Task
Force Recommendations, and Community Questionnaire, have been included as attachments. Key
findings from these engagement activities have been incorporated into the next two sections, which discuss
rental licensing/registration and occupancy ordinance revisions.
Rental Licensing/Registration
In November 2005, alongside changes to enforcement of the occupancy ordinance, Council also
considered several options for rental registration and licensing. However, a formal rental registration or
licensing program was not pursued at that time. The most recent community discussion about occupancy
and rental housing strategies occurred in 2020 as part of the development of the Housing Strategic Plan.
In December 2020, the Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee expressed interest in exploring rental licensing
Page 6
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 10
to support healthy, stable housing for people who rent their homes. The Committee encouraged
consideration of a pilot program for rental registration or licensing.
Existing Conditions
More than 40% of all housing in Fort Collins is renter-occupied. Census data indicates that 46.9% of
housing units in Fort Collins are renter-occupied, and City Utilities data estimates that 43% of housing units
(about 38,000 homes) in Fort Collins are rental properties.
Estimated Number of
homes*
Estimated Percentage of
all housing
Total (citywide) 87,863 100%
Owned Units 49,775 57%
Rental Units 38,088 43%
Single-Household, detached rentals 14,419 16%
(38% of all rentals)
Multi-household, mixed-use or
manufactured housing rentals
23,669 27%
(62% of all rentals)
*Note: This data is the best available information at present but should be interpreted as an estimate
because of potential data gaps or lags in reporting property information.
To further understand ownership patterns of rental properties in Fort Collins, staff worked with Root Policy
Research to conduct an Investor Ownership Analysis in April 2022 (attached). This analysis focused
specifically on investor ownership of single family, du-/tri-plex, and townhome units, as traditional rental
units in multi-family buildings have always been “investor” properties. Investor presence in the single
family, townhome, and condo markets has increased nationwide since the Great Recession, when many
such homes fell into foreclosure. Staff sought to explore the degree t o which Fort Collins is experiencing
this trend. The analysis found that more than 99% of single, duplex, triplex, and townhome units are owned
by landlords who own fewer than 5 properties, and about 90% of these landlords own only 1 property in
addition to their residence. In addition, the analysis found that most landlords (85%) are entities based in
Colorado, while approximately 15% of landlords are out of state entities.
Community Engagement Findings
Overall, findings from community engagement indicated that many people support some degree of change
to the way the City regulates rental housing. Community comments during HSP engagement indicated a
range of concerns with the City’s current level of regulation: a need to proactively ensure healthy, safe
units; fear of retaliation or loss of housing if renters report substandard or unsafe units; and concerns about
Page 7
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 10
discrimination. Rental registration/licensing and rental inspections were common suggestions f or
addressing these concerns. Sixty percent of all respondents to the Community Questionnaire supported
either tweaks to the City’s regulations or significant changes.
In addition, most respondents to the Community Questionnaire indicated that they “agree” or “strongly
agree” with implementing rental registration (56%), implementing rental licensing (50%), and maintaining
the current complaint-based inspection program (56%).
However, the Community Questionnaire results highlighted clear differences in opinion between people
who are renting their homes and people who identify themselves as landlords/property managers. The
only potential next step where many of both renters and landlords agreed was on maintaining the City’s
current complaint-based inspection program. (Note: “Neutral” or “No Opinion” responses are not included
in the tabulation below.)
RENTAL STRATEGIES All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners Landlords
Agree or disagree with the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins rental strategies stay
as they are? 40% 60% 25% 75% 46% 54% 53% 47%
Require that all landlords obtain a license
to rent property in the City 50% 40% 63% 21% 45% 48% 13% 78%
Require that all landlords register their
rental properties with the City 56% 34% 69% 17% 52% 40% 21% 69%
Proactively inspect rental properties on a
regular basis for health and safety
violations
47% 37% 62% 20% 42% 44% 15% 72%
Inspect rental properties only when a
complaint is filed 56% 26% 60% 22% 53% 28% 56% 23%
The Rental Industry Questionnaire further highlighted the concerns of landlords/property managers:
Potential costs were identified as a drawback to a licensing and inspection program, and most rental
landlords/managers indicated they would pass costs on to tenants.
Respondents indicated concern that the City was not clearly defining the problem and that rental
registration/licensing was not an effective way to address the minority of units that might be
substandard.
Respondents preferred that inspections occur only if a complaint is received and that inspections focus
narrowly on health and safety issues.
Fair treatment of small and large landlords was identified as a challenge.
Participants expressed a lack of trust with the City of Fort Collins. Specific concerns included that the
City would move forward without further consideration from stakeholders, and that City lacked the
ability and capacity to scale-up a pilot program for all rentals.
Task Force Recommendations
Implement Rental Registration: By a vote of 12 in favor and four opposed, the Task Force approved a
recommendation that the City of Fort Collins establish a mandatory rental housing registration program
to create an up-to-date and complete listing of all rental housing units and who owns them within the
City. The recommendation suggests that registration should include a nominal one-time fee for each
rental unit and that landlords who fail to register their rental properties should be assessed a fine. To
incentivize participation, the Task Force recommends that the City should consider establishing a
landlord/tenant portal to provide resources and marketing connections. When a property is sold, the
recommendation suggests that the new owner should be required to register the property in their own
Page 8
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 10
name. Further, the Task Force recommends that registration information should include a designated
responsible party listed for each rental unit and that contact information for the property owner should
not be provided publicly unless the designated responsible party has granted permission.
Do Not Implement Rental Licensing: By consensus, the Task Force agreed not to recommend the City
establish a rental housing licensing program at this time.
Maintain Complaint-Based Rental Inspections: The Task Force recommends against proactive
inspections for the rental housing program in favor of an inspection program that is initiated only after
a complaint has been filed.
Peer Cities and Best Practices
Though the Task Force did not recommend rental licensing and proactive inspections, Peer Cities research
suggests that the best practice for proactively addressing the health and safety of rental housing is to
design a rental licensing program that requires periodic inspections. Additionally, best practices include a
fee structure designed to cover program costs, training for staff, landlords, and tenants, and a collaborative
approach to designing a licensing program that involves both landlords and tenants.
Potential Next Steps
Bold font denotes potential next steps that have demonstrated both community and Rental Housing Task
Force support. Rental Housing Task Force recommendations are noted with an asterisk (*). In addition to
rental registration, staff also recommends an inspection program be implemented to address health and
safety of rental housing. An inspection program was also outlined as a best practice.
No change to rental regulations
Establish a mandatory rental registration program (*)
Continue complaint-based rental inspections with a focus on habitability (health and safety) (*)
Establish a mandatory rental licensing program
Require periodic proactive inspection of rental units, particularly single-unit, duplex, triplex, townhome,
and units 10+ years old – staff recommendation
Require inspections for extra occupancy rentals – staff recommendation
Occupancy Ordinance Revisions
The City has had an adopted occupancy ordinance since 1963. Active enforcement of the ordinance (also
called U+2) began in 2005 with the establishment of an occupancy enforcement program. In December
2020, the Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee expressed a range of opinions about the City’s occupancy
ordinance. Discussion included whether the occupancy ordinance should be rescinded in favor of rental
registration, or whether it should be amended and “right-sized” to better meet community needs. Some
suggested that revisions to the definition of “family” and the process for approval of extra occupancy rental
housing could be two “quick wins” to pursue. However, all Committee members supported further
exploration of potential revisions to the occupancy ordinance.
Existing Conditions
Currently, enforcement is managed with a complaint-based system that investigates reports of
suspected over occupancy, typically based on parking, noise, or rubbish issues. In the last several
years, cases have ranged from 160 to just over 200 annually. Typically, 35-50% of complaints are
sustained, and the balance are unfounded or unproven.
The demographic characteristics of households in violation of U+2 and the impact of U+2 on the
housing market have been studied regularly to evaluate the effectiveness of the occupancy ordinance.
The City partnered with Corona Insights to conduct the most recent of these evaluations in 2018, which
was presented to Council at a work session in January 2019.
Page 9
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 10
Compared to the previous survey in 2005, the 2018 study reported a dramatic shift in the demographics
of households in violation of U+2. These demographic shifts suggest that, compared to 2005, a wider
cross-section of households are bringing in roommates in violation of the occupancy ordinance, likely
to defray high housing costs.
2005 2018
Total (est) households in violation 1,238 1,234
Percentage college students 71% 47%
Percentage children under 18 Negligible 13%
Community Engagement Findings
During the HSP engagement there was not a clear consensus about the best path forward for the City’s
occupancy ordinance. Some participants supported repealing or modifying U+2. This was seen as a
potential benefit for people of all ages living on single incomes, and an opportunity to “free up” additional
homes for rental or purchase. Others credited U+2 with positively impacting their neighborhoods and
controlling nuisance issues.
Many comments brought up concerns about the definition of a “family” in the current occupancy ordinance,
pointing to changes in community demographics and household configurations as reasons to reevaluate
the ordinance. Several participants shared stories about the impact of high housing costs that led them to
“double up” with other households in violation of the occupancy limits. Suggestions for potential solutions
included limiting occupancy to the number of bedrooms in a home or to a certain amount of space for each
person, rather than an ordinance based on peoples’ relationships to each other.
The Rental Industry Questionnaire supported increasing U+2 if the property was suitable.
The Community Questionnaire indicated that most respondents were in favor of changing the occupancy
code in some way (69%). Overall, there was support to allow extra occupancy citywide (62%), to make the
extra occupancy rental process easier (59%), to have occupancy match the number of bedrooms in a
house (51%), and to increase occupancy limits to more than three unrelated people (56%). There was also
support for focusing on regulating nuisance issues rather than limiting occupancy (56%). However, people
who identified themselves as homeowners who were not part of the rental industry (landlord, real estate,
etc.) disagreed with all potential policy options and were split evenly regarding nuisance. (Note: “Neutral”
or “No Opinion” responses are not included in the tabulation below.)
OCCUPANCY All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners
Non Industry
homeowners
Agree or disagree with the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins occupancy limit stay
as they are?
31% 69% 22% 78% 36% 64% 45% 55%
Allow extra occupancy rentals in more
places around the city
62% 35% 72% 23% 50% 41% 43% 49%
Make the process to approve extra
occupancy easier
59% 33% 74% 21% 51% 39% 43% 46%
Adjust occupancy limit to match number of
bedrooms in a home
51% 50% 59% 33% 47% 44% 38% 51%
Page 10
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 10
Regulate occupancy based on household
function, not family relatedness
48% 41% 51% 31% 21% 47% 28% 52%
Regulate occupancy based on number of
parking spaces
22% 61% 12% 69% 27% 57% 24% 63%
Focus on regulating nuisances instead of
occupancy
56% 32% 61% 26% 54% 36% 44% 44%
Increase occupancy limits to more than 3
unrelated residents
56% 37% 73% 23% 47% 45% 39% 52%
Eliminate occupancy limits completely
36% 54% 52% 36% 27% 63% 24% 67%
Task Force Recommendations
The following recommendations were approved by a vote of 16 in favor and one opposed. The primary
recommendation is to change the City’s occupancy ordinance. If the occupancy ordinance is not changed,
the Task Force recommends adjustments to the extra occupancy process.
Regulate by number of bedrooms: The Task Force recommends that the definition of family be
removed from occupancy regulations. Instead, the Task Force recommends that current occupancy
code be replaced with one that is based on the number of bedrooms to utilize the City’s existing home
inventory more fully; OR
Make extra occupancy easier: The Task Force recommends considering the following as a new
occupancy code is established:
o Removing the U+2 policy from zoning law and that the policy be replaced with occupancy
regulations that are enforced through administrative processes;
o Making it easier for property owners to obtain exemptions to occupancy regulations and increasing
the regions of the city where extra-occupancy permits are allowed;
o Requiring properties with extra occupancy designations to renew permits every five years; and
o Removing extra occupancy designations when property ownership changes and/or when a
property violates public nuisance ordinances.
Recommendations and Best Practices
Peer Cities research recommendations for implementation were varied. Common approaches to regulating
occupancy included identifying a specific number of unrelated adults permitted, regulating based on
number of bedrooms or square footage, or regulating based on household functionality rather than familial
relatedness.
Potential Next Steps
Bold font notes potential next steps that have both community and Rental Housing Task Force support.
Rental Housing Task Force recommendations are noted with an asterisk (*).
Page 11
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 10
No change to occupancy ordinance
Change occupancy code to align with number of bedrooms rather than the number of unrelated
adults (*); OR
Allow extra occupancy rentals citywide (*) and evaluate extra occupancy rental applications
through an administrative permit process, not a land use approval (*)
Increase the number of unrelated adults permitted
Regulate based on household functionality rather than familial relatedness
NEXT STEPS
To implement the rental housing HSP strategies in a thoughtful way that aligns with best practices and
peer cities research, responds to community input, and respects the diversity of perspectives around rental
housing strategies, staff has outlined several next steps for Council to consider. Bold font notes potential
next steps that have demonstrated both community and Rental Housing Task Force support. Rental
Housing Task Force recommendations are noted with an asterisk (*).
Rental Registration/Licensing Occupancy
No change to rental regulations
Establish a mandatory rental registration
program (*)
Continue complaint-based rental
inspections with a focus on habitability
(health and safety) (*)
Establish a mandatory rental licensing program
Require periodic proactive inspection of rental
units, particularly single-unit, duplex, triplex,
townhome, and units 10+ years old – staff
recommendation
Require inspections for extra
occupancy rentals – staff recommendation
No change to occupancy ordinance
Change occupancy code to align with
number of bedrooms rather than the
number of unrelated adults (*) OR
Allow extra occupancy rentals citywide (*)
and evaluate extra occupancy rental
applications through an administrative
permit process, not a land use approval (*)
Increase the number of unrelated adults
permitted
Regulate based on household functionality
rather than familial relatedness
ATTACHMENTS
Summary of Previous Council Action
Rental Industry Questionnaire
Investor Ownership Analysis
Rental Housing Task Force
Community Questionnaire
Literature Review - Health Impacts of Rental Housing Regulations
Powerpoint Presentation
Page 12
Item 1.
Summary of Previous Council Action
December 2020 Ad-Hoc Housing Committee - Discussion of Occupancy and Rental Regulations
February 2019 Work Session - Occupancy Limit Enforcement and Chronic Nuisance Properties Update
January 2019 Work Session - Occupancy Study 10 Year Review (results)
December 2016 Work Session - Occupancy Study 10 Year Review (scope of study)
February 2016 Work Session Summary - Rental Licensing (decision to pursue options outside of rental
licensing)
February 2016 Work Session - Rental Licensing
November 2014 Work Session - Housing Affordability Policy Study (evaluated U+2 and recommended
modifications to extra occupancy processes)
October 2009 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance Two-Year Review and Policy Discussion
August 2009 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance “Economic and Market Impact Study”
August 2007 Work Session - Review and update of the Over-Occupancy Enforcement Program
November 2005 Hearing (Second Reading) - Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other
Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
November 2005 Hearing (First Reading) - Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other
Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
August 2005 Work Session - Occupancy Ordinance
October 2004 Work Session - Rental Licensing Alternatives
Page 13
Item 1.
Root Policy Research
6741 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80220
www.rootpolicy.com
970.880.1415
PREPARED FOR: CREATED
City of Fort Collins 5/13/2022
www.fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins
Rental
Strategies
Industry
Survey
This report summarizes the responses to the Fort Collins Rental Strategies Industry
Survey. The survey was fielded online in February and March of 2022 and was primarily
focused on soliciting feedback from rental owners, property managers, and landlords
to better understand how potential rental programs (e.g., registry and occupancy
regulations) might impact the industry, and to explore specific elements of program
design. The survey builds on community engagement conducted as part of the broader
Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan, which includes substantial engagement from the
community and resident renters.
Page 14
Item 1.
Root Policy Research
6741 E Colfax Ave, Denver, CO 80220
www.rootpolicy.com
970.880.1415
PREPARED FOR: CREATED
City of Fort Collins 5/13/2022
www.fcgov.com
Page 15
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
The Fort Collins Rental Strategies Industry Survey was fielded online from February 3rd,
2022 to March 17th, 2022 and was primarily focused on soliciting feedback from rental
owners, property managers, and landlords. The primary objective of the survey was to
better understand how potential rental programs (e.g., registry and occupancy regulations)
might impact the industry, and to explore specific elements of program design.
The survey was circulated through industry distribution lists, including the NoCo Rental
Association; and survey flyers were mailed to nearly 9,000 mailing addresses within the
Larimer County Assessor’s data who are owners of rental property within Fort Collins.1 The
survey received 1,912 total responses, and 68% were rental owners, managers, or
landlords; 20% were residents who live or work in Fort Collins.2 As shown, in Figure 1, the
majority of survey respondents have five or fewer rental units (83%) and owners/managers
of small-structure rentals (single unit, duplex, triplex) are overrepresented in the survey
relative to the distribution of rental units by structure type.
1 Addresses were selected if their mailing address differed from the physical address with the assumption that the
residential unit was rented out or not owner occupied if the addresses were different.
2Program structure questions were reserved for those in the industry directly impacted (i.e., rental owners, managers,
and landlords). All respondents were asked general questions about the licensing program and occupancy restrictions.
Figure 1.
Sample Size
of Survey
Respondents
Source:
Fort Collins Rental
Strategy Industry
Survey, 2019 5-year
American Community
Survey, and Root Policy
Research.
Total Responses 1,912 100%
Rental owner, manager, or landlord 1,293 68%
Live or work in Fort Collins 384 20%
Other (e.g., landowners, realtors, 2nd homeowners)16 1%
Total units owned or managed 1,293 100%
1 unit 577 45%
2 to 5 units 498 39%
5 to 10 units 108 8%
10 to 50 units 61 5%
50 to 100 units 7 1%
More than 100 units 34 3%
Type of housing units owned or managed 1,293 100%
Detached single-unit home 932 72%21%
Attached single-unit home/duplex/triplex 399 31%15%
Condo/Apartment/rental unit in a multiunit building 336 26%58%
Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)25 2%n/a
Mobile home/trailer 10 1%0%
Retirement community/independent or ssisted living 3 0%n/a
Group home (unrelated occupants who are disabled)3 0%n/a
Number Share
Distribution
of Fort Collins
Rentals by
Units in
Structure
(2019 ACS data)
Page 16
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 2
PRIMARY FINDINGS
Broadly speaking, respondents expressed a high level of concern regarding the impact of
potential rental registry policies. Even so, the survey yields constructive input on potential
program design and pilot implementation. It is clear from the survey responses that
successful program implementation would require continued communication with
stakeholders to address and alleviate concerns.
Potential costs were identified as a drawback to a licensing and
inspection program though most rental landlords/owners/managers
indicated they would pass costs on to tenants. Most landlords/owners/
managers expressed concern about potential costs of a licensing and inspection
program, emphasizing the expected costs of inspection compliance (i.e., staff time and
repairs), particularly if inspectors require upgrades not related to acute health and
safety concerns). Program fees were less of a concern. Respondents did note that any
program costs (fees and inspection-related costs) could have an indirect impact on
rents in Fort Collins, as owners are likely to pass all costs to renters.
Respondents expressed competing sentiments to treat all rentals
equally in some instances and to offer preferential treatment
under in other instances. The ability of new properties or properties
inspected under another program to be covered under safe harbor regulations was
desirable for some respondents. However, some participants felt the opposite—that
all rental units should be charged with the same regulations and requirements with no
special treatment. Similar tensions were identified in responses to fee discounts or
waivers and targeting bad actors with more frequent inspections. Generally, most
participants were in favor of offering safe harbors, fee waivers, and tiered inspections
for a subset of properties.
Large landlords (50+ units) indicated different preferences
compared to small landlords (less than 5 units) on the following
program components:
Large landlords expressed a strong preference for city inspectors (as
opposed to 3rd party inspectors) compared to small landlords.
Large landlords were less likely to support safe harbors, except for
properties developed or remodeled in the past five years.
Large landlords prefer a fee structure based on the number of properties
while small landlords prefer a fee structure based on the number of units.
Large landlords prefer affirmative marketing incentives. Small landlords
prefer incentives through lease templates and security deposit insurance.
Page 17
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 3
Respondents prefer that inspections occur only if a complaint is
received and that inspections focus on health and safety issues
(to minimize subjective and/or seemingly trivial requirements).
Many respondents were not in favor of mandatory inspections for all
properties. Rental owners/managers/landlords perceive the current
complaint-based system to be effective.
A vital element to the success of this program cited throughout the survey is
the need for clear, concise, objective, and limited criteria for
inspections. In order to avoid variation between inspectors and to ensure
that each property is treated fairly, the inspection checklist should be
transparent. Participants expressed the need for the program to focus on
health and safety and not include arbitrary requirements, bringing rentals
up to current code, or energy efficiency standards.
Fair treatment of small and large landlords was identified as a
challenge. There were many conflicting responses regarding how to treat larger
property management companies and smaller landlords with one or two properties. In
general, property management companies expressed they are already regulated and
should not be subjected to new regulations. On the other hand, smaller landlords
expressed the concern that these regulations are designed to be advantageous for
and reward larger owners. Respondents generally indicated that poor condition
and/or management of rentals is limited to relatively few “bad actors;” however there
was not consistent feedback on who constitutes “bad actors” (landlords of large
properties were more likely to implicate small landlords and vis-versa).
Landlords/managers/owners identified incentives to help offset
the burden of new regulations. Monetary incentives (i.e., cash or property
tax incentives were the most common. However, other incentives that were suggested
by owners, managers, and landlords included certification they could use for
marketing, maintaining a preferred rentals list, fast track permitting for improvements,
grants for improvement, perks for renters like Wi-Fi and gift cards, ability to
meaningfully impact program rules, legal consultation, and increased occupancy
(changes to U+2).
Participants are open to increasing U+2 if the property is
suitable for increased occupancy. Some respondents were against
increasing occupancy to preserve single family neighborhoods and prevent nuisance
violations that the ordinance is meant to protect against. However, most participants
were open to increased occupancy if parking, number of bedrooms, and the size of the
unit were considered. Others stated that regulating occupancy is not in the city’s
purview.
Participants expressed a lack of trust with the City of Fort
Collins. Respondents indicated the city would move forward without further
consideration from stakeholders and that the survey was just to placate them, not
collect meaningful input. Additionally, respondents expressed concern for the City’s
Page 18
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 4
ability and capacity to scale-up a pilot program for all rentals in the city due to labor
shortages and a lack of technical expertise.
APPENIDIX A.
RENTAL REGISTRY RESPONSES
General Sentiments
Survey participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to identify their overall
assumptions and sentiments toward implementing a pilot rental licensing programs in Fort
Collins. Comments were largely negative and were more likely to highlight potential
challenges than identify potential benefits. The biggest concern cited by respondents was
cost and the need to pass the costs of the program onto tenants. Cost concerns were
primarily related to concerns that inspections would yield a number of expensive repairs
and/or code upgrades not related to health and safety issues. Additional themes included
government overreach and privacy concerns, enforcement of the program, compliance,
administrative capacity needed to implement, unpredictable inspection standards, and a
blanket approach to all landlords instead of bad actors.
Experience with Similar Programs
Participants were asked “Do you have experience with these types of regulations in other
communities? If so, what have you seen work well and what have you seen not work well?”
Relatively few participants had experience, but those who did offered their perspectives:
Colorado:
“Boulder is very restrictive, and it is difficult to navigate the system. In my opinion it is
too restrictive. Seems like once you start down this road, it keeps growing into more
and more restrictions and regulation by government.”
“I have a rental in Boulder which has had a licensing program for years. It works well.
I have not had any problems with it, other than the cost, about $50 per year now, plus
the cost of inspections every 4 years.”
“Yes we have property in Boulder. Boulder's program requires a high level of energy
efficiency which can be expensive and difficult in older structures. Boulder program
requires a new license every four years which we believe is adequate. However, we
fully support rental licensing and inspections, like Boulder's for safety, tenant quality-
of-life and neighborhood quality maintenance.”
“I think the health and safety inspection is a great idea. Ensuring smoke detectors, CO
detectors work. What has not worked is what is happening in Boulder, where the
oversight is causing rental properties to be boarded up due to grandfathered issues
prior to ownership. This strips rental units away from the community making existing
units more expensive for tenants.”
Page 19
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 5
“Westminster, great tax incentives for Landlords- however the gentrification is
concerning.”
“Yes I managed a large community in Westminster, CO - The amount of time, money,
and resources dedicated to this program was overwhelming.”
“Breckenridge, this year’s bill from the city was over $500.”
Oregon
“Yes - I have watched Portland get over run with policy and regulations, only to let
tenants have unreasonable rights over a landlords investment.”
“Yes. Corvallis OR charges $15 a year. I don’t think they do property inspections
unless there’s a cause for it. The supports they provide seem positive for renters and
property owners alike.”
Minnesota
“I own properties in Minneapolis. It has turned into a giant money grab for the City as
well as a burdensome waste of time.”
“If the goal is to hold owners/landlords accountable to code compliance it may be
helpful to have multiple Tiers (like Minneapolis has) that are less expensive and
inspected less often for Tier 1 properties that have earned that standing, than Tier 3
properties that have ongoing issues that cost more and need to be inspected at least
once a year, for example.”
California
“Yes, a similar program was implemented in the town I used to live in, San Luis
Obispo, CA, and eventually repealed a few years later. It was a failure.”
“Yes, I own one rental property in the San Francisco Bay Area (City of San Leandro),
and I have been very pleased with how that city runs its program. An annual licensing
fee funds their department to communicate and collaborate with landlords. The tone
of the department is non-confrontational and education-based.”
“Yes. There is an active program in Santa Cruz, CA. It is expensive to run and most
annual inspections are unnecessary since the vast majority of rentals comply with the
regulations.”
“Yes. We own a triplex in Los Angeles, CA, and inspections are common. The system
works fine and, even though we have a good property manager, we have been notified
of issues we were unaware of and fixed them. All recommendations were reasonable.”
Other States
“I lived in Burlington Vt when Bernie was mayor. I owned rentals there and I had
tenants who stopped paying their rent it took me 8 months to get them evicted! The
system needs to be balanced and fair. Everybody thinks that landlords a bad rich
Page 20
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 6
people many of us are regular folks just trying to get by, so a program that is setup
based on charging Landlords for unnecessary inspections is not a good idea.”
“In Indianapolis Indiana there is a rental license program that is only $5 per
household. I think the low cost makes it makes it easy to manage for landlords and it
simply provides an email list for proper upkeep of the rental units. There is no ongoing
inspection program unless there are complaints are complaints…which also helps
keep the costs low.”
“North Liberty, IA: Automated license renewal reminders, responsive to questions”
“Yes. Waterloo, IA has a $50 per year rental licensing fee. The fire marshal does a
property inspection every 1-3 years to check for working smoke detectors, bedroom
egress, and no mold in bathrooms and under every sink. Minimal burden to landlords
or tenants. Unknown whether this helps the city meet their goals.”
“We have regulations like these in Independence, MO and Kansas City, MO, but
those communities have significantly greater problems and MUCH rougher properties.
The issues or complaints we get here are nominal and shouldn't warrant a whole new
program and licensing.”
Pilot Program Structure
Many of the survey questions solicited feedback on a potential pilot program structure.
Participants were asked about specific program elements including the ramp up period,
enforcement and inspections, and fee structure. The following figures highlight responses
for respondents overall and by the number of units owner/managed by the respondents.
Figure A-1. What do you think is a reasonable timeframe for
Page 21
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 7
implementing a licensing program?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Figure A-2. Which of the following would be most appropriate in
the City of Fort Collins for rental licensing inspections?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Figure A-3. Which of the following are appropriate safe harbors
Page 22
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 8
in the city?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Page 23
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 9
Figure A-4. If a property fails inspection, what is a reasonable
timeframe for the property to come into compliance for
reinspection?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Figure A-5. From your perspective, which of the following is the
Page 24
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 10
most equitable way to structure licensing and inspection fees?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Figure A-6. Which timeframe do you prefer for inspection fees?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Figure A-7. What incentives or programs could the city offer to offset
the costs and other impacts of a licensing and inspection program?
Select all that apply.
Page 25
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 11
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Page 26
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 1
APPENIDIX B.
OCCUPANCY REGULATION RESPONSES
The following figures highlight responses on occupancy regulations; figures show
responses overall and by the number of units owned/managed by the respondents.
Figure B-1. From your perspective, how many unrelated adults should be
allowed to live together in the City of Fort Collins?
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Figure B-2. From your perspective, which of the following factors is
an important consideration in determining occupancy allowances in the
city?
Page 27
Item 1.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH FC RENTAL STRATEGIES INDUSTRY SURVEY, PAGE 2
Source: Fort Collins Rental Strategy Industry Survey, Root Policy Research.
Page 28
Item 1.
MEMORANDUM
To: Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan Implementation Team
From: Root Policy Research
Re: Investor Ownership Analysis
Date: April 12, 2022
This memo outlines Root Policy Research’s analysis of investor presence in the Fort
Collins rental market. Traditional rental units in multi-family buildings have always been
“investor” properties; however, investor presence in the single family, townhome, and
condo markets has increased nationwide since the Great Recession, when many such
homes fell into foreclosure. Currently, the strong rental market in Fort Collins (and
Northern Colorado more broadly) may contribute to additional interest in acquiring
residential properties as investment opportunities.
The analysis contained in this memo focuses specifically on investor ownership of single
family, du-/tri-plex, and townhome units.
Data sources and Methodology
Root utilized several data sources to inform the analysis:
For a current profile of investor-owned properties, Root relied on data from the
Larimer County Assessor (geocoded to the City of Fort Collins). Investors are
defined as owners not occupying the specified residential unit (excluding multi-unit
apartments). Investors can be individuals or companies and are identified by
matching owner and site addresses in the assessor data (where site and owner
addresses match, the property is assumed to be owner occupied; where site and
owner addresses do not match, the property is assumed to be investor owned).
Due to data limitations of historical Larimer County Assessor data, Root relied on
two different sources to evaluate historical trends in investor ownership. The first is
Census and American Community survey data on tenure (renter v owner) of
housing units by structure type (e.g., single family, duplex, etc.). In addition, Root
was able to access ATTOM Data1 on national, state, and local trends of company vs
individual ownership of residential properties between 2016 and 2020.
1 ATTOM data solutions aggregates assessor data across geographies; data are only available back to 2016 and
individual properties are not available so Root was not able to conduct an owner occupancy analysis on the data.
Page 29
Item 1.
Page 2
Trends Over Time
According to the American Community Survey 2020 5-year sample, there are 61,526
occupied households in the City of Fort Collins. Overall, 55% (34,046) units are owner
occupied. Owner occupancy is substantially higher when focusing specifically on single-
unit structures—76% of such units are owner occupied.
As noted in the introduction, national trends show a rise in investor ownership of single
family properties over the past decade, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession
(2007-2009). Figure 1 illustrates this trend by showing rentership rates by structure type
of occupied households in the country, the state, and in Fort Collins from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 1.
Rentership Rates
by Units in
Structure, 2000-
2020
Note:
Rentership rate is the % of
households in each structure
type that are renters (as
opposed to owners).
Source:
2000 Decennial Census; 5-year
ACS estimates from 2010, 2015,
and 2020; and Root Policy
Research.
Page 30
Item 1.
Page 3
As shown in the previous figure, the proportion of homes occupied by renters in Fort
Collins rose from 43% to 45% between 2000 and 2020 (peaking at 46% around 2015).
The proportion of single family homes occupied by renters in Fort Collins rose from 21%
in 2000 to 26% in 2015, moderating back to 24% by 2020. Similar trends are evident in
the state overall and the country.
Though a 3-percentage point change may seem minimal, this shift combined with
overall housing unit growth reflects a 3,800-unit increase in renter occupied single
family units:
In 2000, a total 6,092 single family units were renter occupied (out of 29,405 total
single family units).
In 2020 (based on 5-year ACS data), 9,848 single family units were renter occupied
(out of 40,572 single family units).
Figure 2 shows the proportion of residential properties (excluding multi-family
apartment properties) that are owned by companies (as opposed to individuals) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, and the United States. It is important to note that not all rental units
are company owned, but this does provide another indicator of investor presence in the
market. Company ownership has increased nationally since 2016 (except in 2020);
statewide trends are similar with steady increases since 2016, despite a slight drop in
2020. In Fort Collins, the increase in company ownership is slightly more pronounced
and continues through 2020. Currently 11.5% of residential properties are owned by a
company.
Figure 2.
Company
Ownership of
Residential
Properties,
2016-2020
Source:
Attom Data Solutions
aggregation of local
assessor data, and Root
Policy Research.
Profile of Investor-Owned Properties
The remainder of this memo uses Larimer County Assessor data to evaluate the current
profile of investor-owned properties in the Fort Collins single-family, townhome, and
duplex market. Of these types of properties, about 33% are investor owned and 77% are
owner occupied (investor ownership is defined as properties for which site and owner
addresses do not match).
Investor ownership as a percentage of total units is substantially higher for townhomes
(80%) and duplex/triplex properties (86%) than for single-family units (23%). However,
Year
2016 9.0%7.9%8.3%
2017 9.7%8.1%8.6%
2018 10.7%8.5%8.9%
2019 11.2%8.8%9.3%
2020 11.5%8.4%7.6%
Fort Collins Colorado United States
% Residential Properites with a Company as a Primary Owner
(excludes commercial multifamily rental properties)
Page 31
Item 1.
Page 4
the sheer number of single family investment properties exceeds the other types,
simply due to the dominance of this housing structure type.
Figure 3 shows the number and proportion of investor-owned properties by structure
type. It also shows the number of investors who are “local” (have a Colorado address)
versus out of state investors. Overall, about 15% of investors are out of state entities.
Figure 3.
Investor
Ownership
by Property
Type, Fort
Collins,
2021
Source:
Larimer County
Assessor and Root
Policy Research.
The vast majority of investors own just 1 property (in addition to their residence). Fewer
than 1% of investors own 10 or more properties. (See Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Number of
Properties
per Investor
Source:
Larimer County
Assessor and Root
Policy Research.
Investor-owned properties tend to be smaller, older, and have lower market value than
owner-occupied properties of the same type. This is an indicator that investors are more
likely to compete in the entry-level ownership market.
Colorado
Investor
Out of State
Investor
% Investor
Owned
Residential (Single-Unit)29,148 7,117 1,464 23%
Townhouse 1,329 4,714 601 80%
Duplex/Triplex 164 866 115 86%
TOTAL 30,641 12,667 2,210 33%
Investor Owned
Owner
Occupied
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Residential (Single-Unit)
Townhouse
Duplex/Triplex
TOTAL
Number of Properties
Owner Occupied Colorado Investor Out of State Investor
Number of
Investment
Properties Owned
1 property 87.6%94.8%87.1%90.3%
2 properties 8.0%3.3%9.7%6.3%
3 to 5 properties 3.7%1.5%2.0%2.7%
6 to 10 properties 0.6%0.3%0.5%0.4%
0.2%0.1%0.7%0.2%More than 10 properties
All
Investors
Investors with
Duplex/Triplex
Properties
Investors with
Townhouse
Properties
Investors with
Single Family
Properties
Page 32
Item 1.
Page 5
At the median single family residential units that are investor owned are 1,475 square
feet, built in 1979, and valued at $367,700. Single family owner occupied units at the
median are 1,836 square feet, built in 1991, and valued at $428,600.
Figure 5.
Median
Characteristics of
Investor Owned
Properties and
Owner Occupied
Properties
Source:
Larimer County Assessor and Root
Policy Research..
As shown in Figure 6, investor properties are prevalent throughout the city with clusters
around the University and central neighborhoods (where rentership is highest).
Residential Properties
Investor Owned 1,475 3 / 2 1979 $367,700
Owner Occupied 1,836 3 / 2.5 1991 $428,600
Townhouse Properties
Investor Owned 1,258 2 / 2.5 1998 $297,000
Owner Occupied 1,395 3 / 2.5 1997 $346,200
Duplex Properties
Investor Owned 1,671 4 / 2 1966 $472,300
Owner Occupied 1,361 4 / 2 1948 $515,000
Market
Value
Year
Built
Square
Footage
Bedrooms /
Bathrooms
Figure 6.
Geographic
Distribution of
Investor-Owned
Single Family,
Townhouse,
Duplex and Triplex
Properties
Note:
Each dot represents 5
properties; dot locations are
approximate.
Source:
Larimer County Assessor and
Root Policy Research..
Page 33
Item 1.
1 | P a g e Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force Draft Final Recommendations
Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force
Final Recommendations
Fort Collins residents Jack Armstrong, Jade Beaty, Julia Berger, Lisa Cunningham, Brannan Davis,
Adam Eggleston, Emily Gallichotte, Carrie Gillis, Cecilia Granby, Sean Haines, Nicole Hanson, Mike
Herder, Torey Lenoch, Robert Long, Lindsay Mason, Amy Pezzani, Jose Luis Ramos, Carolyn J.
Rasley, and Isabella Zapata served as Rental Housing Task Force members for the duration of ten
meetings. The Task Force met ten times between March 30 and August 3, 2022. The Task Force
recommendations follow below; some recommendations were approved through consensus and
others through a majority vote.
Introduction
The Task Force acknowledges that housing policy is complicated and controversial. It is
inextricably linked to the availability and affordability of housing in the City of Fort Collins. Both
issues are of concern to the members of the Task Force and consequently, discussions often
touched on housing policy and related trade-offs. The Task Force recommends that the City of
Fort Collins consider housing policy options carefully before adding any new rental housing
program components that could place pressure on landlords to raise rents.
City Council is urged to consider the potential for unintended consequences of any policy
changes, and in particular, the impact of occupancy limits on the affordability of housing. The
City's goals related to sustainability, density, and energy efficiency are closely related to the
rental housing supply.
The Task Force noted that rental housing is disproportionately occupied by low-income families
and minority populations. It was noted that enforcement of occupancy limits could potentially
conflict with the City’s diversity and equity principles. Housing policy should avoid
unintentionally discriminating against any renters.
In addition, the Task Force hopes the City will consider how occupancy limits affect incentives for
developers and turnover of property ownership. Another consideration is how housing policy
accommodates life cycle changes. Finally, the Task Force suggests the City consider increasing
funding to all affordable housing providers to allow access to their programs for more tenants.
Recommendations to City Council
Rental Housing Program
By a vote of 12 in favor and 4 opposed, the Task Force approved a recommendation that the City
establish a mandatory rental housing registration program to create a database of all rental
housing units by owner. Registration should include a nominal one-time fee for each rental unit
and owners who fail to register their rental properties should be assessed a fine. To incentivize
participation, the City should establish a landlord/tenant portal to provide resources and
marketing connections. When a property is sold, the new owner should be required to register
the property in their own name. Registration information should include a designated local
Page 34
Item 1.
2 | P a g e Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force Draft Final Recommendations
responsible party listed for each rental unit. Contact information for the property owner should
not be provided publicly unless the designated responsible party has granted permission.
By consensus, the Task Force agreed that the City should not establish a rental housing licensing
program at this time.
Occupancy Regulations
The following recommendations were approved by a vote of 16 in favor and 1 opposed.
The Task Force recommends that the definition of family be removed from occupancy
regulations. Instead, the Task Force recommends that current occupancy code be replaced with
one that is based on the number of bedrooms to utilize the City’s existing home inventory more
fully.
The Task Force recommends considering the following as a new occupancy code is established:
Remove the U+2 policy from zoning law. Replace the policy with occupancy regulations
that are enforced through administrative processes;
Make it easier for property owners to obtain exemptions to occupancy regulations and
increase the regions of the City where extra-occupancy permits are allowed;
Require properties with extra occupancy designations to renew permits every five years;
Remove extra occupancy designations when property ownership changes and/or when a
property violates public nuisance ordinances.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
The Task Force reached consensus on recommendations related to the City’s Rental Housing
Inspection Program.
The Task Force recommends against proactive inspections for the rental housing program in
favor of an inspection program that is initiated only after a complaint has been filed. Ideally, any
tenant filing a complaint will attempt to resolve concerns with the landlord before filing a
complaint. Inspections should be restricted to specific complaints.
The Task Force recommends that the rental housing inspection program be administered using
clear and consistent standards for all types of units. Additionally, all inspectors should use the
same standards, processes, and protocols. It should be made clear what each inspection includes
- inside the walls, the exterior, or the property as a whole.
The Task Force recommends that all inspection program requirements be based on objective
standards for established health and safety requirements only and include no cosmetic
considerations. Inspections should take the age of unit into consideration. Inspection reports
would ideally include suggestions for how the property could be brought into compliance.
Finally, the Task Force recommends that the City only conduct full inspections for repeat
offenders and/or properties with complaints comprised of multiple infractions.
To support the program, the City of Fort Collins should provide education about the “Warrant of
Habitability” and the City’s inspection process.
Page 35
Item 1.
3 | P a g e Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force Draft Final Recommendations
Small Landlord Incentives
Consensus was reached that there is no need for a small landlord incentive program beyond
what is already available at this time.
Task Force Recommendations to City staff
Regardless of any changes in Housing Policy made by Fort Collins City Council, the Task Force
agreed to the following recommendations for actions to be taken by City staff in implementing
the City’s housing policies.
Education and Communication
The Task Force approved the following recommendations by consensus.
The Task Force recommends that the City of Fort Collins develop educational resources and
opportunities for all participants in the rental housing program, including both tenants and
landlords. The City should make all information about rental housing easier to find on the City
website. Educational materials should include an explanation of all necessary disclosures for
rental properties. In addition, the Task Force recommends the City consider establishment of a
landlord/tenant portal to provide resources for both landlords and renters.
To support renters, the City should consider developing a “top ten” issues list to provide as a
handout for renters and/or post on the City’s website. Additionally, educational materials
focused on renters should include information about the complaint process and the conflict
resolution process as well as legal resources that are available to renters. The City should provide
extra outreach for new landlords and for landlords or tenants with repeated violations.
The Task Force recommends that the City encourage landlords to have their leases reviewed by
an attorney on an annual basis. To support new and small landlords without their own attorneys,
the City should develop standardized (sample or model) leases for various types of properties
with the assistance of a qualified attorney and make those standard leases available to landlords.
Additionally, the standard leases should list all required steps in the move-out process (i.e., full
cleaning) along with the charges for failing to meet those requirements as well as how to include
documentation related to cleaning/damage deposits.
Conflict Resolution Process
The Task Force approved the following recommendations by consensus.
The Task Force recommends that the City review the existing conflict resolution process to offer
protections for both landlords and tenants. Mediation should be available for all parties and the
conflict resolution process should be adequately funded. It is further recommended that the
process include provisions for translation services for parties whose first language is not English.
Background
The Fort Collins City Council approved a Housing Strategic Plan in March 2021 with a vision that
“Everyone has healthy, stable housing that they can afford.” The Housing Strategic Plan
identified seven “Greatest Challenges” to achieving that vision, including #7 “Housing policies
Page 36
Item 1.
4 | P a g e Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force Draft Final Recommendations
have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who
rent."
The Housing Strategic Plan identified three strategies to address challenge #7:
Strategy 20. Explore the option of a mandated rental license/registry program for long-
term rentals and pair with best practice rental regulations.
Strategy 21. Explore revisions to occupancy limits and family definitions in order to
streamline processes and calibrate the policy to support stable, healthy, and affordable
housing Citywide.
Strategy 26. Develop Small Landlord Incentives.
In early 2022, the City convened a Task Force to support deeper exploration of the three
strategies and to work collaboratively to propose modifications to current housing policy for
consideration by City staff, the broader public, and City Council moving forward.
The City invited applications from the public to serve on the Task Force. A total of 76 people
applied. Members from the Housing Team and the Rental Housing Occupancy Committee
reviewed the applications. The top scores in categories landlord/property manager, renter, and
other were invited based on date availability for the most participation. City Attorney Office
approved the criteria utilized for selection and the information shared with the selection team.
Demographic information was collected on applicants but was not used in the selection process;
it was considered in aggregate for the entire application pool.
A panel of applicants was selected to represent a diversity of perspectives, including rental
housing tenants, property owners and property managers, and people who fit neither category.
Fort Collins residents Jack Armstrong, Jade Beaty, Julia Berger, Lisa Cunningham, Brannan Davis,
Adam Eggleston, Emily Gallichotte, Carrie Gillis, Cecilia Granby, Sean Haines, Nicole Hanson, Mike
Herder, Torey Lenoch, Robert Long, Lindsay Mason, Amy Pezzani, Jose Luis Ramos, Carolyn J.
Rasley, and Isabella Zapata served as Task Force members for the duration of ten meetings.1 City
staff members Marcy Yoder (Neighborhood Services Manager), Meaghan Overton (Housing
Manager) and Kory T. Katsimpalis (Customer Support, Community Development & Neighborhood
Services) supported the Task Force. Wendy Green Lowe (P2 Solutions) facilitated all meetings.
The Task Force met a total of ten times between March 30 and August 3, 2022 . The 19 Task
Force members attended an average of 8.5 meetings each. Each meeting had an average of 16
Task Force members present. Task Force members completed homework assignments between
meetings to ensure they were well informed
Early meetings were primarily informational as the Task Force members received presentations
from City staff as well as a panel including Paul Anderson, Lloyd Walker, David Roy, and Benton
Roesler to explore opinions about the City’s U+2 Policy. The following documents were provided
to members for their consideration:
1 One Task Force member resigned after the second meeting due to an unforeseen personal commitment that
prevented further participation.
Page 37
Item 1.
5 | P a g e Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force Draft Final Recommendations
City of Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan, Landlord/Tenant Handbook, and Rental
Housing Minimum Requirements
Results of research done for the City of Fort Collins looking at peer cities and their rental
regulations,
registration and occupancy regulations, household definitions, and occupancy restrictions
Materials on the City’s website related to occupancy:
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy
Corona Insights Rental Market Report 2019
Occupancy Study Presentation to City Council
Memo from Root Policy on occupancy data
Investor Ownership Analysis from Root Policy
Initial results of Community Questionnaire
Results from Landlord questionnaire conducted by Root Policy
Page 38
Item 1.
Myler
PPA 670
Opp
8 August 2022
Rental Housing Strategies Community Engagement
Executive Summary
Background
With nearly half of all housing in Fort Collins occupied by renters (Housing Strategic
Plan, 2021), the City must support both renter and homeowners living next door to each
other, even when their values may have tensions between them. Nowhere is this
discrepancy starker than on the issue of occupancy limits. The City of Fort Collins has
been enforcing rental occupancy since the 1960’s and the ordinance known as U+2
since 2007. The language of the ordinance is in Article 3, Division 8.16 of the City’s
Municipal Code (City of Fort Collin Municipal Code, 2006). The City’s website describes
the purpose of occupancy limits as “to help ensure health and safety of residents, and to
help protect the quality and character of neighborhoods” ("Occupancy”). Historically,
occupancy limits have been a space where residents are often polarized.
The City has also had multiple conversations about how to support both renters and
landlords through rental licensing and/or registration over more than 10 years. The goal
of these strategies would be to make it easier to both rent and landlord in the city, with
health and safety protections for tenants and support for small landlords. In October
Page 39
Item 1.
2021, the City Council reviewed an evaluation of rental strategies and directed staff to
conduct community engagement on the topic.
In March 2021, the City released its new Housing Strategic Plan, a document
which used expert analysis and public input to define the challenges in housing facing
Fort Collin and outline strategies to combat them and help housing become more
healthy, stable and affordable for all residents. The seventh challenge liste d in the Plan
is that “Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy
housing, especially for those who rent.” Seven strategies are listed under this challenge
as tools the City would like to use to help renters and others. Strategy 20 is related to a
rental licensing and/or registration program and Strategy 21 concerns revisions to the
current occupancy limits (Image 1).
Image 1: Strategies 20 and 21 (Housing Strategic Plan, 2021).
Community Engagement
In order to get direction and better understand the public’s tolerance of changes
to occupancy limits and rental regulations, Neighborhood Services staff began a public
Page 40
Item 1.
engagement campaign which included convening a resident taskforce and deploying a
community questionnaire.
Rental Housing Advisory Taskforce
In March, 2022, a Taskforce of 19 residents including housing tenants, property owners,
property managers and more was selected by staff and convened to discuss occupancy
and rental strategies. “The Rental Housing Task Force was convened to support deeper
exploration of the three strategies and work collaboratively to propose modifications to
current housing policy over the course of ten biweekly meetings. Modifications proposed
by the Task Force will be considered by City staff, the broader public, and City Council
moving forward” (Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force July 6, 2022 Agenda). The
taskforce met monthly for ten months, overseen by City staff and a third-party facilitator.
Participants worked to diverge and then reconverge on recommendations to present to
City Council.
Community Questionnaire
In order to better support the Taskforce and help them expand their viewpoint to the
broader Fort Collins population, staff also conducted a Rental Housing Strategies
Community Questionnaire. The results were presented to the Taskforce and will also be
included in the report to City Council along with the Taskforce’s recommendations. The
survey was deployed online and sent to staff contacts at Colorado State Unive rsity, The
Coloradoan, and The Collegian. Staff also used the Neighborhood Services pop up
lemonade stand to table at strategic neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were chosen
Page 41
Item 1.
because of their high quantity of both renters and homeowners living next door to one
another. They survey was also available in Spanish.
Demographics
Overall, the survey had 1,739 responses. 64.8% said they own their home and 30.8%
said they rented. They survey also asked respondents to self -identify as a renter,
homeowner, student, real estate agent, homeowners’ association member, property
manager, landlord or other, with the option to select multiple to capture the
intersectionality of identities at play. On average, renters reported lower household
income, age, and length of residency in Fort Collin than owners, although some of the
demographic questions such as household income also had larger numbers of
participants refuse to answer so the trends may be skewed. The survey captured
representative percentages of most racial identities except that only 4.3% of
respondents identified as Hispanic/Latinx while the larger population has a higher
percentage of people in this category.
Results
The results are presented through various cross-sections of the respondents. All the
questions will show how the entire pool or respondents answered, and then a
comparison of only renters and only homeowners. The occupancy questions were
further filtered by respondents who identified as homeowners but NOT rental housing
industry professionals such as landlords, property managers or real estate agents. The
rental occupancy questions were filtered for respondents who identified as an industry
professional. This shows an interesting impact of working in the rental housing industry.
Page 42
Item 1.
Occupancy All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners
Non Industry
Professionals
Agree or disagree to the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins occupancy limit
stay as they are? 31% 69% 22% 78% 36% 64% 45% 55%
Allow extra occupancy rentals in
more places around the city 62% 35% 72% 23% 50% 41% 43% 49%
Make the process to approve extra
occupancy easier 59% 33% 74% 21% 51% 39% 43% 46%
Adjust occupancy limit to match
number of bedrooms in a home 51% 50% 59% 33% 47% 44% 38% 51%
Regulate occupancy based on
household function, not family
relatedness 48% 41% 51% 31% 21% 47% 28% 52%
Regulate occupancy based on number
of parking spaces 22% 61% 12% 69% 27% 57% 24% 63%
Focus on regulating nuisances instead
of occupancy 56% 32% 61% 26% 54% 36% 44% 44%
Increase occupancy limits to more
than 3 unrelated residents 56% 37% 73% 23% 47% 45% 39% 52%
Eliminate occupancy limits
completely 36% 54% 52% 36% 27% 63% 24% 67%
Rental Strategies All
Respondents Renters
Homeowners Landlords
Agree or disagree with the following
statements: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins rental strategies
stay as they are? 40% 60% 25% 75% 46% 54% 53% 47%
Require that all landlords obtain a
license to rent property in the City 50% 40% 63% 21% 45% 48% 13% 78%
Require that all landlords register
their rental properties with the City 56% 34% 69% 17% 52% 40% 21% 69%
Proactively inspect rental properties
on a regular basis for health and
safety violations
47% 37% 62% 20% 42% 44% 15% 72%
Inspect rental properties only when a
complaint is filed 56% 26% 60% 22% 53% 28% 56% 23%
Analysis
The results show divides in opinions between subgroups of the population. Overall,
renters were more likely to say that they wanted to see changes in both occupancy and
rental strategies. Homeowners as a single group without filtration of profession were
Page 43
Item 1.
more moderate or split more evenly between those who disagreed with strategies and
those who agreed. It was helpful then to filter out subsections of the homeowners by
profession in the rental housing industry. Homeowners who were NOT industry
professionals were less likely to approve of changes to U+2. However, Homeowners
who WERE in the industry themselves were less likely to approve of rental strategies
which would regulate their business. An interesting pattern to point out is the dual
inspection questions. Many respondents disagreed with one type of inspection and
agreed with the other, but there were also many respondents who agreed with both
types, indicating that inspections in general are needed, but there were differing
opinions on whether to perform them preemptively or case-by-case.
Conclusions and Next Steps
However divided individual groups were in the questionnaire, the majority of
respondents said they would tolerate or even welcome changes in both U+2 and rental
strategies. There are some other clear directives from the survey, including that most
people thought restricting occupancy based on parking spaces is a bad idea, or that
offering increased landlord/tenant mediation services would be a good one. The survey
was presented to the Rental Housing Advisory Taskforce, and after discussion they
agreed to recommend rental registration over licensing and case-by-case inspections
over preemptive ones. For occupancy, the Taskforce recommended basing occupancy
limits on the number of bedrooms in a house, removing the definitions of family from the
ordinance language, as well as making the extra occupancy application process easier
by removing occupancy from the Land Use Code.
Page 44
Item 1.
The survey results and Taskforce recommendation will go to City Council on August 26,
2022 where staff will receive direction on which of the recommendations to implement.
The next steps will be deciding on the many small details of the new policies and
determining how they will be enforced and administrated. As the City progresses, it
should continue to engage the public in order to build rental strategies which
successfully address the greatest challenges in the Housing Strategic Plan.
Resources
City of Fort Collin Municipal Code, 3.8.16, 2006.
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART3GEDE
ST_DIV3.8SURE_3.8.16OCLIINNUPEAL
Fort Collins Rental Housing Task Force August 3, 2022 Agenda. (n.d.). City of Fort
Collins. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/august-3-agenda_website-
edits.pdf?1659717450
Housing Strategic Plan. (2021). City of Fort Collins.
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/20-22913-housing-strategic-plan-no-
appendices.pdf?1618855189
Occupancy. (n.d.). Fcgov.Com.
https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy
Page 45
Item 1.
1
Impacts of rental policy on social determinants of health: a framework approach
Libby Sparks
Colorado School of Public Health at Colorado State University
May 2022
Page 46
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 2
Index
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Key Messages ................................................................................................................................. 3
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Results ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 13
Findings ................................................................................................................................ 13
Implications for the City of Fort Collins ............................................................................... 14
Strengths and Limitations ......................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 19
References .................................................................................................................................... 20
Page 47
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 3
Key Messages
1. Studies showed a strong link between rental housing and health, with health outcomes
improving when intervention was offered.
2. A variety of policies can benefit a community’s renter health including warrants of
fitness, inspections, healthy housing programs, rental assistance.
3. A robust policy plan is the most comprehensive way to address the various social
determinants of health for renters.
4. Multiple cities worldwide are implementing rental licensing and registration programs.
Gray literature exists to provide insight on program structure and implementation
strategies.
Page 48
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 4
Abstract
Renters face unique challenges when it comes to health and housing. Policies can be
considered to protect the renter community, which makes up almost 50% of Fort Collins’
population. In fall 2021, the City of Fort Collins expressed desire to further understand the
impacts of a proposed rental licensing and registration policy, including health impacts. The
purpose of this project was to describe the relationship between rental policy and health
outcomes through a social determinants framework and make recommendations to the City of
Fort Collins based on the findings.
A scoping literature review was employed as a method to describe the relationship
between rental policy and health outcomes. Next, a framework analysis was conducted to
analyze the findings and create informed recommendations. The literature review produced 15
articles from PubMed and Web of Science databases that were then analyzed. Recommendations
were provided to the city in addition to the results of the literature review. It is recommended that
the City of Fort Collins adopt policy to address the three main social determinants of health
related to rental housing: built environment, affordability, and physical living conditions. A
rental licensing and registration program is a good candidate and if adopted, a thorough
evaluation should be completed and made available for future research. The findings from the
review and analysis, as well as the recommendations will be used by city staff in the policy
advocacy and review process with City Council.
Keywords: renter health, social determinants of health, rental policy, renter licensing and
registration
Page 49
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 5
Literature Review
Introduction
Well-established knowledge among public health experts is that housing is a longtime
predictor of health outcomes. There is a robust evidence base for this which covers everything
from mental to physical health. For example, substandard housing can lead to chronic disease
such as respiratory illness, communicable disease, or psychological distress as well as acute
health concerns like injury or heart attacks (Healthy People 2030, n.d.-a; Health Affairs, 2018).
Beyond physical housing conditions and the direct links to health outcomes, housing affects
various social determinants of health, especially in the realms of the built environment and
affordability. Many studies have looked at these causal pathways (Rolfe et al., 2020) and
established a knowledge base that addresses the multifaceted links. When considering the larger
picture of population health, one cannot ignore renter health, as renters make up over a third of
the households in the United States (DeSilver, 2021).
The City of Fort Collins was interested in exploring the links between rental policy and
health outcomes – understanding what links, if any, exist and if so, what they are. Almost 50% of
Fort Collins’ population rents their homes (City of Fort Collins, 2021). Therefore, if positive
links exist between rental policy and health outcomes, the benefits of implementing such policy
could be of high benefit to the City. This literature review conducted from January to April 2022
focused on rental policy as an intervention, analyzing the links between health outcomes of
renters and policy decisions.
The aim of this study is to review which national and worldwide policies are
implemented as an intervention of renter health and how these interventions affect health
outcomes. The goal is to determine if the City of Fort Collins should consider introducing a
Page 50
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 6
rental licensing and registration policy as a strategy to improve community health. Rental
registration is when landlords register properties with a governing authority, such as a city, for
tracking and data collection purposes. Rental licensing is implemented when landlords pay a
modest fee to obtain a license to operate their rental properties. Such a license is provided
oftentimes once an inspection is completed, which ensures properties have appropriate minimum
quality and pass habitability standards. Inspections are often recurrent upon a pre-determined
timeframe as a part of licensing. Rental policy is described throughout the review and is speaking
specifically to strategies that center the needs of people who rent and the renting experience,
such as renter health. However, it is important to note that landlords and other stakeholders must
also be considered in the creation of renter-centric policy.
Methods
Scoping Literature Review
The methods included in this study are a literature review and a framework
analysis. The scoping literature review format was designed to capture studies that linked rental
policy to health outcomes in all ages of the rental population. Two scientific databases were
searched, PubMed and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria consisted of children or adults in long-
term renting situations and captured various aspects of housing quality, social determinants of
health, significant health impacts (positive or negative), and intervention of rental regulatory
policy with preference given to licensing and registration. There were no geographic or
timeframe limitations to scaffold the search criteria, as any policy that impacted health would be
deemed relevant agnostic of when and where it took place.
Articles were excluded if they focused only on eviction assistance, due to this already
being a policy tool utilized by the City of Fort Collins. The other policy exclusion was rent
Page 51
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 7
control as a broad requirement to cap rental prices which is not legally permitted within the state
of Colorado. Articles that only established further linkage between health and housing were also
excluded from the scope of this review.
Once a strong base of articles was established through the search strategy provided,
articles were reviewed and narrowed first by a match of titles to the subject, followed by a
review of abstracts, and finally a thorough review of articles that remained. To narrow the
literature in the final stages, a spreadsheet was utilized to ensure the articles included and met
various aspects of the inclusion criteria, with the strongest articles touching each point of
inclusion.
Framework Analysis
The framework analysis was completed through a systematic approach once the literature
was identified through the process above. After articles were reviewed, they underwent a process
of theming and indexing which was used to name key takeaways, based on relevance to the
inclusion criteria and questions posed. This process was executed using Excel to organize the
articles and name content themes. Once indexed, the literature was grouped using a more built-
out matrix in Excel. This included creating columns that attached to each code given in the
theming process. The themes and groups were then interpreted for key takeaways to answer the
question asked by the City of Fort Collins.
After the literature was interpreted and summarized into key takeaways, Miro was used to
create a visual depiction of the social determinants of health that were addressed throughout the
review and analysis. The primary social determinants – built environment, affordability, and
physical living conditions – each had four inputs identified that describe how renter health
outcomes are uniquely affected. See Figure 2.
Page 52
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 8
Results
As described above, a thorough review process took place from initial search to final
selection of literature. Once search terms were input into both databases, there were 1858 initial
results. The first 100-150 articles in each database were scanned, and relevant titles were kept in
the review. Of these 200-300 articles, 60 were chosen for abstract review. Comparing the
abstracts to the inclusion criteria, 18 of the 60 articles were selected as most relevant. Once a
thorough review of each article was complete and content was compared to the main inclusion
criteria, 15 articles remained for final analysis. See Table 1 for more details.
Figure 1.
Methods & Results Flowchart.
The final literature reviewed included studies completed worldwide. Five were completed
internationally ranging from Europe to New Zealand and 10 studies were based only in the
United States, both nationally focused and targeting specific cities or states. Though no
limitations were set to narrow results to a particular timeframe, all articles were published
between 2011 and 2021. The data included in the articles were gathered between 1975 and 2020.
Page 53
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 9
The results included various study designs with a focus on qualitative cross-sectional
studies that leveraged surveys and interviews. There were also other literature reviews as well as
longitudinal data analyses utilizing external data sources, such as various sources of federal or
state data. The population covered renters throughout the lifespan, with most looking at ages
18+. One study looked at birth outcomes, multiple studies considered child health, and one study
focused on older adults. Health outcomes examined by the literature included various specific
mental and physical outcomes to general wellbeing. The most common specific outcomes
included asthma and respiratory illnesses, injury, and depression.
Page 54
Item 1.
10
Table 1.
Literature Review Results
Author
Year
Published Policies Studied/Proposed Results
Denary et al. 2021
Rental assistance to reduce rent burden to
no more than 30% of income
Participants receiving rental assistance had better mental health outcomes
than those not receiving rental assistance.
Samuel et al. 2020 Rental licensing
Impacts of licensing and registration programs on a city's rental market is
a complex issue that should be assessed on a city-by-city basis. There is an
ambiguous relationship between regulation (e.g., fines) and rent prices.
Some cities have a higher quality benefit than affordability effect.
Chisholm et a. 2020
Tenancy rights, inspections, random
audits, etc.
Lack of assertion of tenant rights due to various tenant-landlord power
structures.
Marquez et al. 2019 N/A
Renters who cannot access public assistance must choose between
affordability, quality, or face homelessness.
Horwitz-Willis 2016 Implied warranty of habitability
Tenants are unlikely to report landlords when having trouble getting
necessary repairs made. This is exacerbated in specific social groups.
Reddy et al. 2017 Healthy homes program
Healthy homes programs are effective tools for improving housing
quality.
Meltzer & Schwartz 2015 Policies to relieve cost burden. There is a meaningful relationship between cost burden and health.
Ferguson & Yates 2016 Federal healthy homes legislation
Federal healthy home policy is an effective tool to reduce exposure to
harmful housing conditions that lead to diminished health and wellbeing.
Desmond et al. 2015
Intervene with policies to avoid forced
relocation (free legal counsel for
evictions, increase affordable housing
supply).
Forced relocation is associated with both residential and community
instability and choosing low-quality dwellings.
Fenelon et al. 2021
HUD rental assistance (public subsidized
housing or housing choice vouchers) Children receiving rental assistance miss school less often due to illness.
Miranda et al. 2012 N/A
Poor birth outcomes are associated with five built environment indices,
with statistically significant associations with housing damage.
Page 55
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 11
Author
Year
Published Policies Studied/Proposed Results
Van Ommeren &
Koopman 2011 Rent-controlled public housing
Non-profit housing associations play an important role in offering high -
quality housing in rent-controlled markets, such as in the Netherlands.
Telfar-Barnard et al. 2017 Warrant of fitness (local) requirement Study overview only
Park & Seo 2019
Multi-factor policy approaches to benefit
housing tenure and conditions
Housing affordability and conditions are risk factors for poor mental
health outcomes (depression & anxiety).
Pledger et al. 2019
Supportive policies for renters and aging
in place
Older adults in New Zealand renting their homes were more likely to
report poorer health and economic outcomes.
Page 56
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 12
Figure 2.
Social Determinants and Renter Health Outcomes.
Page 57
Item 1.
13
Discussion
Findings
Social determinants of health include external environmental factors such as access to
education and healthcare, community context, built environment, among others (Healthy People
2030, n.d.-b). The literature highlighted a clear link between rental policy interventions and
positive renter health outcomes. Policy focused on benefitting renters impacts multiple social
determinants of health, including the built environment, cost and affordability, and physical
living conditions, as renters have unique challenges in each of these areas.
Throughout the literature, health was defined in both broad and specific terms. Rental
policy affected health outcomes from general wellbeing (Denary et al., 2021) to mental health
outcomes like depression (Meltzer & Schwartz, 2015; Park & Seo, 2019). It also had a heavy
focus on physical illness from asthma to cardiovascular disease, developmental and neurological
disorders in children, injury, diabetes, and chronic or autoimmune disease (Pledger et al., 2019).
Policies that were implemented in the studies analyzed had a positive impact on these health
outcomes, showing that renter-focused policy is an effective tool to impact health.
Renting conditions affect health outcomes when cost of housing is too high making it
unaffordable, as defined as spending more than 30% of income on rent (HealthAffairs, 2018).
This leads to stress, the de-prioritization of treatment seeking behavior (Meltzer & Schwartz,
2015), poor mental health outcomes (Park & Seo, 2019), and forced relocation which affects
education attainability in children and neighborhood stability (Desmond et al., 2015). As of the
2020 Housing Strategic Plan, 3 in 5 renters in Fort Collins were cost burdened (City of Fort
Collins, 2021).
Page 58
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 14
Another social determinant of health that affects renter health outcomes is that of the built
environment. The built environment encompasses outdoor air quality, transportation access,
green space, recreational opportunities, access to services and basic needs, and neighborhood
safety. When the built environment surrounding an individual is not well-constructed, it can have
devastating health impacts. These can include depression and poor mental health outcomes
(Denary et al., 2021), poor birth outcomes for infants (Miranda et al., 2012), and a variety of
physical ailments (Pledger et al., 2019).
Lastly, analyzed in this literature review was the importance of good physical housing
conditions among renters as a social determinant of health. When standards of habitability are
met such as good ventilation and air quality, an absence of injury-causing hazards such as broken
railings or warped floors, working essential appliances such as heat, and an absence of pests or
mold, health outcomes overall trend positive (Reddy et al., 2017). Ensuring a proactive approach
to keeping living conditions up to standards is a good strategy to improve and maintain good
population health in the community.
Implications for the City of Fort Collins
Table 2.
Recommendations
Recommendations
1. Implement rental policy to improve physical conditions of rental housing. A specific
policy that addresses living conditions of renters is a licensing & registration program.
2. Make the policy process collaborative.
a. Connect with cities in Colorado (Denver, Boulder) implementing renter licensing &
registration programs to hear expert advice, assess lessons learned, and gather
potential evaluation data.
b. Connect with residents and landlords to discuss desires, goals, concerns.
3. Create a robust evaluation plan to add to the body of evidence, should policy be
implemented.
4. Weigh the unintended consequences and consider ways to mitigate ahead of time.
Page 59
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 15
Recommendation 1. Renters are greatly impacted by multiple social determinants of
health. According to the literature, this primarily includes cost and affordability, built
environment, and physical housing conditions (See Figure 2 above). The City is currently
building upon its policies and programs to support renters in the realms of affordability and built
environment. Examples of this include expanding the MAX transit line to North College to
increase transit access, building a gentrification index to understand development trends,
supporting partners to increase affordable housing stock to increase access to housing, and
updating the Land Use Code. However, to look more fully at renter health, it also should have
policy to address current physical living conditions. Habitability standards as outlined by Fort
Collins include baseline standards for physical conditions such as proper heating, plumbing,
smoke detectors, and other features (City of Fort Collins, n.d.).
The literature included in this review reports that renters are unlikely to report their
landlords when there are unsafe or unhealthy living conditions due to power dynamics, fear of
retaliation coupled with a lack of legal protection, or language barriers (Chisholm et al., 2020;
Horowitz-Willis, 2016). Currently, there is no inspection program for long-term rentals, relying
on renters to report issues to their landlord or to the city (City of Fort Collins, n.d.). The data
makes clear that this is not a realistic solution.
The other main benefit, besides taking a proactive approach to improve physical living
conditions, is to gather data. At a minimum, it is recommended that the City enroll long-term
rentals in a registration program to collect data. This data can be useful in multiple avenues
including to inform future policy implementation and service expansion. To further the City’s
impact, licensing and inspections would confirm that housing conditions are habitable for the
renter community. Data from this expanded policy could also benefit the City’s future policy and
Page 60
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 16
service offerings. For example, if data show a cluster of ongoing failed inspections and poor
living conditions, the City can choose to improve green spaces or transit access to address
additional facets of the social determinants and take a multi-faceted approach to renter health as
immediate housing conditions are undergoing improvement.
Recommendation 2. It is important to make the policy process collaborative from
inception to implementation. The first way to do this is with peer cities in Colorado that have
implemented, or are in the process of implementing, renter licensing and registration programs.
Denver and Boulder are two recommended cities that have recently adopted licensing and
registration policies and are in various stages of implementation. Throughout this process, it is
important to gather lessons learned, evaluation data, and expert advice. While these policies are
relatively new and long-term outcome data will not be available, there may be initial outcomes
and other data the cities have gathered and are ready to share and discuss. Secondly, it is
recommended to engage thoroughly with the community of both renters and landlords in Fort
Collins. Hearing first-hand experiences and perspectives as well as concerns, ideas, and
considerations is a process that is beneficial and effective for all parties involved. A current
example of this in Fort Collins is the Rental Housing Advisory Group. Both collaborative
processes remove historical silos and avoid duplication or rework down the road.
Recommendation 3. When considering a data-driven policy, it is critical to prioritize the
evaluation process. It is recommended to create a robust evaluation plan to add to the body of
evidence, as there is a gap in the literature specifically geared toward licensing and registration
programs. The data gathered should be public and easily accessible for other municipalities,
especially of similar size, to review upon consideration of future policies and programs that
Page 61
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 17
reflect these goals. This data should incorporate health outcomes, effects on affordability, and
lessons learned throughout implementation.
Recommendation 4. As is standard for any policy implementation plan, it is critical to
consider the unintended consequences a new policy may have on the community. In this case,
examples of unintended consequences could be the creation or reinforcement of off-market
rentals passing along program costs to renters, or the displacement of individuals and families.
Each of these consequences could appear in a unique context and are often cited as reasons not to
implement this policy. Ultimately, there will be consequences in either direction when
considering new policy. Consequences of not implementing renter policy aimed at improving
living conditions could be continued poor renter health outcomes and costs or a lack of data to
understand the rental landscape within the City. These outcomes must be weighed against each
other and mitigated for in advance.
A “shadow rental market” refers to the unofficial, unregulated market in which landlords
advertise and rent properties outside of the legal means. This can appear when a market is
heavily regulated without incentive, among other circumstances. Samuel et al. (2021) discusses
this as a common reason that cities choose not to adopt licensing and registration policy, but
ultimately may not be as large a concern, dependent upon factors within the city’s current
market.
The concern over passing costs of the program to renters must be considered as well.
Ideally, the monetary cost of taking part in the program should be minimal. Existing programs
are minimal in licensing cost. Therefore, the cost that landlords would be passing along to renters
is more likely to be that of maintenance and repairs. To mitigate this cost in advance, the City
could choose to pair a pilot landlord incentive program that provides repair funds to eligible
Page 62
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 18
landlords. It is also important to understand the effects on small landlords, ensuring that this
policy does not push them out of the property management market. Again, small landlord
incentives could be a mitigation strategy, as well as including many stakeholders in the policy
creation process.
A third, but not final, example of an unintended consequence is that of the potential
displacement of tenants. Should a routine inspection uncover unlivable conditions that require in-
depth repairs that take time, this could lead to displacement of individuals or families.
Alternatively, inspections could show that an impermissible number of people are living under
the same roof, causing displacement. City staff should consider additional renter protections to
potentially pair with the licensing and registration policy to mitigate for this situation ahead of
time.
Strengths and Limitations
A strength of this literature review is that it searched across journals and scientific
disciplines. It cast a wide net over policy implications and health outcomes. It also was not
limiting in time or geographic factors and was inclusive of various innovative policies across the
world. The health outcomes discussed throughout the literature were robust and the articles
reviewed many aspects of health associated to various social determinants.
A limitation of this review is that it only focused on two databases in total, leaving out
possible helpful research in fields such as law, urban planning, and other housing-related
disciplines that were not included in the scientific research evaluated. Another limitation is that
the evidence base specific to the policy in question from the City of Fort Collins is not robust,
making it difficult to find literature that applied directly to the situation.
Page 63
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 19
Conclusion
The literature review accomplished the goal in question and analyzed the clear link
between renter policy and renter health outcomes. While there is more work to be done specific
to licensing and registration programs, municipalities should have a robust portfolio of renter
policy to benefit population health. This is particularly important in communities with a high
volume of renters, such as Fort Collins, where renter health is inextricably linked to population
health. City staff and leadership should consider designing and implementing strategic rental
policies across multiple social determinants, to boost community health and protect the rights of
renters in the city.
Page 64
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 20
References
Bachelder, A. E., Stewart, M. K., Felix, H. C., & Sealy, N. (2016). Health complaints associated
with poor rental housing conditions in Arkansas: The only state without a landlord’s
implied warranty of habitability. Frontiers in Public Health, 4.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00263
Chisholm, E., Howden-Chapman, P., & Fougere, G. (2020). Tenants’ responses to substandard
housing: Hidden and invisible power and the failure of rental housing regulation.
Housing, Theory and Society, 37(2), 139–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2018.1538019
City of Fort Collins. (n.d.). Fort Collins rental housing standards.
https://www.fcgov.com/building/pdf/rental-brochure.pdf?1649429879
City of Fort Collins. (2021). Housing strategic plan.
https://www.fcgov.com/housing/files/housing-strategic-plan-2nd-reading-adoption-
draft.pdf?1618855189
Denary, W., Fenelon, A., Schlesinger, P., Purtle, J., Blankenship, K. M., & Keene, D. E. (2021).
Does rental assistance improve mental health? Insights from a longitudinal cohort study.
Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114100
DeSilver, D. (2021, August 3). As national eviction ban expires, a look at who rents and who
owns in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2021/08/02/as-national-eviction-ban-expires-a-look-at-who-rents-and-who-owns-in-
the-u-s/
Page 65
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 21
Desmond, M., Gershenson, C., & Kiviat, B. (2015). Forced relocation and residential instability
among urban renters. Social Service Review, 89(2), 227–262.
https://doi.org/10.1086/681091
Fenelon, A., Boudreaux, M., Slopen, N., & Newman, S. J. (2021). The benefits of rental
assistance for children’s health and school attendance in the United States. Demography,
58(4), 1171–1195. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9305166
Ferguson, A. C., & Yates, C. (2016). Federal Enactment of healthy homes legislation in the
United States to improve public health. Frontiers in Public Health, 4.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00048
HealthAffairs. (2018). Housing and health: An overview of the literature. Project HOPE.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hpb20180313.396577
Healthy People 2030. (n.d.-a). Quality of housing. https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-
areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/quality-housing
Healthy People 2030. (n.d.-b). Social determinants of health.
https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
Marquez, E., Dodge Francis, C., & Gerstenberger, S. (2019). Where I live: A qualitative analysis
of renters living in poor housing. Health & Place, 58, 102143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.05.021
Meltzer, R., & Schwartz, A. (2016). Housing affordability and health: Evidence from New York
City. Housing Policy Debate, 26(1), 80–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1020321
Miranda, M. L., Messer, L. C., & Kroeger, G. L. (2012). Associations between the quality of the
residential built environment and pregnancy outcomes among women in North Carolina.
Page 66
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 22
Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(3), 471–477.
https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103578
Park, G., & Seo, B. K. (2020). Revisiting the relationship among housing tenure, affordability
and mental health: Do dwelling conditions matter? Health & Social Care in the
Community, 28(6), 2225–2232. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13035
Pledger, M., McDonald, J., Dunn, P., Cumming, J., & Saville‐Smith, K. (2019). The health of
older New Zealanders in relation to housing tenure: Analysis of pooled data from three
consecutive, annual New Zealand Health Surveys. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Public Health, 43(2), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12875
Reddy, A. L., Gomez, M., & Dixon, S. L. (2017). The New York state healthy neighborhoods
program: Findings from an evaluation of a large-scale, multisite, state-funded healthy
homes program. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 23(2), 210–218.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000529
Rolfe, S., Garnham, L., Godwin, J., Anderson, I., Seaman, P., & Donaldson, C. (2020). Housing
as a social determinant of health and wellbeing: Developing an empirically-informed
realist theoretical framework. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1138.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09224-0
Samuel, A., Schwartz, J., & Tan, K. (2021). Licensing and the informal sector in rental housing
markets: Theory and evidence. Contemporary Economic Policy, 39(2), 325–347.
https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12501
Telfar-Barnard, L., Bennett, J., Howden-Chapman, P., Jacobs, D., Ormandy, D., Cutler-Welsh,
M., Preval, N., Baker, M., & Keall, M. (2017). Measuring the effect of housing quality
interventions: The case of the New Zealand “rental warrant of fitness.” International
Page 67
Item 1.
HEALTH IMPACTS OF RENTAL POLICY 23
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1352.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111352
Van Ommeren, J., & Koopman, M. (2011). Public housing and the value of apartment quality to
households. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(3), 207–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.02.001
Page 68
Item 1.
Council Work Session: Housing Strategic Plan Implementation
08.23.2022
Rental Housing Strategies
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Manager
Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager Page 69
Item 1.
2Questions for Council
1.Which of the potential next steps do Councilmembers support for
rental licensing/registration?
2.Which of the potential next steps do Councilmembers support for
occupancy ordinance revisions?
Page 70
Item 1.
Strategic Alignment 3
Big Move 7: Healthy, Affordable
Housing
•HAH2: Explore revisions to the
City’s occupancy ordinance
•HAH6: Explore mandated rental
license/rental registry
•Strategy 20 -Explore the option
of a mandated rental license/
registry program and pair with
best practice rental regulations.
•Strategy 21 -Explore revisions
to occupancy limits and family
definitions in order to streamline
processes and calibrate the
policy to support stable, healthy,
and affordable housing citywide.
•Strategy 26 –Develop small
landlord incentives.
•LIV 5: Create more
opportunities for housing
choices
•LIV 6: Improve access to
housing …regardless of their
race, ethnicity, income, age,
ability, or background
•LIV 6.7: Encourage the private
development of affordable
housing by offering
incentives…for the construction
and rehabilitation of long-term
affordable housing units Page 71
Item 1.
•Greatest Challenge #7: Housing policies have
not consistently addressed housing stability
and healthy housing, especially for people
who rent
•Community engagement: a desire to
proactively ensure healthy, safe units and
maintain neighborhood quality of life
•Fear of retaliation or loss of housing if renters
report substandard or unsafe units
•Concerns about discrimination
•Lack of choices and affordable options
attributed to current occupancy restrictions
•Many opinions about the best approach to
“right-sizing” the City’s occupancy ordinance
4Housing Strategic Plan
Why are we looking at rental licensing, occupancy, and small landlord incentives?
Key
Outcomes
Increase
Housing
Supply &
Affordability
(12)
Increase
Housing
Diversity /
Choice (12)
Increase
Stability /
Renter
Protections
(11)
Improve
housing
equity (11)
Preserve
Existing
Affordable
Housing (9)
Increase
Accessibility
(2)
Page 72
Item 1.
•Key Policy Decisions
•1963 –Adoption of Occupancy Ordinance (U+2)
•2005 –Decriminalization of occupancy violations, beginning of enforcement
•2016 –Decision to pursue options outside of rental licensing
•Research
•Corona Insights Economic and Impact Studies completed in 2005, 2009, 2019
•Recent Council Direction
•December 2020: Ad Hoc Housing Committee; direction for further work on rental
licensing/registration, occupancy, and landlord incentives
•October 2021: Full Council Work Session; support for community engagement to
explore potential design of rental licensing/registration, revisions to occupancy, and
small landlord incentives
5Background
Previous Council Direction and Research
Page 73
Item 1.
Community Engagement 6
Group Engagement Activities Conducted
Renters, neighborhood
groups, HOAs
Housing Strategic Plan engagement, 2020-2021
Community Questionnaire, Aug. 2022
Pop-up Engagement, Aug. 2022
Rental Housing Taskforce
Landlords, realtors,
property managers
Presentation to Northern CO Rental Housing Association, Feb. 2022
Presentation to Board of Realtors, Feb. 2022
Rental Industry Questionnaire, Feb./March 2022
Rental Housing Taskforce
City Departments Convening of Rental Housing and Occupancy Core Team
Conversations with IT, Building Services, Communications and
Public Involvement Office, City Attorney’s Office
Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee discussion, Dec. 2020
Rental Strategies Work Session, Oct. 2021
Page 74
Item 1.
Rental Housing Task Force
Community task force was formed to support deeper
exploration of strategies related to rental housing and
occupancy and bring recommendations forward for
staff and Council consideration.
•76 applicants for 20 spots
•Selection process sought to include perspectives of
landlords, property managers, renters, and others
•Third-party neutral facilitator
•10 meetings, March-August 2022
7
Page 75
Item 1.
Rental Housing Task Force 8
Renter
•Currently renting
•Single parent
•Experienced homelessness
•Affordable housing tenant
•Seeking homeownership
•Parent of renters
•Former CSU student
Industry representative
•Realtor
•Large landlord
•Small landlord
•Real estate appraiser
•Contractor
•Property manager
•Former housing authority
employee
Other
•Non-profit executive
•Immigrant to US
•HOA Board representative
•Fifth generation Fort Collins
resident
•CSU off-campus life
Affiliations Shared
Note: Task Force members shared multiple perspectives and affiliations .
Page 76
Item 1.
Estimated # of
homes*
Estimated %of all
housing
Total (citywide)87,863 100%
Owned Units 49,775 57%
Rental Units 38,088 43%
Single-Household, detached rentals 14,419 16%
(38% of all rentals)
Multi-household, mixed-use or
manufactured housing rentals 23,669 27%
(62% of all rentals)
9Rental Licensing/Registration
Existing Conditions
*Note: This data is the best available information at present but should be interpreted as an estimate
because of potential data gaps or lags in reporting property information.
•Over 40% of all housing in Fort Collins is renter-occupied
Page 77
Item 1.
10Rental Licensing/Registration
Existing Conditions
•About 90% of landlords/property owners who own single-unit, townhome, or
duplex/triplex properties own only 1 property in addition to their residence.
Fewer than 1% own more than 10 properties.
Page 78
Item 1.
11Rental Licensing/Registration
Community Engagement Findings
Rental Strategies All
Respondents Renters Homeowners Landlords
Agree or disagree with the following
statements:Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins rental strategies stay
as they are?40%60%25%75%46%54%53%47%
Require that all landlords obtain a
license to rent property in the City 50%40%63%21%45%48%13%78%
Require that all landlords register their
rental properties with the City 56%34%69%17%52%40%21%69%
Proactively inspect rental properties on a
regular basis for health and safety
violations
47%37%62%20%42%44%15%72%
Inspect rental properties only when a
complaint is filed 56%26%60%22%53%28%56%23%
Page 79
Item 1.
Potential costs were identified as a drawback to a licensing and inspection program, and most
rental landlords/managers indicated they would pass costs on to tenants.
Respondents indicated concern that the City was not clearly defining the problem and that
rental registration/licensing was not an effective way to address the minority of units that might
be substandard.
Respondents preferred that inspections occur only if a complaint is received and that
inspections focus narrowly on health and safety issues.
Participants expressed a lack of trust with the City of Fort Collins. Specific concerns included
that the City would move forward without further consideration from stakeholders, and that City
lacked the ability and capacity to scale-up a pilot program for all rentals
12Rental Licensing/registration
Rental Industry Questionnaire
Page 80
Item 1.
Rental Housing Taskforce Recommendations:
Implement a mandatory rental registration program
•Continue complaint-based rental inspections, focus on habitability
•No proactive inspection of units
•Nominal fee
Best Practices from peer cities research (40+ cities, 22 in Colorado):
Implement a mandatory rental licensing program that includes:
•Proactive inspection of units
•A fee structure designed to cover program costs
•Training for staff, landlords, and tenants
•Involve landlords and tenants in program design and implementation
13Rental Licensing/Registration
Recommendations and Best Practices
Page 81
Item 1.
Rental Licensing/Registration 14
Potential Next Steps
No change to rental regulations
Establish a mandatory rental registration program (*)
Continue complaint-based rental inspections with a focus on habitability
(health and safety) (*)
Establish a mandatory rental licensing program
Require periodic proactive inspection of rental units, particularly single-unit,
duplex, triplex, townhome, and units 10+ years old –staff recommendation
Require inspections for extra occupancy rentals –staff recommendation
Page 82
Item 1.
•Significant demographic shifts since 2005 in households violating U+2:
•Price escalation (78% rent increase between 2005-2018) and low rental
vacancy rates (under 5%) are likely resulting in “doubling up” to afford housing
for a wide range of household configurations
15Occupancy Ordinance Revisions
Existing Conditions
2005 2018
Total (est) households in violation 1,238 1,234
Percentage college students 71%47%
Percentage children under 18 Negligible 13%
Page 83
Item 1.
16Occupancy Ordinance Revisions
Community Engagement Findings
Occupancy All Respondents Renters Homeowners Non Industry
homeowners
Agree or disagree with the following statements:Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Should Fort Collins occupancy limit stay as they
are?31%69%22%78%36%64%45%55%
Allow extra occupancy rentals in more places
around the city 62%35%72%23%50%41%43%49%
Make the process to approve extra occupancy
easier 59%33%74%21%51%39%43%46%
Adjust occupancy limit to match number of
bedrooms in a home 51%50%59%33%47%44%38%51%
Regulate occupancy based on household
function, not family relatedness 48%41%51%31%21%47%28%52%
Regulate occupancy based on number of parking
spaces 22%61%12%69%27%57%24%63%
Focus on regulating nuisances instead of
occupancy 56%32%61%26%54%36%44%44%
Increase occupancy limits to more than 3
unrelated residents 56%37%73%23%47%45%39%52%
Eliminate occupancy limits completely 36%54%52%36%27%63%24%67%
Page 84
Item 1.
Rental Housing Taskforce Recommendations:
Revise the current occupancy ordinance
•Regulate based on number of bedrooms rather than the number of unrelated adults;
OR
•Allow extra occupancy rentals citywide
•Evaluate extra occupancy rental applications through an administrative permit process,
not a land use approval
Best Practices from peer cities research (40+ cities, 22 in Colorado):
Revise the current occupancy ordinance -multiple approaches
•Regulate based on household functionality rather than familial relatedness.
•Increase the number of unrelated adults permitted.
•Regulate based on number of bedrooms or square footage
17Occupancy Ordinance Revisions
Recommendations and Best Practices
Page 85
Item 1.
Occupancy Ordinance Revisions 18
Potential Next Steps
•No change to occupancy ordinance
•Change occupancy code to align with number of bedrooms rather than
the number of unrelated adults (*) OR
•Allow extra occupancy rentals citywide (*) and evaluate extra occupancy
rental applications through an administrative permit process, not a land
use approval (*)
•Increase the number of unrelated adults permitted
•Regulate based on household functionality rather than familial relatedness
Page 86
Item 1.
Potential Next Steps: Summary 19
Rental Registration/Licensing Occupancy
No change to rental regulations
Establish a mandatory rental registration
program (*)
Continue complaint-based rental inspections
with a focus on habitability (health and
safety) (*)
Establish a mandatory rental licensing program
Require periodic proactive inspection of rental
units, particularly single-unit, duplex, triplex,
townhome, and units 10+ years old –staff
recommendation
Require inspections for extra occupancy rentals –
staff recommendation
No change to occupancy ordinance
Change occupancy code to align with number
of bedrooms rather than the number of
unrelated adults (*) OR
Allow extra occupancy rentals citywide (*) and
evaluate extra occupancy rental applications
through an administrative permit process, not a
land use approval (*)
Increase the number of unrelated adults permitted
Regulate based on household functionality rather
than familial relatedness
Page 87
Item 1.
20Questions for Council
1.Which of the potential next steps do Councilmembers support for
rental licensing/registration?
2.Which of the potential next steps do Councilmembers support for
occupancy ordinance revisions?
Page 88
Item 1.
21
Page 89
Item 1.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3
August 23, 2022
WORK SESSION
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Matt Fater, Director, Civil Engineering
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Potential Stormwater Property Partnership on North Mason.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek Council feedback related to a potential land partnership between the
stormwater utility and Bohemian Foundation.
The stormwater utility and Bohemian Foundation own adjacent parcels of land along North Mason Street.
The stormwater utility intends to construct a stormwater detention pond on its parcel, while Bohemian
Foundation intends to partner with Fort Collins Rescue Mission for a 24/7 shelter for people experiencing
homelessness. The site evaluation process for the 24/7 shelter identified potential opportunities to partner
with the stormwater property such that the two properties are optimized for a greater community benefit.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support a possible land partnership between the stormwater utility and Bohemian
Foundation for the construction of the Hickory stormwater detention pond?
2. If so, does Council support staff’s recommendation to achieve this partnership through a land
exchange?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
North Mason Stormwater Project
The North Mason area west of North College Avenue was not originally developed with adequate
stormwater infrastructure because it was developed prior to stormwater criteria. As a result, stormwater
does not have dedicated conveyance to the Poudre River, causing flood hazards and drainage nuisances.
In addition to existing stormwater issues, the area lacks sufficient stormwater service to support new and
redevelopment in the area.
The stormwater utility identified the North Mason Stormwater Project to improve stormwater conveyance
and treatment for both existing and future development. The project, as proposed, consists of a water
Page 90
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3
quality treatment pond near the outlet to the Poudre River, 2,350 feet of new storm sewer along the future
North Mason right of way, and the Hickory Stormwater Detention Pond (Hickory Pond). Figure 1 shows
the extent of the project. The North College Urban Renewal Authority (URA) identified the project as a top
priority for investment in the area. The costs of the project are planned to be shared between the URA, the
stormwater capital fund and future development. The project is at a preliminary design level and is pending
right of way acquisition and coordination near the Poudre River.
Hickory Pond is the northern-most component of the project. Stormwater draining from existing properties
to the north and west will be stored in the detention pond and released to the proposed storm sewer in
future North Mason Street. The stormwater utility purchased the 7.5-acre parcel shown in Figure 2 in 2010
for this future capital project. As with many detention pond projects, the site will be designed to create an
amenity for the neighborhood to achieve benefits beyond stormwater functions such as: trails, wildlife
habitat and non-programmed recreation. The surrounding neighborhoods would be engaged during the
design process to achieve a project that is beneficial to and compatible with the area. This multi-beneficial
approach would be a project goal regardless of a land partnership.
Bohemian Foundation Adjacent Property
The Fort Collins Rescue Mission selected a location owned by Bohemian Foundation to build a new 24/7
shelter for people experiencing homelessness. This property is adjacent to the stormwater-owned property.
The parcel is shown on Figure 2.
Site analysis confirmed that the shelter can be built on Bohemian Foundation property without a City
partnership. Figure 3 shows the orientation of the proposed development and the Hickory Pond under this
scenario. However, a land partnership would benefit both projects, as well as additional potential
commercial and housing uses by optimizing the configuration of both parcels for their proposed uses. The
Fort Collins Rescue Mission plans to begin the design of the 24/7 shelter in September. A general indication
from Council on support for a land partnership is important so the 24/7 shelter project can proceed with
design.
Potential Land Partnership
During the site evaluation for the 24/7 shelter, City staff recognized the potential for a land partnership
between the stormwater utility and Bohemian Foundation. An initial evaluation of the two properties
indicates aligning the 24/7 shelter to the east and Hickory Pond to the west, would create potential for a
greater community benefit. Figure 4 identifies the general orientation of the two projects if a land
partnership proceeded.
Hickory Pond Opportunities
More efficient capture of stormwater draining from the north
Potential to integrate existing tree grove into detention pond
24/7 Shelter Opportunities
More frontage along North Mason
Buffer provided between the property and existing neighborhood to the west
Protection of the existing tree grove
Fewer access roads needed
Improved fire access
Area for up to an additional 10,000 sq. ft. of building space
Page 91
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3
Approach to Partnership
The reconfiguration of the proposed uses on the two properties could be achieved through a variety of
approaches. Staff’s key goals for the partnership include:
Equitable for both parties
Meets existing and future needs
Provides long-term use
Mutual benefits
The land partnership could be achieved either by exchanging some combination of interests in property
(fee title, easements, or leasing) or creating a development partnership.
If Council supports a land partnership with Bohemian Foundation, then staff’s recommendation is to work
with Bohemian Foundation on a land exchange where the City would exchange a portion of the stormwater
parcel for a portion of Bohemian property. This approach allows for the boundaries of the two parcels to
be redefined so that each property can function independently of the other into the future and defines a
way to determine an equitable transaction. Staff believes this approach is the most straightforward way to
achieve a greater community benefit on both properties.
NEXT STEPS
If Council supports moving forward with a land exchange, then staff will begin negotiating an agreement
with Bohemian Foundation. An estimated timeline is show below:
Milestones Completed by
Site Investigations October 1, 2022
Legal Descriptions November 1, 2022
Negotiate Purchase and Sale Agreements November 1, 2022
Council Action on Agreements January 1, 2023
Closing February 1, 2023
Bohemian Foundation and the Fort Collins Rescue Mission plan to begin the site design process in
September with a goal of submitting to the City’s development review process by second quarter of 2023.
The 24/7 shelter project could begin the development review process prior to the finalizing the agreement
for the land exchange. However, the closing of the land exchange would need to be finalized before
recording of the plat for the proposed development.
In addition, whether to construct Hickory Pond and the 24/7 shelter jointly will need to be decided in the
future. While there could be some advantages to a construction partnership, the land exchange and the
construction of both projects could move forward independently.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 – North Mason Stormwater Project
Figure 2 – Parcel Map
Figure 3 – Hickory Pond without Partnership
Figure 4 – Hickory Pond with Partnership
Page 92
Item 2.
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Property
Bohemian
property
N COLLEGE AVEHICKORY ST
HEMLOCK STBIRCH
W
O
O
D
L
A
W
N
D
R
OAK
ASPEN
N MASON STCONIFER ST
E SUNIGA RDW SUNIGA RD
ALPINE ST
N Mason
Stormwater Project
®
Figure 1
WQ Pond
Legend
Storm Drainage Pipe
Water Quality Detention Pond
Hickory Pond
Page 93
Item 2.
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Property
Bohemian Property
HICKORY ST N COLLEGE AVEBIRCH
CONIFER ST
Parcel Ownership
Figure 2
®
Page 94
Item 2.
City of Fort Collins Stormwater
Property
Bohemian property
HICKORY ST N COLLEGE AVEBIRCH
CONIFER ST
ASPEN
Hickory Pond without
Land Partnership
®
Figure 3
Legend
24/7 Shelter and Other Uses
Hickory Pond Page 95
Item 2.
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Property
Bohemian Property
HICKORY ST N COLLEGE AVEBIRCH
CONIFER ST
ASPEN
Hickory Pond with
Land Partnership
®
Legend
24/7 Shelter and Other Uses
Hickory Pond Page 96
Item 2.
Potential Land
Partnership Between the
Stormwater Utility and
Bohemian Foundation
08-23-2022
Matt Fater
Director of Engineering
Fort Collins Utilities
Page 97
Item 2.
2Council Questions
1.Does Council support a possible land partnership between the stormwater utility and the
Bohemian Foundation for the construction of the Hickory stormwater detention pond?
2.If so,does Council support staff’s recommendation to achieve this partnership through a land
exchange?
Page 98
Item 2.
3Site Map
Page 99
Item 2.
4North Mason Stormwater Project
Page 100
Item 2.
5Current Approach
Page 101
Item 2.
6Partnership Opportunities
Page 102
Item 2.
7Partnership Opportunities
Hickory Pond Opportunities
•More efficient capture of stormwater from the north
•Potential to integrate existing tree grove into the detention pond
24/7 Shelter Opportunities
•More frontage along North Mason
•Buffer provided between the property and existing neighborhood
•Protection of existing tree grove
•Fewer access roads needed
•Improved fire access
•Area for up to an additional 10,000 sq. ft. of building space
Page 103
Item 2.
8Next Steps
Milestones Completed by
Site Investigations October 1, 2022
Legal Descriptions November 1, 2022
Negotiate Purchase and Sale Agreements November 1, 2022
Council Action on Agreements January 1, 2023
Closing February 1, 2023
Page 104
Item 2.
9Council Questions
•Does Council support a possible land partnership between the stormwater utility and the
Bohemian Foundation for the construction of the Hickory stormwater detention pond?
•If so, does Council support staff’s recommendation to achieve this partnership through a land
exchange?
Page 105
Item 2.
THANK YOU!
Page 106
Item 2.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 5
August 23, 2022
WORK SESSION AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
City Council
STAFF
Will Lindsey, City Planner
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Wireless Telecommunications Code Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session item is to obtain feedback and direction from Council on potential
changes to the Land Use Code to ensure they align with the objectives of the recently adopted Wireless
Telecommunication Master Plan and address feedback received from Council at the January 25 work
session. This information will help guide the development of the draft Land Use Code updates for wireless
telecommunication projects that are anticipated to come to Council for adoption in Fall 2022.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should wireless facilities be permitted on non-residential properties in residential zone districts?
2. Should certain City-owned properties be available for the siting of wireless telecommunication
facilities?
3. Does Council support staff’s recommendation for context-based standards to regulate facility design?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2018, Council appropriated $50,000 as part of the 2019-2020 biennial budget to fund the completion of
the City’s first Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan. Cityscape Consultants, Inc., an independent
wireless consultant that specifically works with local government on wireless policy, was hired to assist
staff with analysis and creation of the Plan. Additionally, an Advisory Committee consisting of City staff
and community members met periodically throughout the process to review planning materials and provide
feedback on various stages of the Plan. The City began the Plan process in Spring 2020. The Plan was
conducted in three phases:
Phase I - Research and Assessment of Existing Conditions
To initiate the Wireless Master Plan and explore key issues, the first phase of the planning process took
into consideration previous neighborhood concerns and asked participants to confirm feedback received
through several contentious neighborhood meetings. All wireless facilities were researched, cataloged,
and assessed by visiting each site.
Page 107
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 5
Phase II - Choices and Strategies
The second planning phase documented existing wireless conditions and developed simulated coverage
and capacity maps. The resulting analysis identified gaps that are assumed to be filled one day by wireless
infrastructure. With this information, City staff developed a targeted outreach strategy to engage the public
from areas that might expect future development. Staff conducted facilitated conversations, surveys and
one-on-one meetings with stakeholders to discuss the trade-offs that may be faced when developing
wireless sites in areas of the community that may lack strong wireless coverage and capacity.
Phase Ill - Plan Development
During the development of the Plan, content was developed by Cityscape along with staff and curated
through review by a technical advisory committee, City Boards and Commissions, community members
and other wireless stakeholders.
The Plan identifies several opportunities and challenges the City will face as the community grows, wireless
technology progresses, and wireless subscribers consume more data. This Plan will serve as the basis for
the City to implement targeted Land Use Code amendments that address the design, location, and an
updated development process for constructing wireless telecommunication facilities. The vision for the
future is based on feedback received from various community members, technical experts, boards and
commissions and summarized in the following vision statements:
Provide context-sensitive concealment elements that are compatible with surrounding natural and
architectural environments.
Use limited public lands, such as parks, civic buildings and golf courses in an effort to allow greater
community control over placement and design, protect the community from visual impacts and improve
coverage in hard-to-reach residential areas.
Promote greater transparency from the wireless industry by requiring applicants to demonstrate radio
frequency emission compliance with any new or existing wireless development.
Maintain cohesive small wireless facility design standards which require undergrounding of equipment
to protect the community's visual quality.
Continually monitor, update, and publish the City's database of existing wireless communication
facilities as a tool to promote collocation.
PREVIOUS BOARD/COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTIONS
The progression of the Plan was presented at the March 26, May 14, and June 11, 2021 Planning & Zoning
Commission work sessions. Additionally, the Plan progress and draft strategies were presented to the Golf
Board on April 14, and the Parks & Recreation Board on April 28 and May 26, both of which expressed
support for the Plan.
On September 16, 2021, the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that Council
adopt the Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan. The Plan was unanimously recommended for
adoption by Council upon First Reading at the October 5, 2021 Regular meeting and officially adopted
upon Second Reading at the October 19, 2021 Regular meeting.
Staff presented on the key strategies of the Plan at the January 25 Council work session to seek feedback
on which of the strategies Council wanted to prioritize. Direction given at that work session was that staff
should explore options to revise/refine the existing design standards for wireless facilities as that
component of the Code update had implications for other policy items such as the possibility of permitting
facilities in residential zone districts or on City-owned properties. Since the work session earlier this year,
staff has worked with outside counsel to review the Land Use Code standards for compliance with FCC
regulations as well as to explore potential changes that will align with Council’s direction and the policies
of the Wireless Telecommunication Master Plan adopted in September 2021.
Page 108
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 5
KEY QUESTIONS
Below are the questions staff for which staff is seeking Council input. Each section includes the related
findings from the Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan for the topics, potential actions to address the
issues identified, and the related tradeoffs. These items were identified in the Plan as key ways to fulfill the
community vision for wireless telecommunication infrastructure and were chosen for discussion due to the
interrelated impacts they have on one another.
1. Should wireless facilities be permitted on non-residential properties in residential zone
districts?
a. Plan Findings: Currently, wireless telecommunication applicants seeking to place facilities in
residential zone districts (such as the RL, LMN, MMN, and HMN districts) can only do so through
the Addition of Permitted Use process. This existing process discourages many applicants from
pursuing such an approval due to the timeline and uncertainty of the outcome. This zoning limitation
has resulted in fewer new facilities, which has impacted cellular coverage and capacity in certain
geographic areas of the City, notably SW, SE, and NW Fort Collins.
i. Potential Actions
1. Permit facilities on private non-residential properties (e.g., schools, places of worship,
businesses) in zone districts where they are currently prohibited (RL, LMN, MMN, HMN).
2. Maintain public hearing and notification requirements for projects in these areas where the
zoning would require a Planning & Zoning Commission hearing.
3. Require new residential projects that will develop over a certain number of dwelling units,
or commercial projects of a certain size, to set aside area for a potential future facility.
ii. Trade-off
1. While permitting the use in areas where it hasn’t previously been allowed would facilitate
additional deployment options, the City cannot guarantee that providers will locate in those
areas. The high level of discretion (Planning & Zoning Commission approval) and/or lack of
non-residential sites may still discourage providers from locating in residential areas.
2. Should certain City-owned properties be available for the siting of wireless telecommunication
facilities?
a. Plan Findings: The analysis of the coverage and capacity gaps identified that placing wireless
telecommunication facilities on select City-owned properties, specifically parks and golf courses,
could be an effective strategy to address some of the cellular service gaps that exist throughout
the community.
i. Potential Actions
1. Explore ways to encourage providers to consider siting facilities on City-owned property in
addition to private property alternatives.
2. Develop a clear administrative policy regarding siting facilities on City-owned property that
will remain flexible in its application.
ii. Trade-off
1. If Council does not support allowing facilities on private non-residential properties in
residential zoning districts, then the option for only allowing them on City-owned properties
in those zone districts may be an appropriate alternative. However, this introduces
complexities related to negotiating leases with providers and the transparency of that
process. If Council does support changes in residential zone districts and does not support
the use of City property, it is less likely that existing or future coverage gaps in some
residential areas can be addressed.
Page 109
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 5
3. Does Council support staff’s recommendation for context-based standards to regulate facility
design?
a. Plan Findings: Currently, the Land Use Code requirements for the use of “stealth technology” to
conceal wireless telecommunication infrastructure are somewhat vague and unpredictable for
applicants as well as staff. Revising the City’s existing standards for large wireless infrastructure
would clearly communicate the City’s preferences for the design and placement of future facilities
to applicants, thereby reducing the need for protracted negotiation related to aesthetics and site
planning.
i. Recommended Action
1. Expand on the existing context-based approach with additional design standards in the code.
The updated standards could be modeled after Area of Adjacency standards that currently
exist for Historic Preservation.
2. This approach would give gives applicants and staff the ability to tailor design requirements
to each site and the surrounding context based on a buffer area from the facility, such as
200 feet. Design considerations would be related to height, massing, material, color, and
land use of the surrounding area.
ii. Trade-off
1. Stricter or more specific design standards could ensure a more predictable outcome.
However, that approach would lack the flexibility to tailor design and appropriateness to the
surrounding context, meaning modifications to standards may be requested by applicants
more frequently. Additionally, prescriptive standards would require the Code to be updated
more frequently as facility design and the related technology continues to change in the
years ahead.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Funding has already been allocated for the Land Use Code update. That work is currently being performed
by outside regulatory counsel during Q2-Q3 2022.
Prior Appropriated Funds - $50,000
o Cityscape Consultants, Inc. - $40,100 (for the Wireless Master Plan)
o Outside Counsel (Ken Fellman) - $9,900 (for the Land Use Code update)
Additionally, staff has submitted a BFO offer for the 2023-2024 budget cycle to seek $20,000 in funding to
develop a design guidelines document for wireless facilities. That document would supplement the new
design standards in the Code to help guide the design of future facilities. If funded, it is anticipated th at
that document would be completed in 2023.
NEXT STEPS
Q1 2022: Work Session (January 25), review existing standards with consultant
Q2 2022: Draft recommended amendments to Land Use Code
Q3 2022: Refine recommended amendment, seek additional guidance from Boards, Commissions,
and Council
Q4 2022: Bring proposed Land Use Code amendments to Planning & Zoning Commission and Council
for consideration
Page 110
Item 3.
City Council Work Session Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan
2. Powerpoint Presentation
Page 111
Item 3.
Page 112
Item 3.
Page 113
Item 3.
Page 114
Item 3.
Page 115
Item 3.
Page 116
Item 3.
Page 117
Item 3.
80%31B
18 secs
Page 118
Item 3.
Page 119
Item 3.
Page 120
Item 3.
Page 121
Item 3.
The following Table 1 are the short term, long term and ongoing strategies and policies of
the City as it relates to the siting of wireless infrastructure.
Page 122
Item 3.
Page 123
Item 3.
Page 124
Item 3.
Page 125
Item 3.
Page 126
Item 3.
Page 127
Item 3.
Page 128
Item 3.
Page 129
Item 3.
280 million
in 2020
Page 130
Item 3.
Page 131
Item 3.
Page 132
Item 3.
Page 133
Item 3.
Page 134
Item 3.
Page 135
Item 3.
Page 136
Item 3.
Page 137
Item 3.
Page 138
Item 3.
Page 139
Item 3.
Page 140
Item 3.
Page 141
Item 3.
Page 142
Item 3.
Page 143
Item 3.
Page 144
Item 3.
Page 145
Item 3.
Page 146
Item 3.
Page 147
Item 3.
Page 148
Item 3.
Page 149
Item 3.
Page 150
Item 3.
Page 151
Item 3.
Page 152
Item 3.
Page 153
Item 3.
Page 154
Item 3.
Page 155
Item 3.
Page 156
Item 3.
Page 157
Item 3.
80%
68.1%
2.4M
Page 158
Item 3.
Page 159
Item 3.
Page 160
Item 3.
Page 161
Item 3.
Page 162
Item 3.
Page 163
Item 3.
Page 164
Item 3.
Page 165
Item 3.
Page 166
Item 3.
Page 167
Item 3.
Page 168
Item 3.
Page 169
Item 3.
Page 170
Item 3.
Page 171
Item 3.
Page 172
Item 3.
Page 173
Item 3.
Page 174
Item 3.
Page 175
Item 3.
Page 176
Item 3.
Page 177
Item 3.
Page 178
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.6252050; -104.9997494
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC
FACILITY SITE NAME:Odell Golf Course
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:80’
NOTES:Approved but not built - outside City
Site #1 2808 NE Frontage Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Other
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:I
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.6212288; -105.0064799
FACILITY OWNER/ID:35-02
FACILITY SITE NAME:City of Fort Collins Project/Bar/Barley Research
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:112’
NOTES:
Site ID: 2 2351 Busch Drive
Page 68
Page 179
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Silo
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:LMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.6148239; -105.0375598
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Long Pond
FCC ASR:1306850
HEIGHT:44’
NOTES:
Site ID: 3 2008 Turnberry Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.6119052; -105.0843311
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, 414553
FACILITY SITE NAME:Terry Lake 4 Co
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:60’
NOTES:
Site ID: 4 1800 N Whitcomb Street
Page 69 Page 180
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:I
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket), Sprint, T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.6048564; -105.0741160
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, 302435
FACILITY SITE NAME:Josh Ames/Wilcox & College
FCC ASR:1225956
HEIGHT:90’
NOTES:
Site #5 1314 Red Cedar Circle
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopine
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5971174; -105.0950998
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, CO-420055
FACILITY SITE NAME:Fat Tire CO
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:75’
NOTES:
Site #6 1052 W Vine Drive
Page 70 Page 181
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.593, -105.115
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 001
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #7 833 Elm Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Guy
ANTENNA TYPE:Broadcast
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5927839; -105.1073966
FACILITY OWNER/ID:JACOR Broadcasting of Colorado
FACILITY SITE NAME:KCOL
FCC ASR:1036223
HEIGHT:203’
NOTES:
Site #8 1612 Laporte Avenue
Page 71
Page 182
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Guy
ANTENNA TYPE:Broadcast
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5921275; -105.1057214
FACILITY OWNER/ID:JACOR Broadcasting of Colorado
FACILITY SITE NAME:KCOL
FCC ASR:1036224
HEIGHT:203’
NOTES:
Site #9 1612 Laporte Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:LMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5901908; -105.1216263
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Impala
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:60’
NOTES:
Site #10 2420 Laporte Avenue
Page 72 Page 183
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Other
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:LMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5901908; -105.1216263
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 856480
FACILITY SITE NAME:Taft and Vine/ Calvary Baptist Temple
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #11 2420 Laporte Avenue
Site #12 3915 Laporte Avenue
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5901874; -105.1402496
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:CSU/Atmospheric Simulation Lab
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Page 73 Page 184
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:POL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5864537; -105.1073504
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Sprint - DN13XC324
FACILITY SITE NAME:City Park Ball Field
FCC ASR:1231305
HEIGHT:90’
NOTES:
Site #13 137 S Bryan Avenue
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:POL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5864251; -105.1074684
FACILITY OWNER/ID:AT&T, DN3060
FACILITY SITE NAME:City Park Ball Field
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:90’
NOTES:
Site #14 139 S Bryan Avenue
Page 74 Page 185
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.586, -105.097
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon/ES1416
FACILITY SITE NAME:F ROW E City Park SC 1
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #15 1058 S Shields Street
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.591, -105.127
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon/ES983
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Civic Center SC6
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #16 31 Cherry Street
Page 75 Page 186
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:D
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5887677; -105.0773825
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Unify SC 01
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:45’
NOTES:
Site #17 185 N College Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Other
ZONING:D
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Open Range
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5863219; -105.0812680
FACILITY OWNER/ID:CO0048
FACILITY SITE NAME:Key Bank
FCC ASR:1209072
HEIGHT:159’
NOTES:
Site #18 125 S Howes Street
Page 76 Page 187
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:D
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5855153; -105.0819281
FACILITY OWNER/ID:COU 3022
FACILITY SITE NAME:Fort Collins 850/GSM/Rocky Mountain Bank
FCC ASR:1252806 - Terminated
HEIGHT:87’
NOTES:
Site #19 315 W Oak Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:D
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5854827; -105.0801632
FACILITY OWNER/ID:DNO1085A
FACILITY SITE NAME:First National Bank
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:197’
NOTES:
Site #20 215 W Oak Street
Page 77 Page 188
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.584, -105.088
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon/ES1398
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Keybank SC3
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #21 301 S Whitcomb Street
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.584, -105.084
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon/ES1156
FACILITY SITE NAME:Otter Box SC
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #22 320 W Olive Street
Page 78 Page 189
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Lattice
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:D
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5833615; -105.0787424
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Century Link
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC-Ft Collins Main
FCC ASR:1028388
HEIGHT:140’
NOTES:
Site #23 124 W Magnolia Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:D
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket), Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5840067; -105.0752530
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Sprint - DN13XC320
FACILITY SITE NAME:DMA Plaza
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:115’
NOTES:
Site #24 300 Remington Street
Page 79
Page 190
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Silo
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:I
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5907261; -105.0616884
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC
FACILITY SITE NAME:Alta Vista
FCC ASR:1301604
HEIGHT:67’
NOTES:
Site #25 903 Buckingham Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5825937; -105.0497089
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:30’
NOTES:
Site #26 428 S Link Lane
Page 80 Page 191
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:ATT, T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5854465; -105.0066074
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, CO-83356
FACILITY SITE NAME:HWY-14 & I-25 1B CO/Crossroad - Northwest
CMRS
FCC ASR:1231217
HEIGHT:80’
NOTES:
Site #27 3730 Harvester Drive
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5829322; -105.0066862
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 877020
FACILITY SITE NAME:USWW Cleary Building
FCC ASR:1032039
HEIGHT:80’
NOTES:
Site #28 3801 Weiker Drive
Page 81 Page 192
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.580, -105.038
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Charco
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:60’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #29 2317 E Mulberry Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5796779; -105.06076236
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC East Dale
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:Approved but not built in City
Site #30 901 Riverside Avenue
Page 82 Page 193
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Smokestack
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T, T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5770315; -105.0571753
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, 276549
FACILITY SITE NAME:Fries Enterprises Co
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:80’
NOTES:
Site #31 1133 Riverside Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5758502; -105.0559587
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Eastside Park SC
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:
Site #32 1201 Riverside Avenue
Page 83 Page 194
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Utility Easement
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Pole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:I
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5741079; -105.0476228
FACILITY OWNER/ID:PRPA, 8
FACILITY SITE NAME:Linden-Timberline 115kV
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:92’
NOTES:To Be Removed
Site #33 1101 Academy Court
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5718672; -105.0571737
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Poudre Valley Hospital
FCC ASR:1224850
HEIGHT:66’
NOTES:
Site #34 1024 S Lemay Avenue
Page 84 Page 195
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:CC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5778573; -105.0766692
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Mugs Coffee SC
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:48’
NOTES:
Site #35 714 S College Avenue
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CSU
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5728078; -105.0807667
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Natural & Environmental Sciences Building
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:30’
NOTES:
Site #36 1231 Libbie Coy Way
Page 85 Page 196
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CSU
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5722618; -105.0811959
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Natural & Environmental Sciences Building
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #37 1231 Libbie Coy Way
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CSU
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5741525; -105.0833739
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Computer Science Building
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #38 1100 Center Avenue Mall
Page 86 Page 197
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CSU
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5777625; -105.0873435
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Scott Bioengineering
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #39 700 Meridian Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CSU
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5749949; -105.0892734
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Student Recreation Center
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #40 951 Meridian Avenue
Page 87
Page 198
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CSU
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5726899; -105.0907051
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 823526
FACILITY SITE NAME:CSU Intramural Field
FCC ASR:1250189
HEIGHT:64’
NOTES:
Site #41 CSU IM Field, South Drive
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.576, -105.157
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 032
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #42 620 S Shields Street
Page 88 Page 199
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.576, -105.107
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 049
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #43 1613 W Plum Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5743432; -105.1020012
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Mo Jeaux SC
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:47’
NOTES:Proposed under City review
Site #44 1409 W Elizabeth Street
Page 89 Page 200
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5739286; -105.1008914
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Campus West Liquor
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:32’
NOTES:
Site #45 1107 City Park Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:MMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.57674641; -105.1155320
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Bethel Baptist Church
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #46 833 South Taft Hill Road
Page 90
Page 201
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5739751; -105.1173368
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 828344
FACILITY SITE NAME:Taft Hill & Elizabeth
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #47 1015 S Taft Hill Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5727658; -105.1159266
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 856479
FACILITY SITE NAME:Taft & Elizabeth
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:47’
NOTES:
Site #48 1015 S Taft Hill Road
Page 91 Page 202
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5776025; -105.1359825
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:BW Pickett Equine Center
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:
Site #49 735 S Overland Trail
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CO
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Unknown
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5636701; -105.1414095
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Rex Miller Barn
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:30’
NOTES:
Site #50
Page 92
Page 203
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:T
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5592483; -105.1372082
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 877100
FACILITY SITE NAME:Fill-In/Fort Collins/FTC235
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:61’
NOTES:
Site #51 Overland Trail, North of Drake
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.568, -105.127
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 084
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #52 2621 W Prospect Road
Page 93 Page 204
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.567, -105.099
FACILITY OWNER/ID:AT&T/CRAN_RUTH_FTCOL_004
FACILITY SITE NAME:COL06898F_R03_FTCOL_004
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #53 1115 W Prospect Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopine
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5664058; -105.0985081
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC
FACILITY SITE NAME:Loose Leaf
FCC ASR:1300635
HEIGHT:69’
NOTES:
Site #54 1127 W Prospect Road
Page 94
Page 205
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.569, -105.094
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 079
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #55 928 W Lake Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5676099; -105.0905787
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Rams Crossing
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:45’
NOTES:Proposed under City review
Site #56 808 W Prospect Road
Page 95 Page 206
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint, T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5662367; -105.0828021
FACILITY OWNER/ID:T-Mobile - DN03052C
FACILITY SITE NAME:Hilton Fort Collins
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:107’
NOTES:
Site #57 425 W Prospect Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5669664; -105.0795213
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC CSU South
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:51’
NOTES:
Site #58 221 W Prospect Road
Page 96 Page 207
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5641543; -105.0765343
FACILITY OWNER/ID:CO-3010
FACILITY SITE NAME:Prospect & College
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:48’
NOTES:
Site #59 1730 S College Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket)
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5605440; -105.0793007
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 839479
FACILITY SITE NAME:South College Avenue/Big A Self Storage
FCC ASR:1232618
HEIGHT:85’
NOTES:
Site #60 2121 S College Avenue
Page 97
Page 208
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5664960; -105.0545429
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Fort Collins Club/Genesis Health Club
FACILITY SITE NAME:Sprint - DN40XC961D
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:48’
NOTES:
Site #61 1307 E Prospect Road
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.564, -105.062
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 102
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #62 E Stuart Street
Page 98 Page 209
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.566, -105.050
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 091
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #63 1500 Edora Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Other
ANTENNA TYPE:Other
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Century Link
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5661252; -105.0398813
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Century Link, DN 1238-B
FACILITY SITE NAME:Calvin Johnson
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:125’
NOTES:
Site #64 1609 S Timberline Road
Page 99 Page 210
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:I
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5620093; -105.0410508
FACILITY OWNER/ID:COU3154 Edora Park
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #65 1925 S Timberline Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopine
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:I
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.56100246; -105.027540
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:65’
NOTES:
Site #66 2025 Sharp Point Drive
Page 100
Page 211
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.558, -105.065
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 123
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:FTC SC 123
Site #67 Columbia Road and Shawnee Court
LOCATION:Utility Easement
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Pole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5523383; -105.0599473
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Drake-Timberline 115kV Line
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:90’
NOTES:To Be Removed by PRPA
Site #68 E Drake Road
Page 101 Page 212
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5519896; -105.0586480
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Scotch Pines Village
FCC ASR:1222568
HEIGHT:36’
NOTES:
Site #69 2601 S Lemay Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T, T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5507504; -105.0600488
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 839481
FACILITY SITE NAME:South Lemay
FCC ASR:1250576
HEIGHT:80’
NOTES:
Site #70 2601 S Lemay Avenue
Page 102 Page 213
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.555, 105.109
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 119
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #71 Scarborough Drive and Constitution Ave
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5537153; -105.0980590
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Wolf Pup
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:38’
NOTES:
Site #72 2555 S Shields Street
Page 103 Page 214
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Utility Easement
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Pole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:MMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5529058; -105.1015044
FACILITY OWNER/ID:PRPA
FACILITY SITE NAME:Drake- Dixon Creek 115kV Line
FCC ASR:1222569
HEIGHT:89’
NOTES:To Be Removed by PRPA
Site #73 1212 Raintree Drive
LOCATION:Utility Easement
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Pole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:POL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5529342; -105.1050515
FACILITY OWNER/ID:PRPA DN3018 USID43096
FACILITY SITE NAME:PRPA Drake-Dixon Creek 115kV Line
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:86’
NOTES:To Be Removed by PRPA
Site #74 1600 W Drake Road
Page 104 Page 215
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopine
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:RL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5524692; -105.1062652
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Mobilitie, DN04198D
FACILITY SITE NAME:Summitview Church
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:75’
NOTES:Proposed under City review
Site #75 1601 W Drake Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5546338; -105.1165207
FACILITY OWNER/ID:FTC Drake Crossing
FACILITY SITE NAME:Verizon Wireless
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:
Site #76 2160 W Drake Road
Page 105 Page 216
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T, T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5538176; -105.1182682
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 822100
FACILITY SITE NAME:Drake Crossing Shopping Center
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #77 2170 W Drake Road
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Lattice
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:RL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5490421; -105.1006591
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:70’
NOTES:
Site #78 1300 W Swallow Road
Page 106 Page 217
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Lattice
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:RL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:None
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5490687; -105.0989817
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Sprint, DN54XC125
FACILITY SITE NAME:Stadium Light Tower
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:110’
NOTES:
Site #79 1300 W Swallow Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5476003; -105.0766042
FACILITY OWNER/ID:COL03242
FACILITY SITE NAME:College & Drake
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:Proposed under City review
Site #80 2900 S College Avenue
Page 107 Page 218
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Utility Easement
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Pole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:RL
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5484776; -105.0435512
FACILITY OWNER/ID:PRPA Sprint - DN54XC126F
FACILITY SITE NAME:Utility Pole #312/Timberline-Harmon 230kV Line
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:90’
NOTES:To Be Removed by PRPA
Site #81 2842 Parklake Drive
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.539, -105.120
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 195
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #82 2300 Horsetooth Road
Page 108 Page 219
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:NC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5377587; -105.0944934
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 857499
FACILITY SITE NAME:Horsetooth & Taft/Poudre Valley Plaza
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #83 1005 W Horsetooth Road
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.537, -105.123
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 187
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #84 345 Riva Ridge Drive
Page 109 Page 220
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5392315; -105.0793567
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Chippers SC
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:
Site #85 3517 S Mason Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5421633; -105.0767086
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 826600
FACILITY SITE NAME:Perkins
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:60’
NOTES:
Site #86 3300 S College Avenue
Page 110
Page 221
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint, Century Link
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5405673; -105.0734980
FACILITY OWNER/ID:FTC-196A
FACILITY SITE NAME:Norwest Bank
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:45’
NOTES:
Site #87 3500 JFK Parkway
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket)
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5394503; -105.0726826
FACILITY OWNER/ID:FNL-011A
FACILITY SITE NAME:Marriott Hotel
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:61’
NOTES:
Site #88 350 E Horsetooth Road
Page 111 Page 222
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5358, -105.072
FACILITY OWNER/ID:AT&T/COL06896F_R01(FTCOL_009)
FACILITY SITE NAME:CRAN_RUTH_FTCOL/257167 (Node)
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #89 500 E Horsetooth Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5430560; -105.0405908
FACILITY OWNER/ID:SBA Communications, CO40865
FACILITY SITE NAME:Mister Money
FCC ASR:1273951
HEIGHT:60’
NOTES:
Site #90 2057 Vermont Drive
Page 112 Page 223
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:MMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket), Century Link
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5421103; -105.0369207
FACILITY OWNER/ID:FNL-010A
FACILITY SITE NAME:Fort Collins High School
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:70’
NOTES:
Site #91 3400 Timberline Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Rooftop
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.540, -105.046
FACILITY OWNER/ID:AT&T
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:This will replace Site #93
Site #92 3405 S Timberline Road
Page 113 Page 224
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5394376; -105.0415171
FACILITY OWNER/ID:CO-0179
FACILITY SITE NAME:Platt River Headquarters
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:135’
NOTES:Unipole to be removed and new site across the
street will become Site #67 as a rooftop
Site #93 2000 E Horsetooth Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Other
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:E
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5305273; -105.0419365
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Foxstone
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:Proposed under City review
Site #94 1961 Caribou Drive
Page 114 Page 225
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5322219; -105.0762982
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:First National Bank
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:45’
NOTES:
Site #95 155 Boardwalk Drive
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5354427; -105.0799192
FACILITY OWNER/ID:COL03016-LTE 3C
FACILITY SITE NAME:Horsetooth & College/Creager Park
FCC ASR:10093602
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #96 3761 South Mason Street
Page 115
Page 226
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.534, -105.089
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 200
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:Proposed Under Review
Site #97 Manhattan Ave and Fir Court
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket), Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5324665; -105.1162149
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 877015
FACILITY SITE NAME:Boats Unlimited
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:100’
NOTES:
Site #98 4001B S Taft Rd
Page 116 Page 227
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Other
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:LMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5227607; -105.1060815
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Westbury
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:Approved not built in City
Site #99 1621 W Harmony Road
LOCATION:ROW
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Light
ANTENNA TYPE:Small Cell
ZONING:
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.526, -105.093
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC SC 209
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:37’
NOTES:
Site #100 Starflower Drive and Marigold Lane
Page 117 Page 228
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T (Cricket), Sprint, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5262322; -105.0750092
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, 302437
FACILITY SITE NAME:Warren Lake
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:85’
NOTES:
Site #101 4356 S College Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5224932; -105.0761229
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 856958
FACILITY SITE NAME:Harmony & College
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:75’
NOTES:
Site #102 4620 S College Avenue
Page 118 Page 229
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Public Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Lattice
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro and Public Safety
ZONING:UE
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5230484; -105.0715425
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Poudare Fire, Ft. Collins 7
FACILITY SITE NAME:CO0052
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:120’
NOTES:
Site #103 4615 Hogan Drive
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5193067; -105.0573035
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Collindale
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #104 4824 S Lemay Avenue
Page 119
Page 230
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5249478; -105.0529308
FACILITY OWNER/ID:DN60XC083-A
FACILITY SITE NAME:Harmony Market Place
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:42’
NOTES:
Site #105 1414-B E Harmony Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5228959; -105.0471029
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:Hampton Inn
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:38’
NOTES:
Site #106 1620 Oakridge Drive
Page 120
Page 231
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Utility Easement
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Utility Pole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5233179; -105.0440015
FACILITY OWNER/ID:DN03292D
FACILITY SITE NAME:PRPA Timberline
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:110’
NOTES:To Be Removed by PRPA
Site #107 1805 E Harmony Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Centry Link, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5219588; -105.0369717
FACILITY OWNER/ID:FTC-233B
FACILITY SITE NAME:Poudre Valley Health System
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:49’
NOTES:
Site #108 2121 E Harmony Road
Page 121
Page 232
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Empty
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5216349; -105.0281368
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 839226
FACILITY SITE NAME:Corbett Drive
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:63’
NOTES:
Site #109 4601 Corbett Drive
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5226643; -105.0223751
FACILITY OWNER/ID:230
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Peloton
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:65’
NOTES:
Site #110 3003 E Harmony Road
Page 122
Page 233
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:HC
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.518096189 -105.0112003
FACILITY OWNER/ID:
FACILITY SITE NAME:
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:39’
NOTES:
Site #111 35287 Precision Drive
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5228437; -104.9947376
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, CO-82108
FACILITY SITE NAME:Harmony
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:84’
NOTES:
Site #112 4305 E Harmony Road
Page 123 Page 234
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5225959; -104.9900651
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 877017
FACILITY SITE NAME:USWW Graham Land
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:117’
NOTES:
Site #113 4651 Weitzel Street
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopine
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:T-Mobile
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5034636; -105.0038983
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Skyway Towers, CO-04029
FACILITY SITE NAME:Harmony Rd
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:100’
NOTES:
Site #114 6101 S CO Road 7
Page 124 Page 235
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Silo
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:LMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5012902; -105.0208970
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC
FACILITY SITE NAME:Epic Park
FCC ASR:1299189
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #115 6131 Ziegler Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Silo
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:LMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5061923; -105.0467733
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, CO-283557
FACILITY SITE NAME:Timberline/Kechter
FCC ASR:1282360
HEIGHT:55’
NOTES:
Site #116 6015 S Timberline Road
Page 125 Page 236
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Empty
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.5005621; -105.0761475
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 839274
FACILITY SITE NAME:Fort Collins
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:86’
NOTES:
Site #117 6132 S College Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:MMN
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Sprint
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.4955417; -105.0855572
FACILITY OWNER/ID:CO-0701A
FACILITY SITE NAME:Good Samaritan Center
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:50’
NOTES:
Site #118 508 W Trilby Road
Page 126 Page 237
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:CG
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.4957451; -105.0764375
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 855731
FACILITY SITE NAME:N Loveland and 287
FCC ASR:10093693
HEIGHT:60’
NOTES:
Site #119 6520 S College Avenue
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Monopole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:AT&T, Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.4847229; -104.9931361
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 855728
FACILITY SITE NAME:I25 & 392
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:75’
NOTES:
Site #120 7301 SW Frontage Road
Page 127
Page 238
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Unipole
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Unknown
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.4715817; -104.9930380
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Crown Castle International, 877016
FACILITY SITE NAME:Gardner Signs
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:59’
NOTES:
Site #121 8101 SW Frontage Road
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Tower
FACILITY TYPE:Silo
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.4766757; -105.0457979
FACILITY OWNER/ID:American Tower Corporation, 414271
FACILITY SITE NAME:Trilby CO
FCC ASR:1285063
HEIGHT:40’
NOTES:
Site #122 1898 Good Shepherd Drive
Page 128 Page 239
Item 3.
Inventory as of May 14, 2021
LOCATION:Private Property
CATEGORY:Base Station
FACILITY TYPE:Roof
ANTENNA TYPE:Macro Cell
ZONING:County
SERVICE PROVIDERS:Verizon
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE:40.4783058; -105.0748570
FACILITY OWNER/ID:Verizon
FACILITY SITE NAME:FTC Carpenter
FCC ASR:
HEIGHT:35’
NOTES:
Site #123 205 Collard Avenue
Page 129 Page 240
Item 3.
Page 241
Item 3.
!"# !
$
%
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 242
Item 3.
!" !
! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 243
Item 3.
'! ( ) * +,- * * , . ,
--
)*/
0
)
), )) 1
2
3 3
*,
*
/ )
-
)3) 4. **/
)
) 5 ) )
)555
!"67 "5 89
:;7< 5;89
! " "!
'
!" !
&
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 244
Item 3.
'
=) *, 3 - *4 / / / 3/ ,
5
( >5 ?
#$# %" & !& &
! '
()*+
, !%- . &
!& !!-'
/)(0
1 % ..! '/)2+
!" !
< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 245
Item 3.
'< )/) */ / -/ , -) =
0) /=
) 5
!""
&
! !
"&
!"
! &
6
!
3! !4 ! 5- 55-6 !
% '
'
;
:
!
!
!;
!
!:
!" #$%
!" !
; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 246
Item 3.
'; )/) */ @ 4 // -) =
0
) /=) 5
!&;
!<
!&:
;
1 ! 6 !7 !8#!& 8#!&#!&
! % '
'
6
6
"6
!
! 6
!6
!"6
6
6
&
'
!" #$%
!" !
6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 247
Item 3.
'6 -
/ 3/ / -/ ,
#, - 0
)
), )/ 3*/
./#, - +
/)
=
-3*#/
+
/---
/ 3 -/ /
)3
-
5555
6 7&<5"89
!7 5;89
! 765&89
3"$9!&
'
!" !
&
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 248
Item 3.
1!!
*$(:$/0/((/
/03
! & &
! &!
! ! !&
& !&
&! ! )
& & !
& )
1&& !. &!" !
!& !
&!; )
1!!
*$//$/0/(0<
2<13
! 7!! - !
" !& ! )
"! - !%)
#! !' " !
"& !
! )
' (*
, -AAA
. BC -
A)
@
+
2 ,)%
!" !
" &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 249
Item 3.
1!!
*$/=$/0/(0(
((3
!
&
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
2=13
$$ &! &! )$&
!&$28 8!!! 8 8
$
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
2<13
! 7
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
/(13
6& >! & ?
6& !
& ?6&
!!! "!&&
! ! ?9
- !"
!&&?
1!!
+$0($/0/((/
*@3
1 ! !& ! )
5 .! ! #
&A &
" )!&. #
!"
! !
. # !
!& " & > ! !
.! !
!! !"
) !
! )
1!!
+$0($/0/((/
203
6&!; ! 7
"!- )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
*23
9!& ! !
&
" "!& !
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0:
0(13
B 7
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0:
223
1 ! & !;7
! ! !&
" ;
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0(
/:3
&
!" !
: &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 250
Item 3.
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0+
(03
&!& ! !
A &!
! )
1!!
+$0:$/0/(0@
/@3
, - !
1!!
+$0<$/0/(0/
2+3
!& " !
" ! )5# !
!!
- ! " !
!&& )C&D"
!
! E &
" ! !&&
! )
@
%(2 ! % './2= 7 &'
'
% !
!" !
& &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 251
Item 3.
'" )
,)/).
-
/.
%
!&7:!5"89
!7 5;89
!"7 5<89
!:7 5"89
!<7;5&89
!& 7 !5# ! 8!&
!& 7 !5# ! !
&5# ! " 7 ! #
!5# ! " 7 & # % '
'
&
'
!" !
! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 252
Item 3.
':
/ -
%
;"7!"5;89
"<7 "5 89
!!&7;;5!89
!7 5;89
!7 5;89
!;765 89
!6765 89
7 5 89
7 5 89
7 5 89
7 5 89
1 F 83" $ ! >!# 73" 83" G ! 3"
% '4 7 3 !3" 1 "$
&!H ! &
'
(
!" !
!! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 253
Item 3.
'& )4 4 ,=/ 3
%
:7! 5;89
6;7 5 89
"<7 "5 89
!!67; 5 89
7 5 89
-!C&1" $1
'
(
!" !
! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 254
Item 3.
'!
,=/ 3
-,=
7
4
. ,* * / 9%
!<
<
!;
!"
"!
6
<
6"
&<
"!
"<
<
6:
"
"&
!
&
$1
1"
C&
-!
'
6 ! !6 6 <
5# !
5# !
5# !
5# !
'
&
)
!" !
!< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 255
Item 3.
'!
,=/ 3
-,=
7
4 . ,* * / 9%
),
!" !
!; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 256
Item 3.
-!
(*
C&
@(
1"
<*
2:
$1
//
! < ; 6 " : & !
!" !
!6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 257
Item 3.
-!
/*
C&
=2
1"
@(
@=
$1
//
! < ; 6 " :
)
!" !
! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 258
Item 3.
-!
(+
C&
=*
1"
@*
@<
$1
/<
! < ; 6 " : &
),
!" !
!" &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 259
Item 3.
'!! )
/*/
*, ,)
/
0
2
. ,524 %A(,=/
)
/ *D
) - 3 + -) /
-!
(@
C&
2@
1"
=*
(00
$1
//
! < ; 6 " : & ! !!
)
!" !
!: &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 260
Item 3.
1!!
*$(:$/0/(((
+@13
1 ! !
!"!& ! 3
B ! " &. "&)
1!!
*$(:$/0/((/
/03
!!&"
! !
)6 ! !
35; ) "&)6
&& ! "
)6D
I !J " &
A ! "!!
! )6 &A
!
! ! # & ! )
& ! !&
&"! !!&
7 !&!" )
1!!
*$(:$/0/(0*
003
! !B !&
& & ! ")
H
&&>!)3 &#
4!!& ! &!
7 ! ! & !!
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0(
(+3
3 !6
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0/
0/3
!B 9 .
# 7)# !
"!)
(:*=
*$(<$/0/(0*
(23
# "!
! !B !!& &
%"5!!'.!!!
6""3 && .! & !
!73! !B .
! ! !&
B !&!
$ C .!
B !)6 !
! ! !&B !!&
& !1
& ) &
."
7
/
- 4**/ .- 3
.-5A
!" !
!& &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 261
Item 3.
! 7 !
!!)
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0*
/:3
!".#!#"&.
& ,7.3B .
!5
# ! ! !!&
" )
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0*
2:3
1! !& ! ("
"
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0+
/(3
B ! " &!
9 & )
B !! & !
) & &!&
"&)
! &
" & ! ! & !. "&)
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0=
*<3
3B "& ! "&
E
1!!
*$/0$/0/(0<
*/13
# "& ! 3B
"& !!& ! @00
6&)
1!!
*$//$/0/(((
(=13
H! &! ! !
& ! !
)
1!!
*$//$/0/(0/
//3
>!!3$B
". )
1!!
*$//$/0/(0=
**3
K !&B !
83" ), !&B !
& !H & !
" & ! )
1!!
*$/*$/0/(((
*:13
!B F % '
!
H )
1!!
*$/*$/0/(0(
(:3
3 ! -4&)
& !! 7
-!&
1!!
*$/+$/0/((/
+(3
3 & ! 3B
"& !)
!7!
!.
! .
&)! !.
!" !
&
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 262
Item 3.
!; !
1!!
*$/2$/0/(0:
223
B !!&#!&@.5!
!
1!!
*$/<$/0/(0(
+:3
& ! " )
"B!& ! )
1!!
*$/<$/0/(0/
/=3
L !&& !
)% "
!5 B '
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
0@13
B !!&K .
!&B. . D
&& )
; & & !
! !!& &
" ) >!
. !$8 "
!&)1 F ".!&
!! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
0:13
!!&" #"97!&
, !& !
) !"L !
!97!&#
83" !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
((13
)
)
9!H !7 !&! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(/13
!7 & !&
& ; &
) D !
"!&# &
!
; 7 ! !
%# & !')
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(/13
. !
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(+13
5!!
%B !$K ' ")
&1 F . >!.!& 83" )
B!! & !
!)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(+13
B !& &
!" !
! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 263
Item 3.
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(=13
! " &%7 & '
!& !" $&7
>!
)6 & 1 F
" &"&
7 ! ! !)
! & !! ! !
>! !7 &
$ !" )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(<13
6B !!& &
! !.!&
("88/ !
!)1 B !
" !#!& " !
!"&)
! .08(
" "
1 F )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
//13
M !C!&
" !
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
/213
97!& " !)1!
!
" )
! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
*/13
# ! .!&
" !!"
7 )
!
! !, !& ")
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
*:13
! " !!&#!
!& )
H !!
- !#"!&B !
%5!! 3')
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
+(13
!! "
!6!,7)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
2(13
1 !!&K
!!- !)1 ! "
!& &
!&
! !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
2/13
,&3!!&3 7#79
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
0/13
&"
! ) H
!" !
&
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 264
Item 3.
) "& H
& )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
0*13
/" ! N
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
0:13
! " !F !!&
&A)
7
!3 !F,!&
&)6 !
!
5# ! 8! !!B !
&) " )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
(013
7 ! &!&
>
) .!
4& !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
/013
6& ! #7
"& !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
/=13
M ! & ! &
#7 !& !
!& !&
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
2*13
"!& & % &
! " &'B !!&K
% &!&7 '
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
2*13
#! -
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
/<13
! ! " &
) &
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
+/13
!& 7 ! &
% "!& & '!&
"! )
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
2=13
$ !B !!
)
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
0/13
!& "!& " !!&
&& !)1 !&
!B !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
0213
!&B !!&
K ! !
83" )1!&
!" !
< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 265
Item 3.
! 83" ! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
0=13
#!&7!&, & !
!& )3
, "
& !& &
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
(:13
7 !
!
3#!& #7%K $L '.
" E
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
*<13
!- !&&
! !B !&
& )
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
2(13
!1 F &&>!
3! !!& & )
"7
.!& !;& !
)
1!!
+$0($/0/((/
(@3
& !!& ! !
1!!
+$0($/0/((/
*@3
!H !7! ! &# )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0(
023
"!& & %! '
#B B ! )%67'
1!!
+$0($/0/(0(
/<3
3 ! ! !
7 &D ! !
&7!& " !)6
! !
! ! & !&!&
3)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0/
0=3
!3,! 7L .
! 7)
"&
1!!
+$0($/0/(0/
(/3
& !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0/
2@3
1 ")6 !
&)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0*
/<3
! & " !B &
!& & )
!" !
; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 266
Item 3.
1!!
+$0($/0/(0*
*(3
, ("7 !>7
/8*" ! !
1!!
+$0($/0/(0*
+:3
" & !
" !97., .B .
!& " !)1!
! !""&)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0*
203
!B !& & .
!& )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0+
+03
5 !H 9 !B !8
!!& % !& !
! & ' # 7&&
)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0=
(03
1! !&
K )1 !& !
& "& !)
; !"&
! & "!! !
"& !!"! &
1!!
+$0($/0/(0=
++3
! &! &
!& "!&
! " &
)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0@
0@3
! !, !& .
! !
!)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0@
*23
!7 & %#7 &
9 '.!&
B
4,&
!)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0@
2*3
; "&
1!!
+$0($/0/(0@
2=3
! "!& & !&
1 F ) >!
"
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(:3
" !
5# ! )
>
."D !
7 7! !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
*23
D & (/0@
6&#) &
!" !
6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 267
Item 3.
! ! .
&"
" !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
0(3
!65#!& )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
/@3
&! " & !
& !L
& !& !B! !!
#!!& ,
#!!&
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
+=3
B !&
8/2#
) "F & !;
)
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
+<3
"!B !
" !" " !!&
4& 7)# &!H
!&- &!H& &)
1!!
+$0/$/0/(02
0=13
& !&B $"
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0@
/+13
# ! !)
!!
. !&
&& )
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0@
+:13
1! & 7
!
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0:
0+13
6 D " !
!&B !" !& B
) ")B
!
&&>!) !& "
&"! !
!")
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0:
(213
!4 !".
!& &
! ! " &.!&
! )
!
#"! !
B !)
1!!
+$0/$/0/((/
2=3
6 !3B "4&
!& 6 5 ! !
! )
!" !
&
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 268
Item 3.
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0:
223
! &!&
! ! 7)3
/8*" )
1!!
+$0*$/0/(0@
/@13
& !& )
& !
7&
1!!
+$0*$/0/(0@
*/13
!, 3 && !&
8
!(" )
1!!
+$0*$/0/(0:
2=3
9 !B !" ! &
!& B
!5# ! )
!
)
1!!
+$0*$/0/((0
(/3
4 !, !& " !
!&B !&%!&
B ')1 B !
" !, !& " !8
" !! !
)
1!!
+$0+$/0/(0(
(:13
H! &)4
&!H
! !)
1!!
+$0+$/0/((0
/:13
"!& & )1 !
&
! &.
&&)7 ! &
& ! )
>&)
1!!
+$0+$/0/(0(
2:3
5!!
83"
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
*213
&! # 9 !&
- ,! ! & !&
&
1!!
+$02$/0/((/
2=3
7!& "!&
& 8 &) !
! ! " &
&&)
!&
!!!"
!
& 7) ! !
" "" )
"!
!& !
7 ! )1 .
!" !
" &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 269
Item 3.
&!; ! !)
!
&""<(()
& 2 ! &
!,!& !&9 &
" E !& "&& &
!&&A & !
! &E
1!!
+$02$/0/(0+
+<3
B !" !#!&
" !
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
*<3
#!&,> !
)#!&
#! )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
+(3
7! ! !
B !!&#"!&
"&)1
#! $ !!)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
+(3
65#. "!& &
")1 ! 6""
3 && !& !
! " &)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
+23
6 B !!&, !&
!H !*" ! &
!)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
203
B !!& " !
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
203
# ! !&&
&
7
7 &! " &)#
-
#)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
2/3
))) !
!!B !
. . ".
& 7. ))))4
E
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
2*3
)6
;
& !&&)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
2*3
#! !&!
H !& & !&
B ! " )
1!! "!&) )
!" !
: &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 270
Item 3.
+$02$/0/(0@
0=3 !& 7 ! )
L !7
+$02$/0/(0@
(23
1! !&
!
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
0<3
K !&B !)))B !
#), !&97
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
((3
.K " !
!!&B )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
(=3
& !& "!&
! &!& !!
! ! " &
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
(=3
& !
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
/*3
, !& !
7 & !&
! >! )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
/23
& !B !&
& !& !!
- !)#&!; !
" !!!&6 5
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
*+3
!& &!5
! " & &&>! )
&7 !
!&, !&
!& !& ! &&
>!)
!& !
&!&!),!!
&& !
! " !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
*23
!47 !B !& !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
+(3
#!6 -!&
&&>!)B &<((
!&!!! !
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
+*3
)(
/2!&3")
!" !
& &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 271
Item 3.
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
+23
5!!#!.5 3
F# )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
+@3
"&.!
H !.!
" !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
2:3
&73!B !&
! !B !&
& )3 & )
H
!
& !& !
!7"
!H & 7!
! !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
0@3
6! !
" % 4 . 9; .
B !&9!'
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
(@3
, ! &; ,7!&
& ! !&!&
! " &!&!&,!
!&)1 ! !
! 7!&#!
!!)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
/03
& !"
! "&! & .
B 9 !, !&
!)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
*23
3 .B
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
*<3
9 !& !"
7 &
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
+(3
5# ! "L
)4 H !
! !
! )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
+/3
6 &
3! !$,!& &
%4! # '!&
" " >!!&1 .
&&
!" !
< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 272
Item 3.
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
++3
! B % !&!&
97')
&1 F !&
>!) &
) >! !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
+@3
"#! ".
H &&>!)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2=3
, 1
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2@3
& ! !!&
D .
!; 7
& & &"
> )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2:3
!&4 !
"&) !B
)
! !&
! ) !&!&
B !#! "
!& ; " !!
!)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2:3
1! !&" !97
!&3".#5 .
97!&#. & !&
3".B !!&K .
6""3 && .4
! .97!& &
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2:3
B !& & &&
>!!& &7
"&
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
023
! 6 !)
!& !B
& ! &
! & )
! ! !B
!& & !& & !H 7"7
!
H ! & !&
B !)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
(+3
B !F !
"7>!) M5L
&) &
" C5
!" !
<! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 273
Item 3.
!!!
+$02$/0/((0
(23
! 1 1&
# ! %3"!&!
9 ')# !
- )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
(+3
"&
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
(@3
,
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
/03
72+C !
!&
"&)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
/*3
3! " &." ! .
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
*+3
& " !!&#.
& O !&&>! )
,!& 7"&
"".
,
+$02$/0/((0
(23
!#&(2!&#&<+
!& ")
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
*@3
1 & !&B &!&
!& ! &)
& 83" &$!&
$ !!- !)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
*<3
3"!
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
+(3
, #)7 &
! " &)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
+@3
! !$7 &! " &
")
!, " ! &
!&97)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
203
B ; &&>!
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
2=3
B !!
8/2
)
!
! " &% &!5 '
!" !
< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 274
Item 3.
>! 7!
))) 1 F
! !&& )
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
003
"7F " !!&
1 F " ! &
F &
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
0(3
! ! !,
!&B !!&
)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
0<3
"F &
!& && >!% !
3" '" >!H $
& & ! !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
(03
!3B !&
"8 !
&&
)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
((3
4&7EE1" "
! & ! !
&!& )
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
(+3
B !$K "!
"!& & !& )
# !" !;
!
"!& & $ 8
! "!!& !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
(:3
! /2. .!
.! !&
B . 6
!!,.! !
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
(<3
! A " !
!& ! - !
!)1!& & !
! 7!&
!&& !! ) ;
!"!&!
&! !
!)
1!! & " !
!" !
<< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 275
Item 3.
+$02$/0/((0
/:3 ! "!! !)
1 /*+
+$02$/0/(((
(23
1!B !)1!&5 #7
7
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
*23
7! F, !&
>!
!!- !)
&
F &!& &
" !& !&
7) &&
! " >! ")
" ! &
!H
!!&!
&! ,
! !)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
+03
47 !B " D !&
! &&>!)
K
!&1 ), & K
!& 1 )9 ! !!&
5!! !"
&
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
+<3
, .B !!&
1!!
+$02$/0/(((
0=3
!&,
7)
1!!
+$02$/0/(((
0:3
65# ! " .
! &
! " &. "$ & )3
& !! ! .!!)
"&. "
7 !& &
!
!!&)
1!!
+$02$/0/(((
(03
# ! " !
B "
& !" !
1!!
+$02$/0/(((
*/3
>! " !
! " &." !B
!&B !!!&! &
%" !& & ')
1!!
& !B ! !5!
!" !
<; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 276
Item 3.
+$0=$/0/((/
+/13 ! ) !&
! !
!! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0(
*/13
! !B !!&
B . ! !97!&
B ) B B !
") !&
B ,)
%" B
# .!& !&
'
1!!
+$0=$/0/(02
2<13
B !!&,
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
0<13
1! ! B !
& !" ! &
!& " ! !"
)
7!
!&#!!&
!&. ! "
& !& ! )
1 7 >!
! &.)1!&& !
! ! &
" !3"!& )
; &&>! !65
# ! !" B !& & )
# 7 &!&! >!
7! !
7 " !& ! !
! !& !&)
B 3
+$0=$/0/(0@
(213
! !B
!&!)3 ;
"& 6 5
!&! !# &!;
&&)
!!&
&& <(( ! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
/013
&! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
/(13
4 " & &!&5
#77P
! !3"
F &
!" !
<6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 277
Item 3.
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0@
(213
!
. !
3" "."
!
7 ) 2C !
&")
!
5 # . !!&+C
") ! !&
!7 & ! !
& !. &
& !)6 & !.
." !
&)
!&! 7
" !97!&,
#!!! &)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0@
*+13
B ! !&
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0:
0(13
& ! ! !!
" !&K "
!!- !)1&& !.
%!
3"$ " !'
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0:
/(13
! !
!!&
")
& ! &
!
& ! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0:
/+13
5#6 !! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
0013
! ! "& ! "
! &
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
0*13
83" ! , H !&
F7 ! "
B !!&K !!8- !)
!B ! 7
!)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
(/13
L !&K ! 7
)6
" ! 8
" ) ! !&
! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
2<13
$,
!" !
< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 278
Item 3.
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
(<13
!&, 1
5# ! 47 !B
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
/213
1!
8/2.
7 !# !!!&
&! !!!
- %3! !'
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
**13
1!B &%
#'. $ ! ! &
!%6.
'. !!&
! " &%(/" !4 !
5 '
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
*:13
83" " !
)9 ! !
&)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
++13
9 ! !97 #
& & . !! ! !
& .& )
! &
# B !"&)
"& !
% ))! ! &
97$, ."
" ! / ')
&
&!& &
!)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
+:13
7&.!& ! 7 !.
! !" & ! !
#! )
& " & ! ! !
" ! &)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(((
(+13
7 "" !#
!& & . ! "
)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(((
/213
& ! !6
!&# &9)!&
! & "&)
! !3 )
!&,!& ! &
! "&)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(((
/<13
$!& $ 7 !
",
!" !
<" &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 279
Item 3.
1!!
+$0=$/0/((/
0<3
L .
!!- !)1! !!
! &
" )
D&Q Q</
+$0=$/0/(0(
(=3
B !!&K E
! &
! &" & ! !
! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0(
//3
!B !!&K
!& !!&!!
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0(
203
! ! & !&
B 7 &
!
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0+
(03
1! 4 )1
6 ! &
! !&!!&!)
! ! !
! ) !& )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0+
(*3
75!!# !
#!& " !
! &!
" & ! ) "
! " !!&B !
"& && )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(02
023
B $ &
!!- ! !), $ !
! 7 !)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
(@3
5 ,7! $,&3!9 )
& )#!
)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
/=3
& !& !&. &
!&
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
/:3
3 ! % !F
" ! ' !
!
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
2/3
B !& &
"
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
2/3
!&!&F !!
- !)B !& .
!" !
<: &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 280
Item 3.
& ! ! !.
&&
)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
0/3
3 ! "& ! !
! !9)
"&
7!& !
5!! !)
" !&& !
#)5 !.
&&& !
5# ! !/0(:
! &&
, !&-)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
*<3
& !1 F )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(((
0/3
& B !!&
K . !&
" ! -
" & )
7
! ! ! 83"
2C " 7
&! !
1!!
+$0=$/0/(((
+=3
"&& !&
, !& )
!&A
! !&3! !
$ !"!& !& !
! " & )6 6 5 !
&!; 7 )
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0*
2013
B 9!3"!&
!H C!
& ! !3")
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0:
*=13
!
! " &%!
" !!&#' "&
!" 7 !
!
8 !!
!!!! !) !
#$ !&,
")
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0:
+*13
97!& &9
# )
1!! 3 ! " &7 !&
!" !
<& &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 281
Item 3.
+$0@$/0/(0<
//13 " !)
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0<
+*13
!&&" & .
97.#!&
"&)
! #!!&
& )
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0/
(03
! !
5# ! (*
! "!!!8
- !E1 F !
" "(0R
&)
B .
!!&7
7.
! H !
)3! " &%3
B ' ! &!
& !
&!& !!
!& ! & )
! &!& !
! &" !&
! " &! !
<((E ! " &!
.!&"
!& E
B H& 7 !
! ! ?E
H
! && ! &
! " !
)
&! #%
& ! '
!& &! !
!3B ! " &)
! H &7
! % &&&
! !'!& &
1 F ."!
!&
& !! )1
! &
E
! "/0/0
! ! %1 F &
" H
! !
!2C'!&
!H!
!" !
; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 282
Item 3.
!& -
! S& !&S
7 .!&
!! E
H "!
- !(*
! .
7
H !
*& &!)M - E
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0/
2*3
& ! ")
1!!
+$0@$/0/(02
0(3
3B ! " &
- " !)
! !&"! !&
7! )
1!!
+$0@$/0/((0
*/3
B ,7
! "E#
!7&"3B
"&%!&" !
3 ')
1!
8/2$
B !!" )
; ""
! ! ; "
! !&#!! !!8
- !% &! ')
1!!
+$0:$/0/(0@
/@3
! !
1!!
+$0:$/0/(0<
/<3
& ! )
& ! "
)
1!!
+$0:$/0/((0
(/3
5# ! .
")
!3B
! " &!&
&!;!
! !
! " &)
1!!
+$0<$/0/(0=
+:13
B &!&B )
7!& & !&
!& !)
1!!
+$0<$/0/(0/
2+3
! 5# !
E
" ! 7
! ! !5# ! )#
!&& !
!
."
& !
! ! && E
!" !
;! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 283
Item 3.
1!!
+$(0$/0/((/
2/3
3 ! & !&
B .!& !
")9 !!B !
!& & . !
& )
1!!
+$(0$/0/((/
2@3
!B !& & !&
!)
!6 !&
! ) "
! .B
")
7 ! 5 !
.! "
) ! !
" )
1!!
+$(0$/0/(0=
/*3
9& !" & ! ! 65#
"&.!& !
"&
1!!
+$(($/0/(0:
+*3
5 & 1
1!!
+$(/$/0/(0(
0:3
# ! & ! &"
%! H "! '!&
" ! 5# !
!!8- ! 83" )
1!!
+$(/$/0/(0(
*/3
# & !H 7 !&
B )37 &
&&! ." "
!
!&&
! ! !& !
% 7
& !
)))!& H&!
')
1!!
+$(/$/0/(0/
/23
67!6 >" &.
! )
1!!
+$(*$/0/(0@
/013
! !B !&
& !&& )
,&3!!L
&&) !
!% !,'
&& )
@
%//@ ! % '.++ 7 &'
'
% !
!" !
; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 284
Item 3.
'! ( 4 44. - / -/
- 3
/ *) *, 37/) /=
) 9%
!&6
;"
!
!
$1 ! $! ! ! 67
'
6
6
"6
!
! 6
!6
!"6
6
6
"6
(
!" #$%
!" !
;< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 285
Item 3.
'!< ) @*,
/
4 4 %
:7:;5;89
; 7!;5:89
!7 5;89
!7 5;89
7 5 89
!9 9 1!1
'
(
!" !
;; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 286
Item 3.
1!!
*$(:$/0/(((
+@13
! ! ! "
"&"!&
#!!- ! )5
!. "8& &
!! & "
! )6 ! 7 !
) !& "
"!" !!! !&
!
!
! )
1!!
*$(:$/0/((/
/03
& "! ! &
A ! !D "!!
!& )
!
&!" &) &! )
1&& !. !
& ! !
&!" &(20;)
!;!&&!&
! !&! )
!
'!;
) *, 3
/
*
( *
/ *4) 4
4 %
'!6 ) /44
33
0
( >5 ?
-!#!! ()*=
4!#!! !&1 /)0(
1 /)<:
5 *)=(
!" !
;6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 287
Item 3.
!!
5&) & !
! !
! )5 "8 ! !
! ! "" !
! ) &
!7 7 !
"! "% !'!&
& !&&
!& )&)
9!;D !
& # !&)
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0(
(+3
! !
& !2C 8
. ! !. !5#.
D
&(C )
& !
! !
- ! ."
! ! && &!
& 8 >& E
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0*
/:3
!!! !
& !D !
5# ! !&
! !! . ))7
! )
1!!
*$(<$/0/(0*
2:3
6!& ! 7$
! "
1!!
*$//$/0/(0<
2<13
!!
!- !&
!! ! ! )
!! ! " !
!& $ ! )
&
7 ! "
>! )
&!H
!& !. !&
!! )
1!!
*$//$/0/(((
(=13
! )1 ! !&
". !H"
H
! !! .
H " - &
!& & 7 !
! !&
7 )
1!!
*$/*$/0/(((
*:13
& &!H7!
!&!& 8!&
!" !
; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 288
Item 3.
)-! &E
H
. !
!&&!
!&) &
! )
1!!
*$/*$/0/(0(
(:3
6 ! &
# G
! 7
" " !&
" & &?
1!!
*$/<$/0/(0/
/=3
6& !&"
)5
!& !&
!& !.
- !& !
!.!
5 & )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
0@13
! & !
5# ! ."
3#!& #7!&5 ,7
) ! ."
77
)
& !"
)6&
! . &
"!& ! ") >
""!!&!&! !
." ;7 !!
- !&.7!
)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
((13
&!H !7 !&!
)3 E
H
!" )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(=13
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(<13
7 & !
&! !- ! !&
! > ! !&! )
&!H"
H !!- ! )4
H&
! && &
)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
/213
7! & )!
)
6!! !!& ! &)
!" !
;" &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 289
Item 3.
!7 7 !&"7EEE
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
*:13
& !)
! ! .
! 7 ! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
0/13
!77 ! ! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0<
0*13
# !
!& !
)6
3
5
& .
&%?'"!! !
)
1!!
+$0($/0/((0
2=13
$$ ) ) $ !&-)
$$ &! &! )$&
!&$!& 78 &8 8
8 8288!$
1!!
+$0($/0/(((
2(13
7 ! &"&!
& !!& !"
&& !
!& ! !" &!
!&! )
!
+$0($/0/(0(
(23
&! & ! "
!!&" .
& !
7! &!" )35
!& &!!& 7
)
!
.!&
! "
" !!! &
! )9 .
! &&!)6 &!!
7 ! &7"
! )!H
!T(2 ! % 7
!'
! 7)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0(
023
#!! !& &
! )
1!!
+$0($/0/(0/
0=3
$1
!" !
;: &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 290
Item 3.
1!!
+$0($/0/(0/
(/3
# ! !
! !& )
!& ! !&& !)1!&
&!;"!
! !
& ! ! ! !
! !)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0*
+:3
6 ! & &1 )
6 !97!&, )6
& "&
!5# ! ; !
! )6 &
!!&!- !&
& ) &
& >!!&
! &
; " !
)
1!!
+$0($/0/(0+
023
!(*& !; 7 ! )
1 > ! !"&&
>! !5# ! !
!& &
)
!;" "&"!&
" ! ! &" !&
" ?1!& !
"!!& ?
1!!
+$0($/0/(0@
2*3
" !"& !5
# ! )# ! &
!& &&
! " ! && !
!- !!
1!!
+$0($/0/(0:
(:3
& 7 !2C
!! 5# ! )
>
! .
!! " ! !
!& " )
&" !
! & !.
1!!
+$0/$/0/(02
0=13
!!
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0@
/+13
& !
" & !& .
!" !
;& &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 291
Item 3.
&8
- !" & ! "
!& 8" !)
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0@
+:13
!! &! .
& $" & $!
&"A &
! $!-!
! 7 !!
$ !)#! "
&& & !
!"?
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0:
0+13
!7 ! &
! !)
1!!
+$0/$/0/(0<
*=13
! !&. & !&2C?9
!& !!?2C
!! ! )1!&
&!;
!7 ! &
7 & & !
)
! ! .!&
!2 ! & )
1!&
!7!
! D
&& ! ! )
1!!
+$0/$/0/((/
(23
C & ! )
6 !)
1!!
+$0+$/0/(0(
(:13
H& &!
! ! > !
&!H- )
1!!
+$0+$/0/((0
/:13
6 & (@
")
&)
1!!
+$02$/0/((/
2=3
!& && &)
& ! !5
# ! . "!
!& ! !&
! ! )6
!& !!& !
!" ! )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0+
+<3
-!&&
! !5)# ! 8 D7
!" !
6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 292
Item 3.
!H! &" ! !
" E
-!
! )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
2*3
6 ! )
M !&&!&
!" !)
!&)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0=
2*3
!7 7 !" E
H !
& 7 ! ! )
1!!
+$02$/0/(0@
(=3
1&& "!
!&!! !
& ! &
/2
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2=3
4 ! " !!&,
&&>!
1!!
+$02$/0/(0:
2:3
4 & )
,
+$02$/0/((0
(23
-!!!
! "
&!H !
)
1!!
+$02$/0/(0<
*@3
2C 83" !& " !
!
&&!&&$)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
(03
!
5# !
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
((3
&& .
; &!
&8 !& ! )#
! !
&&
)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
(+3
7 !& &
!.!&
; & 7!
" "!& & !
5# ! "
!;" ! !)
5 ! ! ! )
1!! 3 & & !&&
!" !
6! &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 293
Item 3.
+$02$/0/((0
(<3 !"7 !&
7& ) 2C
& !
! &"+C!&
!D ! !
+C)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
*23
! ! >!
! &)
1!!
+$02$/0/((0
+03
6 ! " !!
& ! !%!
!' !
7 )
1!!
+$02$/0/(((
0:3
! & &
! " &
!". !7)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(02
2<13
>!
!
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0=
0<13
# "!!
!& "!!
! & ! !
- ! )
7! ."
;
!!& !
; &)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0@
(213
7 &!&
& )1!-
! P
&! &
!&
)
!
& )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
0013
!7 ! 7
") !U<! ! !&
! 8
! &.
")
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
(<13
&! )
# ! &
& !)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
**13
&"& >!
!#& !!."
H "&! !!8
!" !
6 &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 294
Item 3.
"
!" & ! 7. .
!& .)
H
- ! !
! " & !
). . "
! !
!)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(((
/213
5# ! &
- !&" !
5# >! !)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((/
0<3
! & !
5# "
"&)!
! !!.&
!& "&!! ! )
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0+
(03
D !& !! !!
!" &! !
& )
!H !&!
! !
!!&!)
1!!
+$0=$/0/(0<
*@3
&!H ! !
! " & !&!
) !! !)!&
)6
!&S S !
)6!& !7"
! " D !
)
1!!
+$0=$/0/((0
0/3
5A!& !
! &"&
7! )
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0:
+*13
7 !" &.
! & " #
! ) !
" !&
& & " )
1!!
+$0@$/0/(0/
(03
7 && !
" )
1!!
+$0:$/0/(0@
/@3
&!"
" 35
-
!" !
6< &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 295
Item 3.
1!!
+$0:$/0/((0
(/3
&& ! !5
# ! )
1!!
+$(0$/0/((/
2@3
1&& !
8 ! !)
!D ! !"
! )
&
! !!
! ! )
1!!
+$(/$/0/(0(
*/3
7! - -
)1!& 7" &)
4 )1!& !
A !. ")
H&
1 !" 7
! .D 7
! "- ) &
!& & $ $)
& 7! A
!A !!&"
! " & !-8 >
)
1!!
+$(*$/0/(0@
/013
. &)4
&"! ! !
"!7&-!
)
@
%@0 ! % './0( 7 &'
'
% !
'!
- 4 57 4 , .
) -,)
- 5
,
) @
, .
- *4) -* 3*)
/44 /
95
!" !
6; &
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN - ATTACHMENT 1
Page 296
Item 3.
Wireless Telecommunication
Code Update
08-23-22
City Council Work Session
Will Lindsey, City Planner
Page 297
Item 3.
2Questions for Council
1.Should wireless facilities be permitted on non-residential
properties in residential zone districts?
2.Should certain City-owned properties be available for the siting
of wireless telecommunication facilities?
3.Does Council support staff’s recommendation for context-based
standards to regulate facility design?
Page 298
Item 3.
3Strategic Alignment
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES
NLSH 1.6 –Protect
and preserve quality of
life in neighborhoods.
HPG 7.1 –Provide
world-class municipal
services to residents
and businesses.
CITY PLAN
Safe Community SC-
2b –Complete a
Wireless
Communications Plan
and implement
targeted Land Use
Code amendments.
Page 299
Item 3.
4Plan Findings
Findings
•City has more co-located equipment
than free standing towers
•13 out of 73 towers and base stations
are multi provider facilities
•60 are single provider sites
Color Signal
Strength Signal Strength Description
Yellow Superior Strong enough to operate within
most buildings
Green Average
Strong enough to operate in
vehicle but not inside most
buildings
Blue Acceptable
Strong enough to operate
outside but not in a vehicle or
building
Page 300
Item 3.
Plan Findings
Heat Capacity Map For A Single
Provider
•Over ½ of the City is deficient in
wireless coverage and network
capacity
5
Color Potential
Capacity Signal Strength Description
Green Good
Ratio of number of sites to
subscriber base should
support a robust network
Orange Average
Ratio of number of sites to
subscriber base is problematic
to support a robust network
Red Poor
Ratio of number of sites to
subscriber base is poor likely
cannot support a robust
network
Page 301
Item 3.
Project Status 6
Timeline:
•Q1 2022: City Council Work Session (01/25)
•Q2 2022: Review existing standards with consultant, draft
recommended amendments to Land Use Code
•Q3 2022: Refine recommended amendments, seek additional
guidance from Boards, Commissions, and Council
•Q4 2022: Bring proposed Land Use Code amendments to
Commission and Council for consideration
Page 302
Item 3.
7Question 1
Should wireless facilities be
permitted on non-residential
properties in residential zone
districts?
Zone District Area Calculations:
ZONE Area Sq Mi
CG 1.866
D 0.188
HMN 0.087
LMN 10.229
MMN 2.930
NCB 0.247
NCL 0.842
NCM 0.853
RF 0.695
RUL 0.450
UE 4.299 Page 303
Item 3.
8Question 2
Should certain City-owned
properties be available for the
siting of wireless
telecommunication facilities?
Page 304
Item 3.
9Question 3
Does Council support staff’s recommendation for context-based
standards to regulate facility design?
Page 305
Item 3.
10Questions for Council
1.Should wireless facilities be permitted on non-residential
properties in residential zone districts?
2.Should certain City-owned properties be available for the siting
of wireless telecommunication facilities?
3.Does Council support staff’s recommendation for context-based
standards to regulate facility design?
Page 306
Item 3.
For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:
THANK YOU!
Will Lindsey, City Planner
wlindsey@fcgov.com / 970-224-6164
Page 307
Item 3.