HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/25/2016 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
October 25, 2016
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements. (staff: Mark Jackson; 15 minute staff presentation; 45
minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to update Council on current and planned improvements to Interstate 25
(I-25) in northern Colorado, and to review Fort Collins’ efforts in support of regional collaboration to
accelerate the work. Representatives from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Region 4 will attend to present and discuss planned improvements.
2. Land Bank Review. (staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to explore making changes to City Code to add flexibility to the Land
Bank Program to allow development beyond solely residential affordable housing on land bank
parcels.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
October 25, 2016
Mark Jackson, PDT Deputy Director
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Council on current and planned improvements to Interstate 25 (I-25) in
northern Colorado, and to review Fort Collins’ efforts in support of regional collaboration to accelerate the work.
Representatives from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 will attend to present and
discuss planned improvements.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have questions or concerns for CDOT related to current or planned improvement projects on
North I-25?
2. Does Council support staff bringing forward a Resolution of support to explore partnership opportunities that
include the Prospect/I-25 interchange in the corridor base case project, or as an Additional Request for
Enhancement (ARE)? Or would Council an additional work session on this topic before year's end?
Desired Outcomes
Council awareness of I-25 improvements planned and underway, and of Fort Collins’ commitment to regional
collaboration and partnership
Support to examine opportunities that maximize partnerships and extend improvements beneficial to Fort
Collins made as part of the North I-25 Improvements project
Recognize collaborative efforts of regional agencies and private interests to promote sustainable long-term
funding for regional and statewide transportation needs.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Interstate 25 is the key interstate linkage in Northern Colorado, and serves as a major freight route as well as a
key general travel connection between the Denver metro area to the south. Current infrastructure deficiencies,
combined with increasing travel demand on the corridor result in safety and congestion issues along the Northern
Colorado I-25 Corridor. Numerous efforts, initiatives, and actions have been taken or are underway to accelerate
improvements to I-25.
The City of Fort Collins has collaborated with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Larimer
County, and other regional agencies, organizations and private interests to identify funding assistance and pursue
long-term, sustainable funding for transportation needs in Colorado.
Fort Collins’ participation in recent I-25 related efforts include:
(2011) Fort Collins participation in the I-25 North Environmental Impact Statement. This multi-year,
multiple-agency transportation and environmental planning effort identified roadway capacity and transit
1
Packet Pg. 2
October 25, 2016 Page 2
needs and solutions for the northern I-25 Corridor. City of Fort Collins staff participated on the project
Technical Committee and its subcommittees. Significant community outreach was performed as part of the I-
25 EIS.
(2012) City of Fort Collins partnered with Windsor and CDOT to rebuild and improve the I-25/SH-392
interchange. Local contribution was $2.5 million and included urban design elements.
(2013-current) I-25 North Project Design (CDOT). CDOT identified three projects for design work on the
northern I-25 Corridor. One segment under design is I-25 from SH-392 to SH-14.
(2013-current) Fort Collins participation in I-25 Coalition. In the fall of 2013, elected officials and their
designees from three counties and fourteen communities along the I-25 Corridor in Northern Colorado formed
the I-25 Coalition. The I-25 Coalition has grown steadily, with a current distribution list of almost 90 including
representatives. The Coalition’s primary goal is to accelerate construction of a third lane in each direction of I-
25 as identified in the I-25 North Project (from State Highway 6 to State Highway 14).
(2014) North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) votes to allocate $5 million in
regional transportation funds to two I-25 related projects:
o I-25 truck climbing lane on Berthoud Hill ($3M)
o Improvements to I-25 bridge over Crossroads Boulevard ($2M)
(October 2015) Council passes Resolution 2015-089 (7-0) and a letter to Governor Hickenlooper urging
support and submission of CDOT’s application for National Disaster Resilience Competition funds.
(November 2015) Council passes Resolution 2015-100 (7-0) supporting Larimer County’s proposal to
temporarily reallocate a portion of their General Fund Mill Levy to the County Road and Bridge Fund with the
express purpose of making improvements to northern I-25.
(December 15, 2015) Council passes Resolution 2015-112 (7-0) supporting the I-25 Coalition efforts urging
the Colorado legislature to make timely improvements to northern I-25.
(February 2016) Council appropriates $30,000 in contribution to contract with a lobbying and
communications firm to advocate for solutions to Interstate 25 traffic congestion.
(April 2016) Council passes Resolution 2016-035 supporting TIGER and FASTLANE grant applications
seeking improvements to I-25 and authorizing the Mayor to write a letter of support.
(September 2016) $2.25 million in local funds included in City Manager’s recommended 2017-2018
budget in contribution to regional local match for I-25 improvements.
(October 2016) Council authorizes the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with
Larimer County and other local agencies to remit funds equal to an increase in local share of County road and
bridge funds for a period of five years. Fort Collins contribution is estimated at $2.2 million over five years.
(Spring 2017) Larimer County and Fort Collins to pursue a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant for
enhancements and trail connections to the Poudre River bridge at I-25.
Improvements to I-25
Several projects to improve I-25 in Northern Colorado are either underway or scheduled for construction. Most
notably, CDOT has identified funds, including $15 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) federal grants and $25 million in local/regional/private contributions, to make improvements to
I-25 between SH-14 (Mulberry) and SH-402 (Loveland). Improvements made as part of the North I-25
Improvements Project include an additional managed lane in each direction (providing toll and high occupancy
vehicle use, as well as improved transit travel time), and improvements to several bridges. These improvements
help address pressing safety and congestion problems plaguing I-25.
1
Packet Pg. 3
October 25, 2016 Page 3
Current I-25 improvement projects underway or scheduled include:
Berthoud Hill Climbing Lane Project (underway, scheduled for completion end of 2016)
Crossroads Boulevard Bridge Improvement Project (2016 thru 2018)
North I-25 Improvements Project (2017-2020)
Additional Request for Enhancements (ARE)
The North I-25 Improvements Project presents a unique opportunity to explore additional corridor enhancements
in partnership with public agencies and private development. Additional funding brought to the project, combined
with cost efficiencies of integrating with the design/build process, could result in improvements that further benefit
I-25 as well as local communities and development. Local agencies and private interests are expressing interest
in adding interchange improvements, bridge widening, and new slip ramps and park and ride facilities through a
process called Additional Requests for Enhancements (ARE). Requests for enhancements must be submitted
before CDOT issues requests for project bids in January 2017.
Fort Collins has identified the Prospect Road/I-25 Interchange as a potential candidate for either inclusion into the
base case design/build plan or ARE. Staff is also exploring the possibility of public-private partnerships to help
make the project feasible.
Regional Collaboration and Fix North I-25 Efforts
Finding solutions for I-25 in Northern Colorado has united the northern Front Range communities, agencies, and
private interests in common purpose. Six Northern Colorado communities, Weld and Larimer Counties, CDOT,
Chambers of Commerce, the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) and private
businesses are collaborating to accelerate improvements to I-25. The North I-25 Coalition has grown steadily, with
a current distribution list of almost 90 including representatives from Adams, Larimer and Weld counties,
Berthoud, Broomfield, Dacono, Erie, Firestone, Fort Collins, Frederick, Johnstown, Loveland, Mead, Northglenn,
Timnath, Thornton and Windsor as well as CDOT, businesses and other interested agencies.
Efforts to accelerate improvements to I-25 are not solely due to local agency support. Private interests are also
making their voice heard in policy and legislative matters related to regional statewide transportation funding
needs. The Fix North I-25 Business Alliance was formed by the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance (NCLA) in
2014 with the purpose of urging CDOT and the State legislature to make timely improvements to I-25 roadway
capacity in northern Colorado, and to push for sustainable, long-term funding for statewide transportation
infrastructure needs. This group, in partnership with elected officials of the I-25 Coalition, is very involved in
discussions with legislators, particularly related to continuing the TRANS bond issuance, and finding additional
State funds for existing and unmet transportation infrastructure needs. More information on the Fix North I-25
efforts can be found at: <https://fixnorthi25.com/>
The regional collaboration goes beyond political and policy issues. Six local agencies, Larimer and Weld
Counties, and a private developer through Loveland’s metro District, committed $25 million in funds to help CDOT
meet local match requirements for the TIGER grant award and planned corridor improvements. Breakdown of
local funding contributions include:
City of Fort Collins $2.25M
City of Loveland $2M
Town of Berthoud $500K
Town of Johnstown $1M
Larimer County mill levy $10M
Weld County $2M
1
Packet Pg. 4
October 25, 2016 Page 4
Town of Timnath $500K
Town of Windsor $1M
Loveland Metro District $6M
Public Information
Current and planned construction on the North I-25 Corridor will have an impact on local residents and
businesses for several years. It is important to make sure clear and timely information is available via numerous
media sources including online, print and personal communications. CDOT and the North I-25 Improvement
Project team are committed to a robust public information program to help people stay abreast of the project and
offer travel tips and information. In addition, the City of Fort Collins has created an I-25 information page at
<http://www.fcgov.com/transportation/i25.php> . This page offers background information on I-25 related
improvements and includes links to CDOT projects, Fix North I-25, and CDOT’s successful Bustang regional
express service to Denver.
The City of Fort Collins will work closely with CDOT to help disseminate information, and provide check-in
opportunities with boards and commissions and Council throughout the project, as necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Berthoud Hill Fact Sheet (PDF)
2. I-25 Crossroads Bridge Replacement (PDF)
3. CDOT I-25 Project Fact Sheet (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 5
Work to Begin on Interstate 25
Climbing Lane Project
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
Starting the week of May 16, crews will begin working on the Interstate 25 Climbing Lane project, spanning from mile
point 245.87 to mile point 249.84. Throughout this project a third climbing lane will be added on the southbound side
of Interstate 25 to provide trucks and oversized vehicles with an additional travel lane. The additional lane will provide
relief to motorists and improve overall trafÀc operations by reducing delays caused by inadeTuate passing opportunities
and allowing for two lanes of freeÁowing trafÀc. $dditional work items include the mill and overlay of all northbound and
southbound lanes, widening the bridge at Valley Road in addition to excavation, embankment and drainage improvements
along the corridor. This project is expected to be completed by Spring of 217. S(M$ Construction of Centennial was
awarded the prime contract on this approximately $10.3 million project.
TRAVEL IMPACTS:
Travelers should expect shoulder closures during road
improvements. Construction work hours will run from
7 a.m. to 5 30 p.m., Monday through )riday. $dditional
night work will be reTuired to complete the mill and
overlay portion of the construction and is expected
to begin on Sunday, May 22. Construction hours for
night work will run from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. and single
lane closures are anticipated for both northbound and
southbound trafÀc. Speed limits through the project
work zone will be reduced to 65 mph. No vehicle width
restrictions are predicted during this project.
Communicating with Us:
To receive update about road conditions, construction
information, or if you have Tuestions or concerns,
please send us an email at i25climbinglane@gmail.
com, call the project hotline at 970-373- 1584 or log
on to the project website: www.cdot.gov/projects/ .
FACT SHEET
To Berthoud
SH 56 WRC 44
WRC 38
WRC 34
Mead
I-25 I-25
END PROJECT
IM 0253–243
M.P. 249.844
STA. 259+25.00
BEGIN PROJECT
IM 0253–243
M.P. 245.879
STA. 49+74.27
ATTACHMENT 1 1.1
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: Berthoud Hill Fact Sheet (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
ATTACHMENT 2 1.2
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: I-25 Crossroads Bridge Replacement (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: CDOT I-25 Project Fact Sheet (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
1.3
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: CDOT I-25 Project Fact Sheet (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
1
Mark Jackson
Planning, Development & Transportation
I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements
Regional Collaboration and
Project Update
ATTACHMENT 4
1.4
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
Purpose
• Update Council on current and
planned improvements to I-25 in
Northern Colorado
• Project overview and update from
Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT)
• Recognize regional collaboration
leading to accelerated
improvements
• CDOT Guests:
• Johnny Olson, Region 4
Transportation Director
• Heather Paddock, Region 4
Central Program Engineer,
North I-25 Project Lead
• Other Guests In Attendance:
2
1.4
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
General Direction Sought
1. Does Council have questions or concerns for CDOT related to current or
planned improvement projects on North I-25?
2. Does Council support staff bringing forward a Resolution of support to
explore partnership opportunities that include the Prospect/I-25
interchange in the corridor base case project, or as an Additional Request
for Enhancement (ARE)? Or would Council an additional work session on
this topic before year's end?
3
1.4
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
Background
4
• I-25 Northern Colorado’s key
interstate highway linkage
• Critical for commuters and
movement of goods
• Increasing demand plus aging
infrastructure
• Long range improvements for
entire corridor estimated at $1.3
billion
• Where to start?
1.4
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
Regional Collaboration
5
• Public and Private Collaboration
• Goal 1: Accelerate
improvements to I-25 in Northern
Colorado
• Goal 2: Help push for long term
sustainable transportation
funding solutions in CO
• Local agencies and interests
pledged $25 million
• CDOT awarded $15 million in
TIGER grant funds
North I-25 Improvement Project
moved forward by 15 years!
1.4
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
Regional Collaboration: Key Players
6
• City and County Governments
(Mayor Pro Tem Horak,
Commissioner Donnelly)
• NCLA/Fix North I-25 (David May,
Sandra Hagen Solin)
• North Front Range MPO
(Terri Blackmore)
• Colorado Transportation
Commission (Kathy Gilliland)
• Colorado Department of
Transportation (Johnny Olson)
1.4
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
I-25 Improvements
7
• Berthoud Hill Climbing Lane
• Crossroads Boulevard/I-25
Bridge Replacement
• North I-25 Improvements Project
• Managed lanes
• Widen/replace bridges
• Allow for key regional trail
connections
• Completion 2020
1.4
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
Fort Collins Opportunity:
Prospect Interchange
8
• I-25/Prospect Interchange
outdated, regional growth
pressures
• Local Opportunity: Prospect
Interchange
• Base Case Inclusion
• Additional Requests for
Enhancements (ARE)
• Staff exploring
partnerships
• Window of opportunity
1.4
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
I-25 Information:
9
CDOT Public Information
• https://www.codot.gov/projects/
I25NorthExpressLanes
City of Fort Collins
• http://www.fcgov.com/transport
ation/i25.php
1.4
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
General Direction Sought
1. Does Council have questions or concerns for CDOT related to current or
planned improvement projects on North I-25?
2. Does Council support staff bringing forward a Resolution of support to
explore partnership opportunities that include the Prospect/I-25
interchange in the corridor base case project, or as an Additional Request
for Enhancement (ARE)? Or would Council an additional work session on
this topic before year's end?
10
1.4
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4908 : I-25 Northern Colorado Improvements)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 25, 2016
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Land Bank Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to explore making changes to City Code to add flexibility to the Land Bank Program to
allow development beyond solely residential affordable housing on land bank parcels.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support staff bringing back proposed changes to the Land Bank Ordinance?
2. What feedback does Council have on any of the proposed revision topics presented by staff?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Why Land Banking is Important
Affordable housing is important to the City’s social, economic and environmental goals. By stabilizing housing
costs and providing options that are affordable to each citizen’s income, the City promotes job and school
readiness and retention, healthy outcomes and increased community involvement. Businesses can recruit and
retain workers at all income levels. The environment is served through compact development by reducing the
"drive till you qualify" stresses on infrastructure and by supporting multimodal transit options that reduce carbon
emissions.
Land banking is the practice of buying and holding land for a future use. It is an important strategy for preserving
sites for affordable housing in areas where land is currently relatively inexpensive but where price inflation is
likely. Securing significant parcels before land prices rise makes affordability possible with fewer subsidy dollars.
Strategic selection of sites to bank can also shape the character of the community by ensuring that affordable
housing will be well distributed within the City.
History of the Fort Collins Program (Map - Attachment 1)
Year Action Taken
2000 Feasibility Study
2001 Land Bank Program established by Ordinance
2002-2006 5 parcels totaling 50 acres purchased
2009 Appraisals conducted, not requisite appreciation
2014 Appraisals conducted, sufficient appreciation
2015 Full Market Study & Council Work Session
2016 Horsetooth parcel in process of sale to FCHA
As a result of the 2015 Work Session, City Council supported selling a parcel for the first time. (Attachment 2) In
late 2015 and into 2016, the 8-acre Horsetooth parcel was offered for sale through a competitive Request for
Proposal (RFP) process and the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) was chosen as a development partner. In
order to choose the best option presented in the FCHA’s proposal, the Land Bank Ordinance was amended by
2
Packet Pg. 20
October 25, 2016 Page 2
City Council in March 2016 for the first time since adopted, to allow for a range of area median incomes (AMI) that
allowed some units targeted to 60% AMI as long as the overall community still averaged no more than 50% AMI.
In recognizing that much has changed in the development environment since 2001 when the program was
created, staff undertook a full review of the program.
Land Bank City Code and Policy
Land banking is established City policy in Fort Collins. City Plan speaks to the need for affordable housing
generally and supports the Land Bank program specifically:
Policy LIV 8.7 Maintain a Supply of Land
- Maintain an adequate supply of land for future affordable housing development by maintaining the
Land Bank Program and acquiring additional properties as funding permits.
This policy is explored in the Housing Affordability Policy Study and incorporated into the 2015-2019 Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan.
The City’s Land Bank Program is its only long term affordable housing development incentive. Very specific
program parameters were specified by City Code and criteria established for the use, acquisition and sale of land
bank parcels. In addition, City policy required that 3 additional conditions must be met for a parcel to be ready for
sale. They include:
A verified need for the land
Appreciation such that the parcel will sell for more than it was purchased for
Development-ready in terms of mitigation of any major development impediments.
Current Land Bank Ordinance criteria
City Code Chapter 13, Article XIII. Land Banking contains acquisition criteria for land purchase:
From a willing seller without condemnation
At a cost that does not exceed fair market value
Located in the City Growth Management Area
The location is now, or will be in a reasonable future within 1/2 mile of at least 3 of the following:
1. Transit Route
2. School
3. Park
4. Employment Center
5. Commercial Center
City Code also establishes disposition guidelines. Sale of the parcels to a housing provider for the purpose of
developing affordable housing is governed by the following criteria:
For the purpose of developing a rental community where the average income target of the community is no
more than 50% AMI.
For the purpose of developing ownership housing targeted to buyers making no more than 60% AMI.
Solely residential development
Affordable in perpetuity
Land sale price not to exceed 90% of fair market value
Development must occur within a specified time period.
What’s restricted?
Mixed-income and mixed use projects are not permitted.
No market rate housing can be included on the land bank parcels.
2
Packet Pg. 21
October 25, 2016 Page 3
There is no provision for selling a parcel out of the program if it no longer is appropriate for the program’s
goals.
Assuming a sale out of the program is permitted, the provision requiring the sale price be 90% of market
value would not allow the program to recapture the full value of the land to go into purchasing the next parcel
and would give a windfall to the buyer.
The fixed AMI levels established for rental and home ownership programs do not align with the City’s
definition of affordable housing or the major funding sources currently being used by developers of affordable
housing. For instance, Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding allows for rental projects to go up to 60% AMI,
but the program only allows up to an average of 50% AMI.
Home ownership targeted to incomes at 60% and below may be unrealistic in our current real estate market
without support services that are not provided for in this program. The need for affordable home ownership
opportunities exists at least to 80% AMI households and even for households with earning levels higher than
that.
Lessons learned
Sale of the Horsetooth Parcel
The sale of the Horsetooth parcel tested the original ordinance provisions. While conforming proposals were
received, the winning proposal offered several options, including different scenarios. The chosen option provided
the highest purchase price, and served a wide range of incomes, including many units at the hard to reach 30%
AMI level, and required the amendment to the City Code as discussed above. Because this change improved the
program and would apply to all land bank parcels, Council approved this amendment. This experience
demonstrated how limiting the specific AMI levels in City Code could be. The idea emerged that if the income
levels were tied to the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, it would add dynamism to the criteria and be reviewed
on a regular basis with the Plan’s regular updates.
The Request for Proposal process used to choose a development partner was determined to be a good process
to deploy parcels. Not only does it create competition among teams, it can be used to seek site-specific
proposals, taking into consideration the community needs at the time of deployment and any funding opportunities
the development partner would want to use.
Housing Colorado’s Community by Design Charrette on College Parcel, located near Trilby and Lemay
In partnership with the FCHA, the City was awarded a design charrette for the College Avenue parcel. Graduate
students from the University of Colorado in Denver, volunteer professionals, FCHA staff and City staff met for 2½
days to study the best use of this parcel. The 17-acre parcel was chosen because:
It is the largest parcel;
It has not had infrastructure improvements because it is surrounded by undeveloped land;
It has connectivity issues because it does not front any large streets; and
Existing affordable housing, and more affordable housing projects in the development review process,
surrounds this parcel. Saturation of too much affordable housing in one area is not optimal and can affect a
development partner’s ability to produce a market study that supports building more affordable housing in that
area.
The fact that this parcel is surrounded by raw land for sale presented opportunities for the land bank parcel if
additional land was acquired. Even then, the restrictions imposed by the current Ordinance limited the best and
most creative uses. Ideas generated by the charrette included swapping the land for something with access to
existing roads, rezoning the entire quadrant so that added density could bring economy of scale to reduce
development costs, or using the land to support the affordable housing in the area with jobs and services such as
child care.
While the charrette did not conclude with the perfect development design or proposal, it pointed out that the
context that develops around the site between the time when the land is purchased and when the City is ready to
develop can have a significant impact on the feasibility of the original intent of the program. It also pointed out that
2
Packet Pg. 22
October 25, 2016 Page 4
there is no way to trade or sell a parcel for full value if it determined to no longer be suitable for the land bank
program. While staff will continue to hold this parcel to see if infrastructure constraints change to make it market
ready, it may be a long hold. Interestingly, this is the only land bank location that still is not within a ½ mile from at
least 3 of the listed location requirements. At this time, the parcel is located near a park only. It is not close
enough to a transit route, school, commercial center or employment center. The location may never be within ½
mile of the desired neighborhood amenities.
Public Engagement
Following Council’s direction, staff presented the Land Bank Program and discussed possibilities to change the
ordinance to add flexibility with the following boards and commissions:
Affordable Housing Board
Community Development Block Grant Commission
Economic Advisory Commission
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Planning and Zoning Board’
Youth Activity Board
Fort Collins Board of Realtors Government Liaison Board
While staff did not have specific recommendations for changes at this time, the boards and commissions were
supportive of creating some flexibility to the program to allow the best and most sustainable communities to be
built on these parcels.
Staff also conducted two focus groups with non-profit and for-profit developers, low-income housing consumers,
elected officials and other stakeholders. The notes from these focus groups are attached. (Attachment 3)
Generally the groups liked the idea of adding flexibility.
Revisions to consider
Staff has identified the following areas for potential Code amendments:
Proposed Change Why?
Allow Mixed-Use and Mixed-Income Best Practice Allows Site Level Considerations
Allow Sale or Trade out of Program Maximizes Program Effectiveness
If Sold - Allow Full Market Value Efficient Use of Resource Leverage
Remove Specific AMI Levels Tie to AHSP Create Sustainable Communities
Still can target lowest possible AMI range
Not only are mixed-use developments considered best practice, but zoning or development requirements can
push developers to include commercial elements and the current language of the program does not allow this.
Mixed-income communities are also considered best practice and can provide environments for rich interactions
for a wide range of incomes that build on the different strengths of the various earning categories. Allowing a way
to sell or trade parcels that are no longer appropriate for the goals of the program provides an avenue to transfer
the value of the land to more suitable land. If this is determined to be necessary or advantageous, the full value
and not 90% of the value should be moved forward.
Next Steps
If directed by Council, draft proposed ordinance changes (Q4 2016)
Conduct Public Outreach and Engagement on proposed changes (Q1 2017)
Return to Council for consideration of the proposed Ordinance Changes. (Q2 2017)
2
Packet Pg. 23
October 25, 2016 Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Bank map (PDF)
2. Work Session Summary (PDF)
3. Focus Groups Notes (PDF)
4. Communications Plan (PDF)
5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 24
INTERSTATE 25
S SHIELDS ST
S COLLEGE AVE
S TAFT HILL RD
E VINE DR
S TIMBERLINE RD
S LEMAY AVE
E PROSPECT RD
LAPORTE AVE
E DOUGLAS RD
W DRAKE RD
N TAFT HILL RD
E DRAKE RD
ZIEGLER RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
E TRILBY RD
N SHIELDS ST
W VINE DR
W MULBERRY ST
E COUNTY ROAD 30
W PROSPECT RD
S OVERLAND TRL
W TRILBY RD
E HARMONY RD
E MULBERRY ST
CARPENTER RD
E
L
I
N
C
OLN
A
V
E
W HARMONY RD
RIVE
R
S
I
D
E
A
VE
W HORSETOOTH RD
TURNBERRY RD
N COLLEGE AVE
W
CO
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
3
8
E
ATTACHMENT 2 2.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Work Session Summary (4877 : Land Bank Review)
2.2
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Work Session Summary (4877 : Land Bank Review)
1
Land Bank Focus Groups
Conducted on August 3 and 8, 2016
Stakeholders included: For-profit and non-profit developers, affordable housing advocates, city staff,
and elected officials.
Question 1- How much do you know about land bank?
Both groups heard of program but did not know details
Question 2- What do you think of land banking as an incentive?
Both groups generally supported the idea
Great idea if conceived and administered properly
Curious – but seems like only works to sell land to generate cash to build housing.
Question 3- Reduced land pricing enough of an incentive?
Land is a huge incentive.
Still could be too hard even if you give the developer the land.
Developers in Boulder are using IHO to do cash in lieu to developer and building units off-site.
A transfer tax would be great.
Potentially allow a portion of sites to comply with existing zoning but allow a second phase at a
higher density.
Might need to pair with additional subsidy.
Water going from concern to crisis
Doubtful that reduction adequate to offset difference between market rate and affordable.
Need consistent source of income – preferable small charge paid frequently.
Easier process just as important.
Question 4 – Locations of current parcels
Kechter has commercial value. Maybe swap or mixed use development.
Question 5 - Additional parcels?
Put RFP our there for a realtor when looking to purchase Land Bank parcels. You need a good
commercial broker and I can help you put together a RFP.
Should use same people that for-profit developers use.
They can get you parcels that aren’t even for sale.
Every place we’ve bought and developed has had some deconstruction, nothing is vacant.
Near mass transit
Consider air rights – exploit through public private partnerships
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Focus Groups Notes (4877 : Land Bank Review)
2
Market too hot – but if opportunity presents then jump on it.
Question 6 – Acquisition criteria?
Like tying RFP’s to current AHSP.
Need a RFP process.
Use RFP not ordinance to ask for optional desires – ie: give bonus points for age friendly design.
Use needs articulated in Affordable Housing Strategic Plan to guide RFP process for buying and
selling.
While locating near transit important – should be in RFP not code
Be careful with height and density bonuses - May not have the beneficial effects desired and
could have negative consequences.
Get a realtor and use loopnet, or other real estate software. Competing against professional
developers looking for land.
Question 7 – Ownership opportunities?
More communities have failed with IHOs than have been successful. An example is Boulder.
Loveland and Longmont threw theirs out since it killed a couple of projects. The buyers love the
fact they get a good deal on the front end with a lower price but can’t get good enough equity
on the back end. To really promote or require ownership is tricky. We should go for rental.
IHOs is different than ownership, I agree IHO doesn’t work. I think ownership can be good but
shouldn’t be the stated goal of the program. You can have ownership that doesn’t put
constraints on what you sell it for. Trust could have first right of refusal, that it be owner
occupied and not held as rental. Those two will hold market value down so you get de facto
affordability. Formulas for AMI or CPI don’t work when the market goes south. In some cases if
it’s modeled correctly and all of the structure is well thought out and you have someone
monitoring it, then it can work.
60% AMI is too low for home ownership, should go up to 80%. This would better meet industry
standards.
60% only works for Habitat. A developer isn’t going to do all the handholding that Habitat does.
No viable incentive in the City to do that.
No one gets paid more to work on a tax credit project.
How do you preserve permanent affordability?
o Deed restriction, but that can kill a project.
o Important to write deed restriction properly to not kill projects.
Most mountain communities need deed restriction removed by Council. Can turn into a
headache.
First right of refusal for land owner should be in the ordinance.
Make sure first buyer gets deep discount from market process in order to keep affordable to
subsequent buyers.
18 units or more needed for economy of scale.
2.3
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Focus Groups Notes (4877 : Land Bank Review)
3
Need to share appreciation or not worth doing for consumer.
Consider new mobile home parks – especially if they can be resident owned.
Difficult to accomplish – especially if comes with controlling covenants.
Question 8 – Income levels?
Don’t like 50% average. We need new 30% units, we have a 3 year wait list for 30% units.
Require 5% of new units to be 30% AMI but we encourage greater. Did cost analysis and it’s
something close to $90,000 per unit of subsidy.
Used to be $105,000 with 5% return, thought it would be higher.
Depends on the area.
Had idea to do fundraiser and put the donor’s name on the door or driveway to create our own
funding sources. Portland does a great job of this.
I would remove restrictions since you don’t know what conditions will be in the future. If you do
everything on a RFP basis and assign points based on the proposals that address the AHSP, you
have a lot more flexibility in selection process. Weights can be dynamic so it can reflect what is
going on in the community.
Don’t want to shy away from competition by forcing developer to develop 30% AMI units.
We have some out of town developers that would develop 30% AMI units since they are big
advocates of affordable housing.
Like tying the RFP to the AHSP
Ownership level too low.
Income levels too low – look at 80%.
Question 9 – Mixed –use and/or mixed-income?
Yes, Holiday is a great model and avoids having too much concentration.
Density in LMN is an issue.
If you have a charrette, your program should allow whatever you do at the charrette. Let market
figure out what size of parcel will work for mixed-income and mixed-use.
Mason corridor has been great for mixed-use projects. Mixed-use could be a way to finance the
program.
Don’t restrict anything, allow creativity.
Something you could do is if you’re looking at sales price for the land and there is some market
rate, pro-rate what you’re selling land for so you aren’t subsidizing market rate housing. Public
might have negative perception of subsidizing market rate.
Boulder subsidizes workforce housing up to 115% AMI and we may be there soon.
For larger parcels, you would want market rate to help subsidize 30%.
If HUD regs stand, you will have concentration issue.
Be as flexible as possible and let the market determine the best use for the land.
How do we discount the value of the land and then use it for market rate housing? Can we sell
the market rate part for more than 90% of market value? (Would require code change). Can we
2.3
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Focus Groups Notes (4877 : Land Bank Review)
4
price different components differently? Or would overall community be enough of a benefit to
justify discounting even the market rate product?
Only allow swap or purchase if another parcel already identified for acquisition. If project has
commercial – require a nexus to affordable residents. Child care facility good example of
commercial with nexus.
Look at Holiday from Boulder
Mixed-use and mixed-income can be incentives – however, this shifts rent burden to non-
affordable units and impose financing and marketing obstacles.
YES – don’t have enough room or land to not consider this option.
State Land Board has rules we could look at that allow sale but only if another property will be
acquired within 36 months.
Question 10 – City’s role in Affordable Housing
Convener – bring interest groups together.
Political role – lip service to proactive planning. Reality – City not demonstrating forethought,
leadership, or creativity to get ahead of issue.
Question 11 – Ability to sell out of program?
Be careful in getting rid of land because land is tough to acquire. Not much land available for
development.
If property isn’t being utilized, like Forest Service, they have ability to exchange it for a different
parcel? Land swap vs. land sale. It’s a repurposing of land. Maybe it isn’t suitable anymore but
perhaps we can trade for one that is.
No reason to disallow a swap or sale as long as is will fund the purchase of a better site.
If you buy and sell in same market better than holding money which may then not purchase as
much because market has changed.
Look for specific partners to swap with such as government owned land, CSU, private land
owners with land in attractive locations for this purpose.
Tricky to use public funds for one objective only to use for something else – could be perceived
as subjective or political.
Yes, it might make sense to sell to generate cash to build elsewhere.
Question 12 – other land bank comments?
How about doing a land lease instead of selling to a developer?
Make sure you have the right partners – include CSU.
How about selling off portions of parcels and saving some for the future when zoning might
allow more density?
The next 5 years are critical as we approach community build out. Be aggressive now when
there may be more land to buy. Diminishing impact if wait too long.
2.3
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Focus Groups Notes (4877 : Land Bank Review)
5
As we move into future, less land available and therefore less land banking opportunity. Act
now! Also, the faster we build on these parcels the quicker we will have more affordable
inventory that then stays as community stock.
Providing a preference for qualifying city employees is politically difficult.
Should program have a sunset review – put up or shut up over the next 5 years.
Sell parcels that are sized correctly for tax credit projects – look to provide 120 units for 4%
LIHTC deals. (10 acres in LMN).
Can the creative class be targeted?
Build as much flexibility into ordinance as possible and use the RFP process for details.
How can Community Land Trusts help? Regional land trust is a good idea.
Look to incentivize things we want such as stepless entryways by providing fee relief – such as
water or street oversizing.
This is a tool we should keep – but not enough to make big impact on issue.
Additional Comments
What other partners do we need to create more affordable housing? Employers?
Ownership vs. rental
Did a project called Maple Hill when I was on FCHA board and that is when we tested incentives
of the City to see if they promoted affordability. Had we complied with everything, we would
have saved $1,500 per lot. Incentives right now don’t work.
If City just donates land or discounts it, then it could work. Horsetooth wasn’t much of a
discount but it can work with tax credits.
May not have to do both if you donate land. For Lowry, City kicked in money in addition to
donating land. There are some other resources but I wouldn’t preclude it.
How restrictive do you want ordinance to read not knowing what conditions will be in the
future? The ordinance should include what bare minimum should be as opposed to adding
more exclusions, etc.
Need 18 du/acre to build in economies of scale
Are there incentives for tap fees for affordable housing?
What about a “water bank”? Water will be 3 times the cost of land soon if not already. Cost and
availability of water will be next crisis.
Look into air rights.
2.3
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Focus Groups Notes (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Land Bank
Communications Plan
Draft – August 2016
1. INTRODUCTION
This Communications Plan outlines the overall approach for communicating with stakeholders about
the City’s review of the Land Bank Program. The City has assembled a technical assistance team
to help the project manager.
1.1 Purpose of this Document
This Communications Plan outlines the overall approach for communicating with the general public
and stakeholders to inform them about the City reviewing the Land Bank program.
1.2 Scope of this Document
This document outlines general responsibilities for the internal City team and consultants.
1.3 Goals of Land Bank Program Communications
Raise awareness with the public about what it is and what it isn’t
Gather community input about knowledge of the program, factors that may contribute to
developer participation and income levels required for housing on City Land Bank sites
Tie to the City’s triple-bottom-line and the community need for affordable housing
Address concerns about specific properties and how they’re approved through the normal
City process
Gather input about future Land Bank parcels and whether the City should acquire them
Seek recommendations for improving the program.
Elevator speech: The City has recently activated one of its Land Bank parcels – The Land
Bank program was created to use public funds to purchase parcels throughout the community
and hold them for future affordable housing developments. With the increasing lack of
affordable housing in the community, the City is reviewing its policies including whether to
make adjustments to the program including looking at income levels for households eligible to
reside in these developments and whether more parcels should be purchased.
1.4 Anticipated Schedule
August
1. Focus groups of Stakeholders
September
2. Public forum? Panel discussion? (could wait until after the work session).
3. Board tour:
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Communications Plan (4877 : Land Bank Review)
1. Affordable Housing Board
2. Community Development Block Grant Commission
3. Youth Advisory Board
4. Economic Advisory Commission
5. Natural Resources Advisory Board
6. Planning and Zoning
October/November
City Council work session
Public meetings depending on outcome of Council work session
Early 2017
Council considerations of proposed changes based on Work Session results
1.5 Communications Objectives
During community outreach and involvement for the Land Bank program, we will provide the
community with ample opportunity to influence recommendations as they are being formed. This
will include working closely with the City’s Communications coordinator and Communications and
Public Involvement Office (CPIO).
The main objectives of this communication plan:
1. Develop communication strategies to inform the public about the process – when discussions and
key decisions will be made
2. Create messaging that quickly articulates the benefits of the Land Bank and why it’s needed
3. Find new and creative ways to communicate that messaging throughout the community
4. Identify messaging that will reach hard-to-reach populations
1.6 Assumptions and Constraints
1. The City has activated the Land Bank Program because it believes in its value to the public in
preserving affordable housing.
2. The community has expressed some concerns about individual properties and the impacts on the
neighborhoods.
3. Any messaging will have to be aligned with the vision and mission of the Social Sustainability
Strategic Plan and adopted Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
2. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
This Communications Plan outlines project key messages, branding and visual identity
considerations, stakeholder needs, and planned communications events and activities.
2.4
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Communications Plan (4877 : Land Bank Review)
2.1 Key Messages
- Fort Collins residents and City Council have expressed strong support for additional
affordable housing in our community.
- The Lank Bank program is one of many tactics to achieve the goal of providing more
affordable housing. It is the City’s only long-term affordable housing incentive.
- The City created the Land Bank program in 2001 to preserve land for future affordable
housing development that would otherwise likely be developed at market rates.
- Like any proposed development in Fort Collins, developers proposing projects at Land
Bank sites are required to go through a public hearing process that includes Planning and
Zoning Board and City Council.
Secondary key messages
- The Land Bank currently addresses housing for households earning 50 percent or less of
the Area Median Income or AMI for rental units (rent of about $970 a month for a family
of four) and up to 60 percent of the AMI for for-sale units. The 2015 Area Median Income
for Fort Collins is $79,300 for a family of four.
- In 2015, City staff worked with a consultant to review the City’s land bank program and
recommend strategies. At a work session in the fall, City Council members expressed
continued interest in deploying one or more land bank properties as long as they continue
to meet the City’s affordable housing goals. The City acquired five parcels totaling about
50 acres between 2002 and 2006 that could host a total of 500 to 600 units among
them:
o 1500 block of West Vine Drive
o 1506 West Horsetooth Road
o 5630 Tilden Street
o 3620 East Kechter Road
o 6916 South College Avenue
- The City’s strategy has been to purchase underdeveloped sites lacking infrastructure,
which lowers land prices, and then wait to develop them until nearby development occurs
and land value has increased before selling to a developer. The theory is that land bank
property will be cheaper to develop as surrounding projects construct utilities and streets.
2.2 Roles and Responsibilities
It will be the role of the Communications coordinator to communicate regularly with the full group
and to obtain input on communication and public engagement strategies.
Roles currently:
Community Engagement: Sue Beck-Ferkiss
PR/Marketing and Communications: Emily Wilmsen
Tactics could include:
Traditional media
Press release (if appropriate – if new ordinance is drafted/major changes are suggested)
Individual media tactics:
o Set up interviews with Coloradoan, BizWest, KUNC to educate them
o Soapbox
2.4
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Communications Plan (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Website and social media
Add FAQ to website and spotlight it on fcgov.com
Update Land Bank page with focus group notes and archived materials from the
discussions over the past several years
Marketing materials
Fact sheet(s)
Newsletters
SSA newsletter
Neighborhood News
Internal
FortShorts
Issues and Answers
SIT/Leadership Link
CityNet
2.4
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Communications Plan (4877 : Land Bank Review)
1
10.25.2016
Land Bank Program Review
ATTACHMENT 5
2.5
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Questions for
Council Consideration
1. Does Council support staff
bringing back proposed
changes to the Land Bank
Ordinance?
2. What feedback does Council
have any on any of the
proposed revision topics
presented by staff?
2
2.5
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Fort Collins Affordable Land Bank Program
Only long range affordable housing incentive
• Land parcels purchased to be held for 5-15 years
• Sell to an affordable housing developer
• Use some of the value of the land to subsidize the development
• Shape the character of the community by distributing parcels
throughout the City
3
2.5
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Land Bank in Fort Collins
2001 Land
Bank
Program
Established
2002-2006
Five Parcels
Purchased
2009
Properties
Appraised
4
2014
Properties
Appraised
2015 Full
Market
Analysis
RFP process
to sell parcel
for 1st
time
2.5
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
5
Land Bank
Program
Parcels
2.5
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Alignment with City Plans & Policy
City Plan: Policy LIV 8.7
• Maintain an adequate supply of land for future affordable housing
development by maintaining the Land Bank Program and
acquiring additional properties as funding permits.
2014 Housing Affordability Policy Study
2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
6
2.5
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Fort Collins AMI Limits
* Annual income for a household of four.
Percent
of AMI AMI*
HUD
Classification
Maximum
Affordable Monthly Rent
Mortgage supported by
same monthly payment
100% $78,200 Moderate Income $1,955 $304,000
80% $62,550 Low Income $1,564 $243,000
60% $46,920 Low Income $1,174 $182,000
50% $39,100 Very Low Income $978 $152,000
30% $24,300 Extremely Low Income $608 $74,000
2.5
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Local Sample Incomes
AMI levels Income Limits Hourly Salary Sample Occupations
60% AMI $46,920 $22.56 PSD Teacher with MA; CSU Pharmacy Tech; County Employment
Specialist; FCHA Property Manager; CSU Financial Aid Counselor
50% AMI $39,100 $18.80 PSD Primary Teacher; Larimer County Accountant 1; Civil Engineer;
Health Dept. SW
40% AMI $31,280 $15.03 City Transportation Dispatcher; PSD Custodian; Credit Union
Financial Specialist; Forestry Field worker
30% AMI $24,300 $11.27 Bank Teller or Personal Banker; City Utility Worker; Sherwin
Williams Branch Manager; Certified Nurses Assistant; FCHA janitor
8
2.5
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Current Land Bank Ordinance Acquisition Criteria
Willing Seller
Cost does not exceed fair market value
Land is now, or will be in reasonable future, within ½ mile of at
least 3 of the following:
1. Transit Route
2. School
3. Park
4. Employment Center
5. Commercial Center
Located in City Growth Management Area
9
2.5
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Current Land Bank Sale Criteria
• Sell for rental housing at or below 50% AMI
• Sell for homeownership at or below 60% AMI
• Solely affordable residential development
• Affordable in perpetuity
• Land sale price not to exceed 90% of fair market value as
determined by the City
10
2.5
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Lessons Learned
Sale of Horsetooth Parcel:
1. Tested Current Ordinance
- AMI adjusted to choose best project
2. RFP Deployment Method Works Well (Competitive bid
process)
Charrette on College Parcel:
1. Saturation Issue?
2. Still not within ½ mile of 3 of 5
3. Creative ideas – especially if add more land
11
2.5
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Potential Code Change Focus Group Reactions
• Allow flexibility to incent development of best communities to serve
income restricted populations
• Including mixed-use and mixed-income
• Tie to Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
• Use RFP to deploy (Competitive bid process)
• Look for ways to add density
• Allow land swaps or way to sell parcels
12
2.5
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Board and Commission Outreach
• Affordable Housing Board
• Community Development Block Grant Commission
• Economic Advisory Committee
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Youth Advisory Board
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors
2.5
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Revisions to Consider
Current Code Proposed Change Why?
1. 100% Affordable
Residential
Allow mixed-use & mixed-
income
Best Practice
Allows Site Level Considerations
2. Sell only for Affordable
Housing Development
Allow Sale or Trade out of
program
Maximizes Program Effectiveness
3. Sell for no more than
90% Fair market Value
If Sold - Allow Full Market
Value
Most Efficient Use of Resource
Leverage
4. Rental communities
average no more than
50% AMI
5. Ownership communities
no more than 60% AMI
Remove Specific AMI Levels
Allow up to 80%?
Tie to AHSP
Create Sustainable Communities
Still can target lowest possible AMI
14
2.5
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Next Steps
15
1. If directed by Council, draft proposed Ordinance changes
2. Conduct Public Outreach on the proposed changes
3. Return to Council for consideration of the proposed Ordinance
changes.
2.5
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
Questions for Council Consideration
1. Does Council support staff
bringing back proposed
changes to the Land Bank
Ordinance?
2. What feedback does Council
have any on any of the
proposed revision topics
presented by staff?
16
2.5
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4877 : Land Bank Review)
COUNTY ROAD 54G
W ELIZABETH ST
E COUNTY ROAD 32
COUNTRY CLUB RD
N
O
V
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
L
N LEMAY AVE
REMINGTON ST
T
E
R
R
Y
L
A
K
E
R
D
S COUNTY ROAD 19
RICHARDS LAKE RD
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
S
MA
S
ON
S
T
N TIMBERLINE RD
STRAUSS CABIN RD
E
W
I
L
L
O
X
L
N
GR
E
G
O
RY
R
D
W WILLOX LN
GIDDINGS RD
W LAUREL ST
KECHTER RD
S SUMMIT VIEW DR
W DOUGLAS RD
W MOUNTAIN AVE
S COUNTY ROAD 9
B
O
A
R
D
WA
L
K
D
R
N COUNTY ROAD 9
S COUNTY ROAD 11
9TH ST
N COUNTY ROAD 17
E
C
O
UNTY ROAD 50
S US HIGHWAY 287
E COUNTY
R
OAD 54
S COUNTY ROAD 13
JEFFERSON ST
E COUNTY ROAD 36
S COUNTY ROAD 7
S LEMAY AVE
INTERSTATE 25
N OVERLAND
TR
L
S TIMBERLINE RD
ZIEGLER RD
S COUNTY ROAD 9
00.0.45 91.8 Miles
Fort Collins Land Bank Properties
Legend
Land Bank Properties
Property Lines
Fort Collins City Limits
Fort Collins GMA
O
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Land Bank map (4877 : Land Bank Review)