HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Development Authority - Minutes - 01/04/1996/ DOWNTOWN �
AUTHORITYENT
ONE WEST CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER Telephone (303) 484-2020
201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Telefox (303) 484-2069
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMMIT ADTHORITy
Regular Directors, Nesting
MZNDTES OF JANMvv
4 1996
avGOLAR XMING
The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority
met in regular session at 7:30 a.m., January 4, 1996 in the
conference room at 201 South College Avenue, one West
Contemporary Art Canter.
PRESENT
There were present:
Stephen Slezak, Chair presiding
Bonnie 31xler Szidon, Vice Chair
Mary Brayton, Secretary
Carey Hewitt, Treasurer
Rick Goodale
Chuck Wanner
Jason Headors
Kermit Allard
Staff:
Chip Steix}er, Consultant
Anne Gar:,' -son
Lucia Liley, Counsel
Absent:
Kermit Allard
Greg Belcher
Guests: Tom Livingston, Everitt Enterprises, Dawn Sinnard,
Vaught Frye Architects.
CALM TO ORDER
Ms. Szidon called the meeting to order. Before approving the
minutes of December 7, 1995 it was noted that Ns. Liley and
Mr. Goodale's
Presence was not recorded. A motion was made
by Mr. Headors, seconded by Mr. Wanner,
to approve the
minutes with this correction, and the motion car_ied
unanimously.
200 WALNOT
STET
This structure is located at the corner of Pine and Walnut
Streets
and is 8,100 s
estimated at 225,000 -oars feet in size. Improvements are
5 - $250,000 with $64,000 for
the
facade. Mr. Steiner suggested the Board give serious
consideration to this project for the following reasons:
• It is situated at the entrance to Old Town
• In the same block as the Linden Hotel
• Consideration might be given to wrapping together the
improvements an Pine Street with those of Walnut Street
• Improvements would have a significant impact on Old Town
• The change of use resulting from these improvements will
benefit
the central business district.
DDA MINUTES
PAGE 2
The Capital Projects Fund stands at $91,000. Since other
projects will assuredly arise throughout the year, prudence
must be exercised at this early date with regard to
expenditures.
Of the viable options Mr. Steiner placed before them, the
Directors leaned toward funding a given figure, and
encouraging Mr. Livingston to seek additional monies through
CDBG and other sources of funding. In the discussion which
ensued the following motions were entertained:
Mr. Goodale - $15,000 Mr. Meadors - $30,000
Mr. Hewitt - $25,000 Ms. Szidon - $10,000
Mr. Steiner interposed that the State Historic Society might
well fund the project in its entirety. Another
consideration might be to request $20,000 from the State,
$5,000 from LPC and 515,000 from DDA. He explained that the
State will not limit its gift by the amount we contribute.
Mr. Steiner concluded that between the DDA and LPC $25,000
and $5,000 respectively might be given and the State
approached for the other fifty percent.
At this juncture, Mr. Hewitt moved to allot $25,000 stating
Mr. Livingston could return later to the Board for
additional consideration, at which point depending on other
projects before the DDA, additional funding might be
forthcoming. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meadors. Mr.
Goodale supported the motion, but encouraged Mr. Livingston
to appeal to the State for maximum funding.
In light of this, Mr. Meadors now moved to amend the motion,
to state "up to $25,000." Counsel then offered some
clarification on the feasibility of handling this request in
two steps. Mr. Livingston requires some sort of commitment
from the DDA. Thus, $15,000 could be committed now, but the
Board would consider funding the project up to $25,000
depending on other sources of revenue. Assistance in
requesting the State grant would be afforded Mr. Livingston
by Mr. Steiner. A vote on the motion as amended carried
unanimously.
DDA/DRA
An agreement between the DDA and DBA was presented for the
AGREEMENT
Board's consideration and approval. Under the terms of this
agreement, the DDA will provide funding in the amount of
$5,000 in exchange for marketing and promotional services.
Mr. Steiner urged a continuation of the relationship,
stating that DDA benefits, as does the community. He
explained that most of DBA's $350,000 funds are derived from
their own fund raising activities, not through merchant
donations or DDA contributions. Mr. Wanner moved that the
agreement be signed and Mr. Goodale seconded the motion,
contingent upon a review of DBA's schedule of events.
OFFICE LEASE
Mr. Goodale excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest. If DDA plans to remain at 201 South College
Avenue, the lease needs to be renewed. A tentative lease
would be in the amount of $12 per square foot or $7,440
annually. In the past, DDA has moved to assist new projects
in their early stages.
DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
ONE WEST CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER Telephone (303) 484-2020
201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Telefm( (303) 484-2069
TO: DDA Board of Dir ors
FROM: Chip Steiner
DATE: June 2, 1996 OY
RE: Downtown Rezoning
One of the items adopted as a part of the Downtown Plan was
rezoning the central business district to accommodate and encourage
mixed land uses. The City has begun a very low-key approach to
this project by suggesting changes to existing zones which are not
compatible with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Plan and
Civic Center Plan. Members of the City Planning Department will
provide more background information at the Board meeting.
The first proposal being made by the City recommends changing most
IG-general industrial designated areas to RC -river corridor zoning.
The IG zone currently extends down both sides of Mason Street to
Mountain Avenue. Attached to this memorandum is a zoning map
illustrating the IG zone.
The RC zone generally accommodates any anticipated use for the
central business district and the PUD remains an option for any
project to legally deviate from the prescribed uses.
However, the RC zone does not seem to be the best fit for that
stretch of property extending along Mason Street from Cherry to
Mountain Avenue, an area entirely encompassed by the Civic Center
Plan. The area is not adjacent to the Poudre River. It is in much
closer proximity to the rest of the commercially developed part of
downtown. As such it is an appropriate area for densities higher
than the RC zone anticipates (especially through the lot size to
floor area ratios which limit the size of a building to twice the
square footage of its site).
This corridor is an appropriate area for hi -rise buildings (Fort
Collins scale) and high density development. It might be a good
recipient area of transferrable development rights. These kinds
and intensities of uses are not intended for river bank locations.
A suggestion might be to develop a new zoning classification to
encourage more urban -scale development along Mason Street. To a
lesser extent, the same arguments regarding the Mason Street
corridor could be applied to the two blocks between Jefferson and
Willow streets. It might be beneficial to encourage higher density
developments in these bocks through a zone other than RC.
No Text
•
ZONING, ANNEXA770N AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND
Subdivision U.1-G General Industrial District*
Sec. 29.385. Purpose.
The I-G General Industrial District is for heavy
industrial uses.
Sec. 29-388. Uses permitted.
The uses permitted in the I-G District are as
follows:
(1) Any use other than one -family, two-family
or multifamily dwellings.
(2) Any land use located on a Planned -Unit
Development plan as defined, processed and
approved according to § 29.526.
)Code 1972, § 118.72(A); Ord. No. 3, 1988, § 9,
1.19.88)
Sec. 29387. Performance standards.
Every use permitted in the I-G District shall
conform to the performance standards required
for the I-L Limited Industrial District as set forth
in § 29.368.
(Code 1972, § 118.72(B))
Sec. 29-388. Planned Unit Developments.
Development of areas in the I-G District as a
Planned Unit Development plan as defined, pro-
cessed and approved according to § 29.526 may
vary the requirements of this Subdivision.
(Code 1972, § 118-72(C))
Sec. 29.389. Screening required.
The storage yard of any junkyard use shall be
enclosed and screened by an opaque fence or wall
at least eight (8) feet in height.
(Ord. No. 117, 1991, $ 11, 11-5.91)
Secs. 29.390-29-400. Reserved.
*Cross reference —Sign regulations, § 2959&
Supp• No. 17
§ 29403
Subdivision V.1--P Industrial Park Districtt
Sec. 29-401. Purpose.
The IT Industrial Park District designation is
for light industrial park areas containing controlled
industrial uses. The IT District is designed for
industrial uses in proximity to areas zoned for
residential use and along arterial streets.
(Code 1972, § 118.73)
Sec. 29402. Uses permitted.
(a) The uses permitted in the I-P District shall
be those uses as set forth in § 29-367.
(b) Any use in this district shall conform to the
requirements set forth in this Subdivision.
(Code 1972, § 118.730)
Sec. 29-403. Landscape requirements.
(a) Screening. Generally, an eighty -foot land.
scaped buffer strip shall be recommended along
any and all residential district boundary lines
abutting property in the I-P District, provided
that variations from the standards herein set forth
may be permitted if the City Forester and Direc-
tor of Planning find that such variations provide.
an equal amount of effective screening. Normal.
ly, the buffer strip shall consist of a continuous
evergreen screen with a minimum height of six
(6) feet and planted in three (3) rows, with trees
twenty (20) feet on center. If the zoning district
line is on a street right-of-way, the requirement
for a buffer strip shall be reduced to at least fifty
(50) feet, and such buffer strip shall consist of a
continuous evergreen screen, a minimum of six
(6) feet in height and in two (2) rows, with trees
twenty (20) feet on center.
2017
(b) Landscaping along arterial streets A fifty.
foot landscape buffer strip shall be required along
all arterial or collector streets.
(c) Design standards Where landscaping is re-
quired, a plan shall be submitted and approved
by the Director of Planning and the City Forest-
er. The plan shall provide an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species which are
regarded as suitable for this climate. Landscape.
?Cron reference —Sign regulations, § 29493.
M
§ 29-403 FORT COLLINS CODE
treatment must be balanced with both evergreen
and deciduous plant material with sufficient use
of upright species for vertical control. Landscape
treatment may include natural rock arrangements,
Plant material selections will be reviewed for adapt-
ability to physical conditions indicated by site
plan locations.
(d) Irrigation Permanent. underground water
facilities for irrigation purposes shall be provided
for all landscaped areas except in those areas in
which dry landscaping has been used.
(a) Maudena:nca Required landscaping shall be
maintained in a neat, clean and healthy condi-
tion. This maintenance shall include proper prun-
ing, mowing of lawn areas, weeding, removal of
litter. fertilizing, replacement of plants when nec-
weary and regular watering of all landscaped areas.
(Code 1972, § 118.73(BX1))
Sec. 29.404. Bulk and area requirements.
The following are area minimum requirements
with regard to the size of lots and setbacks for
property in the I-P District:
(1) Lot area The minimum lot area shall be
the equivalent of two (2) times the total
floor area of the building, but in no event
less than twenty thousand (20,000) square
feet. No more than fifty (50) percent of any
lot shall be covered with building snvchrreL
(2) Width of lot The minimum lot width shall
. be one hundred (100) feet.
(3) Front yard Minimum distance of any build.
ing from the front property line shall be
fifty (50) feet. A minimum of twenty-five
(25) feet in the front yard adjacent to any
street rightof-way shall be used for no pur.
pose other than the required landscaping
and ingress and egress. No fences shall be
erected within this twenty-five foot area.
(4) Side yard Minimum distance of any build.
ing from the side property line shall be
thirty (30) feet. In cases where the side
Yards are used for storage, loading or park-
ing facilities, they shall be screened from
the view of public rights -of -way in residen.
Supp. Na 17
tud areas, Where a zoning distils£ line joins
a railroad right-of-way, this side yard min.
imam distance shall not be required.
(5) Rear yard Minimum distance from rear
lot line to building shall be twenty (20)
feet. In cases where the rear yards are used
for storage, loading or parking facilities,
they shall be screened from the view of
public rightsof--way in residential areas.
Where a zoning district line joins a rail.
road rightof-way, this raw yard minimum
distance shall not be required.
(Code 1972.1 118-73(BX2))
Sec. 29.405. Enclosure required.
All manufacturing and similar uses in the I-P
District shall be carried on entirely within a com.
pletely enclosed structure.
(Code 1972, § 118-73(BX4))
Sec. 29.408. Performance standards.
All uses in the I-P District shall conform to the
performance standards required for the I L Lim-
ited Industrial District as set forth in § 29.388.
(Code 1972, § 118-73(A))
Sec. 29.409. Planned Unit Developments
Development of areas in the I-P District as a
Planned Unit Development plan as defined, pro.
cessed and approved according to § 29-M may
vary the requirements of this Subdivision.
(Code 1972, § 118-73(BX5))
Sep. 29.408-29.4L2. Reserved,
Sabdurision W. RC River Corridor District
Sec. 29413. Purpose.
The RC River Corridor District designation is
for areas developing within the Downtown River.
Corridor of the Cache La Poudre River.
(Ord. No. 31, 1987, § 2(118-74), 2.17.87)
Sec. 29414. Uses permitted.
(a) All permitted uses listed in this Section (and
expansions of more than twenty-five (25) percent
2018
l J
•
ZONING, ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND
of the gross floor area of uses existing on Febru-
ary 17, 1987) shall be subject to administrative
review procedures as established in a Neighbor-
hood Plan for the affected area, if such a plan has
been adopted as an element of the Comprehen-
sive Plan of the city. Permitted uses (3) through
(30) below shall be subject to administrative re-
view by the Director of Planning of the proposed
site, landscape and preliminary architectural de-
signs and, where applicable, opportunity for sim-
ilar review by a neighborhood representative as
allowed and adopted in the Neighborhood Plan,
all in accordance with the administrative guide-
lines as developed by the city. The decision of the
Director to approve, deny or modify the proposed.
plan must be made within three (3) weeks of sub-
mission by the applicant, and if not so made,
approval shall be deemed to have been given. The
decision of the Director may be appealed to the
Planning and Zoning Board as provided in the
administrative guidelines.
(b) The specific uses permitted are as follows:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Two-family dwellings.
(3) Public and private schools.
(4) Colleges and universities.
(5) Multifamily dwellings.
(6) Boarding -and roominghouses.
(7) Automobile repair, conducted inside of a
building.
(8) Banks, savings and loan and finance com-
panies-
(9) Churches.
(10) Heliports.
(11) Hotels and motels.
(12) Indoor theaters (except adult entertainmena
(13) Membership clubs.
(14) Offices and clinics.
(15) Parking lots and parking garages.
(16) Parks and playgrounds.
Supp. No. 17
129-415
(17). Personal service shops.
(18) Printing and newspaper offices.
(19) Recreational uses.
(20) Standard restaurants; bars.
(21) Retail stores.
(22) Public utility installations.
(23) Laundry and dry-cleaning outlets whose
business consists primarily of serving re-
tail customers.
(24) Public and private vocational and techni-
cal schools.
(25) Fraternity and sorority houses.
(26) Full -line pet shops not containing facilities
for boarding animals.
(27) Small animal veterinary clinics.
(28) Group homes.
(29) Light industrial uses (subject to the per-
formance standards included in 129415),
including such uses as the manufacture of
electronic instruments, assembly, packag-
ing or installation of gauges, electric or
electronic instruments and similar equip-
ment and devices with enclosed component
storage, preparation of food products, phar-
maceutical manufacturing, research and ad.
entific laboratories and the like. Light in-
dustry shall not include uses such as min-
ing and extracting industries, petrochemi-
cal industries, rubber refining, primary metal
and related industries.
(30) Accessory buildings and uses.
(31) Any use located on a Planned Unit Devel-
opment plan as defined, processed and ap-.
proved according to 1 29526.
(Ord. No. 31, 1987, 1 2(118.74(A)), 2.17-87; Ord
No. 182, 1987, 12.1.87)
Sec. 29.415. Performance standards.
All light industrial uses shall conform to the
performance standards required for the I-L Lim-
ited Industrial District as set forth in 1 29.368.
(Ord. No. 31, 1987, 1 2(118.74(B)), 2.17-87)
2019
129.416 FORT COLL= CODE
r
Sec. 29-416. Landscape requirements. Subdivision X T Tronsidon Distnet
All uses in the RC District, except singie-familY
and two-family dwellings, shall conform to the Sec. 29 421. Purpose-
landscape requirements as set forth in 129,426. The T Transition District designation is for prop
(Ord. No. 31, 1987,. § 2(118.74(C)), 2-17-87) erties which are in a transitional stage with re-
gard to ultimate development.
Sec. 29-417. blinimum area of lot ( 1972, ¢ 118 74)
The minimum lot area shall be the equivalent
of one-half (%) the total floor area of the building.
(Ord. No. 31, 1987, § 2(118-74(D)), 2.17-871
Sec. 29-418. Planned Unit Developments.
The requirements of this Subdivision may be
varied or waived for uses which are located on a
Planned Unit Development plan approved in ac-
cordance with § 29-526 (and where applicable,
subject to review as established in an adopted
Neighborhood Plan for the affected area).
(Ord. No. 31, 1987, § 2(118.74(E)), 2.17.87)
Sec. 29-419. Site plan requirements.
Permitted uses listed in § 29-414(3) through
(30), inclusive, shall require that a site plan, land-
scape plan, building elevations and other support-
ing documentation complying with § 29526 be
submitted to and approved by the Director of Plan-
ning. Upon receipt of a complete application, the
Director shall hold a public hearing in his/her
office on the first and third Thursday of each
month, at 1:30 p.m., for the purpose of approving..
disapproving or approving with conditions the pro-
posed development. Notwithstanding the fore-
going, the Director of Planning may refer the de-
cision to the Planning and Zoning Board; and if so
referred, the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only
to appeal to the City Council as provided in § 2.47
of this Code.
(Ord. No. 3, 1988, § 10,1-19.88; Ord. No. 77,1990,
§ 2, 7-17.90)
Sec. 29.420. Reserved.
Supp. No. 17
Sec. 29.422. Uses permitted.
The uses permitted in the T District are as
follows:
(1) No use shall be permitted of properties in
the T District except such use as existed on
the date the property was paced in this
zoning district. No permanent structures
shall be constructed on any land in this
zoning district, except that at the time of
zoning or rezoning of the property into this
zoning district The City Council may grant
a variance permitting expansion of any ex-
isting use or installation or enlargement of
a permanent structure to be used in con-
nection with the use of the property at the
time of such zoning or rezoning upon the
following conditions:
a. The owner of the property, prior to the
City Council meeting at which the zon-
ing or rezoning is to be heard, shall
submit a site plan showing in reason-
able detail the existing and proposed
uses of such property.
b. The city council shall grant such vari-
ance only upon a finding that the strict
application of the zoning ordinance re-
lating to nonconforming uses would re-
sult in exceptional or undue hardship
upon the owner of the property and
that the variance may be granted with-
out substantial detriment to the public
good and without substantially impair-
ing the intent and purposes of the non-
conforming use provisions.
.(2) After the property has been placed in the T
District, the Zoning Board of Appeals may
grant a variance in accordance with H 2941
and 29-42 permitting installation of a per-
manent structure to be used in connection
2020
ddD�NTOWN
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
ONE WEST CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER Telephone (303) 484-2020
201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Telefax (303) 484-2069
TO: DDA Board of Directors
FROM: Chip Steiner
DATE: June 3, 1996
RE: The Urban Area of the Poudre River Corridor
Attached to this memorandum is a color map depicting the City of
Fort Collins according to City Plan.
The map shows a strip of green running through the central business
district called the Poudre River Corridor. Uses for this corridor
have not been determined. Members of the DDA Board who are also
participants in the City Plan process have asked that the Authority
provide input with regard to Poudre River Corridor uses and
development as it passes through downtown.
This issue is pretty important to the future of the CBD. Once the
Board develops a position it will be put into resolution or letter
form and passed to appropriate review agencies.
4
1
ddoDANTOWN
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
ONE WEST CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER Telephone (303) 484-2020
201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Telefox (303) 484-2069
TO: DDA Board of Directo-
FROM: Chip Steiner
DATE: June 1, 1996
RE: Downtown Parking Study
Attached to Boardmember packets is a cover memorandum from City of
Fort Collins Transportation Planner Dick Schaffer and an executive
summary addressing the findings and recommendations of the current
parking study being conducted in the downtown and CSU
neighborhoods. The study is divided into three sets of
recommendations, the first addressing current needs, the second
addressing needs around the year 2000 and the third for the year
2015.
Observations on Current Recommendations.
1. The study recognizes a shortage of spaces in some locations
at certain times of the day. However, the numbers showing
occupancy rates for the districts (maximum usage of 60
percent) within the study area are not reflective of the
difficult parking conditions encountered because there is no
direct correlation between destinations and available parking.
In other words, 40 percent of the parking spaces in district
4 (the core area of downtown) may be vacant during the lunch
hour, but they won't be found along the block faces of the
100 and 200 blocks of College Avenue nor along the 100 blocks
of most of the cross streets.
If alternative and convenient parking is not readily apparent
then there is a real, not perceived, parking problem for the
central business district.
2. To address current parking problems the study recommends:
a. Increasing enforcement of short-term parking spaces
within problem areas;
b. Converting the Oak/Remington lot or parking garage to
hourly paid parking;
C. Develop new parking spaces north of LaPorte Avenue;
d. Increase long-term parking availability in Block 31 and
the LaPorte -America lot;
e. Use permit rates to reflect the convenience of a parking
location.
The last thing that should be encouraged is increasing the
r
enforcement of short-term parking for visitors to the central
business district. Increased enforcement of short-term
parking must target business owners and employees. A group
of downtown business owners have undertaken an independent
effort to educate their peers about this problem. The City
has been asked if it can devise a method to identify chronic
abusers of short-term parking and fine them appropriately.
Before long-term parking is converted to hourly, paid parking,
the study needs to evaluate what impact that would have on
getting employees and business owners out of short-term
parking spaces. Longer -term parking must be available and
relatively convenient. If it is not, on -street parking
abusers are not going to go away.
Using a graduated permit rate reflective of the relative
convenience of off-street, long-term parking makes sense as
long as it does not create ill -will among employees and/or
visitors. Some form of shuttle service may be necessary if
remote parking lots are used.
The proposed "Changes in Parking Use" on page 10 of the executive
summary suggests converting some long-term parking to short-term
parking. The result, unless additional spaces are developed, is
a reduction of 60 to 110 long-term parking spaces. Again, is this
the desired result? Can those who we are trying to encourage to
use off-street parking be reasonably accommodated with a reduction
of available spaces?
Observations on the Year 2000 Recommendations•
1. The study states that the redevelopment of block 31
(courthouse site) will be a major source of additional parking
demand within downtown.
Much of the "new" demand will result from the consolidation
of County offices which are presently dispersed but still
concentrated in the central business district. This means
that as County employees relocate to block 31, their former
parking spaces are freed up. For instance, those spaces
currently used by the District Attorney in the LaPorte -America
lot will be vacated when that office relocates to the new
courthouse facility. This should reduce the impact of lost
parking on Block 31.
There will be a net increase in demand simply because the new
courthouse will be larger than existing facilities but hard
figures are difficult to come by. For instance, the study
suggests the new justice center will employ 290 people and
generate 962 visitations. These numbers are decidedly
different than another set of figures which suggests 247
employees and 335 visitations. Neither set of numbers
indicates what the "net" increase is nor how many spaces in
other parts of the CBD are vacated as a result.
Perhaps the greatest single impact of the courthouse project
is the displacement of the existing parking on Block 31.
There are currently about 340 spaces on the lot. Of these,
33 spaces are reserved for the general public. The County and
the City split the balance. The public and County spaces will
be replaced with spaces in the on -site parking garage. That
leaves about 150 spaces which are reserved for City employees.
Depending on where these employees are relocated there may be
a significant localized impact on parking availability.
Figures generated by consultants to Larimer County recommend
that 700 on -site parking spaces be provided for Block 31.
This is better than a 100 percent increase over what is
currently available on the block. Whether or not this is an
adequate amount depends on the intensity of redevelopment for
the entire site.
The study recommends building a new ramp on the LaPorte -
America lot to accommodate lost parking on Block 31. While
the impact on existing parking services through the
redevelopment of Block 31 may not be as great as projected by
this study, a ramp on the LaPorte lot is needed because it
would significantly ease the existing on -street parking
problems for the 100 blocks of North and South College and the
local cross -streets.
Furthermore, as the City proceeds with a transportation demand
management (TDM) program --the intent being to reduce
automobile usage --some acceptable alternatives need to be in
place. The study recommends the ramp on the LaPorte lot
include a transit center and bicycle parking. It would be
useful to have these already in place as TDM is inaugurated.
Perhaps as importantly as whether or when to build a parking
ramp on the LaPorte lot is the question of how. If it is not
already a part of this study, an analysis of funding
mechanisms for public parking needs to be conducted.
The study recommends using TDM objectives as part of the
"final prescribed facility size and operation." The DDA
provided fairly negative input to a presentation about TDM a
few years ago. The DDA's positions were:
a. Downtown should not be used as a guinea pig to test out
transportation -related behavior modification systems;
b. As it is today, downtown is clearly the most active and
effective alternative transportation commercial district
in the city. Aside from enclosed malls, no other
commercial location comes remotely close to the
pedestrian -sensitive environment and pedestrian -oriented
land use concentration of the central business district.
The one ingredient necessary to maintain that environment
is the ability for people to get to it. Today, the
preferred mode is the automobile.
until attitudes change for all cultures and all locations
within the community curbing the main form of
transportation into and out of the central business
district will affect it negatively relative to the rest
of the commercial areas of the city.
When it first considered this, the DDA asked that TDM
decision -making evaluate its impact on other aspects of
community life beyond just the mitigation of traffic
congestion. Making life difficult for the automobile in the
central business district prior to general acceptance of
alternative modes of transportation can have long-term and
very expensive economic and social ramifications.
S. The study recommends a phasing program for the development of
Block 31 and the LaPorte parking structure to minimize the
disruption to existing parking spaces during construction.
Makes sense.
6. The study recommends moving away from a permit system to daily
payment systems. As noted earlier, the effect of this needs
to be evaluated in terms of getting the people who work
downtown into permit spaces and out of on -street parking
spaces.
Observations on the Year 2015 Recommendations.
The study notes that the 45 percent increase in leasable space
downtown projected by the Civic Center Master Plan is
accommodated by a 26 percent increase in parking spaces. TDM
needs to be working pretty well by that time if this ratio of
new leasable space to new parking becomes reality.
The Board is being asked to comment on this study. At its
direction either a letter or resolution will be drafted to reflect
the Board's positions and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Board and to City Council for inclusion in their packets as they
consider the study.
• ��DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
ONE WEST CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER Telephone (303) 484-2020
201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Telefax (303) 484-2069
TO: DDA Board of Direzors
FROM: Chip Steiner
DATE: June 2, 1996
RE: Resolution addressing problems in the DT parking garage
A letter from Mark Sluss, Managing Partner of CoopersSmith's Pub
and Brewing, is attached to this memorandum outlining a number of
concerns regarding the parking garage located at the corner of
Remington Street and East Mountain Avenue.
The letter identifies the following issues:
1. Vandalism to the garage and the elevator;
2. Vandalism to parked cars;
3. Theft of items inside cars and the cars themselves;
4. Use of the ramp as a "playground" for skateboarders,
blades, bicycles creating a dangerous conflict with cars;
5. Use of the top floor as a launching pad to hurl rocks
cans, refuse, bottles and water balloons on people and
cars;
6. In the aggregate, the fear these problems create among
users and potential users of the parking garage.
At this very moment, the large plate glass window in the garage
elevator is being held together with tape. The elevator breaks
frequently. The elevator/stair tower has always been a haven for
transients. A steel cage was erected over the skylight on the
roof of the attached office building because of "debris" (in the
form of concrete wheel stops) being thrown from the top of the
garage.
In light of the parking study discussed earlier, this is an
appropriate issue for the Board to consider. The operation of
parking facilities is as important as providing them in the first
place.
The letter from Mr. Sluss suggests a number of solutions, one of
which is to staff the facility. This is a suggestion made by the
downtown parking study as well. It is an expensive solution and
might not completely resolve the problem since there are plenty of
other ways to access the garage other than through the main
entries/exits. Nevertheless, it would have a significant impact.
Mr. Sluss also suggests a secured bicycle parking area within the
ramp which would have the added benefit of reducing bike -pedestrian
conflicts in Old Town Square.
Finally, Mr. Sluss believes there may be a willingness on the part
of business owners and employees to pay for added security.
To this, the DDA might suggest that policing activity be increased
by using the foot patrol squad recently established in Old Town
Square. Perhaps a very obvious increase in police presence,
especially at night, would deter mischievous and/or gang activity.
A resolution is attached for Board consideration.
RESOLUTION 96-4
OF THE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING THE OPERATION AND SECURITY OF PARKING GARAGES
IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority has
been duly organized in accordance with the Colorado Revised
Statutes 31-25-804, 1973 as amended; and,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Development Authority has an obligation
to assist in the economic wellbeing of the central business
district; and,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Development Authority built a parking
garage at the southeast corner of Remington Street and East
Mountain Avenue for the purposes of advancing the economic
wellbeing of the central business district; and,
WHEREAS, through the conduct of a professional study, the City
of Fort Collins is in the process of making certain findings with
regard to the present and future parking needs of the central
business district; and,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Development Authority has been made
aware of security issues with the potential to do serious physical
and bodily harm, in the parking garage at the southwest corner of
Remington and Mountain; and,
WHEREAS, such security issues will be effect future parking
garages as well as the facility at the southeast corner of
Remington and Mountain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of
the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority that it
hereby recommends to the Council of the City of Fort Collins:
1. Increase security measures in the parking garage at the
southeast corner of Remington and Mountain for the
purposes of increasing the preservation of physical
property and the safety of patrons using the facility by
such means as:
a. Increased police patrols, especially after dark;
b. Permanently staffing the building with parking
attendants;
C. Increasing fees to pay for increased security.
2. Add to the scope of work for the downtown parking study
an analysis and recommendation section addressing ways
to increase security in existing and future parking
facilities.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of
Directors of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development
Authority this 6th day of June, 1996.
Stephen Slezak, Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Brayton, Secretary
o4�Rs�r,�
y
#5 Old Town Square
Fort Collins, CO 80524
303/498-0483
May 30, 1996
The four-story parking garage on the SW. corner of Remington and Mountain is intended
to complement Old Town: workers and patrons alike are encouraged to utilize the structure.
Lately, however, the reality of Big City Life has brought with it security concerns
surrounding the structure and users. Vandalism, both to the garage itself and to autos parked
within, has increased dramatically of late. Theft of belongings within cars and auto theft itself is
fact, not something that'happens somewhere else.' Small groups of youth, on all manner of
wheels (bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades) frequently use the garage as a playground, posing a
risk to themselves and to garage patrons. The elevator is a target of vandalism, and when not in
service is a hardship to those needing alternatives to stairs. The top floor provides a launching
pad from which "snipers" hurl rocks, cans, refuse, bottles, and water balloons on passersby on
sidewalks below and/or cars entering and exiting. Most importantly is the increased possibility of
physical crimes against late -night garage users.
Moreover, workers and shoppers who've experienced the aforementioned bugaboos
doubtless spread the "Fear the Garage" message to others, fanning a negative (but not fictional)
word of mouth phenomenon detrimental to the vibrant social and economic core of Old Town.
Plainly stated: we're a Big City now, with some Big City problems, and Big City solutions
need implementation.
A possible solution may be retrofitting the garage to include a ticket validation system
with a manned exit gate, which would address all the above concerns. All entrants, using all
manner of transportation, must "purchase" a ticket to get in. Bicyclists would have an area set
aside to lock their bikes, away from traffic areas. This alone would ease the problem of
two -wheelers in the square.
In conversations with several retailers, workers, and guests to the area, no resistance has
been offered to the idea of rates of up to $5 an evening (total), in exchange for the peace of mind
of having paid personnel in the garage during peak hours. Retailers and restaurants could validate
tickets, with discounts passed on to garage users. The rates and validation hours could vary
seasonally.
Old Town is THE destination nowadays for many. It would be negligent not to invest in
the security of downtown workers and visitors while clinging to a "M don't have those problems"
mindset. Time to wake up and smell the busted windows, time to bring the complete resurrection
of Old Town to fiuition.
sincerely,
- Mark W. Sluss
Managing Partner
CooperSmith's Pub & Brewing
•
ddoDOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
ONE WEST CONTEMPORARY ART CENTER Telephone (303) 484-2020
201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Telefmc (303) 484-2069
TO: DDA Board of Di� - I tors
FROM: Chip Steiner C� ^
DATE: June 2, 1996
RE: opera Galleria
Representatives of the owners of the Opera Galleria have filed a
property tax protest. Attachments to this memorandum include
copies of the protest letter filed with the Assessor's office and
relevant pages from the 1993 revised agreements between the
DDA/City and Galleria owners.
The County now values the property for tax purposes at $3,834,000.
This generates around $105,000 in property taxes. The protest asks
for the value to be reduced to $2,401,700 which generates about
$66,000 annually in property taxes. The owners representatives
argue that the property was 75 percent vacant in 1993, 38 percent
vacant in 1994, and has been 14 percent vacant ever since.
According to the City/DDA agreement with the owners, the property
must generate a minimum of $100,000 annually in property taxes
through the year 2005. Should it fail to generate that amount, for
whatever reason (including a valuation challenge) the owners are
obligated to make up the difference. If this obligation is
breached, all rights to the project's dedicated parking are
revoked.
Legal counsel is pursuing this matter and will provide an update
at the Board meeting Thursday morning.
•, '•MAY 30 '96 04:2OPM LAR CO ASSESSOR • P. 2/3
ic1 I1. 1139 Delaware Shea; Suite 300
& Company, Inc. De^wer• Colorado 80204
Rat Estnta CansWtants C=)'575O30
(SOM 575-93M - Paz
[pp:sevooper]
May 24, 1996^Vq j "�
Assessor
Larimer County, Colorado
Re: schedule 1: 97114-57-001
Property: Lot 1, Opera House Block Building PuD, et, al.
Historical Opera House
Assessor:
We represent the owners of the above referenced property. We
hereby protest the 1996 property tax valuation.
We estimate the 1996 actual value for property tax purposes to be
$2,401,700.
Your office has valued the property at: $3,834,000
Tihe
s subject property is the Historical Opera House. The property
a retail/office conversion. We have analyzed the income and
expenses produced by the property for 1994, 1995 and the first
four months of 1996.
The vacancy rate at the property has been as follows:
1-1-94
76%
Vacant
1-1-95
38-%
Vacant
1-1-96
14%
Vacant
5-1-96
14%
Vacant
We have summarized the income and expenses for 1994, 1995 and the
first four months of 1996 on the following page.
05/30/96 15:10 TX/RX N0.1525 P.002 0
MAY 30 '% 04:21PM I_AR CO ASSESSOR
P.3/3
h IIT.Ioai 7 E T I O It
Aoasa Prepeztiea, ., eattar a tns pteprrtYi ld;t1adlLelOper
as aaTp�Lioht a Cospanp. Ido. as axelusLVQ a, !n
4 �swop*rty taxation and grant Ee them
4he Powys n*c*DGar7 to InVesti4ata. seek any adZwtrnane,
ayotiata and onto* Sate agresnants on lfshalt for t,a
Y eating yropowt4ss and pasaeJ.a per %hO to yenta 190e and 11M.
a4drams RCbeQQla Ye_ Catptl.
EOL i. Opwsa 1[eena ESeek 97114-57-00i larimez
luildixq Pon; at_ al.
L'Ja.,.a COlorade lLaliad partearaatp,
h" CM%'l GUISMA L, L.L.C, a Colorado
i lea tadl taDlitxy eam. L-44xnl partnar
jaft
Y0,
05/30/96 15:10 TX/RX NO.1525 P.003
•• 1. SUPERSEDE PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS
This Agreement shall supersede any and all provisions of the
Implementation Agreement and the 1990 Agreement, provided that
nothing herein shall be deemed to have any effect on the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the
Project filed of record with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer
County, Colorado at Reception No. 92078075 which shall remain in
full force and effect and continue to bind the property described
on Exhibit A.
2. REAL PROPERTY TAXES
2.1 Upon execution of this Agreement, the DDA, the City and
the Partnership agree to certify in writing to the Larimer County
Treasurer, and any other administrative or judicial body or forum
with jurisdiction over a proceeding or controversy involving the
Project's valuation for tax year 1992, an actual valuation of the
Project necessary to result in a Required Tax Level, as defined
hereinafter, of $125,000.00 for tax year 1992.
2.2 For tax years 1992 through 2005, inclusive, the
Partnership, Houlihan and the General Partner agree not to seek a
reduction in the assessed valuation of the Project or to seek an
abatement of real property taxes which would result in such taxes
being assessed against the Project below the following described
levels (the "Required Tax Levels"):
Tax Year Property Taxes Assessed
1992 $125,000
1993 $120,000
1994 $110,000
1995 through 2005, inclusive $100,000
Further, such parties shall not seek an abatement of
property taxes assessed against the Project for any tax year prior
to 1992. The DDA and the City agree that they will not contest an
appeal by the Partnership for a reduction in the assessed valuation
of the Project for tax years 1992 through 1995, inclusive, provided
that such reduction does not fall below the Required -Tax Levels.
2.3 No later than December 31, 1993, the Partnership shall
fully pay and cancel the Tax Certificates which have been issued by
the Larimer County Treasurer for failure to pay property taxes on
the Project for tax years 1990 and 1991.
2.4 In the event that real property taxes assessed against
the Project are reduced by reason of a valuation challenge,
abatement effort or appeal initiated by Houlihan, the Partnership
or the General Partner, which reduction causes the annual property
tax to fall below the Required Tax Levels for any tax year between
1992 and 2065, inclusive (the "Valuation Breach"), the Partnership,
3
for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that it shall
make a payment in lieu of taxes directly to the City in each year
in which such shortfall occurs, in an amount equal to the loss of
property tax revenues to the City caused by the Valuation Breach.
Such sum shall be paid no later than September 1 in each year in
which such a shortfall exists and, upon payment, shall be deposited
into the DDA Tax Increment Fund of the City.
The breach of the obligation of the Partnership to make
payments in lieu of taxes as set forth herein shall constitute a
default by the Partnership in the Parking Agreement (as defined in
Section 4 hereinafter) and shall permit the City to thereupon
unilaterally revoke the Parking Agreement.
2.5 The Partnership, Houlihan and the General Partner agree
that they and their successors and assigns shall be estopped from
asserting that any provision of paragraph 2 is void, voidable or in
any way legally unenforceable.
3. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
The Partnership and Houlihan shall cause a $1,100,000.00 fund
to be established from proceeds from the remarketing of the Senior
Bonds, which fund shall be used only for the construction of tenant
improvements to the Project as needed for the benefit of its
tenants and projected to be exhausted during a three-year period
commencing upon execution of this Agreement.
Documents shall be executed at the time of closing on the
purchase of the Bonds which shall establish, to the satisfaction of
the City and the DDA and consistent with this section, (1) the
creation of such fund, (2) the funding thereof, (3) the
availability of such fund for tenant finish improvements and (4)
the right of the DDA and the City to inspect the financial records
of the Partnership and Houlihan in connection with such fund for
the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of this
paragraph. The execution of such documents shall be an express
condition of the City's execution and delivery of the Fifth
Supplemental Indenture referenced in Resolution 93-106 of the City
Council of the City.
4. PARKING LOT
The City contemplates entering into an agreement with the
Partnership to lease certain parking lot spaces in the LaPorte
America Lot, which agreement will contain substantially the
following terms and conditions (the "Parking Agreement"):
a. The City will provide the
Partnership with fifty (50) full-time parking
spaces at the LaPorte America Lot for so long
as these spaces are offered by the City for
parking.
4