HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/22/2008 - PRESENTATION OF THE BEET STREET AMPHITHEATER SITE DATE: July 22, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Chip Steiner FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Presentation of the Beet Street Amphitheater Site Selection Analysis at the Joint City
Council/Downtown Development Authority(DDA) Work Session.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2007, the DDA retained HOK Venue to manage a site selection, feasibility analysis, and
preliminary architecture/engineering design for a Beet Street Amphitheater. The consultant team
has completed the site selection analysis and identified the Justice Center site located on the
southeast corner of West Mountain Avenue and Mason Street as the site most advantageous for a
future amphitheater. DDA staff presents the analysis to Council for full consideration, and seeks
Council consent to move forward with next steps in a due diligence phase.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have any questions regarding the methodology/site ranking criteria applied in
the amphitheater site selection analysis?
2. Does Council agree with the consultant's determination of the Justice Center site at West
Mountain Avenue and Mason Street as the highest ranked location for a future Beet Street
Amphitheater?
3. If the Council concurs with the analytical ranking of sites,does it agree with the consultant's
recommended next steps to proceed with a due diligence phase to investigate geotechnical,
environmental and historical resource issues connected with the top ranked site?
BACKGROUND
The amphitheater is an integral part of realizing the Chautauqua-like vision for Downtown Fort
Collins, and to provide a permanent home venue for Beet Street. It is envisioned this amphitheater
will be located in the heart of downtown, designed with invigorating architectural elements, and
serve as the center for Beet Street's programmed series of cultural education and entertainment for
local residents,visiting family members or business travelers,and experience-seeking tourists. The
facility will be available to the general public as well and can serve as a "town center" for
impromptu gatherings as well as independently contracted entertainment.
This amphitheater is envisioned with strategically designed open-air access that creates a sense of
permeability between activities on the inside of the facility and activity on the street. It is
July 22, 2008 Page 2
envisioned that passers-by will wander up to the facility when walking from the office to lunch and
experience such things as the Fort Collins symphony rehearsing for a summer concert series, or to
wander up and see the dress rehearsal of a local troupe scheduled to perform in an upcoming
Children's Shakespeare festival. The Amphitheater is envisioned as a place where families visiting
Fort Collins for Beet Street activities will arrive to build their daily itinerary that might include a
whitewater rafting trip in the morning, a visit to the Museum of Contemporary Art(MOCA) in the
afternoon, an evening dinner at a local restaurant and capped off by attendance at a remarkably
unique multi-media presentation in the Amphitheater featuring a combination of locally-based and
national/international performers and presenters.Or,a summer home for the Fort Collins Symphony
who will be able to attract a new audience for a new season's experience and also provide an
opportunity to bring CSU performances into the community mainstream in the heart of Old Town.
Transitioning the vision of the Beet Street Amphitheater from concept to reality has been underway
for almost two years, and the first major output of this effort, a site selection analysis, has been
completed and is presented for Council consideration.
Through issuance of the 2007A DDA tax increment bonds,the DDA Board recommended and City
Council approved appropriations of funds in the amount of$1,300,000 to initiate a site selection
analysis, feasibility analysis, and preliminary design of the DDA/Beet Street Amphitheater. HOK
Venue of Kansas City,Missouri was retained to manage site selection and feasibility analysis, and
provide preliminary architectural/engineering design services. The anticipated date of completion
of HOK's work is end of year 2008.
This site selection analysis was completed by members of the consultant team. To prevent local
biases from influencing the outcome,City and DDA staff did not participate in the analysis,but they
did provide the consultants with information about historical, existing, and future conditions in and
near the subject sites. The resulting site recommendation is based upon an impartial composite
analysis of eight (8) sites in the DDA boundary area through application of multiple criteria from
the following categories:
1. Urban design
2. Transportation
3. Site Factors
4. Cost
5. Timing
The consultant team identified the Justice Center site, situated at the southeast corner of West
Mountain Avenue and Mason Street, as the most advantageous location for an amphitheater,
followed by the Chestnut Street site and former Poudre Creamery site.
The Justice Center site exhibits strong attributes for a positive urban design relationship to the
Downtown's "Main and Main" intersection for high visibility/image, its proximity to related
dining/retail and entertainment activities, and its compatibility with existing uses. The site also
stands out with high transportation category rankings for proximity to public transit/altemative
transit, and for adequacy of proposed parking.
July 22, 2008 Page 3
While the Justice Center site presents challenges in terms of its location next to the railroad corridor,
it is ranked high for its physical configuration/shape that contributes to flexibility in creating an
intimate seating bowl design, a co-location adjacent to a future City performing arts center, and
characteristics that can help realize the urban design goal envisioned in the Downtown Strategic Plan
to create a strong pedestrian linkage among the civic uses found in the north-south corridor between
Mason and Howes Streets. There were no major distinguishable differences for cost-related criteria
between the eight (9) sites, and the Justice Center site landed in the middle of the scale for
anticipated costs for land acquisition, building construction, and site development costs.
HOK recommends a due diligence phase to investigate geotechnical, environmental and historical
resource issues connected with the top ranked site(s) as the next steps in the site selection process.
These investigations will allow the design of the amphitheater to move forward successfully.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Power Point Presentation
2. Fort Collins Amphitheater—Site Selection Analysis
AMPHITHEATER
SITE SELECTION
Fort Collins DDA
Background: Site Selection
a
AnaIVSIS
1 . Competitive bid for site analysis , feasibility analysis
and preliminary design
2 . HOK Venue selected ( evaluation team included City
staff , DDA staff , Beet Street staff , CSU staff , arts
community , and Symphony staff)
3 . Site selection analysis completed in May , 2008
Coune Direction Requested
1 . Does City Council have questions regarding the
methodology and site ranking criteria applied to
the site selection analysis ?
2 . Does Council agree with the determination that
the Justice Center located at the SE corner of
Mason and West Mountain is the best location ?
3 . If Council agrees with the location , is it
comfortable proceeding with due diligence for
geotechnical , environmental , and historical
analysis ?
S 'Ite e ec ion Criteria
Vv
Eight sites were analyzed and graded . The sites
were :
Justice Center block
Creamery Block
South half of 1st National Bank block
Block 23 ( Mason and Maple )
Chestnut Street ( next to Armadillo )
Willow South ( bounded by Lincoln , Willow , Linden and Jefferson )
Willow North ( bounded by Linden , Willow , North College , and Jefferson )
Field behind Aztlan Community Center
Categories 43f Anal YS I AdIft
Each site was analyzed according to the following
broad categories :
1 . Urban Design
Compatibility with current adjacent land uses
Facility Image/Visibility
Quality of User Experience
Proximity to Residential (futher away = better )
Proximity to related activities (food , entertainment , retail )
Proximity to parking
Business Development Potential
2 . Transportation
Vehicular access
Adequacy of proposed parking strategy
Pedestrian access
Infrastructure
I Site Factors
Site size and configuration
Potential views from site
Topography/slope
Geological /water table issues
Proximity to noise and vibration
Archeological resources issues
Demolition / historic structures
Environmental issues
Zoning and regulatory issues
Potential for facility expansion
4 . Cost
Land acquisition cost
Building cost premium due to site
Site development cost issues due to site
5 . Timing
Complexity of existing land ownership
Ability to meet proposed schedule
Site Scores
ir
Justice Center : 82 . 8
Chestnut : 77 . 6
Creamery : 73 . 5
Mason - Maple : 7201
Aztlan : 71 . 5
Bank : 69 . 2
Willow South : 68 . 8
Willow North : 68 . 1
Justice Center
a
Recommended
HOK Venue recommended the Justice Center site
because :
1 . Strong urban design relationship to downtown ' s
major intersection
2 . High visibility from main intersection
3 . Proximity to food , entertainment , retail
4 . Compatibility with existing uses
5 . Proximity to (future ) transit system
6 . Proximity to parking
7 . Site flexibility
8 . Proximity to future performing arts center
Major constraint :
The Railroad
Council Direction
1 . Does City Council have questions regarding the
methodology and site ranking criteria applied to
the site selection analysis ?
2 . Does Council agree with the determination that
the Justice Center located at the SE corner of
Mason and West Mountain is the best location ?
3 . If Council agrees with the location , is it
comfortable proceeding with due diligence for
geotechnical , environmental , and historical
analysis ?
What is Tax Increment Financing ?
Tax = property taxes collected on properties within the DDA district .
Increment The difference between the taxes on a property before
and after improvements are made to it .
Financing The use of property tax increment to service debt ( like
a mortgage ) .
Example On ^
Proposed Downtown Hotel ,
Existing property taxes = $ 0 ( city owned )
Property taxes when project is completed :
Market Value : $ 48 , 000 , 000
Taxable Value : $ 48 , 000 , 000
x . 29 ( commercial rate )
$ 139920 , 000
x . 095 ( mill levy )
$ 193229400
Increment calculation :
$ 1 , 322 , 400 ( annual taxes after completion )
- 0 ( existing property taxes )
$ 193229400 annual property property tax increment
nancing with Incriuv
Hotel Increment = $ 1 , 322 , 400 . This is the amount of
money that can be used to finance bond debt .
If the bond borrowing rate is 6 percent and the term
of the debt is 20 years , then $ 1 , 322 , 400 is enough to
finance $ 25 million in qualified capital projects and
qualified programs .
With the new DDA legislation the annual increment
would be cut in half (worst case ) which would
generate $ 661 , 000 in annual increment and would
finance $ 12 , 500 , 000 in qualified capital projects and
qualified programs .
Example Two
TIM It
Miscellaneous property .
Existing property taxes = 50 , 000 ( $ 1 . 8 million property )
Property taxes when improvements are made :
Market Value : $ 10 , 000 , 000
Taxable Value : $ 10 , 000 , 000
x . 29 ( commercial rate )
$ 239009000
x . 095 ( mill levy)
$ 275 , 000
Increment calculation :
$ 275 , 500 ( annual taxes after completion )
- 50 , 000 ( existing property taxes )
$ 225 , 500 = annual property tax increment
F inancing with Increr - - - 1
Project Increment = $ 225 , 500 . This is the amount of
money that can be used to finance bond debt .
If the bond borrowing rate is 6 percent and the term of
the debt is 20 years , then $ 225 , 500 is enough to finance
$ 4 . 3 million in qualified capital projects and qualified
programs .
With the new DDA legislation the annual increment
would be cut in half (worst case ) which would generate
$ 112 , 750 in annual increment and would finance $ 2 . 1
million in qualified capital projects and qualified
programs .
New DDA Legislation
$ 7001000 , 0ao
Demonstration of DDA TIF Share-back
Through Proposed Amendment.
This chart is a graphical representation only. Actual TIF and Base Assessed Values
will vary among DDAs.
$ 600 , 000 , 000
TIF Assessed Valuation , shown in green , illustrates how TIF value typically grows from Year 1 through Year
30 through the existing DDA statute , and then changes after Year 30 through activation of the proposed
amendment. The proposed amendment establishes TIF share-back to Counties , school districts ,
municipalities , etc. For a period of ten years , the amendment shifts the DDA' s TIF Assessed Value earned in
$ 5001000 , 000 Year 10 over to the Base . After Year 40 , the share-back shifts to an annual role . For example , the DDA's TIF
C: Assessed Value earned in Year 11 is added to the Base , then the following year the TIF assessed value from
O Year 12 is added to the Base , and so on .
The Base Assessed Valuation , shown in blue , illustrates how the Base typically grows from Year 1 through
Year 30 through the existing DDA statute , and then benefits with annual jumps in value
$ 400 , 000 , 000
M TIF Assessed Valuation
Qa
■ Base Assessed Valuation
$ 300 , 000 , 000
ra
MW
H
Share-back changes to
$ 200 000 000 annual role after Year 40
Share-back begins Annual role of TIFA
after Year 30 current year Base A�
$ 100 , 000 , 000 Valuation
Base AV + TIFAV
from Year 10 for ten
years
18 $ o Mal 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l �� Ellin
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 5
Legislation does the following :
1 . Changes the base year for valuation purposes
from 1981 to 1991 in the year 2012 . This reduces the
property valuation the overlapping taxing entities
( City , County , School District etc . )
:q y try* pop,�
14
�y f � l� . 11� t , �, J i a • t•
„c.7 �` •� , � yl' rw .' 1 - � ♦ .� . , '� :'• j t��{j, , ' e� ��`yb��' + ... .1 �� 1 s
.fie-...... dill,
ph
dle
tj
`_ , _ r r 1 • , f ., f i ` � — ti. ^^}ASS-�`��"C. ;
6• 1 A T r + � w.� f ~�, }� ,. .4 - - _ ' 3 , L • �� ,i�`,�� i I�IG I . . may
0 OWE to
pl
; ,
. r . - • , �1 • '.�, ;,• \ ♦ •�' y •h •1 '�.is
� ; ��lip 6
dill :1��•� r I •pp -
Mill
.•
rr.7
iA .
, " '• ' tj. �• - ) Y rw..w. .1..r � i .»'r. IIiI . . �ry. l ' _ t '
.`+ / .2 . ! , _ � •: 1 [ - may � �•� . . , . `T
fF � - • .t.• � I - LPL •r ' kr�ae ' 3y.41 �ti = • - ! t • 1 � ., r. r�_\.'1�.C\ 1� ...
• �1 ,�. � '' L. ,
1lk
14 ,
1 Lei, y \ Li A IF • ' Fi [Y , { . t _ 'I1 1 fill
1 i M;
11 a . A* • - !H _ ,,
31
j a „ . .tom i•r.s� .
i00
re
' ',
mas
DRAFT -
11 .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
SITE LOCATIONS 3
FORT COLLINS SITE SELECTION MATRIX 4
SITES DIAGRAMS WITH PHOTOS AND COMMENTS:
Justice Center 5
Creamery 8
Bank Parking 1 1
Mason Maple 14
Chesnut 17
Willow South 20
Willow North 23
Aztlan 26
CONCLUSION 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
As part of the preliminary design effort for a new
Fort Collins Amphitheater, HOK Venue and its team
(which includes EDAW, NOLTE, MKA, Crossroads
Consulting, ME Engineers, Hankard Environmental,
WJHW, Walker Parking, and others) has conducted
a site analysis process in order to assist the City in
determining the best available site for the future Fort
Collins Amphitheater. A total of 8 sites were identified
for consideration. All sites are within walking distance
of Fort Collins Old Town, and all sites fit within the Fort
Collins Downtown Cultural District boundary.
Each site has been carefully studied and evaluated
following a methodical process. The intent of this
analysis is to provide equal consideration to each of
the candidate sites, and to minimize subjectivity in the
site selection process.
The following report includes a matrix that summarizes
each of the eight sites in relation to a series of different
site evaluation criteria . In addition, notes, comments,
maps and photographs provide additional information
on how every score was determined .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
:
Aznan
I
mason-
IA'ePle
WIllo.c NWt
� NhMul
I :;reamers \
yydp NbIDtkA
a
, , Wilba' solm,
"' I Jusom cmrf r
P66mg Cnaslno Mlstw"I
OLD
TOWN
SQUARE
vendrg
DOWN70WN LTURAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
/ flank Parking I I — I -'• .. k SITE LOCATIONS
Site Evaluation Matrix Candidate Sites:
Fort Collins Amphitheater Weight Justice Bank Mason - Willow Willow
Composite Scores - weighted Factor Center Creamery Parking Maple Chestnut South North Aztlan
URBAN DESIGN Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses 125% 4. 1 3.9 3. 1 2.4 3. 1 3.3 2.9 4.0
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area) 120% 4.0 3.0 32 4.0 3.2 1 .8 2.5 2.8
Quality of User Experience 100% 3.3 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.7 1 .7 1 .5 2.5
roxurmy to Existing Residential (Farther = Better) 150% 3.5 1 3.9 2.9 1 2.3 4.1 5.0 1 4.4 5.3
Proximity to Related Activities (Dining, Retail, Entertainment) 120% 4.0 3.0 2.9 2.6 4.6 2.4 2.5 1 .6
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources 100% 3.7 3.1 1 .5 2.4 2.7 1 .3 1 .5 1 .7
Business Development Potential (New/Existing) 100% 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 2.2
TRANSPORTATION VehicularAccess (cars/trucks/buses) 100% 3.3 2.9 2.8 3. 1 3.0 2.5 2.1 1 .7
Adequacy of Proposed Parking Strategy 135% 4.1 3.8 2.7 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.4
Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals) 100% 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.2 2.9 1 .6 1 .4 1 .6
Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required 100% 1 3.2 2.8 1 2.6 2.5 2.6 1 2.3 2.3 1 .9
Public Transit/Altemative Transit 120% 4.1 4.3 3.2 4.6 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.5
SITE FACTORS Site Size; Configuration/Shape 120% 4.2 2.0 2.3 1 .8 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.2
Potential Views from Site 100°� 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.2 1 .6 3.1
Topography/Slope 100% 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.0
Geological or Water Table Issues 100% 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.0
Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources (Farther = Better) 150% 1 .2 2. 1 1 .2 1 .2 4.1 1 .8 2.1 2.4
Likely Archeological Resource Issues 100% 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.8
Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures 100% 2.2 1 .8 3.2 3.2 1 .5 2.0 2.6 3.2
Environmental Issues/Remediation Likely 100% 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.1 1 .7 1 .7
Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues 100% 2.5 2.3 2.3 1 .9 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7
Potential for Facility Expansion 100% 2.8 1 .8 1 .8 2.0 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.2
COST and Acquisition Cost (Lower = Better) 100% 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site 100% 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5
Site Development Cost Premium due to Site 100% 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.3
TIMING Complexityof Existing Land Ownership 125% 3.5 2.8 3.5 3.5 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.5
Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule 100% 2.9 2.3 2. 1 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.9
TOTAL 82.8 73.5 69.2 72.1 77.6 68.8 68.1 71 .5
SCORING: 0 = Unacceptable, 1 = Poor...4 = Excellen
RANK 1 3 6 2
The table above represents a combination of ratings from the consul-
tant team. Scores have been normalized and averaged to produce
the rankings seen here. Weighting factors were assigned to evaluation
criteria deemed to be more significant in the selection of an urban am-
phitheater site ( 100% = no weighting) .
MATRIX
FORT COLLINS • 2008
TING MUNICI- EASY CONNECTICW r
PAL OFF ! TO TRANSIT CENTER
BUILDING
s
.I
• ,� LAPORTE e
dim;
FUTURE EXPA 7
SION
EXISTING
JUSTICE A
CENTER ONE-WAY 'E LIMITS
• STREET LMITS � I
(TO BECOMf,
SITE ACCESS
l TWO-WAY IN EXISTING
, z00v� " PARKING
EXISTING I I
FARMERS AccEss Z GARAGE
_ MARKET TO PLBLIC WOO
ON BARK
* ■ PARKING V)
r LOT - I Q f.
4� *ocATE
� w - 2
s - 40
r T ARKIN ACCESS
B.O.H. GARAGE -
. • „ /�' �° . �� ® `T& PojENTIAL
y 'o.ACC U ff JAYWALKING
- � �{' PROBLEM a
• •� - ONE-W Y r_ P STAGE �+�
STIR L FUTURE PLC �� Aheon ThIAN O �
0 SITE ��� ya �o .AGE NOISr
�T FORMING PR �AkY` oNCE
ARTS CENTER DIRECTION ROM • r _
im O _ ' OF SOUND (kAILROA
1
r 'r\r / I
r Z � ` •� I ,. IRECT Acc "X UNOISE 'TG s � PLANNED
CONCERN � I O RAPID TRANS
" - TO CHURCH PT �-
UPPO T
r - G 4
- - , - .� •
A ' •t „ `�� �� ENTRY CLOSE TOE
` ' TAD dil
I N ..a. TOWN SQUAOR w • , ,
r - . .
01
- -"•r • _ RESIDENS JUSTI ENTER SITE
TENNAN S
EXISTING LARIMER COUNTY BUILDI , � I _ 146,500 S.F.
iL01 A II III III 10 bVlVAI ;11 111 171
ml 14 kcw*i I I qb*l :l R :Lq I Lei 0 yll 0 r1l 111 0 11 .
r
t �
• � ,� * rh���� �� f}t. . ' � ' , �+ �' ter+..-- ' �� r �
- r `
�;4 fir♦ T
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 6
URBAN DESIGN Excellent quality sidewalks and crosswalks on this portion of
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 4.1 downtown makes this site one of the best choice for pedestrian Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site:
Site is located within precinct of institutional and civic uses access and safety. rating 2.5
along with retail and restaurants, and seems to offer excellent
compatibility with current adjacent land uses. Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required Site Development Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.5
rating 3.2
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area): TIMING
rating 4.0 Public Transit/Alternative Transit: rating 4. 1 Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 3.5
Amphitheater would be greatly visible from all sides including Research between BRT, bus, North Transit Hub, Bike Trails
Mountain and Mason, which offers key visibility for visitors Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2.9
coming from Old Town. SITE FACTORS
Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 42
Quality of User Experience: rating 3.3 Excellent site size in relation to amphitheater. When comparing
Excellent quality experience from visitors due to high quality with other sites which are often too tight, Justice Center Site offers
surrounding context. Mountain is one of the prime vehicular good options for open plazas and park around the building that
and pedestrian experience within Downtown Fort Collins. could welcome visitors as they arrive and depart from venues.
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 3.5 Potential Views from Site: rating 2.6
No direct proximity to residential, but closest residential units Mountain Avenue, open park, and good quality of surrounding
are only a block away to the west. urban setting and architecture provide a good visual experience
to visitors, but yet does not provide any visual connection to larger
Proximity to Related Activities ( Dinning, Retail, Entertainment): natural features such as the river or mountains.
rating 4
Site offers excellent proximity to related activities which are Topography/Slope: rating 2.8
located only a block away to the east and south. Flat site.
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 3.7 Geological or Water Table Issues:
Excellent proximity to exiting parking structure on Mason rating 2.5
which is located right across the street.
Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 1 .2
Business Development Potential: rating 2.2
Surrounding area is already so developed that we do not Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.4
envision the project to act as a tool for radical economical Site contains evidence of multiple prior occupancies.
development, but rather a good support to the existing
downtown businesses. Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 2.2
TRANSPORTATION Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: rating 2.3
Vehicular Access: rating 3.3 None apparent, but has been urban site for 100+ years.
Good vehicular access to the site from all sides and in
particularfrom Mountain, Howes and Mason, but its downtown Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2.5
location could also become an issue as it increases the traffic Should research further.
volume.
Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 2.8
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: Site allows for some flexibility and potential growth expansion. Overall rating : 82.8
rating 4. 1 Overall ranking : 1 of 8
COST
Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 3.8 Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2.8 rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
JUSTICE CENTER SITE : RATINGS
G
• IW F 46 * r
1 + # ioAl lij
-
}
#
* t i �. { VA * • . yII M
L .
IF
Ir
7 k
rNE-WAY
Am ST
joI
I • � LJL
L
• ' { ' _ . r r 61
IF
- -
ir IF
i . 9L .. i
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 8
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 9
URBAN DESIGN downtown makes this site a good choice for pedestrian access Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site:
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 3.9 and safety. However the lack of space on the tight site prevents rating 2.3
Site is located within precinct of institutional and civic any outdoor space to receive visitors
uses along with retail and restaurants, and seems to offer Site Development Cost Premium due to Site:
excellent compatibility with current adjacent land uses. Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required: rating 2. 1
rating 2.8
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area): TIMING
rating 3 Public Transit/Alternative Transit: Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 2.8
Amphitheater would be visible from Laporte and Howes, but rating 4.3
hidden and maybe hard to find as visitors arrive from Mason. Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2.3
SITE FACTORS
Qualify of User Experience: rating 2.7 Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 2
Good quality experience from visitors due to high quality Tight site offers no room or space for handling visitors as they
surrounding context. However Laporte does not offer the arrive and depart from venues, and offers only low visibility from
some streetscape quality as Mountain. major downtown streets or boulevards.
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 3.9 Potential Views from Site: rating 2.2
No direct proximity to residential, but closest residential units Limited size of sight only allow views of adjacent streets and park
are only a block away to the west. across the street.
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail, Topography/Slope: rating 2.8
Entertainment): rating 3 Flat site.
Site offers good proximity to related activities which are
located 2 or more blocks away to the east and south. Geological or Water Table Issues:
rating 2.7
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 3.1
Good proximity to exiting parking structure on Mason which Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 2.1
is located only a block away. Quite close to railroad on Mason.
Business Development Potential: rating 2.4 Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.4
Surrounding area is already so developed that we do not Evidence of multiple previous occupancies
envision the project to act as a tool for radical economical
development, but rather a good support to the existing Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 1 .8
businesses. Prior occupancies include businesses of possible historic
significance
TRANSPORTATION
Vehicular Access: rating 2.9 Environmental Issues/remediafion Likely: rating 2.3
Good vehicular access to the site from all sides and in Landfill remediafion most likely.
particular from Laporte and Mason, but its downtown
location could also become an issue as it increases the Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2.3
traffic volume.
Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 1 .8
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: Extremely limited, as most of the site is already developed.
rating 3.8 Overall rating : 73.5
COST Overall ranking : 3 of 8
Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 3.4 Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2.4
Good quality sidewalks and crosswalks on this portion of rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
CREAMERY SITE : RATINGS
■ a • +
i
• M
M S Y
IL
qO IL
fl
� —A
loll
}�
# 016
7
. .
lip 0
f
r # r II — r _ LA itlir - -
IF
}. i . � l � i , III I •�' I I 4 �
' r III IV *1lilla
• *; • f
b
dr
a
! r w y k or . iiI~ •7
* y
• # ' • PF IF 'a
ir
NIL
him v e � � i
` ' i +
Pp op pill �+� tom !
pill Aw
# TT k lip
36 1&
IF
IF LILK
F
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008
t y
Y
1
4 '
j
1 A u
f
B
ANK PARKING SITE
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 12
URBAN DESIGN offer good and safe pedestrian experience. COST
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 3.1 Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2.4
Multiuse area which includes banks, retails, restaurants, offices Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required:
and entertainment such as the Lincoln Theater. rating 2.6 Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site:
rating 2.3
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area): Public Transit/Alternative Transit: rating 3.2
rating 3.2 Excellent connection to Mason corridor and future Rapid Bus Site Development Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.3
Good visibility from Mason and Olive, but tall tower of First Transit.
National Bank would limit visibility of Amphitheater from Oak TIMING
and Mason (coming form North) . SITE FACTORS Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 3.5
Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 2.3
Quality of User Experience: rating 2.5 Limited size of site would not allow much room for any outside Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2. 1
Medium to high quality of surrounding area, but limited area plaza to welcome crowds coming in and out of the amphitheater
of site may prevent quality of user experience during arrival during venues.
and exit of theater. No space is available for large crowds.
Place would rather become congested. Potential Views from Site: rating 2.2
Mason and other streets. No direct connections are given to open
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 2.9 spaces.
Small residential neighborhood is only a block away but this
area has already been acclimated to having a medium size Topography/Slope: rating 3
theater. However, the large size of amphitheater and lack of Flat site.
parking may generate tensions with existing residents.
Geological or Water Table Issues:
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail, Entertainment): rating 2.5
rating 2.9
Excellent proximity to restaurants, retails and entertainment. Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 1 .2
Very close to railroad and its vibrations coming from Mason.
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 1 .5
Poor availability of parking spaces around this site. Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.4
Amphitheater would actually remove amounts of parking
currently available on site.
Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 3.2
Business Development Potential: rating 2.2
Surrounding area is already quite economically developed
and successful, but amphitheater might help to further Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: rating 2. 9
economically support the area.
TRANSPORTATION Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2.3
Vehicular Access: rating 2.8
Site is set within a dense downtown area and removed from
any primary vehicular route except for Mason. Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 1 .8
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: Overall raflrl
rating 2.7 g 69 .2
Overall ranking : 6 of 8
Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 3.2
Good qualify sidewalks and crosswalks in the surrounding rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
BANK PARKING SITE : RATINGS
40
r
r
1LXCELLENT PROX-
ddl }
IMITY TO PLIKIC I' *
PAR AN6 RIVER
MLIM
•• - mllk �. .
CHERRY mw
'
NARROW SITE ELIMINATES
SUPPORT SPACES ON BOTH
SIDES - - = 7C
CONCERNS Qom `
FR ILROADAND B.O.H. t1l
NT STREETS O
r710
Z �I + AREA,
r - F I4 NOISE CONCER O Lu
f NEIGHBORING R rap
TIAL PROPER lJ
CC � co�• W
NEW RESIDENTIAL DIRECTION 0
DEVELOPMENT SOUND ��' AMU Q y
€€ + u .
Fir
ONE-WAY
_ TREET LIMITS QQO #
ITE ACCESS P UPPORT S I
TO BECOME p I
- _ •`L TWO-WAY IN {�
2009) ONE
EXCELLENT
ACCESS TO
V TRANSIT CENTER k•
_ ENTRANCE IS A CQNSIDER-
i XISTING�AT - V BILE DISTANCE FROM OLD •
MICE PARKING `. o TOWN SQUARE
OTENTIAL PARKING I N Q lot
0
n TRUCTURE , ' + M & MAPLE
s i� r • J 74 .4�0
FORT COLLINS • 2008
ti F. d
rlow
. If
e
I
MASON
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 15
URBAN DESIGN increases the traffic volume.
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 2.4 Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2
Site is located within multi use precinct which include civic, Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy:
light industrial, retail, and residential. Residential units stand rating 3.5 Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 2.4
directly across the street and may create conflicts with Site allows for some flexibility and potential growth
potential amphitheater. Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 3.2 expansion if whole block were to be considered.
Excellent quality sidewalks and crosswalks on this portion of
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area): downtown makes this site one of the best choice for pedestrian COST
rating 4 access and safety. Land Acquisition Cost:
Amphitheater would be greatly visible from all sides if project rating 2.4
were to occupy whole block as a site. Otherwise, visibility Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required:
from College would be limited and compromised. rating 2.5 Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site:
rating 2. 1
Quality of User Experience: rating 2.3 Public Transit/Alternative Transit:
Poor quality experience from visitors due to low quality rating 4.6 Site Development Cost Premium due to Site:
light industrial adjacent buildings, intrusive railroad onto rating 2.3
the site, and non refined streetscape as it could be found SITE FACTORS
on Mountain. However, site offers good connections to Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 1 .8 TIMING
park, river and trails, and is easily accessible from multiple Excellent site size in relation to amphitheater. When comparing Complexity of Existing Land Ownership:
directions. with other sites which are often too tight, Justice Center Site rating 3.5
offers good options for open plazas and park around the building
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 2.3 that could welcome visitors as they arrive and depart from
Residential units are currently being built right across the venues. Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule:
street on Mason. rating 2.7
Potential Views from Site: rating 2.4
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail, Mountain Avenue, open park, and good quality of surrounding
Entertainment): rating 2.6 urban setting and architecture provide a good visual experience
Site does not offer excellent proximity to related activities to visitors, but yet does not provide any visual connection to
which are located more than two blocks away to the east larger natural features such as the river or mountains.
and south.
Topography/Slope: rating 2.8
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 2.4 Flat site.
Closest parking structure is located two blocks away south
on Mason with no other parking options. Geological or Water Table Issues:
rating 2.5
Business Development Potential: rating 3
Amphitheater Surrounding area could certainly be positively Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 1 .2
be influence and economically ... by such project in the Very close to railroad on Mason.
vicinity. If whole block were to be considered, amphitheater
could become a great gateway to Old Town as visitors Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.8
come from North on College. Limited
TRANSPORTATION Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures:
Vehicular Access: rating 3.1 rating 3.2 Overall rating : 72. 1
Good vehicular access to the site from all sides and Overall ranking : 4 of 8
in particular from Mountain, Howes and Mason, but its Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: rating 2. 7
downtown location could also become an issue as it None, but should research further. rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
MASON & MAPLE SITE : RATINGS
FORT COLLINS • 2008 16
_ y
N . • I I,.: :i.i
R • i � ' � . . e rsro p �i► -
I IF
a of
" r.
se,y
s •
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRA 2 APRIL 2008
y
■ 'n
r�
1
• � 1
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 18
URBAN DESIGN Jefferson and other surrounding street do not offer such quality TIMING
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 3.1 pedestrian experience. Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 2.8
Multiuse area includes light industrial, retail, restaurants and
offices. Very close to Downtown Mall and night life. Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required: rating 2.6 Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2.3
By other
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area):
rating 3.2 Public Transit/Alternative Transit: rating 3.2
Poor visibility due to limited size site and surrounding buildings. Research.
Amphitheater would be set back may be difficult to find for
any visitors coming from outside of town. SITE FACTORS
Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 4
Qualify of User Experience: rating 2.7 Tight site is surrounded by smaller buildings and removed location
No direct access to site from Downtown Mall or Mountain from any primary route or main square would prevent amphitheater
Avenue. . from being visible within Fort Collins as a Cultural Center.
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 4.1 Potential Views from Site: rating 2
Closest residential are a block away located across Mountain Not many views are given beside backs of buildings, service alleys
Avenue. and Jefferson Street or Walnut Street.
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail, Entertainment): Topography/Slope: rating 2.8
rating 4.6 Flat site.
Excellent proximity to Downtown Mall, restaurants, retails and
entertainment. Geological or Water Table Issues: rating 2.5
By other
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 2.7
Beside the small parking garage on Mountain Avenue, there Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 4.1
is only poor availability of parking spaces around this site. Railroad is nearby on the other side of Jefferson, and loud heavy
trucks are continuously driving by the site by day and night.
Business Development Potential: rating 3
Businesses and real estate located east and north of the site Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.2
would directly benefit from the amphitheater. The project
might also add some economical activity to the existing Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 1 .5
Downtown Mall ' s district, but would not be described as an
economical revitalization. Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: rating 2.3
TRANSPORTATION Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2.7
Vehicular Access: rating 3
Site is set within a dense downtown area and somehow hard Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 2.8
to access for parking, but primary routes such as College None without acquiring and removing adjacent buildings.
Avenue or Jefferson are readily accessible.
COST
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: rating 3.2 Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2.2
Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.7 Overall rating : 77. 6
Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 2.9 Overall ranking : 2 of 8
Good quality sidewalks and crosswalks on Mountain and Site Development Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.5
on Linden offer good and safe pedestrian experience, but rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
CHESNUT SITE : RATINGS
FORT COLLINS • 2008 19
de
ENTIAL SITE
�` _ • A ESS -
z , PATH
.� HISTORI T
• UILDING
•
/ S LESS DESIRABLE ^ I
ENTRY POINT
Do
• ` �. r
EXISTING BUILDI
T ♦ WILL HAVETISHEDED
DEMOLISHED
JQ STAGE ,y'
♦ S F. •
t ' PRIMARY
° DIRECTIOIN y •
a ,
dOFSOUND
DIFFICULT TO OLD �� �
TOWN SQUAB
R F
S PPOR \
s
2 �/ EX ISTING BUIL , G
r W ILL HAVE TO BE
DEM SHED s -
40
�• - � - °saw : \�
LLOW SOUTH SITE
I - 145 , 700 S . F .
FORT COLLINS • 2008
YfLJ��
Y"
WILLOW SOUTH SITE
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 21
URBAN DESIGN Square make this site one of the least favorable in terms of Site Development Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.7
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 3.3 pedestrian quality experience.
Site mostly surrounded with industrial and light industrial,
along with some offices in historic building to the east. Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required: rating 2.3 TIMING
By other Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 2.8
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area):
rating 1 .8 Public Transit/Alternative Transit: rating 2.3 Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2.7
Site surrounded with non attractive industrial buildings. Site is Research.
hidden with no visibility except from Willow.
SITE FACTORS
Quality of User Experience: rating 1 .7 Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 3.7
Low quality experience from visitors due to industrial context. Tight site surrounded by industrial buildings prevents good visual
Also site is cut off from Downtown by railroad. presence of the amphitheater within Fort Collins, and offers no
connections to other public spaces for quality experience.
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 5
No proximity to residential. Potential Views from Site: rating 2.2
Direct view onto large industrial buildings and railroad.
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail,
Entertainment): rating 2.4 Topography/Slope: rating 3.2
Connection to Old Town Square is difficult due to industrial Flat site.
buildings and railroad . Direct access would require grade
separated structure to connect site to Jefferson and Old Geological or Water Table Issues: rating 2.3
Town Square. By other
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 1 .3 Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 1 .8
No parking resources are available in the surrounding area. Very close to railroad and loud industrial buildings.
Business Development Potential: rating 3.3 Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.2
Amphitheater could potentially be used to regenerate this
industrial precinct into a more entertainment and retail Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 2
area in extension from Old Town Square, but this would significant demolition required
require intensive investments to improve streetscape and
infrastructure along with demolishing numerous existing Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: rating 2. 1
industrial buildings. Likely some remediation required
TRANSPORTATION Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2.9
Vehicular Access: rating 2.5
Site is only accessible from Willow, which then connects to Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 3
Lincoln and Willow to the east, and College Avenue to the None without acquiring and removing adjacent industrial
West. buildings. Existing railroad also prevents easy connections or
expansion toward Jefferson and Old Town Square.
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: rating 2.7
By others COST
Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2.4 Overall rating : 68.8
Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 1 .6 Overall ranking : 7 of 8
Low quality sidewalks and crosswalks on Willow, and Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.7
absence of direct pedestrian connection from Old Town rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
WILLOW SOUTH SITE : RATINGS
O .
r
� .�, \ . j % � % � � � � : z � • »� � ■ $ � � �
� � �
wt 2
- � ON
� . � -
� -
2 Lv : -
: | . w • , a / .
_
w J • \ e �
. � 10,
�
m
, ` � ` « - - ® � - • . . , .
FORT COLILNSAMPHITHEATER - SIEI SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2APRIL2008
.a
1 1
1
WILLOW NORTH SITE
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 24
URBAN DESIGN Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 1 .4
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 2.9 Low quality sidewalks and crosswalks on Willow, and absence of COST
Site is surrounded with variety of different uses such as: direct pedestrian connection from Old Town Square make this Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2. 6
industrial buildings of different scales, a sport center, the site difficult to develop in terms of pedestrian quality experience.
Bas Bleu Theater, the railroad, and a Park located along Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site:
Jefferson. Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required: rating 2.3 rating 2.7
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area): By other
rating 2.5 Site Development Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.7
Site may be visible from park on Jefferson across the railroad Public Transit/Alternative Transit: rating 2.3 TIMING
line, but on the overall, location does not offer any good Less proximate to existing transit routes. Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 3
image/visibility.
SITE FACTORS Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2.7
Quality of User Experience: rating 1 .5 Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 3.5
Low quality experience from visitors due to industrial context Tight site surrounded by industrial buildings prevents good visual
on Willow and railroad lines framing site on southern and presence of the amphitheater within Fort Collins, and offers no
western edges. connections to other public spaces for quality experience.
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 4.4 Potential Views from Site: rating 1 .6
No proximity to residential. Direct view onto large industrial buildings
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail, Entertainment) Topography/Slope: rating 2.8
rating 2.5 Flat site.
Desirable connection to Old Town Square is made difficult
due to the railroad lines, but Linden still offers a good Geological or Water Table Issues: rating 2.5
proximity to old town square. Water table issues likely to be present.
Proximity to Existing Parking Resourcesl.: rating1 .5 Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: 2. 1
No parking resources are available in the surrounding area. Very close to railroad .
Business Development Potential: rating 3.3 Likely Archeological Resources Issues: rating 2.2
Amphitheater could potentially help regenerate this mixed There will most likely be archeological resources issues due to the
use precinct into a more entertainment and retail area as Fort Collins Military Post Archeological Site located on the North
an extension of Old Town Square. However this would still East side of the site.
require intensive investments to improve streetscape and
infrastructure along Willow and Linden, and unless removed, Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 2.6
railroad will always create a barrier on both Souther and Limited demolition required .
Western edges.
Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: rating 1 .7
TRANSPORTATION Very likely to have contaminated soils and/or groundwater. Near
Vehicular Access: rating 2.1 old coal gasification facility. Railroad adjacent for +/- 100 years.
Site is only accessible from Willow, which then connects to
Lincoln and Willow to the east, and College Avenue to the Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 3.2
West.
Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 3.2 Overall rating : 68. 1
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: rating 2.7 None without acquiring and removing adjacent industrial Overall ranking : 8 of 8
By others buildings. Existing railroad also prevents easy connections or
expansion toward Jefferson and Old Town Square. rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
WILLOW NORTH SITE : RATINGS
_ + 7 Orr �.
jag
lie
•
�S •r'
. ♦ J R .
r
• 1/ � ,� � ram._. / ' �. - • ♦ 1. ` i, •• ,
� � • II li
VI
_ • y M
i
�• s 1L �
FORT COLLINS AMPHITHEATER - SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS DRAFT 2 APRIL 2008 26
Y
T
i
� 2
{ f rY
� � t ,.,y���,,� r •r �y ` .Y � 1 �t �` F
- �� �;' ` fir .� .���''��.'♦ i
3 4
AZTLAN SITE
URBAN DESIGN COST
Compatibility with Current Adjacent Land Uses: rating 4 Pedestrian Access (sidewalks, crosswalks, signals): rating 1 .6 Land Acquisition Cost: rating 2.8
Site is currently partly occupied by Aztlan Community Medium quality sidewalks and crosswalks on this portion of
Center, and other half contains a landfill. Willow, and isolated location make this site difficult to develop in Building Construction Cost Premium due to Site:
terms of pedestrian quality experience and accessibility. rating 2.5
Facility Image/Visibility (View of site from surrounding area):
rating 2.8 Infrastructure - Adequacy; Relocation Required: rating 1 .9 Site Development Cost Premium due to Site: rating 2.3
Amphitheater would be quite visible from North College
Avenue, but hidden and maybe hard to find as visitors arrive TIMING
from Willow. Public Transit/Alternative Transit: rating 2.5 Complexity of Existing Land Ownership: rating 3.5
Research .
Quality of User Experience: rating 2.5 Ability to Meet Proposed Schedule: rating 2.9
Low quality experience from visitors due to main access from SITE FACTORS
Willow through parking lot of the Aztlan Community Center. Site Size; Configuration/Shape: rating 3.2
Western and Northern edges are defined by railroad which Tight site is contained by river and it' s 200 feet setback on the
prevents any good quality experience. However on eastern Northeastern edge, and by BNSF railroad on its western and
edge of the site is the Cache La Poudre River which offers a northern edges. Along with its isolated location, this makes this
unique quality to this particular site. site one of the least favorable for a successful amphitheater plan
within Fort Collins.
Proximity to Existing Residential: rating 5.3
No proximity to residential as of today, but new residential Potential Views from Site: rating 3.1
community of condos and town homes is currently being Very attractive view of the river is partly spoiled by unattractive
built adjacent to the site. sight of railroad .
Proximity to Related Activities (Dinning, Retail, Topography/Slope: rating 3
Entertainment): rating 1 .6 Flat site.
Site is relatively isolated and offers no proximity to related
activities other than theater. Geological or Water Table Issues: rating 2
Proximity to river suggests likely water table issues.
Proximity to Existing Parking Resources: rating 1 .7
Beside the Aztlan Community Center' s parking which was Proximity to Noise or Vibration Sources: rating 2.4
only sized for its own uses, no parking resources are available Very close to railroad .
in the surrounding area.
Likely Archeological Resources Issues: 2.8
Business Development Potential: rating 2.2 Limited
We do not envision any business development potential
related to this site due to its isolated location and the current Demolition - Extent; Historic Structures: rating 3.2
uses surrounding the site. Long range this will be the mixed
use River District. Environmental Issues/remediation Likely: 1 .7
Over landfill. Cover soil contains asbestos. Groundwater contains
TRANSPORTATION volatile hydrocarbons.
Vehicular Access: rating 1 .7
Site is only accessible from Willow and through the Aztlan Known Zoning or Regulatory Issues: rating 2.7
parking lot. This may generate traffic congestions as people Overall rating : 71 .5
arrive and depart. Potential for Facility Expansion: rating 3.2 Overall ranking : 5 of 8
None as most of the site is already taken by the Aztlan
Adequacy of proposed Parking Strategy: rating 2.4 Community Center, or contained by the railroad and river. rating scale: 0 = unacceptable...4 = excellent (scores greater
than 4 are weighted)
AZTLAN SITE : RATINGS
FORT COLLINS • 2008 28
90.0 4 r,� • r _ _
80.0 _ E. IL
lionTL
'
70.0
60.0
Sri � � � a
50.0 iyit 77� lift
�
40.0
30.0 s • yIr y+�. +l �!' ; r it ' ,✓/�J
20.0 i� ' � ..11111i, „ r -11 '..I L iil�i _ •TI
Justice Creamery Bank Mason- Chestnut Willow Willow Artlan is ,�}��' • � ' !', ts s � ' i 1 r �• -�
Center Parking Maple South North
AWA
Ratings of candidate sites (weighted) Ranking of candidate sites
In short, all eight candidate sites have significant chal- geous for the siting of the new Fort Collins Amphitheater, Municipal building to block noise from the railroad, but is
lenges as well as opportunities presented to the pos- despite its proximity to the Mason Street rail corridor. This closer to residential properties to the north . There are also a
sible development of a new amphitheater. This study factor was weighted heavily in the rankings, but potential number of structures of historic value or possible cultural signif-
suggests that the balance of opportunities and chal- noise from rail traffic affected all the candidate sites to one icance on the Creamery site that would make development
lenges favors the Justice Center site first, followed by degree or another. of an amphitheater more challenging .
the Chestnut and the Creamery sites. The relatively
small differences in scores from the ratings may suggest If it is determined that the Justice Center site is not obtain- Next steps in the site selection process should include a due
that the sites are very similar; however, this is not the able , the team suggests investigation of the Chestnut site, diligence phase to investigate the geotechnical, environ-
case. The numerical differences may be small, but the which has the advantage of close proximity to Old Town mental and historical resource issues connected with the top
qualitative difference between the sites is significant, Square. Acquiring multiple land parcels and developing ranked site (or sites) . These investigations will allow the design
except for the sites ranked sixth, seventh and eighth. a workable parking strategies for the Chestnut site will be of the amphitheater to move forward successfully.
more challenging than for the Justice Center site.
In terms of the evaluation critera used to rank the sites,
the Justice Center site appears to be most advanta- The third-ranked Creamery site has the advantage of the
CONCLUSION
FORT COLLINS • 00 . 29