Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/26/2011 - MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY AND URBAN RENEW
DATE: April 26, 2011 STAFF: Christina Vincent WORK SESSION ITEM Megan Bolin FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.corn/c/erWagendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recently completed an existing conditions survey of Midtown, the commercial corridor of South College Avenue from Prospect Road, to just south of Harmony Road to Fairway Lane. The recommendation to study the area's potential for redevelopment and public financial investment was made during the Midtown Redevelopment Study in 2010. City Council approved Resolution 2011- 008 in February 2011, authorizing and directing staff to prepare an existing conditions survey and an Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown area. The purpose of this work session is to introduce and present the findings of the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and to seek Council direction to proceed with the process. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have any questions regarding establishing an Urban Renewal Plan for Midtown, including previously studied areas Prospect South and Foothills Mall? 2. Should staff bring forward an Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown Commercial Corridor for Council consideration? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1982, City Council created an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and designated itself as the governing board (known as the "Authority"). The boundaries of the URA are the city limits. The Fort Collins URA was created to prevent and eliminate conditions in the community related to certain"blight factors,"as defined in the State's Urban Renewal Laws. State statutes grant the URA broad powers to carry out its statutory mandate. Included are the powers to enter into contracts, borrow funds,and acquire property voluntarily or by eminent domain,among others. Urban renewal projects may be financed in a variety of ways. URAs are authorized to issue bonds and accept grants from public or private sources. The principal method of financing urban renewal projects is through obligations secured by property tax or sales tax increments from the project area, or "tax increment financing"(TIF). The Authority exercises its powers by planning and carrying out urban renewal plans in urban renewal areas. April 26, 2011 Page 2 The major purpose of establishing a Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (URP) area would be to permit the utilization of TIF in redevelopment projects. TIF is a tool that is commonly used throughout Colorado for a variety of redevelopment and economic development purposes. TIF has also proven an effective tool to overcome significant public improvement costs in the North College URP area. Given the lack of economic tools at the City's disposal and the proven effectiveness of TIF, staff believes utilizing TIF is the most effective tool to help keep the targeted redevelopment areas competitive with other communities along the Front Range. An advantage of using TIF is that public assistance toward the development is driven by enhancements to the assessed valuation of the property and is funded through property tax revenues versus sales tax revenues. Midtown,the South College Avenue commercial corridor running from Prospect Road to just south of Harmony Road,has been in decline as a prominent regional destination for retail uses. Increased regional competition, aging and outmoded space and the impact of the national recession have contributed to approximately 650,000 square feet of vacant space. In 2009, City Council recognized that the Midtown corridor deserved and required an immediate assessment of its economic outlook and community aspirations for its future, and directed staff to initiate the Midtown Redevelopment Study. This process occurred from late October 2009 to May 2010, when the consultant team worked with the City, stakeholders and the public to assess Midtown issues, and make recommendations for its future and outline next steps for action. Action A 1 of the Implementation Strategy within the Midtown Redevelopment Study directs the City to "Implement other Midtown Corridor Redevelopment Opportunities...Prepare an existing conditions report for the Midtown Study area." The purpose of the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey is to determine whether Midtown constitutes a blighted area within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law. In order to declare an area blighted, at least four of eleven physical, environmental, or social factors must be present, including: 1. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures 2. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout 3. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness 4. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions 5. Deterioration of site or other improvements 6. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities 7. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable 8. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes 9. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in 10. Environmental contamination of buildings or property 11. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites,building,or other improvements. As the Survey shows, seven factors were found in the area(shown in bold above). City Council will make a determination as to whether the study area is blighted on May 17. April 26, 2011 Page 3 In addition to the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey field work, both the Prospect South(2008) and Foothills Mall(2007)Existing Conditions Surveys were updated in 2011 to ensure the findings remain consistent with the original document and to identify unfavorable conditions that have occurred since the documents were finalized. The original surveys remain intact with addendums attached for documentation. If Council decides Midtown (including Prospect South and the Foothills Mall) is in fact blighted, a Midtown URP will be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board for a determination as to its consistency with the policies identified in City Plan. The following are the principles and policies identified within City Plan that pertain to this Survey: • Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. • Policy EH 4.1: Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas • Policy EH 4.2: Reduce Barriers to Development and Redevelopment • Policy LIV 5.1: Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill • Policy LIV 5.2: Target Public Investment along the Commercial Spine • Policy LIV 5.3: Indentify Additional Redevelopment and Infill Areas as Appropriate Outreach and presentations to date: • Initial letter of notification to the property owners in the Survey Area • Fort Collins Board of Realtors • South Fort Collins Business Association • URA/Redevelopment Luncheon • Secondary letter of notification (Open House) to property owners • Planning and Zoning Board - work session • Open House at the Midtown Arts Center • Commercial Brokers Association • SIT (Strategic Information Team), internal City Manager staff meeting Next Steps • May 17 - City Council (referral of the URP to the Planning and Zoning Board and taxing entities) • June 10—Planning and Zoning Board work session • June 16—Planning and Zoning Board Hearing (conformance to City Plan) • July 19—City Council (consideration of Urban Renewal Plan) r April 26, 2011 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Boundary Map—Plan area 2. Boundary Map— Study area 3. Schedule 4. Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Appendix 5. Third Party Verification Letter 6. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and Appendix 7. Foothills Mall Memo with Addendum 8. Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey and Appendix 9. Prospect South Memo with Addendum 10. Power Point Presentation ATTACHMENT 1 W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD AS All a a W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD � � � � W J W AIr V� J Ile ir dd `" W HORSETOOTH RD � E HORSETOOTH RD I 1 ' j ,. I. W HARMONY RD E HARMONY RD n ry fi x. '. jam ' y . w Midtown Commercial Corridor �t Collins Major Streets 1 inch = 2 , 100 feet Midtown Commercial Corridor April 2011 I .R op JT LI fj ; P�'! A � Y q I 0 00 ' n a © oe bija top iL fj 4 � rf . . aFi OF r af ,;; q f r L ' QZ � • 1 ATTACHMENT Midtown Existing Condition Study January 2011 - Updated March 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Tasks & Meetings Start Date Finish Date 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 Study Preparation Draft Notice of Intent 1/10/11 1/14/11 M Establish Stakeholder Mailing List 1/10/11 1/14/11 WW Mail Notice of Intent to Stakeholders 1/18/11 1/18/11 01/18/11 Resolution to Proceed - Council AIS 1/19/11 1/19/11 01/19/11 Resolution to Proceed - Council Meeting 2/1/11 2/1/11 • 2/1/11 Field Work/Prepare Study 2/2/11 4/1/11 One-on-One Meetings 2/7/11 4/1/11 Establish & maintain project webpage 2/7/11 8/31/11 Strategic Issues Team (SIT) presentation 2/16/11 2/16/11 2/16/11 County Impact Report 3/14/11 4/11/11 Draft Study to MF 3/21/11 3/31/11 �Q Draft Study to 3rd party 3/21/11 3/31/11 �Q Complete Draft Study, URA Plan & Impact Report 4/1/11 4/1/11 4/1/11 Notification of Public Meeting 4/6/11 4/6/11 4/6/11 Public Open House 4/20/11 4/20/11 04/20/11 Study/Plan Approval P&Z Staff Report Due 4/6/11 4/6/11 4/6/11 P&Z work session 4/15/11 4/15/11 4/15/11 Council AIS Due 4/15/11 4/15/11 04/15/11 Work Session Taping 4/20/11 4/20/11 04/20/11 Review Study, URA Plan & Impact Report - Council work session 4/26/11 4/26/11 4/26/11 Council AIS Due 5/4/11 5/4/11 0 5/4/11 Resolution to Submit Plan to P&Z, PSD & County - Council Meeting S/17/11 S/17/11 05/17/11 Notification of P&Z Review to POs, PSD, County Commissioners 5/18/11 5/18/11 0 5/18/11 Presentation to Board of County Commissioners 5/19/11 5/19/11 05/19/11 P&Z Staff Report Due 6/1/11 6/1/11 6/1/11 P&Z Work Session 6/10/11 6/10/11 6/10/11 P&Z Hearing 6/16/11 6/16/11 6/16/11 Public Notification of Council Meeting to POs, PSD & County 6/17/11 6/17/11 06/17/11 Written Notice to PCs, PSD & County 6/17/11 6/17/11 06/17/11 Council AIS Due 7/6/11 7/6/11 • 7/6/11 Resolution to Approve Plan - Council Meeting 7/19/11 7/19/11 07/19/11 Council Notifies County Assessor 7/20/11 7/20/11 0 7/20/11 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 ATTACHMENT 4 ................... .... ........... n .............. ONE .■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ CON ::::::::::::::�:: ■■■ COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR F. ) '" [\ rJ I � J f11 J �, J J ' [ I J J rF. 1 IFF IL 2011 t PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PREPARED FOR : FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A . PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B . COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C . SURVEY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II . STUDY AREA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A . STUDYAREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B . FIELD SURVEY APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C . BLIGHT FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C . BLIGHT FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 D . RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 III . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 : MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FIGURE 2 : MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 FIGURE 3 : FIELD SURVEY STUDY SECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FIGURE 4 : LOCATION OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS 1999- 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 FIGURE 5 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TABLE 2 : NUISANCE CODE VIOLATIONS 1999- 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 TABLE 3 : LEVEL OF SERVICE ( LOS ) BY INTERSECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLE 4 : AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLE 5 : AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 2007-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TABLE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 APPENDIX APPENDIX A : PHOTO DOCUMENTATION , SECTIONS 1- 3 APPENDIX B : SOURCES CONSULTED Fort O < < ins 2 -71 /"-_' MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY I . INTRODUCTION The following report, the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey ( Survey), was prepared for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado in April 2011 . The area of Fort Collins known as Midtown encompasses the South College Avenue commercial corridor extending north to south from Prospect Road to Fairway Lane, just south of Harmony Road . A once vibrant and active commercial and retail corridor, Midtown has been in decline as a prominent regional destination . In 2009, the City Council initiated the Midtown Redevelopment Study, a report that documented and analyzed the area ' s existing economic conditions and retail redevelopment opportunities . Several implementation actions were identified to achieve the redevelopment vision, including direction to study the area further and evaluate the statutory requirements for findings of blight to establish the basis for the formulation of an Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) area . In response to the recommended action item, City Council initiated this Survey in February 2011 . This report presents the field survey findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding whether a URP is applicable . A. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this Survey is to determine whether the Midtown Study Area (Study Area ) constitutes a " blighted area" within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law ( See Figure 2 for a map of the Study Area ) . Secondly, this Survey will influence whether the Study Area should be recommended for such urban renewal efforts as the URA and City Council may deem appropriate to remediate existing conditions and prevent further deterioration . B . COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW In the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes ( C. R . S . ) § 31-25- 101 et seq . ( Urban Renewal Law ), the legislature has declared that an area of blight "constitutes a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state in general and municipalities thereof; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially to the spread of disease and crime, constitutes an economic and social liability, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of municipalities, retards the provision of housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems and impairs or arrests the elimination of traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that the prevention and elimination of slums and blight is a matter of public policy and statewide concern . . ." . The determination that constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical , environmental , and social factors . Blight is indeed attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration of an rt 3 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY area . For purposes of the Survey, the definition of a blighted area is premised upon the definition articulated in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows : "Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout C. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness d Unsanitary or unsafe conditions e Deterioration of site or other improvements f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property k. 5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, building, or other improvements 1. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property in an urban renewal area, "blighted area " also means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (I), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing condemnation To be able to use the powers of eminent domain, "blighted " means that five of the eleven factors must be present ( C. R . S. § 31- 25- 105 . 5 ( a ) ) : � Cityt 4 Fort Collins MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY "Blighted area" shall have the some meaning as set forth in section 31 - 25- 103 (2); except that, for the purposes of this section only, "blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least five of the factors specified in section 31 -25- 103 (2)(a) to (2)(I), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law . First, the absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of blight . The definition of "blighted area" contained in the Urban Renewal Law is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration . Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P. 2d 907, 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). Second, the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area . A determination of blight is based upon an area "taken as a whole, " and not on a building- by- building basis. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 473 P. 2d 978, 981 (Colo. 1970). Third, a governing body' s "determination as to whether an area is blighted . . . . is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted . " Tracy, 635 P. 2d at 909. A court' s role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to independently verify if the conclusion is based upon factual evidence determined by the City Council at the time of a public hearing to be consistent with the statutory definition . C. SURVEY METHODOLOGY This Survey was executed internally by URA staff to inventory the existing conditions within the Study Area using both visual observation of physical conditions in the field , and the collection of non-observable data from reliable sources . Non-observable data was obtained from numerous City of Fort Collins departments, including Geographic Information Systems ( GIS), Planning, Neighborhood Services, Transportation, Utilities, and Economic Health . URA staff conducted 12 field investigations during the months of February and March 2011 for the purpose of photographing visual conditions of blight . There are 11 broad factors of blight defined in the state statutes with an undefined amount of conditions associated with each factor . "Conditions" are existing situations or circumstances that are identified in the Study Area that may qualify as blight. Staff documented a variety of conditions as evidence in this Survey to support a "finding of blight" according to Urban Renewal Law . 1� City rt 5 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY This Survey was divided into several tasks as follows : Task 1 : Research and collect data associated with the Study Area , as well as prepare base maps of existing conditions for the Study Area . Task 2 : Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County . Task 3 : Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in the Urban Renewal Law, exist in the Study Area . Task 4 : Document survey findings in a graphic and report form to present to City Council . The actual determination of whether the Study Area is blighted remains the responsibility of the legislative body; in this case, the Fort Collins City Council . II . STUDY AREA ANALYSIS A. STUDY AREA The area analyzed in the Midtown Redevelopment Study encompassed the entire commercial corridor along South College Avenue from Prospect Road to Fairway Lane, one block south of Harmony Road ( Figure 1 ) . Within this broader area, two subareas had been previously analyzed for conditions of blight : Foothills Mall and Prospect South . The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan (URP) were adopted by the City Council in May 2007 . Based on the property owner' s economic situation , and the lack of redevelopment activity, the Foothills Mall URP was dissolved in 2008 to protect the TIF from accumulating prematurely. The Mall remains a prominent focal point in Fort Collins and prime opportunity for a regional retail destination, and the Midtown Redevelopment Study provides concepts for key future redevelopment efforts . The Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan (URP) were conducted in 2008 . Although the Survey concluded that sufficient blight factors were present to warrant a URP, the Plan was never adopted based on the lack of a catalyst project within the proposed Plan Area . Since these two areas have been recently surveyed, they were excluded from the same level of scrutiny that the remaining area received . Figure 2 identifies the entire Midtown Commercial Corridor, and highlights the Study Area that is the focus of this effort (shown in red ) and the areas that have been previously studied (shown in blue ) . The Study Area is comprised of approximately 663 acres and includes 500 parcels of private property . City of 6 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FIGURE 1 : MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR W PROSPEC*T RD E PU SPECZT RD J �� 1 'J n sSf t r „• et �P' � ��n s� 41 Q r- ^ W DRAKE RD E Q , �►' ;i E D KE RD W w 0.1 - . Li ui Lu ✓ J _ UJI a RS E HORSETOOTH RD ' LA - yr,1 . . x W HARMONY ' E HARMONY RD kr a G T t' Q v : or -1Ts -.' KS�'+L1S' .: s � '1�. -! ^ r V ♦� . ..1 . � �. �. Y •W � I �Y. l• q ort _ Midtown Commercial Corridor . Fora terns P:lajor Streets 1 inch = 2 , 100 feet Midtown Commercial Corridor April 2011 aty - rt`!1 7 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FIGURE 2 : MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA Y , " ;' W PROSPECT RD E PROSPEC"T RD rt.. , Q Q W DRAKE RD _ ;00. E DD KE RD V1 W N Q N W � W W J Vf W HORSETOOTH RD `" E HORSE TOOTH RD W W H R ONY RD E HARMONY 1 i � r�' � SS LL Study Area Boundary �,� r't� 0 1S w r0ajor Streets �► ► 0 Midtown Study Area 1 inch = 2,100 feet Previously Studied Areas April 2011 x1il F� �-f g MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Be FIELD SURVEY APPROACH Physical surveyance of the Study Area necessitated 12 field investigations over a multi-week timeframe in February and March 2011 . Due to its size, the Study Area was divided into three sections that are consistent with sections defined in the Midtown Redevelopment Study. Section 1 : The first mile, from Prospect Road to Drake Road, is generally populated with the oldest developments; many are at or near the end of their initial lifecycle . Section 2 : The middle mile, between Drake and Horsetooth Roads, was largely developed in the late 1970s and is dominated by Foothills Mall to the east and auto dealerships to the west . Section 3 : The southernmost mile and a half, extending from Horsetooth Road south to Fairway Lane, is the most recently developed area with the exception of the former Wal- Mart site . Figure 3 identifies the three study sections . The survey team walked the entire study area one section at a time and took photographs and notes as existing conditions of blight were observed . The location of each observation was recorded and documented with a photograph (Appendix A) . Fort 9 � �r t�s MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FIGURE 3 : FIELD SURVEY STUDY SECTIONS F I IL , .< s W DRAKE RD E- DRAKE- RD W > Q W i J ' Section 2 LA 7 _ Q - o 1 ( x"� �l ,mil f f r f 4, - ; W HORSETOOTH�f RD J E HORSETOOTH RD mi O - cn Section W HARMONY RD n E HARMONY RD — "' Q I W— Vf \ Study Sections For%ms ;Q Midtown Study Area Study Section 1 Major Streets Study Section 2 1 inch = 1, 800 feet Study Section 3 April 2011 City of 10 u /may j� Fort Collins MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY C. BLIGHT FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA Listed below are the criteria used in the field survey to evaluate each blight factor. 1 . Slum, Deteriorating or Deteriorated Structures Field survey efforts examining this factor focused on the general condition and level of deterioration of the existing buildings' exterior components, such as : External walls Visible foundation Fascia and soffits ❖ Roofs Gutters and downspouts Exterior finishes ❖ Windows and doors Stairways and fire escapes Loading dock areas ❖ Fences, walls and gates ❖ Ancillary structures Structural integrity and/or environmental factors were not considered . The intent of this portion of the field survey was to identify observable physical conditions of neglect, disrepair, and/or deterioration on the exterior of the structures found within the Study Area . 2. Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The analysis for this blight factor evaluated the effectiveness or adequacy of the streets that surround and/or penetrate the Study Area . Evaluation criteria included : ❖ Inadequate street/alley width ❖ Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of traffic ❖ Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of pedestrians Inadequate emergency vehicle access ❖ Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual traffic congestion ❖ Poor vehicle access ❖ Poor internal circulation ❖ Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks ❖ Poor parking lot layout 3. Faulty Lot Layout The following parcel conditions can hinder successful redevelopment and reduce a parcel ' s usefulness and/or desirability : ❖ Faulty lot shape ( long, narrow, or irregularly shaped ) 1� City of Fort Collins 11 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Faulty lot layout ( impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused , or unused land ) Inadequate lot size 4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions The presence of the following conditions is indicative of an environment that can be unsanitary and/or unsafe : ❖ Poorly lit or unlit areas ❖ Floodplain or flood prone areas ❖ Poor fire protection facilities Inadequate sanitation or water systems Evidence of contaminants or hazardous conditions or materials High or unusual crime statistics ❖ Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians Open/unenclosed trash dumpsters ❖ Open ditches, holes, or trenches Poor drainage and/or evidence of standing water Insufficient grading and/or steep slopes ❖ Illegal dumping, excessive litter, trash, debris, or weeds ❖ Abandoned vehicles ❖ Unsafe or exposed electrical wire ❖ Vagrants, vandalism, graffiti , or gang activity 5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements This factor focuses on conditions that indicate the lack of general maintenance of a structure, site, or through the presence of these conditions, create an environment that reduces the market desirability . The conditions are as follows : Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates ❖ Deteriorated on -site parking surfaces, curb and gutters, or sidewalks ❖ Unscreened trash or mechanical equipment ❖ Neglected site and/or site maintenance deficiencies ❖ Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained/overgrown vegetation 6. Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities This section identifies unique topographic conditions and key deficiencies in the public infrastructure system serving the Study Area, including : Unusual topography/floodplain Deterioration of street pavement .Fort Collins 12 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Deterioration of curb, gutter or sidewalk Insufficient street lighting ❖ Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities ❖ Lack of sidewalks 7. Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Rendering the Title Non-Marketable Conditions of title rendering the title non - marketable include the following : ❖ Properties with disputed or defective title ❖ Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult or impossible 8. Conditions that Endanger Life or Property by Fire or Other Causes The presence of any of the following conditions is indicative of potential endangerments to life or property by fire or other causes, including : ❖ Buildings or sites inaccessible to fire and emergency vehicles ❖ Blocked or poorly maintained fire and emergency access routes or frontages ❖ Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii ❖ Buildings or properties not in compliance with fire codes, building codes, or environmental regulations 9. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for People to Live or Work This factor focuses on conditions that render buildings unsafe or unhealthy for people to live or work in, as follows : ❖ Buildings or properties not in compliance with fire codes, building codes, or environmental regulations ❖ Buildings with deteriorated elements that create unsafe or unhealthy conditions ❖ Buildings with inadequate or improperly installed electrical , natural gas, or other utility components 10. Environmental Contamination of Buildings or Property The following condition is indicative of environmental contamination : ❖ Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at a site 11 . Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Underutilization or Vacancy of Buildings, Sites, or Improvements Health , safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantially underutilitized sites are evidenced by the following conditions : rt 13 Fort MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY ❖ Sites with a high incidences of fire, police, or emergency responses ❖ Sites adjacent to streets/alleys with a high incidence of traffic accidents ❖ Sites with a high incidence of code enforcement responses ❖ An undeveloped parcel in a generally urbanized area ❖ A parcel with a disproportionably small percentage of its total land area developed ❖ Vacant units in multi - unit structures ( more than 20% vacant) ❖ Vacant structures 1� City of �.F�t�s 14 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY D . RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY The overall findings of the field survey are presented in this section . Table 1 tabulates the results according to the criteria described in Section C . TABLE 1 : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED Deteriorated external walls ✓ Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits ✓ Deteriorated roofs ✓ Slum, Deteriorated gutters/downspouts ✓ Deteriorated or Deteriorating Deteriorated exterior finishes ✓ Structures Deteriorated windows and doors ✓ Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes ✓ Deteriorated loading dock areas ✓ Deteriorated fences/walls/gates ✓ Deteriorated ancillary structures ✓ Inadequate street/alley width ✓ Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of traffic ✓ Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of pedestrians ✓ Defective or Inadequate emergency vehicle access Inadequate Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic ✓ Street Layout Poor vehicle access ✓ Poor internal circulation ✓ Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts ✓ Poor parking lot layout ✓ Faulty lot shape ( long, narrow, or irregularly shaped ) ✓ Faulty Lot Faulty lot layout ( impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, Layout misused, or unused land ) ✓ Inadequate lot size ✓ moommooll Fort Collins 15 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED Poorly lit or unlit areas ✓ Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians ✓ Poor fire protection facilities Inadequate sanitation or water systems ✓ Open/unenclosed trash dumpsters ✓ Evidence of contaminants or hazardous conditions or materials ✓ Unsanitary or High or unusual crime statistics Unsafe Floodplains or flood prone areas Conditions Open ditches/holes/trenches ✓ Poor drainage/evidence of standing water ✓ Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds ✓ Unsafe or exposed electrical wire ✓ Abandoned vehicles Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity ✓ Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting ✓ Deterioration Deterioration of fences, walls, gates, or poles ✓ of Site or Other Unscreened trash/mechanical ✓ Improvements Deteriorated on-site parking surfaces/curb/gutter/sidewalk ✓ Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies ✓ Lack of landscaping/ poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation ✓ Unusual topography/flood plain Unusual Deteriorated/inadequate street pavement ✓ Topography or Deteriorated/inadequate curb and gutter ✓ Inadequate Insufficient street lighting Public Inadequate sanitation or water systems ✓ Improvements presence of overhead utilities ✓ Lack of sidewalks ✓ .Fort Collins 16 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED Defective or Disputed or defective title Unusual Conditions of Title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Conditions that Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Endanger Life Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes or Property Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliance with fire/building codes Unsafe or Non -compliance with fire/building codes Unhealthy Unsafe deterioration of a building Buildings Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Environmental presence of hazardous substances, liquids, gasses found at site Contamination Health, safety, Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses or welfare Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents factors Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses requiring high levels of Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area ✓ services or Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total ✓ underutilized Vacant units in multi - unit structures ( more than 20% vacant) ✓ buildings/sites Vacant structures ✓ 1 . Slum, Deterioration or Deteriorated Structures All of the structures evaluated are commercial businesses or retail locations along the corridor . The vast majority are not in disrepair, however several structures were observed to be deteriorating . Most of the buildings along the corridor were constructed in the 1970' s and many of the facades have not been updated since . This consisted of documenting peeling exterior finishes, rotting fascias, unkempt roofs, dilapidated loading docks, and multiple broken fences, for example . There were no observations of condemned buildings or visible foundation deterioration . Fort Collins 17 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 2. Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The majority of traffic travels north/south along College Avenue with the exception of a few alternative north/south connections, including frontage roads, McClelland Drive, South Mason Street, and John F . Kennedy (JFK ) Parkway. In Section One, there is clearly a lack of secondary access other than College Avenue, and the result is excessive traffic behind the Kmart and Whole Foods shopping centers . This indicates poor provisions for the flow of traffic as well as poor vehicular access . Additionally, congestion occurs as a result of the frontage roads in close proximity to College Avenue . Traffic waits at the signal to turn onto College Avenue and obstructs safe access into the intersection for the vehicle entering and/or exiting the frontage road . Along McClelland Drive there are excessive curb cuts and unused driveways especially around the car dealerships . Otherwise, it functions as a viable north/south alternative to College Avenue . South Mason Street south of Horsetooth Road was observed to have insufficient capacity for the amount of vehicles travelling, especially at the Albertson' s shopping center access points . This road segment is generally a compliment to College Avenue as a parallel street connection, however it was noted that the heavy traffic during peak travel times was under-controlled for vehicular circulation and difficult for pedestrian crossing . 3. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness Midtown is an urbanized commercial corridor with very few parcels that are unable to develop as a result of faulty lot layout . By examining the parcel data, it was observed that in the instances where vacant land exists, it is usually the result of impractical lot size or shape . Also, there were conditions where lot layouts were inadequate in regard to accessibility and the presence of buildings spanning lot lines . 4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsanitary or unsafe conditions involve the environment for the pedestrian, and dozens of examples were visually documented . The prevalent conditions throughout the Study Area include cracked and uneven surfaces for pedestrians, exposed electrical wire, graffiti, illegal dumping, and excessive trash or debris . All waterways and ditches were observed to have excessive amounts of trash, in conjunction with graffiti under their bridges . In most areas with a tree- lined pedestrian sidewalk, there was evidence of overgrown tree roots creating lifted or uneven surfaces . Vagrants loitering in alleyways as well as a vagrant camp at a ditch embankment were observed . The graffiti was overwhelmingly located along South Mason Street facing the railroad , as well as on utility boxes, light poles, under bridges, and loading dock areas . Evidence of contaminants was found at several restaurant sites where food grease was improperly contained and spilling onto the pavement. . " ' _ � Fort �t�S 18 �� MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Due to the age of development along the corridor, the conditions of this factor were widespread and extensive . Most of the onsite parking surfaces showed different levels of deterioration ranging from minor to extreme . Sites with more than one visible condition resulted in the documentation of a maintenance deficiency of that parcel . Trash areas that had deteriorated and were left unscreened contributed to the overall evidence of neglect . Visual observations documented a decline of signage and light poles throughout the corridor, such as peeling paint, rust, makeshift or missing signage, and those that were broken or bent . 6. Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Conditions of this factor observed most frequently include the deterioration of street pavement, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks . On two occasions, overhead utilities were present, and there were several missing pedestrian sidewalk connections . On College Avenue, throughout the Study Area, there was noticeable deterioration of the travel lanes, e . g . potholes, cracked pavement, and ruts . There were dozens of cracked curbs and gutters, with the most extreme examples of mutilated curbs found on JFK Parkway adjacent to The Square shopping center . 7. Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Rendering the Title Non-Marketable This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation . 8. Conditions that Endanger Life or Property by Fire or Other Causes This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation . 9. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for People to Live or Work This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation . 10. Environmental Contamination of Buildings or Property This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation . 11 . Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Underutilization or Vacancy of Buildings, Sites, or Improvements The Study Area is not considered to generate unusually frequent calls for municipal services; however, there is evidence of several underutilized parcels and vacancies throughout the corridor . Eleven undeveloped parcels were documented , in addition to 63 vacancies . While there were a few large, vacant big- box stores, most vacancies were located within multi - unit buildings . The Midtown Redevelopment Study documented approximately 650, 000 square feet Fort Collins 19 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY of vacant retail space along the corridor, mostly due to national retailer bankruptcies and mergers . 12. Additional Considerations The team collected and analyzed additional non-visual information about the Midtown Commercial Corridor that contributed to the documentation of the inventory of blight factors . Nuisance Violations The City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department issues notices for violations of the nuisance code related to the misuse of property . These violations are typically related to unmaintained weeds, illegal parking, outdoor storage/rubbish, un-shoveled sidewalks, etc . Table 2 is a tabulation of all nuisance code violations; there have been 535 violations within the Midtown Commercial Corridor since 1999 . Figure 4 is a map showing the addresses associated with the violations . Note that often one address is associated with multiple violations . TABLE 2 : NUISANCE CODE VIOLATIONS 1999-2010 Nuisance Code 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 TOTAL Violation Combination - 2 9 3 2 - 1 - 2 1 1 1 22 Inoperable Vehicle - - 4 3 1 1 - - 1 1 - - 11 Noxious Weed - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 Outdoor Material Storage - - - - - - - 14 7 - - - 21 Parking on Lawns - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 Rubbish 3 6 12 19 4 5 - 2 4 3 2 6 66 Sight Obstruction - - - - - - - 1 2 1 - - 4 Smoking in Public Places - - - - 38 6 - - - - 1 - 45 Unshoveled Sidewalks - - 19 19 6 14 12 12 4 10 2 1 99 Unscreened Trash - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 Weeds 23 43 35 38 18 15 17 14 15 21 9 15 263 TOTAL 26 51 79 82 69 41 30 44 36 37 15 25 535 City of UV aLL Fort Collins 20 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FIGURE 4 : LOCATION OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS 1999-2010 W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECi 'RD 7- • ■ • W Q DRAKE E"DRAKE RD O � r IA 0 J W_ H N f HORSETOOTH RD E 'HORSETOOTH D 0 i W W HARM ONY�RD E HA MONY RD a _ a 1 � s_ r Nuisance Violation Locations 1999 -2010 Frei dins " Major Streets 1 inch = 2,100 feet Midtown Commercial Corridor April2011 • Nuisance Violation Locations I r_ - Fort 21 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Transportation The team reviewed traffic data for the corridor, including average daily traffic counts for the major intersections, level of service, and the average annual number of traffic accidents from 2007-2009 for the major intersections on South College Avenue . The major intersections along College Avenue function with a Level of Service ( LOS) at C or D (Table 3 ) . With a LOS of D, "the delay per vehicle is greater than 35 seconds but not greater than 55 seconds . At LOS D, more vehicles are stopped at the intersection, resulting in a longer delay . The number of individual cycles failing is now noticeable ." (Traffic and Highway Engineering, Forth Edition , Nicholas J . Garber, 2010 ) . This indicates that the streets connecting to the intersections are inadequate to accommodate the large traffic volumes (Table 4) . TABLE 3 : LEVEL OF SERVICE ( LOS) BY INTERSECTION Intersection LOS (AM/PM ) College/ Prospect C/D College/Stuart A/B College/Spring Park A/A College/Rutgers A/A College/Columbia A/A College/Drake C/D College/Harvard A/A College/Swallow A/B College/Foothills A/B College/ Monroe A/A College/Horsetooth D/D College/ Boardwalk A/B College/Troutman A/C College/ Kensington A/B College/Harmony D/D TABLE 4: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Average Daily Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound College/ Prospect 211900 201600 151000 111600 College/Drake 211400 231700 151400 111600 College/Horsetooth 20, 600 21, 700 141200 121600 College/Harmony 161800 18, 900 131300 161300 �tJl1s 22 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY The inability of the major intersections to adequately accommodate such large traffic volumes increases the likelihood of traffic accidents . Traffic accidents along the corridor are concentrated at these intersections, as reported in Table 5 below . TABLE 5 : AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 2007-2009 Intersection Average Number of Accidents College/ Prospect 29 Col lege/Stuart 3 College/Spring Park 6 College/Rutgers 7 College/Columbia 10 College/Drake 37 College/Harvard 9 College/Swallow 22 College/Foothills 22 College/ Monroe 32 College/Horsetooth 37 College/ Boardwalk 17 College/Troutman 26 College/ Kensington 19 College/Harmony 29 In addition to traffic data , the team also reviewed the recently updated list of transportation capital improvement projects . Within the corridor, two pedestrian trail crossings are planned along the railroad , in addition to several pedestrian connection improvements to remediate discontinuous sidewalks . There are several intersection improvements planned along South College Avenue at Horsetooth Road, Prospect Road, Boardwalk Drive, Monroe Drive, and Swallow Road . A grade separated railroad crossing is another major project planned on Drake Road . Figure 5 shows all the pedestrian, roadway, and railroad improvements planned for the area . City of Fort 23 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FIGURE 5 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS W PRO-SPECT. RCILL If PROSPECT RD � f ■ 1-7 W DRAKE RD E -DRAKE RD i - J 1 H �l 1I I LLA ' QJune= W W LN 7 Z r J o Legend in J E : HO dry �.i Midtown Commercial Corridor Streets Pedestrian Improvement 1 Railroad Improvement T *0 Roadway Improvement 0 Pedestrian Improvement W HARMONY RD 0 Intersection Improvement Railroad Improvement Roadway Improvement aime Capital Improvement Projects City of 1 inch = 2, 100 feet Fort Collins April 2011 _ or or 24 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY Stormwater City Stormwater staff assisted in identifying potential drainage issues within the Midtown corridor . In general , the storm drainage infrastructure is old and undersized, and incorporating stormwater detention with redevelopment projects will be essential . Another major issue to note is the Spring Creek floodway/floodplain which runs east-west just south of the Prospect Road/College Avenue intersection . Table 6 reports the location of each area and the issues involved, and Figure 6 is a map identifying the location of each problem area . TABLE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS Map Location Issue ID 1 Prospect/College Intersection Major surface drainage problem during significant rain storms . Surface flooding due to runoff from developed 2 West side of College between properties and frontage road entering College Drake and Swallow Avenue in conjunction with limited and undersized storm sewers . Larimer #2 ditch crossing on Ditch crossings are problematic to develop 3 College south of Swallow around and can be a significant cause of flooding due to water spillage during a large storm event . 4 SE corner of Swallow/College Possible soil contamination . 5 College near Foothills Parkway Large 60" storm sewer crossing that continues east under the mall property . 6 Horsetooth/College Intersection Multiple Larimer #2 ditch crossings . 7 NE corner of Harmony/College Possible soil contamination . 8 SW corner of Harmony/College Large box culvert that conveys Mail Creek flows underneath previous Walmart site . City of25 . Fort Collins MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FIGURE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS W PROSPECT RD I E PROSPECT RD UJI to 71 r N I Lh W DRAKE RD ^ , E DRAKE RD y_ S `" I , \ n r J { LJ h W HORSETOOT HAD - E HORSETOOTH RD � n 44 Q u — uj I.F �� %... wI •�, P z --° O ��„ \ take I W HARMONY RD E HARMONY RD T u - u u J Drainage Problem Areas tCollins F, N �� `J;S� I.I i di o:,n Commercial Co r r i dm I.lo de rate P is 1. Fl o o dp la ins Streets High F' is4 Flo odplains 1 inch = 2,100 feet Table P.eference Humber Flo da;ar April 2011 City of r. For' � rt Collins 26 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY III . CONCLUSION Due to the presence of seven of the 11 factors of blight, staff concludes that the Study Area is a blighted area as defined in Urban Renewal Law. By reason of the presence of numerous factors identified in Section 103 ( 2 ) of the Urban Renewal Law and discussed above in Section D, the Study Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort Collins, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic and social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare . While some properties in the Study Area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area . It should be noted that this conclusion is for the Study Area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties . Appendix A documents the photographs that were taken during the field survey. The photographs are divided according to the study section in which they were observed . A table reports the condition of blight that the photograph represents, and that photograph can be located on its corresponding study section map . Finally, each photograph can be viewed in thumbnail form . These results have been verified by a third party consultant for accuracy and qualified assessment of the existing conditions . ,.. ... FO�"�-1't5 , 27 ATTACHMENT 4 Appendix ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NMI ■■■■ \ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ :■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ► lm ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■: :o■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ 11 If COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR rL � APPENIY, AmaSECTIONS 1 - 3 APRIL 2011 Or ; , IMP AT PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PREPARED FOR : FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 1 Slum,cetenora[M or oetenorMing Structures Defective or lnatleq oats StreetlayoN Faulty Lot layout Unssmdry or Unsafe Contl Nons cetenorrtlon of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography orinadequMe Pub it Unusual Enormous that Endanger Unsafe or Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or welfare factors requ:ring M1lgh Improvements or Ut?fig Condroons of the or Fmperty Buildings Contamination (eves of services or untleruUllxe] b u l l tlings/slles 3 3ED T' is aIs IS E ➢ „ EllWe I E 0IFF ym 3 G °�' E k E u 3 8 _ & q Y Y E 8 5 Y Y Ed opo a ry 00 ➢ ➢ s „ _ 3 - 9 E - E ; ty x d a S _ d e g _ G P 3 _ xO b 3 ➢ F lis Q ➢ a EIs - 2 - 8 3 _ E E� ffi e _ 3 ! r S _ - _ E 8 _ e x 3 a4 E g $ e _ r - - _ 9 is p ° - E _I. e � - a _ _ - � m _ 5° o $ i d .e E a i E Y _ 5 m - yGy o IIr f b _ tl �_ n` �` S o n Y S Y cT _II L' o m & ➢ E � o _ - tv Q. 0 - 2 9 E Y $ _ nw3 _ G 'S p'& L E E _ s _ - S � S F 9 _ _ 0 _ r E c E $ _ � 8 g E E L na his FMma ➢u ➢u ➢u G Eq on �' a - - ES '1 WE . g Y V c F' t` " yl Is Is — o x _ a .So a '". so u o -Is I A E 1 _ _ _ _ z _ _z % o%_ % _ _ _ _ _ 2 x x 3 x x x x 6 x 6 x x x x 2 x x a x x x x 9 x x 18 x x 11 x x 1z x x 0 x x 14 x x x US x 16 x 1] x 13 x x x 19 x 20 X 21 X 22 X 23 X % % X 20 X 2s x x 26 x 22 x x x 28 x x x 29 x X 30 x 31 % X 32 X % X X M % % 30 % % % % 3S % % 36 % X X 32 % X 38 X % % X X ID % X % % % a % % % 01 % X 02 % 0.3 % % X X VO X % QS X X X % WE % X 02 X a % X 9 % % 0 % % X 51 % X X X 51 X 2 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY / r � O I r ~ ] M � ,�! 16 4j '-` ' ' F m r: . - It I—I 1 r , RUTIGERS . VE i • it ♦�� t r, #*� j .. , oTe _ r, r, r iP . + tA�/, w 3� rJ 7.1 rl ❑ t 14 z = ► IIt I . ILL c � �♦ ppppppyyy - r : ! !P . b .. — 12 19� 1 GOLUMBIA RD Ht ^ r " r , (�6) • 10, QJ if � = d9 9 it . 1 1 c r— o a en CC7 1341, a 18 7 8 lif1 .'d35 5 32 53 {psi-• --q"�," w L at f pf `_ 36 P 33 3 y, ,- • y �' Hit 22 I. �52 w LI 37), - •1:. 6s 19 . 2 _ q%i Ei 0! Fr 20 49 Q 38 39 40 I 26 r 25 24 28 41� t. ' I— f— 42 Lilt .. 2 r Illu► . 30 P CET ' 45 29 54 46 e 4 48 53 W DRAKE U E DRAKE U Section 1 Photo Reference Map , ort` l O Photo Rerence Number r Study Section 1 1 inch = 200 feet April 2011 3 MIDTOWN • • I ��� � ��. • ..I Sri • 9.JPG 10 .JPG e y , • . . . •l- � y 1 rzq API JOF Pi 9 • • .JPG 1 glow • • ' 1 r , . . MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 4q. l Al- �4 or 400 36 .JPG 37.JPG 38 .JPG 39 . JPG 40 .JPG gig Li 41 .JPG 42 .JPG 43 .JPG 44.JPG 45 .JPG •.Y,hft _ 46.JPG 47.JPG 48 .JPG 49.JPG 50.JPG 51 .JPG 52.JPG 53.JPG 54.JPG 5 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Defierawor gum,oetenorzRa or Determinating structures Deferave or Inadequate Street layau[ Fal TA laymt Ueandaryu Unsafe Continues cefenorMlon of Site v other Impersona n6 unusual Topography or Inadequate Pudic unusual Conafims MM Fnaanger unsa@orunM1eanhy Environmental Hei safety, or vaeVare facfce requiring high Impaouxmems or Ublltles Cont of U@or huge" Buildings Communal leaves of erviss or underutilized baildingso es Title im m $ £ E c IS an x ffi d " _ u E In w § d? 3 as m d S a m m a " " Y EE' V - E E - o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3 S m -. c - V 5. 3 80 & Utit Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _ ; 3 `a lidc s n -"" 73 � p� 9 2 's 12 _ a _ m �2 r ai 0 8 - B e if 1° 'c — .� ' 9y L F w 3 ue P L' X ' w 45 — 5 = u c a c n is is 9 : E d � \3 —IMF $ E 2 E _ `Y _ 9 S' 3 5 " sei a a sE z ' e a as 'f? € a " s ei; m x 1 —0a 9 x x e _ E mE : v E e 4 i i s _ a € - _ - s _ s �, - _ - v _" = c _ & s le 9 _ re s _ & z _ oQ _ o as � ; i _ aY - a � an >� . � a a$ a; s a _ �" $ F E v „ 5 an = $ " _ : g da 3 30 aE se PM1moa G L 5 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8tlan 93 b dam" 5 � ' 9 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >" $1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ % _ _ _ _ _ 2 x x 3 x 0 x 5 x 6 x x x 2 x x 8 x x x 9 x x N x x x v x x x 12 x x x 13 x la x x x ss x x x x ss x x x x n x x M x x 19 x x x x m x x n x x n x x x x 24 x x x 25 x x x x x 2s x x x 27 x N x x x 29 x 30 x x x 31 x x 32 x x x x x x 3a x x 3s x w x x x x 3) x x x M x x x x x 39 x x x x x eB x x x x e1 x x x x x u x x x x u x w x x es w x x n x x x w x e9 x m x x x 51 x x x s2 x x so x x u x % x x x x 7 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2 Detectivemr Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormangS oil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes Title 75 E 3 as m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3 8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _ y0 .p0 ; 3 `a a n _ 17 s n q Y 2 's - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e 9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c -IMF & ' oy c` i '3 ¢ P � � 0 45 S - 5 = r u c a i t s " .. � .E, j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ , to _ 9 S' 3 is E 3 3 _ Q $ � _ _ m a s & "s E; � E % - - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a m a s % .. ° e E m E - - E e 4 i isee _ __, € - _ - s _ _s _ _ - v _" = c _ & s 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i a Zr$ a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ 3_ � aE Photos G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8 x L 93 b d 5 0 ' z 9 ` L 3 — F ^ x " 2 n x x _ _ _ _ _ _ = ox" _ _ _ _ _ se x x 59 x 6B x 61 x 6z x 0 x x 64 x x x x 6s x x x x x 6) x 6a x x 69 x ro x n x n x x ]a x n x x ]6 x x n x ]8 x 9 x 80 x 8 x 8E x 0 x x x & x HIS x B6 x x 8) x 88 x 0 x yB x x y x x x x y1 x cm x y6 x x x 9s x x 96 x 9) x 9g x x w x x 1m x 101 x x x x 1@ x 1m x x x HIM x x M x M x m x x M x x M x x to x x x in x x x 11 x x 8 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2 Detectivemr Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmpeny Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes Title 75 E 3 as m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3 8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _ y0 .p0 ; 3 `a a n _ 17 s n q Y 2 's - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e 9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c -IMF 1 71 ' oy c` i '3 ¢ P � � S - 5 = r u c a .. � .E, j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 S' 3 le E _ _ m a s & "s E - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag ? € a = s a ;; m a ra mas 1i E ee e 4 i is _ __, € - _ rl�- s _ _s _ _ - v _" = c _ & s 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i ao s & _ nY n � a a$ a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " _ : � da 3 3_ a aE PM1otoa G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8 x 98 b d 5 0 ' 3 ` 3 — Fti x " 2 08 >' $ 1v _ _ _ _ x % _ _X ox" _ _ _ _ _ 114 x x in x x x 116 x x x 117 x x in x x x in x x x vn x x M x x M x M x u6 x u x vn x ui x x x x vn x x 9 x x 130 x 01 x M x M x x x x x 115 x w x x 07 x x B x lie x IQ x 141 x 142 x 10. x I" x x Its x 146 x 1m x 148 x 149 x ssB x x ss1 x 1sz x x 1s3 x x x x x 1sa x x x 1u x x x 1w x x x m x x ssn x ss9 x x x 160 x x 161 x Mar x x x x 163 x Her x x 6 x x Hill x x x 161 x x 168 x x 9 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2 Detectivemr Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors req Wnrig high Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes Title 75 E 3 as m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3 8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _ y0 .p0 ; 3 `a a n _ 17 s n q Y 2 's - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e 9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c -IMF & ' oy c` i '3 ¢ P � � 0 45 S - 5 = r u c a i t s " .. � .E, j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 S' 3 E 3 3 _ Q $ � 2' _ _ _ m a s tY & "s E; � E % - - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a ;; m a s % .. ° e E m E - - : v e 4 i is _ Is _ € - _ - s _ _s _ _ lu - v _" = c _ & s 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i ao s & _ nY n � a zr a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " aE Photos G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8x 98 b d 5 � ' 3 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >' $ 1® _ _ _ _ _ _ v ox... _ _ _ _ _ in x 171 x in Ix x x in x 1]a x 1R x x x 136 x x 1n x x x x x 1]8 x x x 1N x 1tm x ]H1 x x M x x 103 x x M x M x M x M x x x HIS x x x x » x x x x x x 190 x x 191 x 19 x 1% x 191 x x 1% x 1% x 197 x 198 x 1% x 200 x IDI x x Z@ x x 203 x N x 205 x 205 x x x M x x 0 x x x x ➢B x x x x 20 x x 211 x x x x 212 fill x x 213 x 210 x 215 x x x 216 x x 217 x x x 218 x x z19 x M x 221 x x rz x x x x x m x x se x 10 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2 Detectivemr Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high Impmeements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes Title 75 E 3 as m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3 8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _ 32 ; 3 `a a n _ 17 - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e Si a ` E ¢ C c -IMF & ' oy c` i '3 el � � S 45 - 5 = r u c a .. � .E, j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 S' 3 le E _ _ m a s & "s E; � E % - - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a ;; m a s % .. ° e E m E ran lal - - : v - e 4 i i s _ __, € - _ - s _ _s _ _ - v _" = c _ lu & s 9 _ K s _ - at _ � Q _ Mail : q a a$ a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " _ : � da 3 3_ � aE PM1otoa G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8x 98 b d 5 � ' 3 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >' $ vs _ _ _ _ Is _ _ _ x % _ _ _ _ _ Jou x n7 x M x x x x Jou x Join x x zu x x x x M x x M x x a x x u x x Joa x x zsn x x x uB x x x x ue x x x John x x zal x x zaz x x x x x Jong x x Jona x x x x Jons x John x zm x x John x x x x 249 x Jose x x ui x x x M x M x u x Joss x Jose x x m x JoSB x Jos9 x x x x x John x ui x x x e x x Jova x x x x Joey x x x Joel x Joeb x x uJo x x M x x M x M x Jon x x M x x x Jon x na x x x x x x Jou x x x x x x Jou x x Jon x x x Jou x x x 2n x x zm x x x 11 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2 Detectivemr Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes Title 75 E 3 E as m d S a m m a o ` E Y o V - E S 9 '" u a - - o•to, 0 'o 1 $' N 15 v m 9 c Y mS $' c S m -. c - V 5. 3 8 & tl 2 E {9. S 3 E _ � E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _ a, s a 3 y0 .p0 ; _ s e q Y 2 's - E _ m �2 r D w 2 S e 9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c - & ' oy c` i 00 32 '3 ¢ P � � S - 5 = r u c a i t s " .. � .E, j m R - ia - fr EE xIMF _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 _ _ ee m a s & "s E - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a ;; m a s % .. ° e E mE - - : v e 4 i is _ __, € - _ rl�- s _ _s _ _ - v _" = e _ & s p 4 ' 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i ao s & _ nY n � in a a$ Is a; s a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " _ 3_ � aE PM1otoa G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8x 98 b d 5 � ' 3 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >' $ at _ _ _ _ x x _ _ _ % _ _ _ _ _ M x x M x x APT x ms x mx x x M x x M x M x mB x M x x M x M x zpq x x x 2915 x x x x ms x x 2!KF x x x x M x x x M x x m x x x x 3B1 x x x 3m x x 3m x a x x x x 305 x x x x x 3B6 x x 3m x x ® x 3® x x 30 x x x 311 x x x x x x x x x x 313 x x x 314 x ass x 316 x 317 x 30 x x 3D x 3m x x M1 x 3xz x x 12 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY -W DRAKE RD - — 3 _1 E-DRAKE RD y ' m ,�i. E THUNDERBIRD OR ,r C C � K Q 2 5 W W Z 0 5 PV 4~i V�. DEL GLAIR RO •e; 1 I C 9�4j � 9 Z 6F w: 5 g A'So JUNCO CT W � . {7 _ E SWALLOW RO � '` a N w W SWALLOW J W c 'Li = r • rr r 1101311NrCT - rc ,.: To P`Ad'� i R / Moog . rr+ S ,._+� .. . 1' . W Ir I, � L R- j . '.'IA - 0 O ! _ —S t- r, 319 _ E 1vI0NR0E OR 'al, - � * Q Ej w . [G - P. Q FA ' ry) RIVA RIDGEtIN . Tc. ,. T. . , . nTv ". . r ,21 'r- Rol 13 �Y•.3t �. ,.�, t., . '. j ❑ r - .{�-2pg. ..n � r �y ' i � . �1. q ti _ 'rnrr.,, � P z 20 r2 it Yk IQ�. w Qbl. 1 .21 217 r^ • _ 1 . -% - T1 20E21 y r j� 18-nJ pop �y�• RIVA RIDGE 21 5a! O -+ r -iDR'0�; �73'123 Y9�rs.� '�'j tPfr rr, b 240E '�' , r . w r2�3y � rr. 41- 25A /247 rl r `29 7Cy ° r - - - ,. _ Lt70pCco17ccCcc 21 ccC _ccccOccC7Cdaoc7cO OLD =oo -W HORSETOOTH-.RDE HORSET00TH RD •+sA. � `, tTif-. � - _ - —_ 'wee -i - ,y• Section 2 Photo Reference Map Girtlpf ��trins Photo Reference Number 1 inch - 375 feet �s Study Section 2 April 2011 13 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 1 .JPG 2.JPG 3 .JPG 4.JPG 5 .JPG R All by 6 .JPG 7 . JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10 .JPG III 11 .JPG 12.JPG 13 . JPG 14.JPG 15.JPG man= 16.JPG 17. JPG 18 .JPG 19. JPG 20.JPG iixf : I 21 .JPG 22.JPG 23 .JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG 26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG E 31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35 .JPG 14 MIDTOWN • • _ p m 36.JPG 37.JPG 38.JPG • I I 4+ I f I I 1 .JPG I 4 IL NIL, j �II�IIIIILl !� 46 .JPG 47 . JPG 48 .JPG 49.JPG1 r 59.JPG . 1 ati 61 .JPG 62.JPG 63.JPG 64.JPG 65 .JPG 66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG 69.JPG 70 .JPG MIDTOWN • • 7�y • • dr _ . - . � � Idii• Nam\ 76.JPG 77. JPG 78 .JPG • : 1 Nita V WAI y r • 86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 91 EL EL° ti_. - �• .440Ary pp r y � y i d '. Jr ! • ..: ._ � I .iT i f ✓•may`' { .lf,•• - - - T � J 101 .JPG 102.JPG1 14 1 MIDTOWN • • Pi 106 .JPG 107. JPG 108 .JPG0 • • 9.JPG 120.JPG HIM � �.. - - _.... �, IIIIIILIIIIII� I► II � I pg � 17 o - r - s r � � MIDTOWN • • A AAA- - v lk A t .: N AA vi AAA .tee+ at. AAA 146 .JPG 147.JPG 148 .JPG ® � ji A . A. 6w - mom A _ " 1 . 0 i i to 161 .JPG 162 .JPG • • 4 ml lili Eli: AA- AAA pp • • .JPG 1 • • .JPG • • Q .Y 18 � s MIDTOWN • • w il .v • : • : 1 77 jot : • JPG 187.JPG 188.JPG 189.JPG • 1 - t i � . •r — n 201 .JPG 202.JPG1 1 1 16 17.JPG 208.JPG 209.JPG1 MIDTOWN • • m ; Dim AL Al � i . 1 20 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY IL 246 .JPG 247 . JPG 248 .JPG 249.JPG 250 .JPG PIE It _ 251 .JPG 252.JPG 253 .JPG 254.JPG 255 .JPG 256.JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG p"ill, 261 .JPG 262.JPG 263 .JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG r � 266 .JPG 267.JPG 268 .JPG 269.JPG 270 .JPG LOCK 271 .JPG 272.JPG 273 .JPG 274.JPG 275 .JPG 276.JPG 277.JPG 278.JPG 279.JPG 280 .JPG 21 MIDTOWN • • _ ;lid . t 'T jEnj 281 .JPG 282.JPG : :4 : mod \ / 286 .JPG 287 . JPG : : • 91 - r 301 .JPG 302 .JPG1 1 1 1 U 16 17.JPG 308.JPG 309.JPG1 °a .: 22 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY L �7 316.JPG 317.JPG 318.JPG 319.JPG 320.JPG 321 .JPG 322.JPG 23 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 24 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Defective or Slum,ceLenoraLM or DHcnoming Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layaut Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or offer Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Carl Had Endanger Unsafe or Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or werare factors requiring high Improvements or UUGfies Contlitlons of the or Property Buildings CondminMlon levels of services or underublhetl build ngs/sites Tide c 3 m —a IS IS c l5 m .. ` a ` o o — Y a wE in 5 E c E o Y 3 8 C i E 3 3 s E H E d = _ t E Z 5 3 C a — 2 E 3 b° _ a G — E pp o� _ E 5 g aN 8, T' 2 _ Y a 3 3 lu y — ` _ c m i d y 3 E — �_ ` ^ E _ Y e �' Y u n 3 $m q o _ a w ` ` $ $ ip _ C _ _ " _ � �. _ E 'c — — E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ w � E � ° @ _ �' `a• ° E 3 3 _ — _ f C _ t , � - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E w o S _ 2 9 _ �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a '- 5 S 3 & S Y _ Ea, Mai E 5 _ & — E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a 75 use, n � a - 3 - - - e - _ ay 0 _ - 21: E E a - - - �` & " g - E E 8 � 8a 8 8 " � 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B oy _ �' o ' a a8 5 58 ? E 3W 9 vham% g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 t o - - = 8 8 3 ., 8 8 - - - 1 _ _ _ _ _ % _ _ _ _ _ _ x 3 x x a x 5 x x 6 x x x 2 x a x x x 9 x lD x 11 x 12 x x x x 13 x la x IS x x x 16 x x x x 1] x x x v x x x 19 x m x x 21 x x 22 X 23 % X 20 % 25 x 26 x x 27 x x a x x x 29 x x 30 x 31 X % X 32 33 X M % 35 % % 36 X 32 X H X % X 39 X a X 01 % 02 X 0.3 VO X QS X Am X x X 02 % a X 09 X SO % % % 51 X S2 X 53 X % % 25 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 oefearve or Slum,Deteriorated!or Oetcnorating Structures Deflective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or force ContlRlons Determination of SRe or Wber lmpmvemen6 Unusual Topogrzpby or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Hnsafeor Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or meMarefcmrs requiring high Impmvemen6 or UUllties ContlRlons of the or Property Bulltllngs Contamination levels ofservlres or undermilhed build ngs/sms Tide c 3 m —a IS IS c ir ` o o — _ a F Ir Y a wE E c E o Y 3 8 C i E '3 3 s E H E d = _ a L' $ j E 8' S '& L b - air5 3 .8'. at b° _ a r — E pp Is o� = E 5 g aN y £ $ 2 _ IS Y a 3 3 y — ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a �_ ` ^ 3 $m q o _ a .n ` L' E 'c — — E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ — `a• E E 3 3 _ — _ f C _ - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as5 IS e $ E ` � a ° o s a E .N o 3 - Y YY. w o S _ 2 9 _ �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a '- 5 S 3 & S Y _ E & _ _ 5 _ 5 - E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a - - e - _ ab a s _ _ el: E E a - - - & $ " g _ e = E E 8 � 8 a 8 8 " � 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B °' � oy �' o ' a a8 5 y8 ME 3x 9 vhomx g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = 8 8 8 ., 8 8 - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x _ _ _ _ _ Sir SS x x 516 x x 51 x Sly x x S9 x x 6B x 61 x 62 x 63 x x x x x fi0 x 65 x 66 x x 6T x 68 x 69 x x x x n x rz x n x TQ x ]S x x ]6 x rz x Te x x x 79 x x x sB x 51 x x x x ffi x IS x m x IS x x m x x m x m x By x x x x x x 9B x III 91 x 92 x x x % x x x 9q x x 9S x 96 x w x yB x x 99 x law x x x x x 1B1 x x x x 102 x x x x 103 x INx x x UM x x x PS x x x x 26 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 oefearve or Slum,Determining!or 3HcnoraLing Structures Deflective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy La[Layout Unsanitary or form ContlRlons Determination of SRe or Wber lmpmvemen6 Unusual Topogrzpby or Inadequate Public Unusual Conditions Had Endanger Hnsafeor Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or meMarefctors requiring high Impmvemen6 or Udders Eurobonds of the or Property Bulltllngs ContaminMlon levels of sconces or undermilhed build ngs/sms Tide c 3 m -a IS IS c ry i i m - m .. ` a ` o o - Ir Y a wE E c E o Y 3 8 C i E '3 3 s E H E d = _ Is IS Z 5 3 .8'. C a - 2 E at b° _ a r - E pp o� = E 5 g aN y £ $ 2 _ Y 3 3 y - o 0 ` _ c m i d y 3 E - aIt w _ Y e Y u n 3 $m q c 6 - v - y - p o _ L' g `3 5 ` $ $ E E 'c - - E = E V _ .. 3 _ ip E _ � � E _ - `u E E 3 3E in _ - _ f C _ t , � - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E .N o 3 - Y YY. 9 _ �' is co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C g '- 5 S p & S Y _ Ete E 'c aI $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a n � a - 3 - - - e - _ aynii 0 _ - ? I: & E a - - - & & " g _ 2 = E E qE � 3 � - ae 8 � 8a 8 8 faFm 8 8 8 - 8 � r B ytyt ox 5 s� o ' a a8 s" s" 8 eE `3a 3 Mutual8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 � a - - = 8 8 3 8 8 - � - - 1w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = x _ _ _ _ _ _ IN x x x x IN x x x 110 x x x v1 x x x 112 x x x 113 x x 114 x 115 x x x 116 x 117 x 119 x x 119 x 120 x 121 x x 1EE x x 1E3 x 124 x 125 x 126 x x 127 x 129 x 129 x 13o x x x 131 x x 132 x 133 x x z x 13a x x 135 x x x 136 x 137 x x x 139 x 139 x 140 x 141 x x x IQ x I" x I" x x UP x 145 x x 147 x x 1w x 149 x ISO x 151 x 152 x 153 x x x 1sa z SS x 156 x 157 x 159 z x 159 x 27 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Defective or Slum,Deteriorated or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy La[Layout Unsanitary or Dnsak ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high Improvements or Utilities Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites Tide c 3 m -a IS IS c ry i i l5 m .. ` a ` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y E H E d = _ Cw - _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2 _ Y 3 3 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a w y - p o _ $ $ E - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E `a• E E 3 3 _ - _ f - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E .N o 3 - Y YY. �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C g '- 5 S p & S Y _ Eif E 'c aI $. _ _ & E E �4 a n � a - 3 - - - e - _ ay 0 _ - ? I: & & & " g _ 2 = qE � 3 � is �' o ' a a8 5 y8 aE 3x 9 vhom% g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = yt 1W >xn 161 x 162 x 10 x 16o x x 166 x 166 x 167 x x 16a x 169 x 170 x x 171 x x 172 x x 173 x 174 x x x x 175 x x 176 x x x 177 x x x 179 x 179 x IN x x 191 x x 19E x x 1e3 x IN x 1&5 x x IN x 197 x x in x 199 x x 1% x x 191 x x 192 x 193 X x 194 x x 195 x x x 196 x 197 x 199 x x 199 x IN x x IN x x x zoz x x 203 x zan x x x zas x 206 x x zoJ % zaa % 20d % X zlo zll % X zlz % 28 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 oerearve or Slum,Deteriorated!or 3HcnoraLing Structures Deflective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or force Cond Rlons Determination of SRe or Wber lmpmvemen6 Unusual Topogrzpby or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Unsafeor Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or meMarefchas requiring high Impmvemen6 or UUllties ContlRlons of the or Property Bulltllngs Contaminamon levels of sconces or undermilhed build ngs/sms Tide c 3 m -a IS IS c ir ` o o - Ir Y a wE E c E o Y 3 8 C i E '3 3 s in E H E d = _ a L' $ j E tilit IS Z 5 3 .8'. C a - 2 E at b° _ a r - E pp Is o� = E 5 g aN y £ $ 2 3 y - o 0 ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a 3 0 3 a< t, - �_ ` ^ E _ Y e �' Y u n 3 $m q c 6 - v - E - _ _ - p o _ a .n ` L' g `3 5 ` $ $ E M _ C in W_ _ " _ �. _ E 'c - - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ - if `a• E E 3 3 _ - _ R F _ ; £ - '4 = �_ _ a n _ x E a;i a B' E ` Y x �, '7 ° c u s g y E E o S _ 2 9 _ �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a I, '- 5 S 3 & S E 10;ri� _ 5 _ a - E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a E a e = E E asIs 8 � 8 a 8 8 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B � oy �' o ' a a8 5 y8 is 3 9 Mutualg g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = 8 8 8 ., 8 8 - - - v3 _ _ _ _ _ % _ _ = x _ x _ _ _ _ _ zlo x zls x 216 x zn x zla x 219 x x x 220 x x zzl x x x zzz x x zza x x x zza x x zzs 226 x x zn x x zza x 229 x x 230 x x x 231 x x x 232 x x 233 x x x x 211 x x 235 x x 236 x 237 x x 239 x x x 239 x x x MO x x x x 241 x by x 2" x x zxa x x zu x 245 x zn x x x 24111 x x x za9 x z5B x 251 x x zsz x x x 253 x sa x x zss x x x 256 x x 257 x x 259 x x 259 x 260 x 261 x x 262 x 263 x x x x x x 2601 x x x ASS x x 29 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Defective or Slum,Deteriorated!or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high Improvements or UUhties Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites Tide c 3 m -a IS IS c ` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y E H E d = _ Cw - _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2 _ Y 3 3 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a w y - p o _ $ $ E _ C _ _ _ - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ - `a• E E 3 3 _ - _ f C _ t , � - 3 _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E in E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a '- 5 fs 3 & S Y _ E co vs ` 'c g E _ 5 _ 5 - EE 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a iDs - _ ay 0 _ - ? I: & E a -ccis - - & & " g _ 2 = E E qE w 3 a 8 8 °' 4 oy �n o ' a aoc 5 y8 o „ E 3x 9 w m - - = g 8 8 .. g 8 - F ` _ zw _ _ % _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ 267 x x 2611 x x 20 x x no x nl x x nz x x 273 x na x x ns x 276 x n) x x x na x x 279 x zxu x x 291 x x x zllz x x x x 20 x zxi x x x 285 x 286 x x x x za) x x x x 288 x 299 x 290 x x 291 x x x 292 x 293 x x x 294 x x x x 29s x x 296 x 297 x 299 x 299 x 00 x 301 x x 302 x x Jim x x w x JIGS x 306 x x 307 x x x 3oa x 309 x 310 x x x x x 311 x x x x 312 x 313 x 314 x 31s x 316 x x v3TEE x x 319 Er TT;1 30 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Defective or Slum,Deteriorated!or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high Improvements or UUhties Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites Tide c 3 m -a IS IS c ry i i l5 m .. ` a ` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y E H E d = _ Cw - _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a 3 0 3 a< t, - �_ ` ^ E _ Y e �' Y u n 3 $m q c 6 - v - E - _ _ - p o _ s .n ` L' g `3 5 ` $ $ E _ C _ _ " _ �. _ E 'c - - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ - `a• E E 3 3 fin C _ t , � - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E .N o 3 - Y C E os _ 2 9 _ �' of _ a _ _ 5 .`p a '3 & tr ri� _ 5 _ 5 - E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a E 8 8 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B � oy �' o ' a a8 5 y8 is 3x 9 vhomx g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8Is a - - = 8 8 8 .,319 x _ _ _ _ 320 x x x 321 x x x 322 x 323 x x x 324 x 325 x x x 326 x x x x x 327 x x 329 329 x x x x 330 x x x 331 x x x 332 x x x x x x x 333 x 311 x x 335 x 336 x x 337 x x 339 x x 339 x 3nD x x x 3a1 x M x M x 114 x x 345 x x x 116 x 3ro x x x 118 x x 119 x 3ro x 351 x x 352 x x 353 x x 354 x x ass x 356 x x x 357 x x x 359 x 359 x x x 360 x x 361 x x 362 x x 30 x x 36x x 365 x x x x 356 x x x 367 x 3611 x x x x 30 x x 3)o x x x 371 x x x 31 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Defective or Slum,Deteriorated!or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high Improvements or UUhties Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites Tide c 3 m -a IS IS c ry i i l5 m .. ` a ` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y E H E d = _ Cw - _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2 _ Y 3 3 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a w y - p o _ $ $ E - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E `a• E E 3 3 _ - _ f - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E .N o 3 - Y YY. �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C g '- 5 S 3 & S Y _ Eif E 'c aI $. _ _ & E E �4 a n � a - 3 - - - e - _ ay 0 _ - ? I: & & & " g _ 2 = qE � 3 � is R �' o ' a a8 5 y8 aE 3 9 vhomx g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = yt 372 x x _ _ v x x 373 x 374 x x x x 375 x 376 x 377 x x 379 x x x x 379 x x 380 x x x x x Sal x x 382 x x 3" x Sea x x 38s x 3% x x 32 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY r r O c1 WHORSETOOTH RD - - - -= E HORSETOOTH L � Nr�� w - ''Z -tii SKIN D, R11 j o I A.- 108 : 76 77 72 ❑ �.. . ii `^ _ u 107 109fl0 �75 I78 7a �� �. fj_r, • � ' t - 6 31041005000794 80 c12 $ @ fit 667 � /34G 93 65— i. 35. 11u O1 . 958 J9 8 64 Iz 2 - 97 4. 63 E � 36 10 cAV 9�98 86 i59 60 /90 .. . . p A . { !� 8988 875f� 113 37 - o LEEW a' NEW AV' � \. ° 131 . . 130114' 5-7 ARD, CT - WAEpE '�'� ii 128 54 39 'r FP 53—�55 56 4038 8.. 8 i r r 126 aq N ❑ 12125129 16 48 1921 1 14 9 �, $OWLINE'CT�_, ;!-e }-� -... ❑ 117 52 n 1184651 DENNISON CT m 124 47 21 « , -93,42 a id 123 � 4j- DENNISON AVE { j io 132 - �� ,-� � z •' r - "' , 122 25 E4 p - '�'34133 - 121 119 27 { �r f" fP. g � - _c : i 1� *-� / 143 120�142 11 v ' y✓ s , ALBION WAY ih36 ,{} - 1W 30 2928 - z 1 I r 0137 140 31 P3 �� �' " - - - z 145 139138 :. n. w 146 15 50 i148 % 7 0 (2 _; W - Z _ it ., I ¢ W B T '^ 147 162 - - r AROw SM 2as,�7 Atka ,:. 212213 23 R 'a• a ��. •� /225Av 211 206r `.. r � P' •r' { APIE ' N 210 208 n �` {215 209 207 t ST RUNG ST S f} +*u B AI( TE DR • � W �'S -� - p u z M N p ru o � tR, Ut W •� TH HER 5T o ! C J r r Y H 1 .r '.:.Y . -. . .1 ' . W( E KAR - - .. . : 325f - pB 0 f' 0 328 34 1 TOWHEE ST iui J 33T :/ -. o , . ° 335333 K' 327 326 1 - 36 RD - E H RMONY RD . -.'�� 3813 - ;_� c` �' 341 361 . . 362 1360 G 382 i 338 o 385 383 - . .. 337 359 w 384 - r 363 O 369 370 ❑� o� r �, - SO, fl VI "11 S W - r ., 0 45.34 348 349350 367368 37 4 346 - J. k tiT a 358 351 352 373 • 01357 353 374 C 1 w ♦ q'f� n�. 356 355354 °f r j 1 €-, � • ! �72�` 'a- w. K ❑ - 0 376 yr � . :_ 1, ryq r 379 �� � I� r� ° x - �� ° 3,� Z r i r ° 384 ❑ 386 it — . i,.! ! m] IWJFA'IRWAYRN 365 380 FAIRW V N J i Section 3 Photo Reference Map �t_11s Photo Reference Number o� 1 inch = 550 feet �� Study Section 3 April2011 33 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY i=72t L i 1 .JPG 2.JPG 3 .JPG 4.JPG 5 .JPG ids1 It . .t 11 _ yam 1 ', �. dl • / l 4, 6 .JPG 7.JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10.JPG 11 .JPG 12 .JPG 13 .JPG 14.JPG 15.JPG 16.JPG 17.JPG 18.JPG 19.JPG 20.JPG F I W 21 .JPG 22.JPG 23 .JPG 24.JPG 25 .JPG mum4 ;# 4 r• • t w; . 26.JPG 27.JPG 28 .JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG - ' ow 9 31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG 34 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY LAW 36 .JPG 37. JPG 38 .JPG 39 . JPG 40 .JPG bra} 4-600 41 .JPG 42 . JPG 43 .JPG 44.JPG 45 .JPG lot f mil'• _ .� x 46 .JPG 47. JPG 48.JPG 49.JPG 50 .JPG r , Lit I ` . .wy 51 .JPG 52.JPG 53 .JPG 54.JPG 55.JPG 'ilk S p 56.JPG 57.JPG 58 .JPG 59.JPG 60 .JPG 7e• ;ra 4 _ v yi 61 .JPG 62 . JPG 63 .JPG 64.JPG 65 .JPG La 66.JPG 67 . JPG 68 .JPG 69 . JPG 70 .JPG 35 MIDTOWN • • ppp PL f N1` ^ z 1• � . i y r T i • �- - . 1 ;� ��iii►ll. .� t 79.JPG : 1 ,1yT � II11 _ . /� tii • 1 - , r ��. n ♦��Ilfti�' ` mow( � 86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 91 _ � 1 1 • 13 � r Emma r+• . r c 101 .JPG 102.JPG1 14 1 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY mr qr L t 1_- Y 106 .JPG 107.JPG 108 .JPG 109 . JPG 110 .JPG ld OF 00 IL po 111 .JPG 112.JPG 113 .JPG 114.JPG 115 .JPG 1 .--r r? _ _ _ 1 116.JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120 .JPG 121 .JPG 122.JPG 123 .JPG 124.JPG 125.JPG a 126 .JPG 127.JPG 128 .JPG 129.JPG 130 .JPG ' J 131 .JPG 132.JPG 133 .JPG 134.JPG 135.JPG god 136 .JPG 137.JPG 138.JPG 139.JPG 140.JPG 37 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 141 .JPG 142.JPG 143 .JPG 144.JPG 145 .JPG lit � r ^ 146 .JPG 147.JPG 148 .JPG 149.JPG 150 .JPG Aio Fig id 151 .JPG 152.JPG 153.JPG 154.JPG 155.JPG 156.JPG 157.JPG 158.JPG 159.JPG 160.JPG 6 161 .JPG 162 .JPG 163 .JPG 164.JPG 165.JPG I 166 .JPG 167.JPG 168 .JPG 169.JPG 170.JPG NL77 � r>• 171 .JPG 172.JPG 173 .JPG 174.JPG 175.JPG 38 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY wool - b 31 . lbk� .l t�= mp 176 .JPG 177 . JPG 178 .JPG 179.JPG 180 .JPG v' 181 .JPG 182.JPG 183 .JPG 184.JPG 185 .JPG II 186 .JPG 187.JPG 188 .JPG 189. JPG 190 .JPG on Its mid 191 .JPG 192.JPG 193.JPG 194.JPG 195.JPG 1 196 .JPG 197.JPG 198 .JPG 199.JPG 200.JPG 201 .JPG 202.JPG 203 .JPG 204.JPG 205.JPG xAge •. - �� " i 206 .JPG 207.JPG 208 .JPG 209.JPG 210 .JPG 39 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 211 .JPG 212 . JPG 213 .JPG 214.JPG 215 .JPG iL 216 .JPG 217.JPG 218 .JPG 219.JPG 220 .JPG 221 .JPG 222.JPG 223.JPG 224.JPG 225.JPG 226 .JPG 227.JPG 228 .JPG 229.JPG 230 .JPG 77 �u 231 .JPG 232 .JPG 233 .JPG 234. JPG 235.JPG by 'A' : `. -ts►:• 236.JPG 237.JPG 238 .JPG 239. JPG 240 .JPG -r x 241 .JPG 242.JPG 243.JPG 244.JPG 245.JPG 40 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY - y � A; 246 .JPG 247.JPG 248 .JPG 249.JPG 250 .JPG 251 .JPG 252.JPG 253 .JPG 254.JPG 255 .JPG r - 256 .JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG 261 .JPG 262.JPG 263.JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG ELI rr F 266 .JPG 267.JPG 268 .JPG 269.JPG 270 .JPG r 271 .JPG 272.JPG 273 .JPG 274.JPG 275 .JPG - we � ' _ • •/ . � _� job 276 .JPG 277.JPG 278 .JPG 279.JPG 280 .JPG 41 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY "woo" - � r � 281 .JPG 282 .JPG 283 .JPG 284.JPG 285 .JPG Ao 286 .JPG 287.JPG 288 .JPG 289.JPG 290 .JPG �R� w ol 291 .JPG 292 .JPG 293 .JPG 294.JPG 295.JPG i - 296 .JPG 297.JPG 298.JPG 299.JPG 300.JPG �r 301 .JPG 302 .JPG 303 .JPG 304.JPG 305.JPG 0 �L"kIXA- _ 306 .JPG 307.JPG 308 .JPG 309.JPG 310.JPG J" •. ` 311 .JPG 312.JPG 313.JPG 314.JPG 315.JPG 42 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 316 .JPG 317.JPG 318 .JPG 319.JPG 320 .JPG sno. c, m.. r n•. RL �I.YRf Ir,4i. rr 11g ml w..n.. .q rr - 3 321 .JPG 322.JPG 323 .JPG 324.JPG 325 .JPG 326.JPG 327.JPG 328 .JPG 329.JPG 330.JPG WE y Milo _ 331 .JPG 332.JPG 333.JPG 334.JPG 335.JPG 336 .JPG 337.JPG 338 .JPG 339.JPG 340 .JPG lg . 3 341 .JPG 342.JPG 343 .JPG 344.JPG 345.JPG lam pp ` 1 • 1 :J 346.JPG 347.JPG 348 .JPG 349.JPG 350 .JPG 43 MIDTOWN • • 14 Tralilimmomomm :urrrrurrrrrr t - • JPG 357.JPG 358 .JPG 359.JPG 360 .JPG t 361 .JPG 362.JPG • • 4 U 4 LA w�fi. � �" • _- tom• t 366.JPG 367.JPG . : . • r �► ]Nil 378 .JPG 379.JPG 380.JPG y : 1 .JPG 382.JPG 383.JPG 384.JPG 385 .JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY szY 386 .JPG 45 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY APPENDIX B - SOURCES CONSULTED 1 . State of Colorado Statutes Urban Renewal Law § 31- 25- 101 2 . City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department 3 . City of Fort Collins Building Department 4 . City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department 5 . City of Fort Collins Geographic Information Systems (GIS ) Department 6 . Larimer County Assessor' s Office 7 . Transportation Master Plan, prepared by Clarion Associates, March 2011 8 . Prospect South Existing Conditions Study, prepared by URS, October 2008 . 9 . Midtown Redevelopment Study, prepared by ELS Architecture and Urban Design, Economic Planning Systems, and Warren Wilson Advisors, September 2010 10 . North College Avenue Existing Conditions Study, prepared by the City of Fort Collins, December 2004 11 . Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey, prepared by the City of Fort Collins, May 2007 12 . City of Castle Pines North Conditions Survey, prepared by Leland Consulting Group, April 2010 46 ATTACHMENT 5 Christina Vincent City Manager' s Office 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 April 7, 2011 After careful analysis of the draft copy of the Midtown Existing Planning Conditions Survey and field verifications by myself, Troy W . Jones, A. I . C . P . and my business partner, Mikal S . Torgerson, A. I .A., both of Archi �ec�ure MTA Planning & Architecture, together we offer the following comments : Scope of Report - Although the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey, and Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey have already been done, it seems because these areas are within the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey boundary, we feel that it would be appropriate to include the findings of these other areas, together with your new field analysis findings, in the overall summary document . To that end, it may be wise to structure the report in such a way that treats the new field survey analysis as just a chapter in an overall document, but that the conclusions of the document include the entire study area ( which would include a summary of blight factors found for the entire area including the Prospect South and Foothills Mall areas) . It seems that the details of these two other areas could remain as a reference to the other reports, but the conclusions of those other reports should be included in this overall report . As an example, it appears that the matrix of blight conditions ( on pages 15 through 17 ) apply only to the newly observed portions of the site . Such a summary may be more appropriate if it applied to the entire site . The Railroad - One of the major additional contributing factors for blight that affects the study area, in our opinion, is the presence of the active high - use railroad tracks immediately to the west of the blight area . Although, the railroad right-of-way is not it the blight area, its presence immediately adjacent to the study area affects the presence of blight within the area in several very specific ways . Namely, there are three factors that contribute toward the definition of "blighted area " : ( 1 ) Lack of street and pedestrian interconnectivity across the tracks would qualify the study area as having blight factor 31-25- 103 ( 2 ) ( b ) , "predominance of inadequate street layout . " For the entire 3 . 3 mile length of the study area , there are only 5 vehicular crossings ( Prospect, Drake, Swallow, Horsetooth , and Harmony), and one additional pedestrian crossing at Spring Creek . The Fort Collins Land Use Code standards, in section 3 . 6 . 3, requires that any new development have a local street system that is designed to be safe, efficient, convenient, and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, ( including, without limitation , cars, trucks, busses, bicycles, pedestrian , and emergency vehicles ) , and goes on to say that local streets must be provided for both intra - and inter- neighborhood connections to knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them . In general, this typically equates to street connections at a minimum of every 660 feet between adjacent developments . The existence of the railroad tracks prevents the study area from having a local street network to the west, and therefore is a blighting factor that inhibits safety, efficiency and convenience of automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel . ( 2 ) Also, a lack of interconnectivity across the tracks would qualify the study area to qualify as having factor 31 -25- 103 ( 2 ) (g), " unusual conditions rendering the property non - marketable; The lack of the ability to have a street network connect to the west makes for difficult site access and deep lots without street frontage in the area immediately north of Whole Foods . ( 3 ) Additionally, the lack of interconnectivity across the tracks would qualify the study area to qualify as having factor 31-25- 103 ( 2 ) ( h ), "the existence of conditions that endanger life ." Specifically, the Federal Office complex being located across the tracks from Whole Foods ( and an entire commercial center) creates a high -demand pedestrian route, which is illegal and quite dangerous . The Floodplain — Another major contributing factor for blight in the study area , in our opinion, is the presence of the Spring Creek floodplain within the study area . Specifically, all 5 of the deaths caused by the 1997 flood of Spring Creek occurred in the study area . See the floodplain map below from the City' s online floodplain mapping at h, ttttpp1:://gis .f11cgov. com/ffcJmagps/fcma®p . aspx? maCp.� Floodplains . Yip y_ 1R�18ti1�� r JEN Kill 7rII 'a JY ♦� irk, � ; jC Although this floodplain falls within one of the previously studied areas, because it is such a substantial blight factor, we feel it would be advisable to mention it in conclusions of the overall study. Inadequate Public Improvements — In the bullet items for item 6 on pages 12 and 13, you may want to include another bullet item as follows : • Existing streets are substandard (wouldn 't meet current street design standards) . Vacant Properties — On page 14 of the draft, the second to last bullet item states that evidence of "vacancy of buildings" exists when more that 20% of a multi -tenant building is vacant . The state statute seems to be silent on the percentage amount of a building that must be vacant to qualify as vacant. We feel that by defining the magic number as 20%, it may be inviting unnecessary scrutiny in the analysis . It might serve the purpose better to be vague on the percentage amount of the building that must be vacant . We suggest that you use the term "some of a multi -tenant building is vacant," rather than a specific percentage . Less Substantive Suggestions • Page 4, the last sentence seems to slightly misquote the name of the proper code citation . The full code citation should be ( C. R . S . 31 -25- 105 . 5 ( 5 ) ( a ) ) . • Page 5, last paragraph of B ( and also Task 4 and the sentence after on page 6 ) — Is it accurate to say the "City Council" makes the determination of blight, or would it be better to say the "City Council in their role as Urban Renewal Authority?" • There are numerous blank yellow dots on the photo reference maps of the 3 study sections . It' s not clear what these blank dots are referencing . In summary, we respectfully offer the above suggestions, but generally we overwhelmingly concur with both the methodology and the findings enumerated in the survey . That concludes our initial analysis of the draft survey. Let us know if you would like any additional input, and we would be happy to accommodate . Since ely, I v� Troy W . Jones, . I . C . P . MTA Planning & Architecture ATTACHMENT 6 FOOTHILLS MALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY City of Fort Collins 11' a aNaLlON 11O a Pa YQ _A0.� . • . 't. . lp a F a a Ll Lvv OP t '(Y( �, ~ May 15 , 2007 Prepared by: Terrance Ware + Associates Table of Contents 1 . 0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . 0 Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 . 0 Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 . 1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 .2 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 . 3 Existing Planning and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 . 0 Determination of Blight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 . 1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 . 2 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 . 3 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 . 4 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements orUtilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 . 5 Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live orWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 . 6 The Existence of Health, Safety or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites, Buildings or Other Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 . 0 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 6 .0 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Figures Figure 1 : Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure2 : Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure3 : Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 : Survey Area Findings Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendices Appendix 1: Photo Inventory Sheets Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 1 - 1 . 0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope The determination that an area constitutes a "blighted area" is a cumulative conclusion, attributable to the presence of several physical, environmental, social, and economic factors. Blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the deterioration of an area. For the purposes of this survey, the pertinent portion of the definition of a blighted area is articulated in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (the "Act"), Colorado Revised Statute 31 -25 - 103 (2), as follows : A "blighted" area means " . . . an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e. Deterioration of site or other improvements; f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities; g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes; i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities; j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property; k. 5. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements; or 1. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property in any urban renewal area, "blighted also means an area that in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (1), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing condemnation. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 2 - Several legal principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. The absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of blight. The presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. An authority ' s determination as to whether an area is blighted . . . . is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted. The principle purpose of determining blight and the related urban renewal plan and programs and/or projects of redevelopment is to eliminate blight or to prevent the spread of blight and/or the further deterioration of blighted areas (Sec . 31 -25 - 107(4 . 5) CRS). Thus, the determination of blight (and the application of blight factors) is for an area; blight need not be present (in fact it would be atypical to find blight) on every property, building, street, public improvement, or utility. For an area to be termed "blighted" the law does not specify the degree of deterioration or precise percentage of obsolescence of blight factors since the combination and effects of such things are highly variable from one urban renewal plan area to the next. The purpose of this Existing Conditions Survey is to assist the Fort Collins City Council in deciding whether the study area constitutes a "blighted area" as defined in the CRS 31 -25 - 103 (2) . Terrance Ware Associates were retained by the City of Fort Collins to conduct an independent survey of the Foothills Mall area and to determine if it constitutes a blighted area as defined above . Based upon the conditions existing in the survey area, this document will make a recommendation as to whether the survey area contains the characteristics of a blighted area. The actual determination itself remains the responsibility of the Fort Collins City Council. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 3 - 2 .0 Survey Methodology An important objective of this survey is to obtain and evaluate data, where possible, on a wide range of physical and non-physical conditions present in the survey area. Data was collected from various public agencies and field research was conducted on these various topics : parcel and ownership patterns and history; traffic, circulation and parking; utilities ; street, building, and site conditions ; land use ; environmental conditions ; and compliance with the City of Fort Collins ' s City Plan and City ordinances . Supplemental information was sought from various professionals and public agencies concerning the conditions of public facilities, services, and issues in the survey area. Several variables have been considered, as required by the state statutes . The Existing Conditions Survey is divided into several tasks as follows : Task 1 : Collect base data associated with the project and research, as well as prepare base maps of, existing conditions for the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area. Task 2 : Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Task 3 : Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in the Act, exist in the survey area. Task 4 : Document survey findings in graphic and report forms, and present the findings as required by the signed contract. Information for this survey has been gathered from four principal sources : ■ Examination of existing reports and records of the City of Fort Collins and other public and quasi-public agencies; ■ Interviews with existing staff of General Growth Properties , owners and operators of the Foothills Mall; ■ Interviews with existing and former staff in various operating departments of the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County; and ■ A comprehensive field investigation of conditions in the survey area. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 4 - 3 .0 Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Area Description 3. 1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries The survey area is located within the City of Fort Collins which is part of Larimer County, Colorado . Fort Collins is located approximately 60 miles north of Denver and adjacent to the communities of Timnath, Windsor, and Loveland. The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area is a rectangular shaped area of approximately 72-acres, bounded by East Swallow Road on the north, Stanford Road on the east, South College Avenue on the west and the extension of Monroe Drive on the south (see Figure 1 ) . The topography of the area gently slopes to the east. No major landforms or grades are present within the area. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 5 - W + E rroposea roomms mail s Urban Renewal Area 1 inch equals 350 feet DEL CLAIR RD N 0 O M G�9i�F0D 9`�0 Z v d 0 W SWALLOW RD E SWALLOW RD o 0 ❑ a a � � a a z Q� e Ez= �o 0 � o MONROE DR w � ❑ w U w J Q O O U N E HORSETOOTH RD Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 6 - 3 .2 Existing Land Use The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area is composed primarily of commercial, retail, and office uses. Single-family, duplexes, and multi-family residential structures front on Swallow Road, but are not included in the study area boundaries . The Foothills Mall is the predominate structure in the study area - surrounded by several pad buildings containing one or more retail, restaurant, and/or office users . The Mall opened in the fall of 1973 and has been expanded twice — in 1980 and again in 1989 . Currently, the land area is approximately 100% developed (see Figure 2) . 3.3 Existing Planning and Zoning 3 . 3 . 1 Existing Planning The 2004 Fort Collins City Plan - Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) is the applicable land use policy for the area. The Foothills Mall lies within an area identified on the Structure Plan map as a Community Commercial District (CCD) which the Plan describes as : a " . . . hub of high frequency transit system offering retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing. The physical environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit use, and ridesharing, as well as provide a high quality urban life for residents . Vertical mixed-use (multi-story buildings) will be encouraged with housing and/or offices located above ground- floor retail and services . The Foothills Mall is also identified in City Plan as a "Targeted Redevelopment Area." A targeted redevelopment area is a part of the city where general agreement exists that redevelopment is beneficial . A major goal of City Plan is to increase the economic activity in a targeted redevelopment area and, where necessary, provide a stimulus to redevelop . The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (the Code) is the applicable regulation for the study area, including the Zoning Ordinance and the Site Development Standards . Some of the Code ' s standards pertaining to the study area include : screening trash and mechanical equipment, placement of street lighting, placement of electric and communication utilities, compliance with ADA Standards, and the use of conforming signage in the area. 3 . 3 .2 Existing Zoning The zoning map provided shows zoning in the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area (see Figure 3 ) . Currently, the study area is zoned in the Commercial Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 7 - FORT COLLINS Foothills Mall W SWALLOW RD - - - - 9SWALLOW RD : l t r! 6\` — I�$ f' L ¢I � • . �` to V I fix 4/7 -1 1 1 rt Q ' OGP TMLLS VR WY ! - —yn �. ^ r • I' . / - • % . 111 Hm map ►��� Ad X _ C YORROE OR L � F IL r * top �w AloaaoL DR 'A qr A to J . . 1 J i tit ow y .+ Fk o`��''`L W 110RSETOOTN RD. '.. - -� tP _ - - EHORSETOOMAO to j f ' . s • ♦_: a. P. 404 r Y z a ® Existing Conditions Survey Figure 2: Survey Area Boundaries N Cih• of Fort CRIMEM Q 150 300 600 1:. ..pAI, InImm.u", Feet Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 8 - FORT COLLINS Foothills Mall RL NONE= s Ilk s� AW C �irawrr 10A7 MMN E Legend Existing Conditions Survey N ® parcehweaaarcol uk arC" ZoWng M ,um Density ml,ee-Use *:ergnearneoe FIGURE3: ZONING n t nor rd Fu.r c d� n. Cenwe Tocfi _ Ca rcml law De Uy9MemW 0 100 200 400 y . . ..��., .1,.I_.l, 0 EmpbrmeM Feet , V Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 9 - District (C) . The Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment, and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices, and personal and business services . Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City' s intent that the Commercial District for the Mall area emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms , with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians . The zoning permits a wide variety of uses including : civic, public, institutional, residential, office, and retail uses . Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 10 - 4 . 0 Determination of Blight The significant findings of the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area are presented in this section. This evaluation is based on an analysis of documents and reports, interviews, and several field surveys conducted in July and August 2006 and, January 2007 . Each parcel and building along with all public improvements within the survey area were evaluated and deficiencies noted. The purpose of this Existing Conditions Survey is to determine whether conditions of blight as defined by the Act, exist in the survey area. The following standards were applied to aid the consideration of structures and improvements : Standard, Sound These buildings or sites contain no or relatively minor defects, are adequately maintained and require no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance. Substandard, Minor Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain deficiencies which require minor/major repairs to secondary structural elements, such as fascia/soffits, gutter/downspouts, exterior finishes, windows, doors, stairwells and fire escapes . Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 25 -75 % of the survey area are considered minor deficiencies . These types of deficiencies might possibly be corrected through normal maintenance, however, replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades is recommended. Substandard, Major Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain major defects over a widespread area and would be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings in the major deficiency category would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades . Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 75 % or more of the survey area are considered major deficiencies . The following conditions were observed in the survey area, and the factors that contribute to the blight conditions are described below. They are not listed in order of importance . Representative photos showing blight conditions in the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area are provided in Appendix I. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates 4. 1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures Within the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area, all of the structures show evidence of minor deterioration. Most of the structures have deteriorating exterior finishes, caused by weathering and a lack of maintenance . Exterior walls, facades, and fencing require painting, trim repair, and/or tile replacement. The Mall building(s) itself and the majority of the pad buildings have signs of major building deficiencies, both exterior and interior. This includes primarily major building infrastructure components such as HVAC, lighting, gas, electrical, sanitary sewer, drainage, fire protection and telecommunication facilities. These issues are shared by many of the pad buildings surrounding the Mall as well. The costs of repairing or replacing the building systems are greater than the value of the buildings resulting in economic obsolescence and general deterioration of the site and area. 4.2 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions There were many examples of this factor. Several of the properties lack sufficient lighting around the building and surrounding parking and access areas . Weeds, trash, and other debris were present in the survey area. Drainage facilities lack adequate capacity. This includes curb and gutters, culverts, and drainage channels which are needed to convey stormwater away from the existing facilities . These factors have resulted in the deterioration of the paved areas as well as created hazards for pedestrian movement throughout the study area. During winter months, these areas freeze creating hazardous situations for vehicular travel. Sidewalks are missing along College Avenue and other sidewalk segments are inadequate in size and condition, failing to meet ADA standards . Pedestrian facilities connecting the outparcels and the Mall are non-existent leaving pedestrians to navigate the haphazard parking lot and drives between these uses . Loading areas extend into drive aisles and onto sidewalks . This creates on-going hazardous situations for pedestrian circulation. Elevation changes in the Mall's interior create potential hazardous slip and fall situations, and are difficult for the elderly and disabled to navigate due to the unusual angles and slopes on stairs and ramps . Vandalism, crimes against property, auto theft, and graffiti have increased dramatically over the previous two years. This may be attributable to inadequate lighting and distribution of parking facilities in isolated locations, and a loss of tenants and activity on-site due to the increase vacancies . Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 12 - 4.3 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the study area. This includes neglect of landscaping, and vacant areas, exterior finishes of existing structures, parking lot surfacing, and business signage. Several buildings within the study area have graffiti on at least one exterior surface. Several of the buildings within the study area have unscreened trash disposals and service areas . Drainage on the 72-acre parcel is highly inadequate . There are only six drains to facilitate drainage for the entire property. This causes significant back ups often resulting in flooding during heavy rainstorms . On the south side of the Mall from the Wells Fargo/Mall intersection to the JC Penney building a small river forms creating vehicle and individual safety concerns . Water routinely expands eight feet across the walkway six to eight inches in depth. 4A Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities There is lack of sufficient lighting, adequate sidewalks, and drainage facilities . In addition, most of the site infrastructure including drainage, irrigation, water, sanitary and storm systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of replacement. 4.5 Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work A number of instances of poor or unsafe ingress/egress were noted, where building exits place occupants directly into the vehicular path in alleys. Also, several buildings fail to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for ingress and egress . The building systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of replacement as many of the systems are obsolete and unable to be repaired because parts are no longer available. This includes all basic HVAC , plumbing, and electrical components . 4.6 The Existence of Health, Safety or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites , Buildings, or Other Improvements. Several interior tenant spaces are vacant or underutilized, as are several pad sites around the Mall. This is due to the growing physical obsolescence of the Mall building and physical constraints to redevelopment of the site . The underutilization of these properties leads to reduced revenues and subsequent reduced investment. Over time this will cause deterioration of the site and buildings as the costs exceed revenue. Increased vandalism and crime result in greater police services . Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 13 - Summary of Findings It is the conclusion and recommendation of this survey that the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area, in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined in Colorado Revised Statute / 31 -25 - 103 (2) . By reason of the presence of numerous factors identified in Section 103 (2) of the Urban Renewal Law and discussed above in Chapter 4, the survey area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort Collins, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. While some properties in the survey area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area. It should be noted that this conclusion is for the survey area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties. As described in this survey, conditions existing in the survey area constitute at least four of the factors or incidents indicative of a blighted area. The conclusion of this survey is based on the following summaries of the six blighted conditions found in the survey area and described previously in this report: 1 . Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures. Deterioration of structures, deterioration of exterior finishes, and major exterior and interior building deficiencies within the survey area. 2 . Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions. Pavement deterioration, accumulation of weeds, trash, and debris, vacant structures and tenant spaces, poor site drainage, elevation changes within the structure, and poor site lighting. 3 . Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements. Obsolesce of site infrastructure and building systems (electrical, water, telecommunications, drainage, etc. ) contribute to the overall deterioration of the site. 4. Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities . Inadequate sidewalks, parking, roadways vehicular, drainage facilities, sanitary and storm systems, and utilities . 5 . Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy. Poor and unsafe ingress and egress at several buildings within the survey area is present. Major building systems in need of repair or replacement due to deterioration or capacity. Vandalism and property crimes also occur within the survey area. 6 . The Existence of Health, Safety or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites, Buildings or Other Improvements . Several interior tenant spaces are vacant or underutilized, as are several pad sites around the mall. This is due to the growing Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 14 - physical obsolescence of the mall building and physical constraints to redevelopment of the site. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 15 - FORT COLLINS Foothills Mall . . r - - - PITY t DQ cinm rtD b .s,� Rif ode eve old lip off �.. w SWALLOW RD - - - _i E OwNlilimRD M. . IS - � `k 1 _. '. , ' t • . . . ',�� of [S �• D Loading aiell 1 � • • 4 , 1 + drive lan{�ra4� site . S e° of rf` s r o it Building ro .. constrai etj by to vJ pooreiusrnwv , corl LVIiori )a oo lool, r � Missinc }dewalk \ Ar . ) \,7 • .Wool room .fir, t Vow 41 \\, , : Nall itt _ „ mil. ! j _�ts • _ t r l _ _ Y a t ca Relives r e •Dr1RDE OR DR Poorly defined circulauoP ;,ria . W _ �.,u . . .� ,f. . - � • ' .• \• •� ' .' to* mill ow 1 . 0 ... . . IselIli I - ` h � . . .e .1 n ai oil 4 oil l6i tell moo A W 9AORSETOOTH RO -- .r it - - El101t[ETDOf1YtD a•�" ` —ew Ai 15ramV 'moll ir OR ="•a.44r Vile woe 4 - P . , V Existing Conditions Survey Figure 4: Survey Finding Examples A N 0 150 300 600 .J,rn. rnn��ourwa Feet sn..... Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Tlare Associates - 16 - 6.0 Sources City of Fort Collins, 2003 City Plan, City of Fort Collins, Municipal land Use Code, City of Fort Collins, Website, http ://www. fcgov. com/ Kimberly Straw, AICP, City Planner, Urban Renewal Authority Cynthia Eichler, General Manager, Foothills Mall, General Growth Properties, Inc. Paul Brown, Operations Manager, Foothills Mall Lori Frank, City of Fort Collins Police Department Doug Martine, City of Fort Collins Electric Project Engineering Supervisor Marsha Hines-Robinson, City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administrator Jon Cowling, Assessors Office, Larimer County Jeremy Reese, Sales Tax Manager Terrance Ware Associates Field Surveys, July and August 2006 ; January 2007 . Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 17 - Appendices I . Photo Inventory Sheets Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates Appendix I Photo Inventory Sheets 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 4.8 Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Lack of pedestrian facilities along College Avenue. 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Lack of definition of vehicular routes or pedestrian facilities in parking areas. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 19 - ,r r - w !. rrrJ ;yr i---t 43FaultyLot Layout Lot size and shape constrain development of the site. Parking facilities, vehicular and pedestrian facilities are impacted by the lot size and configuration. The configuration of mall on this sit, and the sites size create these conditions . 4A Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions The lack of adequate loading facilities impacts the safety of vehicles and pedestrians . All Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 21 - 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Drainage and access are poor throughout the study area. 43 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the Study Area. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 22 - FORT COLLINS ATTACHMENT 7 Q urban renewal authority MEMORANDUM DT : April 15, 2011 TO : Mayor and City Council Members FM : Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority RE : Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Update Background The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) were adopted by City Council in May 2007 . Based on the property owner' s economic situation and the lack of redevelopment activity, the URP was dissolved in 2008 to protect the Tax Increment Financing (TIF ) from accumulating prematurely . In 2009, Council initiated the Midtown Redevelopment Study to analyze the economic conditions and retail redevelopment opportunities of the commercial corridor that runs along South College Avenue from Prospect Road to the north to Fairway Lane to the south , including Foothills Mall . One of this study' s action items was to examine the area further and evaluate the statutory requirements for findings of blight to establish the basis to form a URP for the corridor . Council initiated the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey in February 2011 . Since Foothills Mall had been recently surveyed for blight factors, the area was excluded from the same level of scrutiny that the rest of the area received . Staff conducted a field investigation in April 2011 to validate whether the area can still be considered blighted as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law . Summary of Findings Staff concludes and recommends that the study area surveyed in the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey remains a blighted area as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law ( map of study area attached ) . The six blight factors documented in the 2007 survey are still existing conditions . In addition , the following observations were documented which contribute to the area ' s deteriorated state : ■ Four of the six self-standing outlying buildings surrounding the mall are vacant . ■ The strip mall in the northeast corner of the study area is 50% vacant . ■ The former location of Mervyn ' s, one of the mall ' s anchor tenants, is vacant . ■ The JC Penney building, another anchor tenant location , has been demolished per an agreement with mall property owner ( see Figure 1 ) . 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 • Fort Collins , CO 80522 - 0580 970 - 221 - 6505 TDD 970 - 224 - 6002 • renewfortcollins . com Figure 1 : Site of Former JC Penney Building In addition to the above findings, the attached addendum offers text changes to the survey document to reflect the latest information . Attachments 1 . Map of the Foothills Mall study area 2 . Addendum to the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey r � ATTACHME � IOICI • fflTCl y ■ � y EtU111111s'� d � Am - � y r c PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING i j"R CONDITIONS STUDY PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL F City yof ins AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS f� ❑ C TO BE R 200 S . 111 URS PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY Table of Contents 1 .0 Introduction ..................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 L2 Colorado Urban Renewal Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 3 Study Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 Study Area Analysis............................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 3 2 . 1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 .2 Field Survey Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 .3 Blight Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 .4 Results of the Field Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.0 Summary of Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................... .. 14 3 . 1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 .2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 List of Exhibits Exhibit 2- 1 Study Area Boundary Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Exhibit2-2 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Exhibit 3 - 1 Photograph Reference Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Exhibit 3 -2 Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 List of Tables Table2- 1 Field Survey Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2-2 Prospect South Municipal Code Violations 1999-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 3- 1 Field Survey Photograph Reference Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 List of Figures Figure2- 1 Faulty Lot Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendices Appendix A Sources Consulted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i AppendixB Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Appendix C Field Survey Photographs (Bound Separately) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 1 . 0 Introduction This report presents the conditions survey analysis, findings and conclusions for the Prospect South Existing Conditions Study ("Study"), which was undertaken by URS for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and the City of Fort Collins under an Agreement for Professional Services, dated August 29, 2008 . URS conducted the Study in September and October 2008 . 1 . 1 Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine whether the Prospect South Study Area ("Study Area") constitutes a "blighted area" within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law, and whether the Study Area should be recommended for such urban renewal efforts as the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and the City of Fort Collins may deem appropriate to remediate existing conditions and to prevent further deterioration. 1 .2 Colorado Urban Renewal Law In the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes § 31 -25- 101 et seq. (the "Urban Renewal Law"), the legislature has declared that an area of blight "constitutes a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state in general and municipalities thereof; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially to the spread of disease and crime, constitutes an economic and social liability, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of municipalities, retards the provision of housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems and impairs or arrests the elimination of traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that the prevention and elimination of slums and blight is a matter of public policy and statewide concern . . . .". Before remedial action can be taken by a public agency, however, the Urban Renewal Law requires a finding by the appropriate governing body that an area constitutes a blighted area. The determination that an area constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical, environmental, and social factors . Indeed, blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions, which, in combination, tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration of an area. For purposes of the study, the definition of a blighted area is premised upon the definition articulated in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows : "Blighted area " means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e. Deterioration of site or other improvements; f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities; 1 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes; i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities; j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property; or k. 5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements; or 1. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion ofsuch property in an urban renewal area, "blighted area " also means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (l), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion ofsuch property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights ofsuch owner in connection with laws governing condemnation. To be able to use the powers of eminent domain "blighted" means that five of the eleven factors must be present (Colorado Revised Statutes § 31 -25- 105 . 5(2)(a)(I)) : (a) 'Blighted area " shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 31 -25-103 (2); except that, for purposes of this section only, "blighted area " means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least five of the factors specified in section 31-25-103 (2) (a) to (2) (l), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law. First, the absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of blight. The definition of "blighted area contained in the Urban Renewal Law is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration." Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P.2d 907, 909 (Colo . Ct. App . 1981 ) . Second, the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. A determination of blight is based upon an area "taken as a whole," and not on a building-by-building basis. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 473 P .2d 978, 981 (Colo . 1970) . 2 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Third, a governing body' s "determination as to whether an area is blighted. . . is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted." Tracy, 635 P .2d at 909. A court ' s role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to independently verify if the conclusion is based upon factual evidence determined by the City Council at the time of a public hearing to be consistent with the statutory definition. 1 . 3 Study Methodology URS was retained by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority to perform an independent survey of the Study Area and to determine if it qualifies as a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law. Based upon the conditions observed in the field, this Study will provide an opinion as to whether the Study Area is blighted within the meaning of the Urban Renewal Law. The actual determination itself remains the responsibility of the legislative body, in this case, the Fort Collins City Council. An important objective of this study is to obtain and evaluate data on a wide range of physical and non- physical conditions that are present in the Study Area. Data about the Study Area were collected, analyzed, and ultimately portrayed through three tasks : • Task 1 : Project Initiation, Data Collection and Mapping • Task 2 : Field Survey, Research and Verification • Task 3 : Documentation and Presentation of Findings Tasks 1 and 2 are described in Section 2, Study Area Analysis. Task 3 is described in Section 3 , Summary of Findings and Conclusions. 2 . 0 Study Area Analysis 2 . 1 Study Area The Study Area is comprised of approximately 69 acres and includes 93 parcels of private property, in addition to public right-of-way (ROW) and railroad ROW parcels . Exhibit 2- 1 delineates the Study Area boundary, and correlates with respective City of Fort Collins and Larimer County Assessor' s parcel data. Exhibit 2-2 shows the Study Area and surrounding vicinity, entirely within the City of Fort Collins boundaries. 3 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Exhibit 2-1 : Study Area Boundaries I i�ZWJAKEtSL,`. E LAKE IT 'ggg fi I r, im Elk. ♦ Q No It Holz 511 e ; ' • •r:.:tiJ u a.W PROSPECT RD _ �tlomm , ; - E P■ RO.SPEGTIRDNOW ...I ego IL i � r , r r� ' '•'It "n o; I �_ L'is K TA �1 Y i11�� MV ;ram ..A - � �-IN Impoll1�1416�m ( � mo Luld Oft to 4 Mir, m yFA O I-A CD go LqTll , go - - rm7' mowi 'I "' ?tea: o _ EKTUAR�TC§ •; *t i - 1r ,r Y v , N CM 2I� • . 99 r , !mil-.66 3tY�a ~ ' � �- III OHNSON DR ' • Ii ` t" SPRING PARKIDRN ; • ' 1 Ar loor 04 14 i i ' ✓ / , j I _ — RUTGERS:AVEIL - t = t, � Exhibit 2- 1 : Study Area Boundary Map Prospect South Stud, 4rea 0 100200 400 600 800 URS Feet E) 4 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Exhibit 2-2 : Vicinity Map ja A r + - - :' 1ST • , ~ 7VAX LA ( i iv � y � • - f. . MM.' � l� • �tlRi ••1 . adQate UrirrsR�, r�j • � cn Mgt f ,•ti ` 1 7 - ilk p : 1 s T 4414 r L J . 110 ` ProspeActjRda . - I`zsTt " - � I ( 4 It AP re Cz 1.,r.� . r '� 1' 14110, LAID izot ►�( ti JOW L _ ya � � "� � . iAIN Aff 1Dr It ]� AO `• Y t�j TTT �4. �. . ,mow ; y �SIQ * n ~4��� r - I _�• 8 nt-;�44S 'j� ` � ► +a�t � '� ��� _ -�,�y4 .. ' Exhibit 2 - 2 : Vicinity Map Ftospect South Study Area — Fixed water course FEMA floodway Um 0 qi i _so = 9iFeet 5 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 2 .2 Field Survey Approach A physical survey was conducted during a site visit on September 9, 2008 . The survey team walked the entire site and took photographs and notes as existing conditions of blight were observed. After review of the survey results and survey boundary, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority made decisions to extend the survey area north and to the east. Additional surveys were conducted on October 13 , 2008 and October 28, 2008 . The revised survey area is the subject of this report. The surveys resulted in field observations of six of the blight factors described in Section 1 . Each observation was tallied on a survey matrix and documented with a photograph. The field survey information is provided in a number of formats in Section 2 : • Locations of the observations and photographs are documented on an aerial photo, as shown on Exhibit 3 - 1 . • An index of photographs is provided as Exhibit 3 -2, and each individual photograph is printed in larger format in the appendix. • The survey observations are described on a photo-reference matrix included as Table 3 - 1 . 2 . 3 Blight Factor Evaluation Criteria The field survey team reviewed the eleven blight factors found in the Colorado Revised Statute definition of blight as described in Section 1 . The team observed the following six factors in the Study Area (the examination of structural elements was limited to a visual inspection of conditions and not a detailed engineering or architectural analysis) : • Slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures • Defective or inadequate street layout • Faulty lot layout • Unsanitary or unsafe conditions • Deterioration of site or other improvements • Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities Listed below are the criteria that URS used in the field survey to evaluate the blight factors . 2.3. 1 Slum, Deteriorating or Deteriorated Structures Field survey efforts examining this factor focused on the general condition and level of deterioration of the existing buildings ' exterior components, such as : • Exterior walls • Visible foundation • Exterior finishes • Fascia and soffits • Gutters and downspouts • Windows and doors • Exterior stairways and fire escapes • Loading dock areas 6 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study • Fences, walls, and gates • Ancillary structures Structural integrity and/or environmental factors were not considered. The intent of this portion of the field survey was to identify observable physical conditions of neglect, disrepair, and/or deterioration in the exterior of the structures found within the Study Area. 2.3.2 Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The analysis conducted for this blight factor evaluated the effectiveness or adequacy of the streets that surround and/or penetrate the Study Area. Evaluation criteria for this factor include: • Poor vehicular access • Poor internal circulation • Substandard driveway or curb cut definition • Poor parking lot layout The transportation related deficiencies were evaluated during the field survey. 2.3.3 Faulty Lot Layout The following parcel conditions can hinder successful redevelopment and reduce a parcels usefulness and/or desirability: • Faulty lot shape • Faulty lot layout • Inadequate lot size Instances of these conditions were discovered through analysis of parcel data and aerial photography. 2.3.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions The presence of the following conditions arc indicative of an environment that can be unsanitary and/or unsafe : • Poorly lit or unlit areas • Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians • Poor drainage • Insufficient grading or steep slopes • Presence of trash, debris, or weeds • Presence of abandoned vehicles • Presence of vagrants, vandalism, or graffiti Instances of these conditions were evaluated through field observations. 2.3 .5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements This factor focuses on conditions that indicate the lack of general maintenance of a structure, site, or through the presence of these conditions, create an environment that reduces the market desirability. The conditions are as follows : • Presence of billboards 7 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study • Deterioration of signage • Neglected properties • Unscreened trash or mechanical equipment • Parking surface deterioration • Site maintenance problems • Lack of landscaping This factor was evaluated through field observations . 2.3.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities This section identifies unique topographic conditions and key deficiencies in the public infrastructure system serving the Study Area, including: • Unusual topography/floodplain • Deterioration of street pavement • Deterioration of curb and gutter • Insufficient street lighting • Presence of overhead utilities • Lack of sidewalks These conditions were observed during the field survey and noted during the review of floodplain maps . 2 . 4 Results of the Field Survey The overall findings of the field survey are presented in this section. Table 2- 1 on the following page tabulates the results according to the criteria described in Section 2 . 3 . Observations of physical conditions found in the Study Area contributed to our recommendation to the City of Fort Collins that conditions exist to make a finding of blight. 8 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 2-1 : Field Survey Matrix CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY Deteriorated External Walls • Deteriorated Visible Foundation • Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • Deteriorated Gutters/ Downspouts • SLUM , DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes • Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas • Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures • Poor Vehicle Access • DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation • INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts • Poor Parking Lot Layout • Faulty Lot Shape FAULTY LOT Faulty Lot Layout • LAYOUT Inadequate Lot Size Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas • Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage • UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • CONDITIONS Trash/ Debris/Weeds • Abandoned Vehicles • Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti • Presence of Billboards • Deterioration of Signage • DETERIORATION Neglected Properties • OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/ Mechanical • IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • Site Maintenance Problems • Lack of Landscaping • Unusual Topography/ Flood plain • UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement • TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter • INADEQUATE PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities • Lack of Sidewalks • TOTAL 34 • Physical Condition Observed 9 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 2.4. 1 Slum, Deteriorating or Deteriorated Structures Buildings within the Study Area show signs of deterioration and poor maintenance and/or damage. These deteriorated building components include broken windows, worn and cracked fascia treatments, crumbling external stairwells, and deterioration of ancillary structures. 2.4.2 Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Examples of defective street layout were observed throughout the Study Area, specifically along S . College Avenue where frequent curb cuts for vehicular access pose a particular threat to pedestrian safety, and present a unique set of automobile maneuvering challenges. There are instances where three or four access points connect to S . College Avenue within a 200-foot span. Additionally, throughout the Study Area, parking lot layouts exist where vehicles are backing out directly into traffic or into pedestrian walkways. 2.4.3 Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness The Study Area contains individual lots that either have poor vehicular access or contain buildings that span property lines . There are eight parcels in which buildings cross the property boundary. Nine parcels do not have direct access to a public right-of-way, of which seven are further constrained by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad to the west. Strict Federal regulatory requirements related to the BNSF railway embankment lead to technical difficulties and extraordinary costs for modifying the floodplain to allow for redevelopment of the west portion of the Study Area. Two triangular lots are inaccessible at the intersection of South College Avenue and Spring Park Drive. Figure 2- 1 on the following page highlights the faulty lots as described in this section. 2.4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Evidence of unsanitary and unsafe conditions was found throughout the Study Area. Observations of graffiti, trash and debris, and poor drainage circumstances are often indicative of unsafe and unsanitary conditions for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Uneven and cracked surfaces for pedestrians pose a significant risk for injury, especially at night. 2.4.5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Many instances of deterioration of site and other improvements were observed. Trash dumpsters and mechanical equipment are unscreened throughout the Study Area. A number of properties show signs of general neglect and poor maintenance, and landscaping is sparse throughout. There are further site maintenance problems as described in the Field Survey Photo-Reference Table, provided as Table 3 - 1 . 2.4.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities The presence of fixed water courses (Spring Creek and Sherwood Lateral) impedes efficient planning of the southern portion of the Study Area. A large portion of the Study Area is within the 100-year floodplain and floodway. The Study Area also includes a steep slope running east-west through the southern portion of the site. At the crest of the slope there is a ditch that traverses the Study Area. These factors make redevelopment of the site more difficult and costly. Additionally, deteriorated street pavement and curb and gutter were observed throughout the Study Area. These conditions create a 10 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study hazard for vehicular travel, and pedestrians who use the sidewalks, particularly for people pushing strollers and for the disabled. Sidewalks are impassable or nonexistent in certain areas, thus compromising the overall pedestrian network. The presence of overhead utilities within the Study Area creates a cluttered, unappealing environment as well as a potential hazard during a significant storm event. w IV" most OM -Y•• ==WAWWWAKE ;ST. . E L KE 5T t ( LOW VV Wei 1 l I� " • ' ♦ � ' t `- u 16 W P•ROSPECT RD _ E,P•RO:SPECTJRDIMI",r ti! It Its I if MLMtoo Pow try [�3i1 1, - I i " PARKER,ST Z �1uw ,. .n99 ,t LIL It Sol LU ALP.ERUAVE Uj Is MORI MWE o m - _ E1SIUARTLS ma>� JOHN SON� DR G' PARKIDRD S-A 1Ab,z ��_ ,� • aLL - 1 A UE - w „�,�, • - U I4 ��� Jt7l1r ! � AMP ' . , � n.��o , or oI r do ji; 1 100 200 400 600 E�6 ` - Isw ma`s ? ' �" IT _ Felt tNQ Figure 2-1 : The highlighted lots exhibit inadequate layout in regard to accessibility and the presence of buildings spanning lot lines. 11 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 2.4.7 Additional Considerations The team collected and analyzed information related to the Study Area, in a number of categories, including streetscape, traffic, crime reporting, etc . Following is a brief analysis of these conditions, which represent potential barriers or factors which need to be addressed by redevelopment. Streetscape Streetscape infrastructure includes sidewalks, streetlights and landscaping. It was the field survey team' s observation that the Study Area is not well served with pedestrian infrastructure, with the exception of the Spring Creek Trail. On-street sidewalks are attached to the street, with little or no landscaping, are very narrow (especially considering they are adjacent a busy State Highway), and are not consistently present. Internal parking lot landscaping is not consistently provided and maintained. Traffic The team reviewed February, 2007 traffic counts on S . College Avenue between W. Prospect Road and Rutgers Avenue. There were approximately 2,600 vehicle trips on S. College Ave. , during the morning and evening commutes. There were 655 vehicle trips per day that enter S . College Avenue from Stuart Street. According to the Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004, S . College Avenue functions at a Level of Service (LOS) F (high level of congestion) as it approaches E. Prospect Road. North of E. Prospect Road and south of Parker Street, S . College Avenue functions at LOS D or E (growing amount of congestion) . According to the Mason Corridor Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment, May 2008 the intersection of Prospect Road and College Avenue operated at a LOS D during the PM Peak in 2005 , and is projected to perform at LOS E or F by 2035 . Stormwater There is a lack of sufficient stormwater management facilities (in the form of curb and gutter, underground channels and culverts), and those that exist are either undersized or in need of replacement. The existing facilities were constructed to a more rural standard (i. e. rely on surface rather than underground storm drains) . The stormwater runoff has deteriorated the paved areas, which creates hazards for pedestrian and vehicle traffic . According to City staff, during the winter months these areas freeze creating additional hazards. Currently, there is one stormwater pipe within the Study Area that carries the "low flow" of Spring Creek and the City does not have any stormwater facility improvement projects planned for the Study Area. 12 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Municipal Code Violations The City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department issues citations for violations of the municipal code related to the misuse of property. These citations are typically related to illegal parking, outdoor storage/rubbish, un-shoveled sidewalks, smoking, etc. Since 1999, there have been 69 code violations recorded on parcels within the area west of College Avenue from Prospect Road south to Rutgers Avenue, and east of College Avenue from Prospect Road south to Parker Street. Table 2-2 below is a tabulation of those citations : Table 2-2 : Prospect South Municipal Code Violations 1999-2008 Code Violation 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL Weeds 11 9 8 5 4 1 1 3 7 6 55 Rubbish - 2 1 2 - - - - - - 5 Combination 2 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 5 Weeds/ Rubbish Inoperable Vehicle - - 2 2 - - - - - - 4 TOTAL 11 13 13 9 4 1 1 3 7 7 69 13 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 3 . 0 Summary of Findings and Conclusions 3 . 1 Findings Within the Study Area, there were 34 different physical conditions observed within the six factors described in Section 2, in addition to the other conditions discussed in Section 2 .4.2. The following conditions are indicative of blight within the Study Area. Specific examples of these conditions can be found in Exhibit 3 -2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet. • Deteriorated external walls • Presence of billboards • Deteriorated visible foundation • Deterioration of signage • Deteriorated fascia/soffits • Neglected properties • Deteriorated windows and doors • Unscreened trash/mechanical • Deteriorated gutters/downspouts • Parking surface deterioration • Deteriorated exterior finishes • Site maintenance problems • Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes • Lack of landscaping • Deteriorated loading dock areas • Deterioration of street pavement • Deteriorated fences/walls/gates • Deterioration of curb and gutter • Deteriorated ancillary structures • Presence of overhead utilities • Poorly lit or unlit areas • Lack of sidewalks • Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians • Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts • Poor drainage • Poor internal circulation • Insufficient grading/steep slopes • Poor parking lot layout • Trash/debris/weeds • Faulty lot layout • Abandoned vehicles • Floodplain • Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti • Poor vehicle access 3 . 2 Conclusions It is the conclusion of the Prospect South Existing Conditions Study that the Study Area, in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes § 31 -25- 101 et seq. (the "Urban Renewal Law") . By reason of the presence of factors identified in the Urban Renewal Law and as documented in this report, URS is of the opinion that the Study Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort Collins, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. While there are properties within the Study Area that may be found in good condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the Study Area. Further, temporary measures would be unlikely to effect a long-term remediation of these conditions . Per Urban Renewal Law, conditions in the Study Area must constitute at least four of the factors indicative of a blighted area. As described in this report, the following six factors were observed in the Study Area: 14 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study • Slum, deteriorating, or deteriorated structures • Faulty lot layout • Defective or inadequate street layout • Unsanitary or unsafe conditions • Deterioration of site or other improvements • Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities Based on the results of this Study and URS ' past experience conducting similar studies, the Study Area is a clear-cut example of a blighted area, as defined by Urban Renewal Law. Furthermore, there are other conditions within and surrounding the Study Area, which present potential barriers or factors which need to be addressed by redevelopment: • Lack of streetscape infrastructure • Poor traffic conditions along S . College Avenue (LOS D and below) • Inadequate stormwater drainage facilities • Multiple municipal code violations The following pages document the photographic evidence of conditions observed during the field survey. Exhibit 3 - 1 shows the location each photograph was taken, Table 3 - 1 identifies which criteria were observed for each photograph, and Exhibit 3 -2 is an index of all photographs taken during the field survey. The same photographs are included in a larger format as Appendix C (bound separately). 15 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study � ZWILAKE4S;T E LAKE S ■ � �■ t 87 8593 88PON y > ' ��� `�'•d Jam'. • spy 1 V l Lu Lu ► ill" �� Lu we ' suF'J 6, : J �� o1f� a L�1 �pjW �, ��LTL` „Y 6 r L.. ^ , c�1 �1L Ls • ��r� 79 90 _ ! . . i � �>ei � 16c� � .J 4r wW FROSPEC,T.RD . &. � .• 7 :e ' ! }+fir••• _ � E;P,ROSPECT.IRD 21 _ jai i�•}� 20 r {•\\ l 45 zaf .. 4o �... IIIi: a �!4 411, mal 3 0, e I �_ �E'RF, % a r'g aim:: It•, s - 4 �r 1 r2 �25� Y 70 I 8 , . 7 'fn .� ��zL. 27 8 y °131afi opt �o r ,•.• �,. �.,OV ' Y1F 1 t"�i112� . �� ' � ��18s'�i; 'R�� �W Z4 rav ` r - - 7, ��o tt g �� ..lt�i?ARKER_ST_ . I� r1 , p, 1 LU Ui in ��s Fp ti 33J8� 7 e 1 :ALP.ERIME�.. %� +7 � t . i � iw ,a y�iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiE �� ��� , �-, ro '• r -- 614 - in _ RRR���ttt �. . . Ir . :AESTUAA . � LLJ • . Fps t14, 1 z 14rr � �• 113 JOHNSON;F R ;' � j � w�SPRING PARK - � Uj Ica ►� � i si 1' �- , U) � 171 111 ; 11 ►� ,2• ' / tlf �) 1 in Inc .126 � � - tiYw 21 ,nt ti t Y74 N .�+. i _ TH "+ice , �� . 'u. '—►� t,' - 6� 7s72 DARTVIPMOU �TRL� A ' ,', µ" RUTGERS AVE Leal 1�� vq� : Pilo. Ada; 1 M.•tl 1 4 rn 1 - �- ' �0 Exhibit 3 = 1 : Photograph Reference Map 25 Photograph Reference Number 0 100 200 400 600 800 `'t"POPP Prospect South Study Area URS Feet 16 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deteriorated External Walls • Deteriorated Visible Foundation Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • SLUM Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts , DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • • DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • • STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes • Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures • Poor Vehicle Access • INADEQUATEE DEFECTIVE Poor Internal Circulation STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts Poor Parking Lot Layout • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage • • • • UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • Abandoned Vehicles Va rants/Vandalism/Graffiti • • Presence of Billboards • Deterioration of Signage • DETERIORATION Neglected Properties OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • • • • IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • • • Site Maintenance Problems • Lack of Landscaping • Unusual Topography/Floodplain UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter INADEQUATE PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities Lack of Sidewalks • • Physical Condition Observed 17 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Deteriorated External Walls Deteriorated Visible Foundation Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits SLUM Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts • , DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • • STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes • Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas • Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures 144,44, 1 • • Poor Vehicle Access INADEQUATEE • DEFECTIVE Poor Internal Circulation • STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts • Poor Parking Lot Layout • • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • • Abandoned Vehicles Va rants/Vandalism/Graffiti • Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage • • DETERIORATION Neglected Properties • OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical IMPROVEMENTS Parkin Surface Deterioration • Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping • Unusual Topography/Flood plain • UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement • TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter • • INADEQUATEInsufficient Street Lighting PUBLICC IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities • Lack of Sidewalks • Physical Condition Observed 18 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Deteriorated External Walls Deteriorated Visible Foundation Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • • SLUM, Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts • DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • • • DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Poor Vehicle Access INADEQUATEE DEFECTIVE Poor Internal Circulation STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts • • Poor Parking Lot Layout • • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage • UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • • CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • • • • • Abandoned Vehicles Va rants/Vandalism/Graffiti • • • • Presence of Billboards Deterioration ofSignage • • • DETERIORATION Neglected Properties • • OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • • IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • • Site Maintenance Problems • Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Flood plain • • UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter • INADEQUATEInsufficient Street Lighting PUBLICIC IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities Lack of Sidewalks • • Physical Condition Observed 19 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Deteriorated External Walls • • Deteriorated Visible Foundation • Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts SLUM, DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • • • DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • • • STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • • • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures • Poor Vehicle Access DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation INADEQUATE STREE LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts • ]Poor Parking Lot Layout • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage • UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • • CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • • Abandoned Vehicles • Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti • • • Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage • DETERIORATION OF Neglected Properties SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Flood plain UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter • INADEQUATE PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities • • • • Lack of Sidewalks • • Physical Condition Observed 20 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Deteriorated External Walls Deteriorated Visible Foundation Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • SLUM Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts , DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Poor Vehicle Access DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts • Poor Parking Lot Layout • • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas • Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • • • UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage • UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • • CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • • • Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti • I I I I • • • Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage • • DETERIORATION OF Neglected Properties SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • • IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • • Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Flood plain UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter INADEQUATE PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities • Lack of Sidewalks • • • • • Physical Condition Observed 21 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photo # FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 126 127 128 129 Deteriorated External Walls Deteriorated Visible Foundation Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits SLUM, Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Poor Vehicle Access DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation • INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts Poor Parking Lot Layout • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti • Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage DETERIORATION OF Neglected Properties SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Floodplain UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter • INADEQUATE PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities Lack of Sidewalks • Physical Condition Observed 22 October 2008 Prospect ExhibitPhotograph , .���_ �-•. 'fin •� ��+��� � � "� 6 ..TPG 7 . JPG • • , V+!!� _ - - , . October23 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) 26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30.JPG 31 .JPG 32.JPG 33 .JPG 34 .JPG 35.JPG tki ark 36 .JPG 37.JPG 3ti . JPG 39 .JPG 40 .JP0 r tL f 41 .JPG 42 .JPG 43 .JPG 44 .JPG 45 .JPG Mimi Z. 46.JPG 47.JPG 48 .JPG 49 .JPG 50 .JP6 24 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) 51 .JPG 52 .JPG 53 .JPG 1 ,rPc 55 .JPG 56.JPG 57 .JPG 58.JPG 59.JPG 60.JPG L: 61 .JPG 62 .JPG 63 . 111( f 64 .JP0 65 . .111 wo 66.JPG 67 .JPG 68 .JPG 69.JPG 70.JPG ., ,. 71 .JPG 72 .JPG 73 .JPG 25 October 2008 Prospect Exhibit ' 1 0- iml . . 44 11W nib I t - : . 89.JPG . 0 91 .JPG . • . • . I 98 .JPG 99.JPG 100.JPG 26 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) 101 .JPG 102 .JPG 103 .JPG 104.JPG 105 .JPG �� •^ 1 106.JPG 107 .JPG 108 .JPG 109.JPG I I O . JPG - Ll .t, L I list EM 111 .JPG 1121NG 1 1 i . JPG 114 . JPG 115 .JPG 116 .JPG 117 .JPG 118 . JPG 119 .JPG 120 .JPG ~ R IP 121 .JPG 122.JPG 123 .JPG 124.JPG 125 .JPG 27 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) 126.JPG 127.JPG 1 ? 8 .JPG 129 .JPG 28 October 2008 PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY Appendix A Sources Consulted 1 . State of Colorado Statutes Urban Renewal Law § 31 -25- 101 http ://www, state .co,us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes .htm 2 . City of Fort Collins website http ://www. fcgov. com 3 . Zoning information found at http ://www. colocode. com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm 4 . Crime statistics found at http ://www. fcgov.com/police/crime-map.php 5 . Final Report, Mason Corridor Economic Analysis, Fort Collins . Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc . , December 28 , 2007, EPS # 17830 . 6 . Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004. Prepared by PBS&J, February 2004 . 7 . Mason Corridor Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment, Prepared by the City of Fort Collins for the Federal Transit Administration, May 2008 . i October 2008 PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY Appendix B Contacts Christina Vincent, MCP Steve Gilcrest Advanced Planning Traffic Operations Urban Renewal Authority City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins TrafficOperations@fcgov. org 970-416-2294 cvincent@fcgov.com Ginny Sawyer Neighborhood Services Dwight Dufloth City of Fort Collins Ray Fisher 970-224-6070 Utilities Administration gsawyer@fcgov.com City of Fort Collins 970-221 -6700 Denise Weston 970-221 -6233 Transportation Planning Department City of Fort Collins Brian Varrella dweston@fcgov.com Stormwater and Drainage City of Fort Collins Tim Morales 970-416-2217 GIS Programmer/Analyst barrella@fcgov.com City of Fort Collins 970-416-2728 Glen Schlueter tmorales@fcgov. com Utilities- Stormwater City of Fort Collins 970-224-6065 gschlueter@fcgov. com Matthew Wempe Transportation Planning City of Fort Collins 970-224-6058 mwempe@fcgov.com ii October 2008 i i y + r _ 1 r 1 i �1 fop t lullb S 1 8 1 EA S T T U FITS AVE , D E N V E R + ❑ ❑ S ❑ 2 3 7 FORT COLLINS ATTACHMENT 9 Q urban renewal authority MEMORANDUM DT : April 15, 2011 TO : Mayor and City Council Members FM : Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority RE : Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey Update Background The Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey was conducted in 2008 ( study area map attached ) . Although the survey concluded that sufficient blight factors were present to warrant an Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) , a Plan was never adopted due to the lack of a catalyst project within the proposed plan area . In 2009, Council initiated the Midtown Redevelopment Study to analyze the economic conditions and retail redevelopment opportunities of the commercial corridor that runs along South College Avenue from Prospect Road to the north , to Fairway Lane to the south , including Foothills Mall . One of this study' s action items was to examine the area further and evaluate the statutory requirements for findings of blight to establish the basis to form a URP for the corridor . Council initiated the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey in February 2011 . Since Prospect South had been recently surveyed for blight factors, the area was excluded from the same level of scrutiny that the rest of the area received . Staff conducted a field investigation in April 2011 to validate whether the area can still be considered blighted as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law . Summary of Findings Staff concludes and recommends that the Prospect South study area , in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law . Some improvements have been made since the 2008 survey, but there were some new observations of blight noted as well . Overall , the six blight factors documented in the original survey are still present . During the field investigation , staff reviewed the field survey photograph reference table and found that the following physical conditions originally observed no longer apply : 1, 2, 11 , 24, 251 261 57 - 591 61 - 691 71 - 721 75 -951 1141 116, and 118 . Additional observations of blight were documented with a photo ( attachment ) . Attachments 1 . Map of the Prospect South study area 2 . Addendum to Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 • Fort Collins , CO 80522 - 0580 970 - 221 - 6505 TDD 970 - 224 - 6002 • renewfortcollins . com Addendum to the Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey Section 1 . 0 Introduction should read : This report presents the conditions survey analysis, findings and conclusions for the Prospect South Existing Conditions Study ( "Study" ) , which was undertaken by URS for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority ( URA ) and the City of fort Collins under an Agreement for Professional Services , dated August 29 , 2008 . URS conducted the Study in September and October 2008, and City staff conducted a field survey in April 2001 to verify the conditions found in 2008 . 1 �4AM y iOP IF � �fl• I ip • +R� F i y pv 1� R Mcd IPA All firs . �. ..a:.- r Y J pi ') P ^� h � , f�� �K t C j , • •'V � L _ t Id SE RVICE SUPPLIES ES SER �„ ATTACHMENT 10 Midtown Existing Conditions Survey City Council Work Session April 26 , 2011 City of FORT COLL Fort Collins 1 iAR Questions 1 . Does Council have any questions regarding establishing an Urban Renewal Plan for Midtown, including previously studied areas Prospect South and Foothills Mall ? 2. Should staff bring forward an Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown Commercial Corridor for Council consideration ? Fort Collins 2 L"R City0f FORT COLLINS ATTACHMENT 10 Existing Conditions Survey H Step 1 — Finding of "blight" Z W 2 U) Creation of O W Step 2 Urban Renewal Plan area J (,) � Enable TIF W a Step 3 F as funding tool 0 W Revitalization & Step 4 Improvements Oty of FORT COLLINS F6rt Collins What is a Blight Study? • Inventory existing conditions — Visual and non -visual observations • Assess which observations qualify as factors of blight according to Urban Renewal Law in C . R . S . — Four of the eleven factors must be present • Document evidence to support a "finding of blight" by City Council • WOR ATTACHMENT 10 PROSPECT RD EPROSPECT F D W > Q W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD a W � J N � Q � W J W W � x J '^ HORSETOOTH R E HORSETOOTH RD W HARMONY RD NY RD > W J N Section 1 W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD W Y l7 Q W C J G O J IA u Lot Section 2 N W W HORSETOOTH R E HORSETOOTH RD x V7 V7 Section 3 k,,rRMONYRD E H NY RD juj 3 ATTACHMENT 10 Blight Factors 1 . Slum , deteriorated or deteriorating structures 2 . Defective or inadequate street layout 3 . Faulty lot layout 4 . Unsanitary or unsafe conditions 5 . Deterioration of site or other improvements 6 . Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements 7 . Health , safety , or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Cit of FORT COLLINS" • Collins 3 Ja i JPG - 1 r +. JPG 1 JPG 8 JPG 9 JPG to _; iL w r Ell nw4c; . t. . . - iis FORT COLLINS _ Fort Collins 4 ATTACHMENT 10 ncroria+u ryu Roa � J . City of FOPT COLLINS MFEW i Fort CollinsURVIN W DRAKE RD Fi P"EN St O �St RV� v� a ,,.Fort Collins 10 ATTACHMENT 10 Deteriorated , or Deteriorating Structures -46ErT17 now r _ Defective City of F�OLLINS� 11 or Inadequate Layout 12 -�tr R Faulty Lot Layout City of FORT�COLLINS �� Fort Collins 13 (jr ti ,F .r /v;ip:: City of ~_ - FORT COLLINS" Fort Collins �R 14 r�f� ATTACHMENT 10 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements 1 1 c z - _ City of FORT COLLINS Fort Collins 15 le� iMR • r ' 1 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements City0f FORT COLLINS Fort Collins UjIR 16 400, ATTACHMENT 10 Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites , Building , or Other Improvements City of FORT COLLINS Fort Collins 17 imR Non =Visual Existing Conditions • 535 nuisance code violations from 1999-2010 • Level of Service at major intersections at C or D • 33 average annual traffic accidents at major intersections • Spring Creek floodway/floodplain • Surface drainage and flooding • Multiple ditch crossings City0f FORT COLLINS Fort Collins 18 L"R ATTACHMENT 10 Next Steps • May 17 — Council hearing to declare blight and submit Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) to P &Z , PSD , and County • June 16 — P &Z Hearing to assure URP is aligned with City Plan policies • July 19 — Council hearing to approve URP City of FM COLLINS" ,.Fort Collins 19 URH Questions 1 . Does Council have any questions regarding establishing an Urban Renewal Plan for Midtown, including previously studied areas Prospect South and Foothills Mall ? 2. Should staff bring forward an Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown Commercial Corridor for Council consideration ? City0f FORT COLLINS Fort Collins 20 L"R 10