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 - 09/06/2011 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
DATE: September 6, 2011 STAFF: Christina Vincent Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 34 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. A. Resolution 2011-080 Adopting the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Making Findings Determining an Area Within the City of Fort Collins to Be a Blighted Area and Appropriate for Inclusion in an Urban Renewal ProjectPlan. B. Resolution 2011-081 Making Findings and Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the South College Commercial Corridor Midtown Area and Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District for Prospect South. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resolution 2011-080 will adopt the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and determine the Midtown area is blighted. Resolution 2011-081 will formally adopt the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (URP) and establish the area referred to as Prospect South as the first tax increment financing (TIF) district. Staff has completed the necessary steps to bring forward the URP. On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board made a recommendation that the Midtown URP conforms to the policies and principles of City Plan. Larimer County has reviewed the Midtown URP and the Impact Report for the Prospect South TIF District with staff and resolution was reached about the concerns the County expressed about the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1982, 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 municipal 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 Law. State statutes allow the URA broad powers to carry out its statutory mandate, including 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. 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, Council recognized that Midtown 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, during which the consultant team worked with the City, stakeholders, and the public to assess Midtown issues, make recommendations for its future, and outline next steps for action. The recommended actions to help achieve the redevelopment envisioned by the Midtown Redevelopment Study include additional design and planning efforts, financial feasibility analysis and further refinement of public financing options. Action A1 of the study’s implementation strategy directs the City to “Implement other Midtown Corridor Redevelopment Opportunities…Prepare an existing conditions report for the Midtown Study area (excluding Prospect South and Foothills Mall areas previously addressed).” In February, 2011, as a result of the recommended action item, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-008 authorizing and directing staff to prepare an Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey for the Midtown Area. From the perspective of the URA, there are essentially four steps in the redevelopment process: September 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 34 1. Complete an Existing Conditions Survey 2. Create an Urban Renewal Plan 3. Enable TIF 4. Participate in revitalization and improvements Staff initiated the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey (Survey) upon adoption of Resolution 2011-008, and completed the effort in April 2011. The purpose of the Survey was to determine whether Midtown constituted a blighted area within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law. The Survey area boundary began just north of Whole Foods shopping center continuing down the commercial corridor along College Avenue until Fairway Lane, just south of Harmony Road. This boundary is consistent with the Midtown Redevelopment Study, including Prospect South and Foothills Mall. 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 showed, seven factors were found in the area (shown in bold above). 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 major purpose of establishing a Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Midtown URP) is to permit the utilization of tax increment financing (TIF) in redevelopment projects that would in return eliminate or prevent conditions of blight in and around the Urban Renewal Plan Area (Plan Area). TIF is a tool that is commonly used throughout Colorado for a variety of redevelopment and economic development these purposes. TIF has also proven to be an effective tool in the North College Urban Renewal Plan (North College URP) area to overcome significant public improvement costs and to make their retail projects more competitive in the region and state. Given the lack of economic tools at the City’s disposal and the proven effectiveness of TIF, staff believes that utilizing TIF is the most effective tool may be the only tool that the City has to help keep the targeted redevelopment areas competitive with other communities along the Front Range. An advantage to 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. The temporary diversion of property tax revenues for 25 years benefits all the affected taxing entities at the end of the Plan Area’s life cycle, ultimately increasing the collection of revenues for all entities because of the actions of the URA, without raising new taxes. At Council’s direction, staff has prepared the Midtown URP. Rather than take a holistic approach and activate TIF for the entire Plan Area at once, thus triggering the 25-year clock corridor-wide, staff recommends a more strategic approach commonly used in other Urban Renewal Authorities in Colorado. The Plan states that within the Plan Area, separate TIF Districts could be created based on necessity and qualified projects. The Plan proposes Prospect South, the area along College Avenue from Prospect Road to parcels just north of Whole Foods to be the first TIF District within the Midtown URP. This allows the URA Board to be more intentional with the use of TIF and approve projects that are indeed qualified without jeopardizing the TIF timeline all at once (i.e., North College URP). Before City Council can officially approve the URP, state law requires Council to formally submit the URP to the Planning and Zoning Board for its review and recommendation as to the URP’s conformity with City Plan. In addition, Urban Renewal Law 31-25-107 (3.5)(a) requires the City to submit the proposed URP to the Larimer County Board September 6, 2011 -3- ITEM 34 of Commissioners as well as an impact report estimation about the time, increment created and impact to County resources, within 30 days of the final hearing to approve the URP. Although not a requirement of Urban Renewal Law, the City also committed to submitting the URP to the other affected taxing entities (i.e., Poudre School District, Poudre Fire Authority, Library District). On May 17, 2011, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-045 to formally submit the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District Board of Education, and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners for their review and, with respect to the Planning and Zoning Board a written recommendation as to its conformity with City Plan. Upon adoption of Resolution 2011-045, Larimer County received the URP and impact report and initially provided some concerns. Staff met with County officials and provided resolution to these concerns. The County verbalized support for Midtown URP and the concept of creating TIF districts. The remaining affected taxing entities that received and reviewed the URP provided no additional comments or concerns to staff. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS By adopting Resolution 2011-081, the Urban Renewal Authority is enabled to use the powers within its authority, as identified in the Urban Renewal Plan, to provide assistance to eligible projects that will aid in the elimination of blighted conditions within the Midtown commercial corridor. By adopting the Resolution and approving the Plan, Prospect South is established as Midtown’s first tax increment financing (TIF) District, thus allowing the Urban Renewal Authority to collect property tax TIF based on the redevelopment activity that occurs over the statutory 25-year lifetime of the District. The timing for the creation of this plan area is intentional. Staff has been in negotiations with a major catalytic student housing project over the past year. This project will be located in the Prospect South TIF district and generate over $8 million in property tax increment over the dedicated 25 years. This project has already spurred interest in Prospect South and staff is aware of at least four potential projects in close proximity to the student housing project that will be constructed in the next year as a result of this catalyst. Prospect South will be a prominent gateway for Midtown and the southern entrance to Colorado State University (CSU) generating more tax increment for area-wide improvements than a single project could provide; in excess of the predicted $8 million. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Adopting Resolution 2011-081 will not have any direct environmental impacts. Potential redevelopment projects resulting from this Resolution that request TIF assistance from the Urban Renewal Authority will be subject to the pending 2011 revised URA Policies and Procedures. The Policies and Procedures will require that projects adhere to the recently adopted Green Building Code and prepare a Construction/Deconstruction Waste Management Plan, among other sustainable practices. Preference will be given to projects that go above and beyond Code minimums to ensure that TIF assistance is reserved for high quality, sustainable redevelopment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. September 6, 2011 -4- ITEM 34 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board held a hearing on June 16, 2011 and confirmed that the Midtown URP does conform to City Plan, and recommended the Plan be adopted by Council (Attachment 1). At its June 15, 2011, meeting, the Economic Advisory Commission recommended approval of the Midtown URP to create a new urban renewal plan area within the City (Attachment 3). PUBLIC OUTREACH • Initial letter of notification to the property owners in the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey Area – January 18, 2011 • Fort Collins Board of Realtors – March 15, 2011 • South Fort Collins Business Association – April 13, 2011 • URA/Redevelopment Luncheon – April 14, 2011 • Secondary letter of notification (Open House) to property owners – April 6, 2011 • Planning and Zoning Board Work Session – April 15, 2011 • Open House at the Midtown Arts Center – April 20, 2011 • Commercial Brokers Association – April 21, 2011 • SIT (Strategic Information Team) internal City Staff Manager’s meeting – February 16 and April 20, 2011 • City Council Work Session – April 26, 2011 • Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee – April 29, 2011 • City Council Meeting – May 17, 2011 • Foothills Rotary – June 21, 2011 • Economic Advisory Commission – June 15, 2011 • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – June 16, 2011 • Written Notification to Property Owners – July 22, 2011 • Second Presentation to the South Fort Collins Business Association – August 10, 2011 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 16, 2011 2. City Council Work Session Summary, April 26, 2011 3. Economic Advisory Commission minutes, June 15, 2011 4. Project Schedule 5. Targeted Redevelopment Areas Map 6. Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area Map 7. Prospect South TIF District Map 8. Power Point Presentation Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 16, 2011 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Steve Dush Chair: William Stockover Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hatfield, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: John Hatfield. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Vincent, Bolin, Olt, Virata, Sanford, Haukaas, Schlueter, Ex, Wempe, and Sanchez-Sprague Agenda Review Chief Planner Shepard reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Stockover said at Worksession, the Board considered moving Item 2, Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, to the Consent agenda. He asked if there were any audience members present who wanted it to remain on Discussion. There were none. Member Lingle requested that two motions be made for the Consent items. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes for the March 17, 2011 Planning & Zoning Board Hearings 2. Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Member Smith made a motion to approve the April 21, 2011 Hearing minutes. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Member Smith made a motion to approve the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Lingle said he asked to have a separate motion because he can’t support the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan due to the fact that he feels there are potentially inadequate protections for residents that are living within the URA (Urban Renewal Authority) boundary. Of particular concern are the provisions related to relocation that are found in Section 4 and have to do with demolition clearance, environmental remediation, and relocation assistance. He said in order for him to support the Plan, he would need the language in those sections strengthened to insure that relocation of residents within the URA would be used as a last resort. ATTACHMENT 1 Chair Stockover said this is a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Board to City Council. For the benefit of the audience, he wanted them to know that City Council will consider the Plan in the near future. The Board is not the final authority—if the motion is approved, the Board is simply making a recommendation to City Council. If anyone has concerns, they can make those known to City Council. Member Schmidt said that what the Board discussed in Worksession is that although the verbiage may not seem strong enough but there are real commitments to the URA and how it operates. She said City Council serves as the URA Board relocations of that type are done as a last resort. Schmidt said hopefully City Council will strengthen that language at a later date. She said she feels comfortable with the language the way it is now. The motion was approved 5:1 with Member Lingle dissenting. ATTACHMENT 2 2 Agenda Item 4: Follow-up discussion regarding previous meetings Midtown URA – Discussion and motion for review In February 2011, the City Council initiated an Existing Conditions Survey for Midtown where seven blight factors were found. In May 2011, they accepted the Survey results and moved forward to review the proposed Urban Renewal Plan. Christina Vincent provided information regarding the proposed Urban Renewal Plan for Midtown including Plan objectives, authorized activities, tax increment districts, project financing, and conformance with City Plan. Kevin Shaw asked if the blight factors were found in concentrated areas within the plan area, or if they were throughout. Christina Vincent replied that all areas had a minimum of four blight factors, but were consistent in conditions throughout. Jim Clark questioned whether now was the right time to do this given the current economy. Christina explained that Tax Increment Districts will be “turned on” as projects come forward to take advantage of the 25-year timeline. Four member of the South Fort Collins Business Association (SFCBA) attended and did not have any major concerns with the project at this time. They would like to see a Citizen Advisory Group associated with this plan and will be back in July to discuss this further. Christina Vincent explained that a memo would be presented to Council offering four options for a Citizen Advisory Group; the four options will be provided to EAC prior to our next meeting in July. The next steps include a P&Z hearing on June 16 to assure the URP conforms with City Plan, and a Council hearing to approve the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan is scheduled on July 19, 2011. After thorough review and discussion, the EAC unanimously approved the following motion for Council: The Economic Advisory Commission recommends to City Council approval of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to create a new urban renewal plan area within the City of Fort Collins. FCRP – Motion for Review Postponed until July Economic Health Action Plan Josh Birks commented that the Plan consultants will be in town next week continuing to do interviews and focus groups and will be back in town for the July 12 Worksession with City Council to present their completion and findings of the Discovery Phase. A SWOT Analysis and graphic will be presented at that time. This information will be presented to EAC at our July 13 meeting. Agenda Item 5: Member Updates/Future Agenda Items Discussion The following items will be included on the July agenda: 1) discussion and recommendation regarding the form of the Citizen’s Advisory Group for the Midtown URA, 2) briefing and discussion with the Economic Health Strategic Plan consultants, and 3) FCRP – Motion for Review. Agenda items to be included in August include the Development Review Fees and Building Permit fees update as well as the Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvement Plan. Agenda Item 6: Periodic Review EAC members completed the Periodic Review Questionnaire. Blue Hovatter and Mike Freeman will be our meeting representatives for the EAC Periodic Review scheduled at the Council Worksession on Tuesday, July 28. Agenda Item 7: Development Review Fees and Building Permit Fees Update Ann Turnquist, Policy and Project Manager, and Steve Dush, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, presented information regarding the development review fees and building permit fees update. Proposed to Council is a change of philosophy that would move from a goal of collecting 80% of the cost of the Development Review Center through fees, toward recovering 100% of the cost of fee-related services. This approach would result in an increase of 0.5% to 6.5% Economic Advisory Commission June 15, 2011 ATTACHMENT 3 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 4 11 18 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept 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 4 11 18 25 Survey Preparation Draft Notice of Intent 1/10/11 1/14/11 Establish Stakeholder Mailing List 1/10/11 1/14/11 Mail Notice of Intent to Stakeholders 1/18/11 1/18/11 1/18/11 Resolution to Proceed - Council AIS 1/19/11 1/19/11 1/19/11 Resolution to Proceed - Council Meeting 2/1/11 2/1/11 2/1/11 Field Work/Prepare Survey 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 Survey to 3rd party 3/21/11 3/31/11 Complete Draft Survey, URP & Impact Report 4/1/11 4/1/11 4/1/11 Notification of Public Open House 4/6/11 4/6/11 4/6/11 Public Open House 4/20/11 4/20/11 4/20/11 Survey/Urban Renewal Plan (URP) Approval P&Z work session 4/15/11 4/15/11 4/15/11 Council AIS Due 4/15/11 4/15/11 4/15/11 Work Session Taping 4/20/11 4/20/11 4/20/11 SIT Presentation 4/20/11 4/20/11 4/20/11 Review Survey & URP - Council work session 4/26/11 4/26/11 4/26/11 Council AIS Due 5/4/11 5/4/11 5/4/11 Resolution to Submit URP to P&Z, PSD & County - Council Meeting 5/17/11 5/17/11 5/17/11 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 URP and Impact Report Submitted to County 6/13/11 6/13/11 6/13/11 URP Submitted to Affected Taxing Entities 6/13/11 6/13/11 6/13/11 Written Notification to Property Owners 7/22/11 7/22/11 7/22/11 Council AIS Due 8/24/11 8/24/11 8/24/11 Resolution to Approve URP - Council Meeting 9/6/11 9/6/11 9/6/11 Council Notifies County Assessor 9/7/11 9/7/11 9/7/11 Page 1 Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan January 2011 - Updated July 2011 ATTACHMENT #4 Terry Lake Fossil Creek Reservoir Trilby H o r s e t o o t h R e s e r v o i r Cache Shields Taft Hill College Overland Trail Mulberry Prospect Drake Horsetooth Timberline Harmony Vine Lemay ut287 Willox Mountain Vista Ziegler Douglas CR 52 Carpenter Country Club SH Lindenmeier Lake Long Pond S CR 5 CR 38E ¦¨§25 CR 54G Cache La Poudre River 1 2 3 4 5 6 012 0.5 Miles © Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Targeted Redevelopment Areas Targeted Activity Center Other Activity Center Growth Management Area Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area O Major Streets Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE S LEMAY AVE E DRAKE RD W DRAKE RD E PROSPECT RD W PROSPECT RD W HARMONY RD E HORSETOOTH RD W HORSETOOTH RD E HARMONY RD S LEMAY AVE July 2011 1 inch = 1,400 feet ATTACHMENT 6 Prospect South TIF District O Major Streets Prospect South Study Area S COLLEGE AVE W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD 1 inch = 350 feet April 2011 ATTACHMENT #7 1 1 Midtown Urban Renewal Plan City Council September 6, 2011 2 Council Actions • Resolution adopting the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and declaring the area blighted. • Resolution adopting the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and establishing Prospect South as the first tax increment financing (TIF) district. ATTACHMENT 8 2 3 Past Council Actions • February – Council action to initiate the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey a.k.a. “blight study”. • May – Council action to accept the Survey and send the proposed Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to affected taxing entities and P&Z for conformance with City Plan. 4 3 5 What’’s What s in the Plan? • Identified blight factors found in Survey • Plan objectives • Authorized urban renewal activities • Development standards and procedures • Conformance to the City’s Comprehensive Plan City Plan • Project financing options 6 Blight Factors • 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 • Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites 4 7 Plan Objectives • Facilitate redevelopment and new development • Address and remedy blighted conditions • Implement City Plan • Redevelop with compatibility/complementary features • Effectively utilize undeveloped or underdeveloped land • Improve transit related circulation and safety • Increase revenues for all taxing entities • Encourage rehabilitation of existing buildings 8 Authorized Activities • Construct/reconstruct public improvements and facilities • Enter into cooperative agreements with other agencies • Purchase property, with powers of eminent domain • Demolition,, environmental remediation, site prep • Property disposition • Redevelopment Agreements (financial agreements) • Relocation assistance • Catalyst and enhancement projects 5 9 Prospect South TIF District • First area to collect tax increment financing (TIF) • If adopted, 25-year TIF clock begins immediately • Strategically initiated based on impending development, ‘The Commons’ by Capstone • Council originally directed staff to evaluate Prospect South back in 2008 • Prospect South was put on hold in anticipation of a catalyst project for the area • Oldest and most constrained section of Midtown 10 Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area Prospect South TIF District 6 11 12 Recommendations • Economic Advisory Commission recommended approval. • P&Z confirmed Plan conforms with City Plan and recommended approval. • South Fort Collins Business Association recommended approval. 7 13 Staff Recommendation • Approval of the Resolution adopting the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and declaring the area blighted. • Approval of the Resolution adopting the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and establishing Prospect South as the first tax increment financing (TIF) district. 14 Questions? RESOLUTION 2011-080 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY AND MAKING FINDINGS DETERMINING AN AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO BE A BLIGHTED AREA AND APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUSION IN AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTPLAN WHEREAS, the City has conducted a study and survey to determine whether conditions that constitute a blighted area, as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, sections 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the "Act") exist in the City’s South College Avenue commercial corridor; and WHEREAS, the results of that study and survey have been prepared and embodied in the “Midtown Existing Conditions Survey" dated April 2011, (the "Conditions Survey"), which includes maps, a description of existing conditions and numerous photographs; and WHEREAS, the Conditions Survey has been presented to the City Council for its review and consideration, which Conditions Survey shows that the area described in Section 3 of this Resolution qualifies as a blighted area as defined in the Act; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing and reviewed said Conditions Survey pursuant to the procedural and notice requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the Conditions Survey and the physical conditions found in the proposed urban renewal area was published as required by section 31-25- 107(3), C.R.S., at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, reasonable efforts have been made to provide written notice of the public hearing to each property owner, business, and resident of the area as described in Section 3 of this Resolution informing them of the public hearing at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the Conditions Survey and staff recommendations and has also considered the legislative record and given appropriate weight to the evidence and has determined to adopt the Conditions Survey and find that the area described in Section 3 is blighted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Conditions Survey attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", is hereby accepted and adopted. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the following conditions exist in the area described in Section 3 below: • Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; • Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; • Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; • Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; • Deterioration of site or other improvements; • Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities; • 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. Section 3. That the following described area is hereby found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Act and appropriate for inclusion in an urban renewal project pursuant to the Act. This is a finding by the City Council based upon the Conditions Survey and other evidence presented to City Council. The blighted area is described as follows: A tract of land located in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 and 36 of Township 7 North, Range 69 West and in Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 North, Range 69 West, all of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained within the following described area; Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line of the said plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE easterly and southerly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the east west centerline of the said Section 26; THENCE easterly along the said east west centerline and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the south line of the said Section 26; THENCE westerly along the said south line and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north line of the said Section 2; -2- THENCE easterly along the said north line and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north line of the plat of “George T. Sanders Co. P.U.D.”; THENCE easterly along the said north line to the westerly right of way of Fossil Boulevard; THENCE southerly along the said westerly right of way to the westerly extension of the southerly right of way of West Fairway Lane; THENCE easterly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of way, its easterly extension and along the southerly right of way of Fairway Lane to the southerly extension of the east line of the plat of “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said east line of the “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates”, along the east line of the plat of “Replat Of A Part OF Lot 7, Lot 8, Lot 9, And A Part Of Lot 10 Of the Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates” and continuing along the east line of the said plat of “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates” and its northerly extension to the southwest corner of that certain tract of land as described in a Warranty Deed Recorded April 2, 2002 at Reception No. 2002038320 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said tract described at Reception No. 2002038320 to the southwest corner of the plat of “Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said plat to the southeast corner of the said “Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the easterly line of the said plat to the southerly right of way of East Harmony Road; THENCE easterly along the said southerly right of way and its easterly extension to the easterly right of way of Hogan Drive; THENCE northerly to the intersection of the northerly right of way of East Harmony Road with the easterly right of way of John F. Kennedy Parkway; THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of way of John F. Kennedy Parkway and along the easterly right of way’s extension through intersecting side streets through the East Horsetooth Road right of way, to the southerly line of Tract Nine as shown on the plat of “The Foothills Fashion Mall Expansion”; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said Tract Nine to the westerly right of way of Stanford Road; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the northerly line of the plat of “The Foothills Fashion Mall Foley’s Expansion”; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract K of the plat of “Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE southerly along the said easterly line of Tract K to the southerly line of the said Tract K; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line of the said Tract K; -3- THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the northerly line of the said plat of “Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract H of the said plat of “Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE southerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the said Tract H; THENCE westerly along the southerly line of the said Tract H to the southerly right of way of Remington Street as shown on the plat of “A Replat Of Tracts F, G, And J, And Vacated Service Road, Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the westerly right of way of the said Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way and along the westerly right of way’s extension through intersecting side streets, to the northerly right of way of Harvard Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of Lot 13 of the plat of “Plat Of Thunderbird Estates Seventh Filing”; THENCE northerly along the easterly line of Lot 13 and its northerly extension to the easterly line of the plat of “Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of Lot 3 of the said plat of “Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line of the said Lot 3; THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the southerly right of way of Drake Road; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 1 of the Plat of “The Resubdivision of Tract A, South College Heights Fourth Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said southerly extension and along the said easterly line of Lot 1, to the southerly right of way of Princeton Avenue; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the easterly right of way of South College Avenue; THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of way and along the easterly right of way’s extension through intersecting side streets, to the northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of the “Rutgers Building Condominiums”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “Raising Cane’s”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of “Raising Cane’s”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “A Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of Block 1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of Remington Street; -4- THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat of “Human Bean At Spring Creek”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of “Moran’s Subdivision” to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of Lot 1 of the said plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision” to the northerly line of the said plat of ”A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213 feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of way of the north-south alley through Block 1 of the plat of “I.C. Bradley’s Addition To The City Of Fort Collins”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Excepting there from all of the plat of “Amended Final Plat of Parkway Townhomes P.U.D.” -5- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of September A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -6- EXHIBIT A MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 1 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 2 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 3 A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 3 B. COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW.................................................................................... 3 C. SURVEY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 5 II. STUDY AREA ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 6 A. STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................ 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 2009-2010................................................ 22 TABLE 4: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2009-2010 ........................................................... 23 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 3 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 4 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 l. 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 (l), 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)): MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 5 “Blighted area” shall have the same 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)(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). 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. MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 6 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 entire Midtown Commercial Corridor is comprised of approximately 660 acres and includes 404 parcels of private property. 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). MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 7 FIGURE 1: MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 8 FIGURE 2: MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 9 B. 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). MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 10 FIGURE 3: FIELD SURVEY STUDY SECTIONS MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 11 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) MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 12 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 13 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: MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 14 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 15 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 Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes Deteriorated windows and doors Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes Deteriorated loading dock areas Deteriorated fences/walls/gates Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures 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 Inadequate emergency vehicle access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor vehicle access Poor internal circulation Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land) Faulty Lot Layout Inadequate lot size MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 16 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 High or unusual crime statistics Floodplains or flood prone areas 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 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deterioration of fences, walls, gates, or poles Unscreened trash/mechanical Deteriorated on-site parking surfaces/curb/gutter/sidewalk Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain Deteriorated/inadequate street pavement Deteriorated/inadequate curb and gutter Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements Lack of sidewalks MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 17 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED): VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED Disputed or defective title Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Non-compliance with fire/building codes Non-compliance with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of a building Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Environmental Contamination Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized 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. MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 18 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. Homeless persons loitering in alleyways as well as a homeless 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. MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 19 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 20 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 Violation 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 TOTAL 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 21 FIGURE 4: LOCATION OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS 1999-2010 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 22 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, Fourth Edition, Nicholas J. Garber, 2010). While functioning at LOS C or D is fairly typical for an urban environment, it is important to note that as redevelopment occurs along the South College Corridor and increases density, the effects on the LOS should be taken into consideration to mitigate further congestion. TABLE 3: LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) BY INTERSECTION 2009-2010 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 * College/Harmony reported LOS does factor in recent intersection improvements. The inability of the major intersections to adequately accommodate such large traffic volumes increases the likelihood of traffic accidents. Average daily traffic volumes are reported in Table 4, followed by the average number of traffic accidents in Table 5. MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 23 TABLE 4: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2009-2010 Intersection Average Daily Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound College/Prospect 21,900 20,600 15,000 11,600 College/Drake 21,400 23,700 15,400 11,600 College/Horsetooth 20,600 21,700 14,200 12,600 College/Harmony 16,800 18,900 13,300 16,300 TABLE 5: AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 2007-2009 Intersection Average Number of Accidents College/Prospect 29 College/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. MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 24 FIGURE 5: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 25 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 ID Location Issue 1 Prospect/College Intersection Major surface drainage problem during significant rain storms. 2 West side of College between Drake and Swallow Surface flooding due to runoff from developed properties and frontage road entering College Avenue in conjunction with limited and undersized storm sewers. 3 Larimer #2 ditch crossing on College south of Swallow Ditch crossings are problematic to develop 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. MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 26 FIGURE 6: DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 27 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. PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 1 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteriorated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curb & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain Section 1 Photo Reference Map O !( Photo Rerence Number Study Section 1 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( BAY RD S COLLEGE AVE FRONTAGE RD HARVARD ST YALE AVE W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD 1.JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG 4.JPG 5.JPG 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 21.JPG 22.JPG 23.JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG 26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30.JPG 31.JPG 32.jpg 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 4 36.JPG 37.JPG 38.JPG 39.JPG 40.JPG 41.JPG 42.JPG 43.JPG 44.JPG 45.JPG 46.JPG 47.JPG 48.JPG 49.JPG 50.JPG 51.JPG 52.JPG 53.JPG 54.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 6 PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain Section 2 Photo Reference Map O !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 1.JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG 4.JPG 5.JPG 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 21.JPG 22.JPG 23.JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG 26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30.JPG 31.JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 14 36.JPG 37.JPG 38.JPG 39.JPG 40.JPG 41.JPG 42.JPG 43.JPG 44.JPG 45.JPG 46.JPG 47.JPG 48.JPG 49.JPG 50.JPG 51.JPG 52.JPG 53.JPG 54.JPG 55.JPG 56.JPG 57.JPG 58.JPG 59.JPG 60.JPG 61.JPG 62.JPG 63.JPG 64.JPG 65.JPG 66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG 69.JPG 70.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 15 71.JPG 72.JPG 73.JPG 74.jpg 75.JPG 76.JPG 77.JPG 78.JPG 79.JPG 80.JPG 81.JPG 82.JPG 83.JPG 84.JPG 85.JPG 86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 90.JPG 91.JPG 92.JPG 93.JPG 94.JPG 95.jpg 96.JPG 97.JPG 98.JPG 99.JPG 100.JPG 101.JPG 102.JPG 103.JPG 104.JPG 105.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 16 106.JPG 107.JPG 108.JPG 109.JPG 110.JPG 111.JPG 112.JPG 113.JPG 114.JPG 115.JPG 116.JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120.JPG 121.JPG 122.JPG 123.JPG 124.JPG 125.JPG 126.JPG 127.JPG 128.JPG 129.JPG 130.JPG 131.JPG 132.JPG 133.JPG 134.JPG 135.JPG 136.JPG 137.JPG 138.JPG 139.JPG 140.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 17 141.JPG 142.JPG 143.JPG 144.JPG 145.JPG 146.JPG 147.JPG 148.JPG 149.JPG 150.JPG 151.JPG 152.JPG 153.JPG 154.JPG 155.JPG 156.JPG 157.JPG 158.JPG 159.JPG 160.JPG 161.JPG 162.JPG 163.JPG 164.JPG 165.JPG 166.JPG 167.JPG 168.JPG 169.JPG 170.JPG 171.JPG 172.JPG 173.JPG 174.JPG 175.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 18 176.JPG 177.JPG 178.JPG 179.JPG 180.JPG 181.JPG 182.JPG 183.JPG 184.JPG 185.JPG 186.JPG 187.JPG 188.JPG 189.JPG 190.JPG 191.JPG 192.JPG 193.JPG 194.JPG 195.JPG 196.JPG 197.JPG 198.JPG 199.JPG 200.JPG 201.JPG 202.JPG 203.JPG 204.JPG 205.JPG 206.JPG 207.JPG 208.JPG 209.JPG 210.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 19 211.JPG 212.JPG 213.JPG 214.JPG 215.JPG 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 231.JPG 232.JPG 233.JPG 234.JPG 235.JPG 236.JPG 237.JPG 238.JPG 239.JPG 240.JPG 241.JPG 242.JPG 243.JPG 244.JPG 245.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 20 246.JPG 247.JPG 248.JPG 249.JPG 250.JPG 251.JPG 252.JPG 253.JPG 254.JPG 255.JPG 256.JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG 261.JPG 262.JPG 263.JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG 266.JPG 267.JPG 268.JPG 269.JPG 270.JPG 271.JPG 272.JPG 273.JPG 274.JPG 275.JPG 276.JPG 277.JPG 278.JPG 279.JPG 280.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 21 281.JPG 282.JPG 283.JPG 284.JPG 285.JPG 286.JPG 287.JPG 288.JPG 289.JPG 290.JPG 291.JPG 292.JPG 293.JPG 294.JPG 295.JPG 296.JPG 297.JPG 298.JPG 299.JPG 300.JPG 301.JPG 302.JPG 303.JPG 304.JPG 305.JPG 306.JPG 307.JPG 308.JPG 309.JPG 310.JPG 311.JPG 312.JPG 313.JPG 314.JPG 315.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 22 316.JPG 317.JPG 318.JPG 319.JPG 320.JPG 321.JPG 322.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 24 PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3 Environmental Contamination Photo # Deteriorated external walls Deteriorated visible foundation Deteriorated fascia/soffits Deteriorated roof Deteriorated gutters/downspouts Deteriorated exterior finishes 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 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic Poor Vehicle access Poor internal circulation Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks Poor parking lot layout Faulty lot shape (long, narrow, or irregularly shaped) Faulty lot layout (impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused, or unused land Inadequate lot size Poorly lit or unlit areas Floodplains 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/trenches Poor drainage/evidence of standing water Insufficient grading/steep slopes Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds Abandoned vehicles Unsafe or exposed electrical wire Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity Presence of billboards Deterioration of signage or lighting Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates Deteroriated on-site parking surfaces/unpaved/curg & gutter/sidewalks Unscreened trash/mechanical Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown vegetation Unusual topography/floodplain Section 3 Photo Reference Map O !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( ! !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(! ( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 1.JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG 4.JPG 5.JPG 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 21.JPG 22.JPG 23.JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG 26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30.JPG 31.JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 34 36.JPG 37.JPG 38.JPG 39.JPG 40.JPG 41.JPG 42.JPG 43.JPG 44.JPG 45.JPG 46.JPG 47.JPG 48.JPG 49.JPG 50.JPG 51.JPG 52.JPG 53.JPG 54.JPG 55.JPG 56.JPG 57.JPG 58.JPG 59.JPG 60.JPG 61.JPG 62.JPG 63.JPG 64.JPG 65.JPG 66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG 69.JPG 70.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 35 71.JPG 72.JPG 73.JPG 74.JPG 75.JPG 76.JPG 77.JPG 78.JPG 79.JPG 80.JPG 81.JPG 82.JPG 83.JPG 84.JPG 85.JPG 86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 90.JPG 91.JPG 92.JPG 93.JPG 94.JPG 95.JPG 96.JPG 97.JPG 98.JPG 99.JPG 100.JPG 101.JPG 102.JPG 103.JPG 104.JPG 105.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 36 106.JPG 107.JPG 108.JPG 109.JPG 110.JPG 111.JPG 112.JPG 113.JPG 114.JPG 115.JPG 116.JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120.JPG 121.JPG 122.JPG 123.JPG 124.JPG 125.JPG 126.JPG 127.JPG 128.JPG 129.JPG 130.JPG 131.JPG 132.JPG 133.JPG 134.JPG 135.JPG 136.JPG 137.JPG 138.JPG 139.JPG 140.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 37 141.JPG 142.JPG 143.JPG 144.JPG 145.JPG 146.JPG 147.JPG 148.JPG 149.JPG 150.JPG 151.JPG 152.JPG 153.JPG 154.JPG 155.JPG 156.JPG 157.JPG 158.JPG 159.JPG 160.JPG 161.JPG 162.JPG 163.JPG 164.JPG 165.JPG 166.JPG 167.JPG 168.JPG 169.JPG 170.JPG 171.JPG 172.JPG 173.JPG 174.JPG 175.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 38 176.JPG 177.JPG 178.JPG 179.JPG 180.JPG 181.JPG 182.JPG 183.JPG 184.JPG 185.JPG 186.JPG 187.JPG 188.JPG 189.JPG 190.JPG 191.JPG 192.JPG 193.JPG 194.JPG 195.JPG 196.JPG 197.JPG 198.JPG 199.JPG 200.JPG 201.JPG 202.JPG 203.JPG 204.JPG 205.JPG 206.JPG 207.JPG 208.JPG 209.JPG 210.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 39 211.JPG 212.JPG 213.JPG 214.JPG 215.JPG 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 231.JPG 232.JPG 233.JPG 234.JPG 235.JPG 236.JPG 237.JPG 238.JPG 239.JPG 240.JPG 241.JPG 242.JPG 243.JPG 244.JPG 245.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 40 246.JPG 247.JPG 248.JPG 249.JPG 250.JPG 251.JPG 252.JPG 253.JPG 254.JPG 255.JPG 256.JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG 261.JPG 262.JPG 263.JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG 266.JPG 267.JPG 268.JPG 269.JPG 270.JPG 271.JPG 272.JPG 273.JPG 274.JPG 275.JPG 276.JPG 277.JPG 278.JPG 279.JPG 280.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 41 281.JPG 282.JPG 283.JPG 284.JPG 285.JPG 286.JPG 287.JPG 288.JPG 289.JPG 290.JPG 291.JPG 292.JPG 293.JPG 294.JPG 295.JPG 296.JPG 297.JPG 298.JPG 299.JPG 300.JPG 301.JPG 302.JPG 303.JPG 304.JPG 305.JPG 306.JPG 307.JPG 308.JPG 309.JPG 310.JPG 311.JPG 312.JPG 313.JPG 314.JPG 315.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 42 316.JPG 317.JPG 318.JPG 319.JPG 320.JPG 321.JPG 322.JPG 323.JPG 324.JPG 325.JPG 326.JPG 327.JPG 328.JPG 329.JPG 330.JPG 331.JPG 332.JPG 333.JPG 334.JPG 335.JPG 336.JPG 337.JPG 338.JPG 339.JPG 340.JPG 341.JPG 342.JPG 343.JPG 344.JPG 345.JPG 346.JPG 347.JPG 348.JPG 349.JPG 350.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 43 351.JPG 352.JPG 353.JPG 354.JPG 355.JPG 356.JPG 357.JPG 358.JPG 359.JPG 360.JPG 361.JPG 362.JPG 363.JPG 364.JPG 365.JPG 366.JPG 367.JPG 368.JPG 369.JPG 370.JPG 371.JPG 372.JPG 373.JPG 374.JPG 375.JPG 376.JPG 377.JPG 378.JPG 379.JPG 380.JPG 381.JPG 382.JPG 383.JPG 384.JPG 385.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 44 386.JPG MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 45 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 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 46 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 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 Exhibit 2-2 Vicinity Map....................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3-1 Photograph Reference Map............................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 3-2 Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet............................................................................... 23 List of Tables Table 2-1 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 Figure 2-1 Faulty Lot Layout ............................................................................................................. 11 Appendices Appendix A Sources Consulted................................................................................................................ i Appendix B Contacts ..............................................................................................................................ii Appendix C Field Survey Photographs (Bound Separately) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 1 October 2008 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; Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 2 October 2008 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 l. 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, 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 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 (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). Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 3 October 2008 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. Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 4 October 2008 Exhibit 2-1: Study Area Boundaries Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 5 October 2008 Exhibit 2-2: Vicinity Map Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 6 October 2008 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 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 7 October 2008 • 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 are 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 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 8 October 2008 • 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. Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 9 October 2008 Table 2-1: Field Survey Matrix ● Physical Condition Observed Deteriorated External Walls ● Deteriorated Visible Foundation ● Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits ● Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts ● Deteriorated Exterior Finishes ● Deteriorated Windows and Doors ● Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes ● Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas ● Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates ● Deteriorated Ancillary Structures ● Poor Vehicle Access ● Poor Internal Circulation ● Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts ● Poor Parking Lot Layout ● Faulty Lot Shape Faulty Lot Layout ● Inadequate Lot Size Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas ● Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians ● Poor Drainage ● Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes ● Trash/Debris/Weeds ● Abandoned Vehicles ● Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ● Presence of Billboards ● Deterioration of Signage ● Neglected Properties ● Unscreened Trash/Mechanical ● Parking Surface Deterioration ● Site Maintenance Problems ● Lack of Landscaping ● Unusual Topography/Floodplain ● Deterioration of Street Pavement ● Deterioration of Curb and Gutter ● Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities ● Lack of Sidewalks ● TOTAL 34 SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 10 October 2008 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 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 11 October 2008 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. Figure 2-1: The highlighted lots exhibit inadequate layout in regard to accessibility and the presence of buildings spanning lot lines. Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 12 October 2008 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. Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 13 October 2008 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 Weeds/Rubbish - 2 2 - - - - - - 1 5 Inoperable Vehicle - - 2 2 - - - - - - 4 TOTAL 11 13 13 9 4 1 1 3 7 7 69 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 14 October 2008 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 • Deteriorated visible foundation • Deteriorated fascia/soffits • Deteriorated windows and doors • Deteriorated gutters/downspouts • Deteriorated exterior finishes • Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes • Deteriorated loading dock areas • Deteriorated fences/walls/gates • Deteriorated ancillary structures • Poorly lit or unlit areas • Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians • Poor drainage • Insufficient grading/steep slopes • Trash/debris/weeds • Abandoned vehicles • Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti • Presence of billboards • Deterioration of signage • Neglected properties • Unscreened trash/mechanical • Parking surface deterioration • Site maintenance problems • Lack of landscaping • Deterioration of street pavement • Deterioration of curb and gutter • Presence of overhead utilities • Lack of sidewalks • Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts • Poor internal circulation • Poor parking lot layout • Faulty lot layout • Floodplain • 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: Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 15 October 2008 • 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). Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 16 October 2008 Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 17 October 2008 Table 3-1: Field Survey Photograph Reference Table Photograph Number 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 ● Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts Deteriorated Exterior Finishes ● ● Deteriorated Windows and Doors ●● Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes ● Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates ● Deteriorated Ancillary Structures ● Poor Vehicle Access ● Poor Internal Circulation Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts Poor Parking Lot Layout ● Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians ● Poor Drainage ● ●●● Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes Trash/Debris/Weeds ● Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ●● Presence of Billboards ● Deterioration of Signage ● Neglected Properties Unscreened Trash/Mechanical ●● ● ● Parking Surface Deterioration ●● ● Site Maintenance Problems ● Lack of Landscaping ● Unusual Topography/Floodplain Deterioration of Street Pavement Deterioration of Curb and Gutter Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities Lack of Sidewalks ● UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 18 October 2008 Table 3-1: Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) Photograph Number 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 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts ● Deteriorated Exterior Finishes Deteriorated Windows and Doors ●● Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes ● Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas ● Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates ● Deteriorated Ancillary Structures ●● Poor Vehicle Access ● Poor Internal Circulation ● Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts ● Poor Parking Lot Layout ●● Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians ● Poor Drainage Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes Trash/Debris/Weeds ●● ● Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ● Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage ●● Neglected Properties ● Unscreened Trash/Mechanical Parking Surface Deterioration ● Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping ● Unusual Topography/Floodplain ● Deterioration of Street Pavement ● Deterioration of Curb and Gutter ●● Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities ● Lack of Sidewalks UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 19 October 2008 Table 3-1: Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) ● Physical Condition Observed Photograph Number 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 ●● Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts ● Deteriorated Exterior Finishes ●● ● Deteriorated Windows and Doors ● Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Poor Vehicle Access Poor Internal Circulation Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts ●● Poor Parking Lot Layout ●● Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians ● Poor Drainage ● Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes ●● Trash/Debris/Weeds ● ●●● ● ● Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ●●● ● Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage ●● ● Neglected Properties ●● Unscreened Trash/Mechanical ●● Parking Surface Deterioration ●● Site Maintenance Problems ● Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Floodplain ●● Deterioration of Street Pavement Deterioration of Curb and Gutter ● Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities Lack of Sidewalks ● UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 20 October 2008 Photograph Number 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 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes ●● ● Deteriorated Windows and Doors ●● ● Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates ●● ● Deteriorated Ancillary Structures ● Poor Vehicle Access Poor Internal Circulation Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts ● Poor Parking Lot Layout ● Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians Poor Drainage ● Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes ●● Trash/Debris/Weeds ●● ● Abandoned Vehicles ● Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ●● ● Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage ● Neglected Properties Unscreened Trash/Mechanical ● Parking Surface Deterioration ● Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Floodplain Deterioration of Street Pavement Deterioration of Curb and Gutter ● Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities ●●● ● Lack of Sidewalks ● UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Table 3-1: Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 21 October 2008 Table 3-1: Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) ● Physical Condition Observed Photograph Number 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 ● Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts Deteriorated Exterior Finishes Deteriorated Windows and Doors Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates ●● Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Poor Vehicle Access Poor Internal Circulation Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts ● Poor Parking Lot Layout ●● Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas ● Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians ●● ● Poor Drainage ● Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes ●● Trash/Debris/Weeds ●● ● ● Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ●● ● ● Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage ●● Neglected Properties Unscreened Trash/Mechanical ●● Parking Surface Deterioration ●● Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Floodplain Deterioration of Street Pavement Deterioration of Curb and Gutter Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities ● Lack of Sidewalks ●● ●● UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 22 October 2008 Table 3-1: Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued) Photo # 126 127 128 129 Deteriorated External Walls Deteriorated Visible Foundation Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts Deteriorated Exterior Finishes Deteriorated Windows and Doors Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Poor Vehicle Access Poor Internal Circulation ● Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts Poor Parking Lot Layout ● Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians Poor Drainage Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes ● Trash/Debris/Weeds ● Abandoned Vehicles Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti ● Presence of Billboards Deterioration of Signage Neglected Properties Unscreened Trash/Mechanical Parking Surface Deterioration Site Maintenance Problems Lack of Landscaping Unusual Topography/Floodplain Deterioration of Street Pavement Deterioration of Curb and Gutter ● Insufficient Street Lighting Presence of Overhead Utilities Lack of Sidewalks UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY OR INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS DETERIORATION OF SITE OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY SLUM, DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING STRUCTURES DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 23 October 2008 Exhibit 3-2: Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 24 October 2008 Exhibit 3-2: Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) Exhibit 2-4: Photo Thumbnail Index Sheet (continued) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 25 October 2008 Exhibit 3-2: Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 26 October 2008 Exhibit 3-2: Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 27 October 2008 Exhibit 3-2: Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) Prospect South Existing Conditions Study 28 October 2008 Exhibit 3-2: Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued) i October 2008 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. ii October 2008 Appendix B Contacts Christina Vincent, MCP Advanced Planning Urban Renewal Authority City of Fort Collins 970-416-2294 cvincent@fcgov.com Dwight Dufloth Ray Fisher Utilities Administration City of Fort Collins 970-221-6700 970-221-6233 Brian Varrella Stormwater and Drainage City of Fort Collins 970-416-2217 bvarrella@fcgov.com Glen Schlueter Utilities-Stormwater Steve Gilcrest Traffic Operations City of Fort Collins TrafficOperations@fcgov.org Ginny Sawyer Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 970-224-6070 gsawyer@fcgov.com Denise Weston Transportation Planning Department City of Fort Collins dweston@fcgov.com Tim Morales GIS Programmer/Analyst City of Fort Collins 970-416-2728 tmorales@fcgov.com City of Fort Collins 970-224-6065 gschlueter@fcgov.com Matthew Wempe Transportation Planning City of Fort Collins 970-224-6058 mwempe@fcgov.com 8181 east tufts ave. Denver, co 80237 1.JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG 4.JPG 5.JPG 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 21.JPG 22.JPG 23.JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG 26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30.JPG 31.JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG 36.JPG 37.JPG 38.JPG 39.JPG 40.JPG 41.JPG 42.JPG 43.JPG 44.JPG 45.JPG 46.JPG 47.JPG 48.JPG 49.JPG 50.JPG 51.JPG 52.JPG 53.JPG 54.JPG 55.JPG 56.JPG 57.JPG 58.JPG 59.JPG 60.JPG 61.JPG 62.JPG 63.JPG 64.JPG 65.JPG 66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG 69.JPG 70.JPG 71.JPG 72.JPG 73.JPG 74.JPG 75.JPG 76.JPG 77.JPG 78.JPG 79.JPG 80.JPG 81.JPG 82.JPG 83.JPG 84.JPG 85.JPG 86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 90.JPG 91.JPG 92.JPG 93.JPG 94.JPG 95.JPG 96.JPG 97.JPG 98.JPG 99.JPG 100.JPG 101.JPG 102.JPG 103.JPG 104.JPG 105.JPG 106.JPG 107.JPG 108.JPG 109.JPG 110.JPG 111.JPG 112.JPG 113.JPG 114.JPG 115.JPG 116.JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120.JPG 121.JPG 122.JPG 123.JPG 124.JPG 125.JPG 126.JPG 127.JPG 128.JPG 129.JPG 8181 eASt tUFtS AVe. DeNVer, co 80237 urban renewal authority 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6505 TDD 970-224-6002 renewfortcollins.com 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, 25, 26, 57‐59, 61‐69, 71‐72, 75‐95, 114, 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 Prospect South Study Area O Major Streets Prospect South Study Area S COLLEGE AVE W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD 1 inch = 350 feet April 2011 1 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 2011 to verify the conditions found in 2008. 2 3 FOOTHILLS MALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY City of Fort Collins May 15, 2007 Prepared by: Terrance Ware + Associates Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 1 - 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 or Utilities…………………………………………………...………...…13 4.5 Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work……………………………………………………………….….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…………………………………………………………….14 6.0 Sources………………………………………………………………………...…17 Figures Figure 1: Location Map…………………………………………………………………..6 Figure 2: Base Map……………………………………………………………………….8 Figure 3: Zoning Map…………………………………………………………………….9 Figure 4: Survey Area Findings Map…………………………………………………...16 Appendices Appendix I: Photo Inventory Sheets Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 2 - 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 l. 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 (l), 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 - 3 - 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 - 4 - 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 - 5 - 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 - 6 - Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 7 - 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 - 8 - Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 9 - Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 10 - 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 - 11 - 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 - 12 - 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 - 13 - 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. 4.4 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 - 14 - 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 - 15 - 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 - 16 - Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 17 - 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 - 18 - Appendices I. Photo Inventory Sheets Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 19 - 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 - 20 - 4.3 Faulty Lot Layout. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 21 - 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. 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions The lack of adequate loading facilities impacts the safety of vehicles and pedestrians. Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey – City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 22 - 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Drainage and access are poor throughout the study area. 4.5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the Study Area. urban renewal authority 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6505 TDD 970-224-6002 renewfortcollins.com 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). 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 Foothills Mall Study Area O Major Streets Foothills Mall Study Area S COLLEGE AVE E HORSETOOTH RD 1 inch = 350 feet April 2011 Addendum to the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Paragraph one in Section 3.3.1 Existing Planning should read: Plan Fort Collins, the 2011 update to the City’s 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: “…higher intensity, mixed‐use activity centers intended to serve as destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community. Community Commercial Districts offer a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, small civic uses, and higher density housing...both vertically and horizontally mixed‐use development forms will be encouraged. Higher density development is encouraged in Community Commercial Districts to support their role as hubs of the City’s high‐ frequency transit system and to promote an active, pedestrian‐friendly environment. The physical environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit use and ridesharing as well as provide a high quality urban life for residents.” Paragraph one in Section 4.0 Determination of Blight should read: 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, January 2007, and April 2011. Each parcel and building along with all public improvements within the survey area were evaluated and deficiencies noted. Field inventory forms are provided in Appendix II. The purpose of this existing conditions survey is to determine whether conditions of blight as defined by the Act, exist in the survey area. RESOLUTION 2011-081 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE SOUTH COLLEGE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORMIDTOWN AREA AND ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT FOR PROSPECT SOUTH WHEREAS, by Resolution 2011-080, the City Council has found and declared the area described in that Resolution (the “Area”) to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Sections 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S. (the "Act"), and appropriate for inclusion in an urban renewal projectplan; and WHEREAS, as part of declaring the area blighted, the City Council reviewed the results of a survey entitled the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey" dated April 2011, (the “Conditions Survey”), which includes maps, a description of existing conditions and numerous photographs; and WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the public interest that the City's Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) undertake the urban renewal activities described in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the “Plan”) attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, approval of the Plan will facilitate the elimination and prevention of blighted areas and promote the redevelopment, conservation, and rehabilitation of the Area; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing and reviewed the Plan pursuant to the procedural and notice requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the Plan was published as required by Section 31-25-107(3), C.R.S., at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, reasonable efforts have been taken to provide written notice of the public hearing to each property owner, business, and resident of the Area included in the Plan informing them of the public hearing at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has considered the Plan and made its recommendation as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the Plan, the Conditions Survey, the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation and staff’s recommendation and has considered the legislative record and given appropriate weight to the evidence and has determined to approve the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Area described in the Plan is hereby found, determined and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Act. This is a finding by the City Council based upon the Conditions Survey and other evidence presented to City Council at a public hearing. Section 2. That the boundaries of the Area described in the Plan have been drawn as narrowly as is feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the Plan. Section 3. That the Plan has been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, together with the information required by Section 31-25-107(3.5) of the Act. Section 4. That the Poudre School District has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in the Plan of the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31-25-107(9) of the Act. Section 5. That the Plan meets the requirements of Section 31-25-105.5(2) of the Act, and that the Authority is authorized to acquire any interest in property by any manner available, including, without limitation, by exercise of the power of eminent domain under the following terms and conditions and any other requirements of any applicable law. The decision by the City Council to authorize the use of eminent domain is based on its finding that the Area is a blighted area as defined in the Act. (a) The activities and undertakings that constitute the Project described in the Plan shall be commenced no later than seven years from the effective date of this Resolution. (b) Not later than the commencement of the negotiation of an agreement for redevelopment or rehabilitation of property acquired or to be acquired by eminent domain, the Authority must provide notice and invite proposals for redevelopment or rehabilitation from all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns located on the property acquired or to be acquired by eminent domain in the Area by mailing notice to their last known address of record. The Authority may also at the same time invite proposals for redevelopment or rehabilitation from other interested persons who may not be property owners, owners of business concerns, or residents within the Area, and may provide notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation within the City. (c) In the case of a set of parcels to be acquired by the Authority in connection with the Project, at least one of which is owned by an owner refusing or rejecting an agreement for the acquisition of the entire set of parcels, the Authority must make a determination that the redevelopment or rehabilitation of the remaining parcels is not viable under the Plan without the parcel at issue. -2- (d) Acquisition of any property by eminent domain shall be for the purpose of preventing or eliminating conditions of blight without regard to the economic performance of the property to be acquired. (e) Prior to exercising the power of eminent domain to transfer acquired property to a private party as authorized in accordance with the Act, the Authority shall adopt relocation assistance and land acquisition policies to benefit displaced persons that are consistent with those set forth in Article 56 of Title 24, C.R.S., to the extent applicable to the facts of each specific property, and, at the time of the relocation of the owner or the occupant, shall provide compensation or other forms of assistance to any displaced person in accordance with such policies. In addition, in the case of a business concern displaced by the acquisition of property by eminent domain, the Authority shall make a business interruption payment to the business concern not to exceed the lesser of $10,000 or one-fourth of the average annual taxable income shown on the three most recent federal income tax returns of the business concern. (f) In any case where the acquisition of property by eminent domain by the Authority displaces individuals, families, or business concerns, the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to relocate such individuals, families, or business concerns within the Area, where such relocation is consistent with the uses provided in the Plan, or in areas within reasonable proximity of, or comparable to, the original location of such individuals, families, or business concerns. Section 6. That the Plan meets the requirements of the Act and the principal public purpose for adoption of the Plan is to facilitate redevelopment of the Area in order to eliminate or prevent the spread of a physically blighted area as defined in the Act. Section 7. That to the extent any relocation of individuals or families will be required in connection the Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals and families in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families. Section 8. That to the extent any relocation of business concerns will be required with the Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns in the urban renewal area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities and public and commercial facilities. Section 9. That the City Council has taken reasonable efforts to provide written notice of the public hearing prescribed by Section 31-25-107 (3) of the Act to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the proposed urban renewal area at their last known address of record at least thirty days prior to such hearing. -3- Section 10. That no more than one hundred twenty days have passed since the commencement of the first public hearing of the urban renewal plan. Section 11. That Section 31-25-107(4)(e) does not apply because the City Council did not fail to previously approve this plan. Section 12. That the Plan conforms with "City Plan", which is the general plan for the development of the City as a whole, and that the Council expressly adopts the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Plan, pertaining to conformance with "City Plan" and particularly, the "City Plan" principles and policies contained in Section 6 of the Plan. Section 13. That Larimer County has communicated to the City and the Authority that no additional County infrastructure and services are required to serve development within the urban renewal area at this time. Section 14. That the Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the city as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area described in the Plan by private enterprise. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of September A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -4- Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Prepared for: City of Fort Collins and Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority May 17, 2011 Prepared By: Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 2 This page intentionally left blank. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 3 Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 2. Blight Conditions......................................................................................................... 8 3. Plan Objectives.......................................................................................................... 10 4. Authorized Urban Renewal Activities....................................................................... 11 Public Improvements and Facilities ...................................................................... 11 Cooperative Agreements ...................................................................................... 11 Purchase of Property ............................................................................................ 11 Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Prep.................... 12 Property Disposition ............................................................................................. 12 Redevelopment Agreements ................................................................................ 12 Relocation Assistance ........................................................................................... 12 Hiring..................................................................................................................... 13 Legal Authority...................................................................................................... 13 Catalyst and Enhancement Projects ..................................................................... 13 5. Development Standards and Procedures................................................................. 13 6. Conformance............................................................................................................. 13 Urban Renewal Law .............................................................................................. 13 City Plan ................................................................................................................ 14 7. Project Financing....................................................................................................... 16 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Boundaries............................................... 17 Property Tax Increment ........................................................................................ 17 Sales Tax Increment .............................................................................................. 18 Tax Increment Reimbursement ............................................................................ 18 8. Modifications to the Plan.......................................................................................... 19 9. Reasonable Variations .............................................................................................. 19 10. Effective Date of the Plan ........................................................................................... 19 Appendices Appendix A – Legal Description ........................................................................................ 20 DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA ................................ 20 Appendix B – Legal Description ........................................................................................ 23 DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – PROSPECT SOUTH .... 23 List of Figures Figure 1: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary ........................................................... 6 Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing Area – Prospect South................................................ 7 MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 4 1. Introduction The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is a plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) and the City of Fort Collins (the City), pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31‐25‐101 et seq. (Urban Renewal Law). Terms used in the Plan have the same meaning as in the Urban Renewal Law. The jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority are the same as the boundaries of the City. Within the City boundaries there may be one or more urban renewal plan areas. This Plan describes the framework for certain public undertakings constituting urban renewal projects and other authorized activities under the Urban Renewal Law in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (Plan Area), located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. This Plan was prepared for adoption by the City Council in recognition that the Midtown Commercial Corridor requires a coordinated, cooperative strategy, with financing possibilities, to eliminate unfavorable existing conditions and prevent further deterioration. This Plan intends to accomplish the City’s development objectives for improving the viability of the commercial corridor by creation of the Plan Area. The driving interest in the establishment of this Plan is to begin offering tax increment financing (TIF) as a tool to stimulate and leverage both public and private sector development (including redevelopment), to help remedy adverse conditions and prevent the spread of further deterioration. It is the intent of this Plan for any development projects and other implementation actions to be done in a responsive manner, with full consideration for interests and concerns of property owners in the Plan Area. Development and redevelopment is anticipated to occur incrementally over a substantial period of time, with the potential for Authority financing to provide the impetus and means to undertake this redevelopment at a faster pace than might occur otherwise. The Plan effort originated in response to the Midtown Redevelopment Study adopted in 2010 where one of the primary action items for implementation concluded the need for an Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan. The Plan has been made available to City of Fort Collins residents. Input was solicited of area residents, property owners and business owners and tenants prior to completion of the Plan. Notifications of public hearings and an open house was provided to property owners, tenants, and residents within and surrounding the study area stating the following: time, date, place, and a description of the Urban Renewal Plan (URP) and its general scope. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 5 Meetings were held before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council in spring 2011 to receive comments and input on this Plan. To the extent provided in Colorado Public Records Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Title 24, Article 72, Part 2 as the same may be amended from time to time, and pursuant to policies adopted by the Authority, project plans and proposals will be made available to the public. Description of the Plan Area The Plan Area is approximately 660 acres with 404 parcels of private property, including the right‐of‐way. The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan identifies this area as a commercial corridor. The City of Fort Collins Zoning Map indicates this area is primarily zoned C‐commercial with some additional zones; HC – Harmony Corridor, E – Employment, and CC‐Community Commercial. The Plan Area is depicted on the Boundary Map on the following page (Figure 1). A legal description of the area is attached hereto as Appendix A. The boundary of the Plan Area to which this Plan applies generally includes those properties located within the area bounded by: Prospect Road on the north; The Burlington Northern SantaFe (BNSF) railroad right‐of‐way on the west; An irregular line following commercial parcels typically one or two parcels deep to the east; and Fairway Lane on the south. Description of the Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South The Tax Increment Financing District ‐ Prospect South is depicted on the Boundary Map in Figure 2. A legal description of the district is attached hereto as Appendix B. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 6 Figure 1: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 7 Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing District – Prospect South MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 8 2. Blight Conditions Before an urban renewal plan can be adopted by the City, the determination that an area 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 area. 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 nonmarketable; 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; or l. 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 MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 9 or social 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 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. § 31‐25‐105.2(2)(a)(I)): (a) “Blighted area” shall have the same 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)(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. Source: Colorado Revised Statute 31‐25‐103(2). 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. Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey, dated April 2011, the City Council, by Resolution _____, made a finding that the Plan Area was “blighted” as defined by the Urban Renewal Law, by the existence of the following seven factors: MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 10 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 k.5. Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial underutilization or vacancy of buildings, sites, or improvements The City Council also found that these factors, taken together, substantially impair the sound growth of the City, constitute an economic and social liability, and negatively affect the public heath, safety and welfare of the community. Based on evidence of the “blighted” factors, the Plan Area is appropriate for authorized activities of the Authority pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. 3. Plan Objectives The overall objective of this Plan is to remediate unfavorable existing conditions and prevent further deterioration by implementation of the relevant provisions contained in the following documents: City Plan (The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan) City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan Fort Collins Infill Infrastructure Report City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan Mason Corridor Economic Study Midtown Redevelopment Study To do this, this Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around the Plan Area with a combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public investment. The Plan will assist progress toward the following additional objectives: To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed improvements. To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of the City. To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements. To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and complementary to unique circumstances in the area. To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 11 To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit‐related circulation and safety. To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and conditions. To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Plan Area. To watch for market and/or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when such opportunities exist, to take action within the financial, legal and political limits of the Authority to acquire land, demolish and remove structures, provide relocation benefits, and pursue redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation projects. 4. Authorized Urban Renewal Activities To support progress toward the objectives, the Authority may undertake any of the following renewal activities, as deemed appropriate for the elimination or prevention of blight factors within the Plan Area, pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law: Public Improvements and Facilities The Authority may cause, finance or facilitate the design, installation, construction and reconstruction of public improvements in the Plan Area. In order to promote the effective utilization of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the Plan Area, the Authority may, among other things, enter into financial or other agreements with the City of Fort Collins to provide the City with financial or other support in order to encourage or cause the City to invest funds for the improvement of storm drainage, street conditions and other infrastructure deficiencies in the Plan Area. Cooperative Agreements For the purposes of planning and implementing this Plan, the Authority may enter into one or more cooperative agreements with the City or other public entities. Such agreement may include provisions regarding project financing and implementation; design, location, construction of public improvements; and any other matters required to implement this Plan. Potential entities include but not limited to: Xcel Energy, Qwest, Comcast, Poudre Valley Fire Authority, Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association and Fort Collins‐Loveland Water District. Purchase of Property In the event that the Authority finds it necessary to purchase any real property for an urban renewal project to remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law and this Plan, the Authority may do so by any legal means available, including the exercise of the power of eminent domain, pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. If the power of MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 12 eminent domain is to be exercised for the purpose of transfer of property to another private person or entity, the Authority’s decision whether to acquire the property through eminent domain shall be guided by the following criteria, with the understanding that these guidelines shall not be construed to constrain the Authority’s legal ability to exercise the power of eminent domain: All requirements of the Urban Renewal Law, including eminent domain procedures, have been met. Other possible alternatives have been thoroughly considered by the Authority. Good faith negotiations by the Authority and/or the project developer have been rejected by the property owner. Reasonable efforts have been undertaken to: (a) understand and address the property owner's position and his or her desires for the property and for any existing business on the site, and (b) work with the owner to either include the owner in project planning or purchase the property and relocate the owner in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law on terms and conditions acceptable to the owner. Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Prep The Authority may on a case‐by‐case basis, elect to demolish or to cooperate with others to clear buildings, structures, and other improvements. Development activities consistent with this Plan may require such demolition and clearance to eliminate unhealthy, unsanitary, and unsafe conditions, eliminate obsolete and other uses detrimental to the public welfare, and otherwise remove and prevent the spread of deterioration. Property Disposition The Authority may sell, lease, or otherwise transfer real property or any interest in real property subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions, including architectural and design controls, time restrictions on development, and building requirements, as it deems necessary to develop such property. Redevelopment Agreements The Authority may enter into redevelopment agreements with property owners or developers in the Plan Area to facilitate participation and assistance that the Authority may choose to provide to such owners or developers. These may include provisions regarding project planning, public improvements, financing, design, and any other matters allowed pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. Relocation Assistance It is not expected that the activities of the Authority will displace any person, family, or business. However, to the extent that in the future the Authority may purchase MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 13 property causing displacement of any person, family, or business, it shall develop a relocation program to assist any such party in finding another location pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law, and provide relocation benefits consistent with the Urban Renewal Law. There shall be no displacement of any person or business without there being in place a relocation program, which program shall become a part of this Plan when adopted. Hiring The Authority may employ consultants, agents, and employees, permanent and temporary, and it shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation. Legal Authority The Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban Renewal Law. Catalyst and Enhancement Projects Rehabilitation and redevelopment of the properties surrounding the Plan Area that will continue to foster cleanup, preservation and redevelopment of nearby properties. Additional public infrastructure, not limited to pedestrian amenities, enhanced landscaping, public transportation improvements, public utilities, or public art and architectural features as well as access to services, meeting facilities and shopping options may also further redevelopment of the Plan Area. 5. Development Standards and Procedures All development within the Plan Area shall conform to the Land Use Code and any site specific zoning regulations or policies which might impact properties, all as in effect and as may be amended from time to time. While State statute authorizes the Authority to undertake zoning and planning activities to regulate land use, maximum densities, and building requirements in the Plan Area, the City will regulate land use and building requirements through existing municipal codes and ordinances. 6. Conformance Urban Renewal Law This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of the Urban Renewal Law. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 14 City Plan The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan, describes desirable land use and transportation patterns, with goals and policies for those topics along with community appearance and design, the environment, open lands, housing, the economy, and growth management. Briefly summarized, the land use pattern envisioned by these plans for the Plan Area is a commercial corridor well‐integrated with surrounding development. The Plan Area is envisioned to evolve with improved community design and streetscapes, in an interconnected framework of streets and blocks. One of the purposes of this Plan is to implement the vision for the Plan Area as a commercial corridor with mixed‐use residential improvements, as well as create a connection to the Mason Corridor for improved transit circulation. This Plan is intended to provide mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan, and therefore it is in direct conformance with City Plan. The following excerpts from City Plan highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Urban Renewal Plan. These are representative excerpts, and not an all‐inclusive listing of relevant statements: 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 Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2: Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment. Policy LIV 5.1: Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. The purpose of these areas is to: MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 15 Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. Concentrate higher density housing and mixed‐use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map are parts of the city where general agreement exists that redevelopment and infill would be beneficial. These areas are generally considered a priority for efforts to reduce barriers and concentrate public investment in infrastructure. However, of the areas identified, the “community spine” (see Policy LIV 5.2) shall be the highest priority location for such efforts. Areas not shown on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas map are not excluded from redevelopment and infill activity, but are considered to be lower priority or where activity is less likely to occur for other reasons. Policy LIV 5.2: Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit‐supportive, mixed‐use activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. Policy LIV 5.3: Policy LIV 5.3 – Identify Additional Redevelopment and Infill Areas as Appropriate Utilize subarea plans to help designate areas for redevelopment and infill that are not identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Within these plans, support the development of appropriate design standards to protect the character of neighborhoods and to ensure conformance with City Plan. Principle LIV 34: General Commercial Districts will include a wide range of community and regional uses, in various sizes and scales, designed for convenient access by all modes of travel, efficient circulation, and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Policy LIV 34.2: Mix of Uses MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 16 Although many existing General Commercial Districts in the City consist of single‐use commercial centers today, the incorporation of a broader mix of uses is desirable over time: Principal uses: Retail, restaurants, office, and other commercial services. Supporting uses: Entertainment, high‐density residential, day care (adult and child), and other supporting uses. Policy LIV 34.3: Support the Revitalization of Existing Strip Commercial Corridor Developments Encourage and support the gradual evolution of existing, auto‐oriented strip commercial areas to a more compact, pedestrian and transit‐oriented pattern of development over time through infill and redevelopment. Establish enhanced walking connections between destinations. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high‐frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed‐use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide high‐frequency/high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3: Support Transit‐Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit‐supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. 7. Project Financing Specific projects may be financed in whole or in part by the Authority, under the tax increment financing (TIF) provisions of CRS § 31‐25‐107(9)(a) of the Urban Renewal Law, or by any other available source of financing authorized to be undertaken by the MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 17 Authority pursuant to CRS § 31‐25‐105 of the Urban Renewal Law. The Authority is authorized to: Finance urban renewal projects within the Plan Area with revenues from property tax increments, sales tax increments, interest income, federal loans or grants, agreements with public, quasi‐public or private parties and entities, loans or advances from any other available source, and any other available sources of revenue. Issue bonds and incur other obligations contemplated by the Urban Renewal Law in an amount sufficient to finance all or any part of a project within the Plan Area. Borrow funds and create indebtedness in any authorized form in carrying out this Plan. Any principal and interest on such indebtedness may be paid from property tax increments, sales tax increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or properties legally available to the Authority. Such methods may be combined to finance all or part of the Plan activities. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Boundaries If permissible by the Urban Renewal Law, the Authority is authorized to create TIF districts within the Plan Area that can include, but are not limited to a single parcel or multiple parcels for a qualified project. Accordingly, the Plan may be amended when the TIF district is decided upon by the Authority, and incremental property tax and/or sales tax revenues attributable to the redevelopment in the Plan Area to pay the indebtedness incurred by the Authority. Reference Figure 2 for an example. Property Tax Increment A fund for financing projects may be accrued and used by the Authority under the property tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law. Under this method, property taxes levied after the effective date of the approval of this Plan upon taxable property in the Plan Area each year by or for the benefit of any public body shall be divided for a period not to exceed twenty‐five (25) years after the effective date of the adoption of the tax allocation provision, as follows: Base Amount ‐ That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or for such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable property in the Plan Area last certified prior to the effective date of approval of the Plan or, as to an area later added to the Plan Area, the effective date of the modification of the Plan, shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 18 Increment amount ‐ That portion of said property taxes in excess of such base amount shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the Authority to pay the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, a specific project. Such increment amount shall also be used to pay for the Authority's financial obligations incurred in the implementation of this Plan. Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Plan Area exceeds the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Plan Area, all of the taxes levied upon taxable property in the Plan Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies. In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in Larimer County, which are subject to division of valuation for assessment between base and increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for assessment to be allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with such reassessment. Note that at the time of this Plan adoption, such a general reassessment occurs every two years, in the odd‐numbered years. When such bonds, loans, advances, indebtedness, and financial obligations, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in the Plan Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies. Sales Tax Increment The project may also be financed by the Authority under the sales tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law. The act allows that upon the adoption or amendment of an URP, sales taxes flowing to the City may be "frozen" at their current level. The current level is established based on the previous twelve months prior to the adoption of this Plan. Thereafter, the City can continue to receive this fixed sales tax revenue. The Authority thereafter may receive all, or an agreed upon portion of the additional sales taxes (the increment) which are generated above the base. The Authority may use these incremental revenues to finance the issuance of bonds, reimburse developers for public improvement costs, reimburse the City for public improvement costs and pay off financial obligations and other debts incurred in the administration of the URP. This increment is not an additional sales tax, but rather is a portion of the established tax collected by the City, and the sales tax increment resulting from redevelopment efforts and activities contemplated in this Plan. Tax Increment Reimbursement Tax increment revenues may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs incurred for improvements related to a project to pay the debt incurred by the MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 19 Authority with such entities for urban renewal activities and purposes. Tax incremental revenues may also be used to pay bonded indebtedness, financial obligations and debts of the Authority related to urban renewal activities under this Plan. 8. Modifications to the Plan This Plan may be modified pursuant to requirements and procedures set forth in CRS §31‐25‐107 of the Urban Renewal Law governing such modifications or amendments to the extent such modifications or amendments do not conflict with the agreements. Nothing herein shall be construed to require the Authority to first obtain the permission of any party to an Agreement prior to amending or modifying this Plan. 9. Reasonable Variations The Authority shall have the ability to approve reasonable variations (as determined by the Board) from the strict application of these Plan provisions, so long as such variations reasonably accommodate the intent and purpose of this Plan and the Urban Renewal Law. Plan provisions may be altered by market conditions, redevelopment opportunities and/or the needs of the community affected by the Plan. 10. Effective Date of the Plan This plan shall be effective upon its final approval by the Fort Collins City Council. Except as otherwise permitted under the Urban Renewal Law, the term of the TIF period is twenty‐five (25) years from the effective date of the Plan, unless the Authority deems, to the extent consistent with the terms in the Agreements, that all activities to accomplish the Project have been completed and all debts incurred to finance such activities and all expenses of the Authority have been repaid. In that event, the Authority may declare the Plan fully implemented. MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 20 Appendix A – Legal Description DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA A tract of land located in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 and 36 of Township 7 North, Range 69 West and in Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 North, Range 69 West, all of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained within the following described area; Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line of the said plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE easterly and southerly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the east west centerline of the said Section 26; THENCE easterly along the said east west centerline and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the south line of the said Section 26; THENCE westerly along the said south line and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north line of the said Section 2; THENCE easterly along the said north line and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north line of the plat of “George T. Sanders Co. P.U.D.”; THENCE easterly along the said north line to the westerly right of way of Fossil Boulevard; THENCE southerly along the said westerly right of way to the westerly extension of the southerly right of way of West Fairway Lane; THENCE easterly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of way, its easterly extension and along the southerly right of way of Fairway Lane to the southerly extension of the east line of the plat of “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said east line of the “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates”, along the east line of the plat of “Replat Of A Part OF Lot 7, Lot 8, Lot 9, And A Part Of Lot 10 Of the Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates” and continuing along the east line of the said plat of “Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates” and its northerly extension to the southwest corner of that certain tract of land as described in a Warranty Deed Recorded April 2, 2002 at Reception No. 2002038320 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer County; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said tract described at Reception No. 2002038320 to the southwest corner of the plat of “Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said plat to the southeast corner of the said “Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the easterly line of the said plat to the southerly right of way of MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 21 East Harmony Road; THENCE easterly along the said southerly right of way and its easterly extension to the easterly right of way of Hogan Drive; THENCE northerly to the intersection of the northerly right of way of East Harmony Road with the easterly right of way of John F. Kennedy Parkway; THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of way of John F. Kennedy Parkway and along the easterly right of way’s extension through intersecting side streets through the East Horsetooth Road right of way, to the southerly line of Tract Nine as shown on the plat of “The Foothills Fashion Mall Expansion”; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said Tract Nine to the westerly right of way of Stanford Road; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the northerly line of the plat of “The Foothills Fashion Mall Foley’s Expansion”; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract K of the plat of “Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE southerly along the said easterly line of Tract K to the southerly line of the said Tract K; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line of the said Tract K; THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the northerly line of the said plat of “Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract H of the said plat of “Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE southerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the said Tract H; THENCE westerly along the southerly line of the said Tract H to the southerly right of way of Remington Street as shown on the plat of “A Replat Of Tracts F, G, And J, And Vacated Service Road, Southmoor Village Fifth Filing”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the westerly right of way of the said Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way and along the westerly right of way’s extension through intersecting side streets, to the northerly right of way of Harvard Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of Lot 13 of the plat of “Plat Of Thunderbird Estates Seventh Filing”; THENCE northerly along the easterly line of Lot 13 and its northerly extension to the easterly line of the plat of “Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of Lot 3 of the said plat of “Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line of the said Lot 3; THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the southerly right of way of Drake Road; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 1 of the Plat of “The Resubdivision of Tract A, South College Heights Fourth Subdivision”; Thence northerly along the said southerly extension and along the said easterly line of Lot 1, to the southerly right of way of Princeton Avenue; Thence westerly along the said southerly right of way to the easterly right of way of South College Avenue; THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of way and along the easterly right of way’s extension through intersecting side streets, to the northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of the “Rutgers Building Condominiums”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “Raising Cane’s”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of “Raising Cane’s”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “A Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 22 Block 1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat of “Human Bean At Spring Creek”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of “Moran’s Subdivision” to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of Lot 1 of the said plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision” to the northerly line of the said plat of ”A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213 feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of way of the north‐south alley through Block 1 of the plat of “I.C. Bradley’s Addition To The City Of Fort Collins”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Excepting there from all of the plat of “Amended Final Plat of Parkway Townhomes P.U.D.” All Plats referred to in the above described description are Plats of record with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. I hear by state that the above description was prepared by me and is true and correct to the best of my professional knowledge belief and opinion. The above described tract is based upon previously recorded plats and deeds and not upon an actual field survey. Wallace C. Muscott Colorado P.L.S. 17497 PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 20, 2011 MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 23 Appendix B – Legal Description DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT – PROSPECT SOUTH A tract of land located in Sections 23 and 24 of Township 7 North, Range 69 West West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained within the following described area; Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line of the said plat of “Griffin Plaza Subdivision”; THENCE easterly and southerly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the northerly line of the plat of “ Whole Foods Center”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the westerly line of Tract “E” of the plat of “University Shopping Center”; THENCE southerly along the said westerly line to the southerly line of the said Tract “E”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of South College Avenue; THENCE easterly to the intersection of the easterly right of way of South College Avenue with the northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue; THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of the “Rutgers Building Condominiums”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “Raising Cane’s”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of “Raising Cane’s”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of “A Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of Block 1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat of “Human Bean At Spring Creek”; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of “Moran’s Subdivision” to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5; THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of Lot 1 of the said plat of “A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision” to the northerly line of the said MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 24 plat of ”A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213 feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of “Maynard Subdivision”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of way of the north‐south alley through Block 1 of the plat of “I.C. Bradley’s Addition To The City Of Fort Collins”; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING. All Plats referred to in the above described description are Plats of record with the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. I hear by state that the above description was prepared by me and is true and correct to the best of my professional knowledge belief and opinion. The above described tract is based upon previously recorded plats and deeds and not upon an actual field survey. Wallace C. Muscott Colorado P.L.S. 17497 PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 20, 2011 ● Physical Condition Observed LAYOUT ● Physical Condition Observed STREET LAYOUT ● Physical Condition Observed ● Physical Condition Observed CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY FAULTY LOT LAYOUT !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(! !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( ( !( !( !( !( !(! !( !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(! ( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(! ( !( ! !(!( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(! ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(! ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(! (!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 2 99 98 95 93 94 92 91 90 89 88 87 8685 83 84 80 79 76 78 75 74 73 72 71 7609 6867 65 66 63 64 61 62 59 60 57 54 55 56 5251 50 49 46 47 44 45 43 41 4038 37 35 32 3029 31 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 2120 19 17 15 16 14 12 11 10 386 385384 383 382 381 380 379 377 378 375 374373 372 371 369 370 367 368 366 365 364 363 362 361 360 357 358 356 355353453 352 347 348 349 350 346 345 344 343 342 340 339 338337 336 335 334 333 332 331330 329 327 326 325 324 323 321 322 319 320 317 318 316 315 314 313 310 312 308 309 307 306 305 303 304 302 301 300 297 298 296 295 294 293 292 291 290 286 287 289 285 283 282 281 279 280 278 277 275 274 272 273 271 269 268 267 266 263262 264 265 261 259 257 258 255 254 252 251 249 248 247246 244 245 243 241 242 239 240 238 237 236 235 234 233 231 228 227 225 222 221 218 217 216 215 212 213 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 203 204 202 201 199 200 198 197 196 195 194 192 191 190 188 187 186 184 183 181 179 177 178 174 175 173 172 168 166 167 165 163 162 160 161 158 157 156 154 153 151150 148 147 145 146 144143 142 139138 140 137 136 134 135 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125124 123 122 121 119 118 115 114 113 112 111 109 110 107 108 106105 103 102 97 96 82 81 77 58 53 48 42 39 36 33 34 18 13 376 359 351 341 328 311 299 288 276 284 270 260 256 253 250 232 229 230 226 224 223 220 219 214 189 193 185 182 180 176 171 170 169 164 159 155 152 149 141120 117 116 104 101100 S COLLEGE AVE S MASON ST CREST RD BOARDWALK DR PALMER DR HOGAN DR E HARMONY RD MANHATTAN AVE WARBLER DR LANDINGS DR W HARMONY RD SKYSAIL LN E HORSETOOTH RD FAIRWAY LN W HORSETOOTH RD ALBION WAY PAVILION LN LARKBUNTING DR E TROUTMAN PKWY MARINER LN ROCKAWAY ST TOWHEE ST STOVER ST PRAIRIE ST PLAYER DR GOLDENEYE DR DENNISON AVE BREAKWATER DR SPINNAKER LN WABASH ST WALDEN WAY HUMMINGBIRD DR WIDGEON ST GOSHAWK DR HAVEN DR BLUESTEM CT STARLING ST TANAGER ST W FAIRWAY LN VENTURI LN HAVEN CT MAPLETON CT NICKLAUS CT STREAM CT THRASHER ST FOSSIL BLVD ASBURY DR SPIN DRIFT CT LEEWARD CT BREAKWATER CT BOWLINE CT CHUKAR CT DENNISON CT OWL CT RIVA RIDGE RD !feet( Photo Reference Number 1 inch = 550 Study Section 3 April 2011 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 33 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 372 X X X X 373 X 374 X X X X 375 X 376 X 377 X X 378 X X X X 379 X X 380 X X X X X 381 X X 382 X X 383 X 384 X X 385 X 386 X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 32 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 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 328 329 X X X X 330 X X X 331 X X X 332 X X X X X X X 333 X 334 X X 335 X 336 X X 337 X X 338 X X 339 X 340 X X X 341 X 342 X 343 X 344 X X 345 X X X 346 X 347 X X X 348 X X 349 X 350 X 351 X X 352 X X 353 X X 354 X X 355 X 356 X X X 357 X X X 358 X 359 X X X 360 X X 361 X X 362 X X 363 X X 364 X 365 X X X X 366 X X X 367 X 368 X X X X 369 X X 370 X X X 371 X X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 31 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 266 X X 267 X X 268 X X 269 X X 270 X 271 X X 272 X X 273 X 274 X X 275 X 276 X 277 X X X 278 X X 279 X 280 X X 281 X X X 282 X X X X 283 X 284 X X X 285 X 286 X X X X 287 X X X X 288 X 289 X 290 X X 291 X X X 292 X 293 X X X 294 X X X X 295 X X 296 X 297 X 298 X 299 X 300 X 301 X X 302 X X 303 X X 304 X 305 X 306 X X 307 X X X 308 X 309 X 310 X X X X X 311 X X X X 312 X 313 X 314 X 315 X 316 X X 317 X X 318 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 30 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 213 X X X 214 X 215 X 216 X 217 X 218 X 219 X X X 220 X X 221 X X X 222 X X 223 X X X 224 X X 225 226 X X 227 X X 228 X 229 X X 230 X X X 231 X X X 232 X X 233 X X X X 234 X X 235 X X 236 X 237 X X 238 X X X 239 X X X 240 X X X X 241 X 242 X 243 X X 244 X X 245 X 246 X 247 X X X 248 X X X 249 X 250 X 251 X X 252 X X X 253 X 254 X X 255 X X X 256 X X 257 X X 258 X X 259 X 260 X 261 X X 262 X 263 X X X X X X 264 X X X 265 X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 29 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 160 X 161 X 162 X 163 X 164 X X 165 X 166 X 167 X X 168 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 178 X 179 X 180 X X 181 X X 182 X X 183 X 184 X 185 X X 186 X 187 X X 188 X 189 X X 190 X X 191 X X 192 X 193 X X 194 X X 195 X X X 196 X 197 X 198 X X 199 X 200 X X 201 X X X 202 X X 203 X 204 X X X 205 X 206 X X 207 X 208 X 209 X X 210 X X X 211 X X 212 X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 28 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 107 X 108 X X X X 109 X X X 110 X X X 111 X X X 112 X X X 113 X X 114 X 115 X X X 116 X 117 X 118 X X 119 X 120 X 121 X X 122 X X 123 X 124 X 125 X 126 X X 127 X 128 X 129 X 130 X X X 131 X X 132 X 133 X X X X 134 X X 135 X X X 136 X 137 X X X 138 X 139 X 140 X 141 X X X 142 X 143 X 144 X X 145 X 146 X X 147 X X 148 X 149 X 150 X 151 X 152 X 153 X X X 154 X 155 X 156 X 157 X 158 X X 159 X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 27 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title 54 X X 55 X X 56 X X 57 X 58 X X 59 X X 60 X 61 X 62 X 63 X X X X X 64 X 65 X 66 X X 67 X 68 X 69 X 70 X X X 71 X 72 X 73 X 74 X 75 X X 76 X 77 X 78 X X X 79 X X X 80 X 81 X X X X 82 X 83 X 84 X 85 X X 86 X X 87 X 88 X 89 X X X X X X 90 X 91 X 92 X X X 93 X X X 94 X X 95 X 96 X 97 X 98 X X 99 X 100 X X X X X 101 X X X X 102 X X X X 103 X 104 X X X X 105 X X 106 X X X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 26 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures 1 X 2 X 3 X X 4 X 5 X X 6 X X X 7 X 8 X X X 9 X 10 X 11 X 12 X X X X 13 X 14 X 15 X X X 16 X X X X 17 X X X 18 X X X 19 X 20 X X 21 X X 22 X 23 X X 24 X 25 X 26 X X 27 X X 28 X X X 29 X X 30 X 31 X X X 32 X 33 X 34 X 35 X X 36 X 37 X 38 X X X 39 X 40 X 41 X 42 X 43 X 44 X 45 X 46 X X X 47 X 48 X 49 X 50 X X X 51 X 52 X 53 X X X Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 25 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(! ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( ! !(!( ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 9 8 76 5 4 3 2 1 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 9190 89 88 87 86 85 83 84 81 82 79 80 77 78 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 67 68 66 65 64 63 62 6160 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 5150 49 4847 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 33 32 31 30 29 28 26 27 25 24 23 21 22 19 1817 15 14 13 12 10 11 321 320 319 318 315 316 314 313 311 310309 308 307 306 305 302 303 301 300 298 299 297 296 294 293 292 291 290 289 288 287 285 284 283 282 281 280 277 276 274 272 273 271 270 269 268 267 266 265 264 263 261 260 259 258 257 255 256 254 251 250 249 248 247 246 244 243 241 237 240 236 231 233 235 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 222 223 221 220 219 217 215 212 211 210 208 207 206 205 204 203 201 200 199 197 198 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 167 166 164 165 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 152 153 151 150 149 148146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 132 133 134 130 131 128 127 126 125 124123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116115 114 113 112 111 110 109 107 106 105 103 100 34 20 16 317 312 304 295 286 279 278 275 262 253 252 245 242 239 238 232 234 216 218 214 213 209 202 168 147 129 108 104 101 102 S COLLEGE AVE MCCLELLAND DR TULANE DR EAGLE DR FRONTA GE RD W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD REDWING RD W SWALLOW RD DEL CLAIR RD HARVARD ST RINGNECK DR E MONROE DR W HORSETOOTH RD LINDA LN E HORSETOOTH RD LEISURE DR AVOCET RD MAE ST REMINGTON ST E THUNDERBIRD DR FLICKER DR ALLEN ST KILLDEER DR MEADOWLARK AVE E SWALLOW RD RIVA RIDGE DR WARREN FARM DR E FOOTHILLS PKWY BALE DR ANNABEL LN PHOENIX DR RUTH ST ALAMO AVE MATHEWS ST PLO WMAN CT RIVA RIDGE PL BLUEJAY ST BLUEBIRD CT RIVA RIDGE LN JUNCO CT ROBIN CT WARREN FARM CT MATHEWS ST !( Photo Reference Number Study Section 2 1 inch = 375 feet April 2011 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 13 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 281 X X X 282 X X 283 X X 284 X 285 X 286 X X 287 X X 288 X 289 X 290 X 291 X X 292 X 293 X 294 X X X 295 X X X X 296 X X 297 X X X X 298 X X X 299 X X 300 X X X X 301 X X X 302 X X 303 X 304 X X X X 305 X X X X X 306 X X 307 X X 308 X 309 X X 310 X X X 311 X X X X X X X 312 X X X 313 X X X 314 X 315 X 316 X 317 X 318 X X 319 X 320 X X 321 X 322 X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 12 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 225 X X 226 X 227 X 228 X X X X 229 X 230 X X 231 X X X X 232 X X 233 X X 234 X X 235 X X 236 X X 237 X X X 238 X X X X 239 X X X 240 X X 241 X X 242 X X X X X 243 X X 244 X X X X 245 X 246 X 247 X X 248 X X X X 249 X 250 X X 251 X X X 252 X 253 X 254 X 255 X 256 X X 257 X 258 X 259 X X X X X 260 X 261 X X X 262 X X 263 X X X X 264 X X X 265 X 266 X X 267 X X 268 X X 269 X 270 X 271 X X 272 X X X 273 X 274 X X X X X X 275 X X X X X X 276 X X 277 X X X 278 X X X 279 X X 280 X X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 11 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 169 X 170 X 171 X 172 X X X 173 X 174 X 175 X X X 176 X X 177 X X X X X 178 X X X 179 X 180 X 181 X X 182 X X 183 X X 184 X 185 X 186 X 187 X X X 188 X X X X 189 X X X X X X 190 X X 191 X 192 X 193 X 194 X X 195 X 196 X 197 X 198 X 199 X 200 X 201 X X 202 X X 203 X 204 X 205 X 206 X X X 207 X X 208 X X X X 209 X X X X 210 X X 211 X X X X 212 X X 213 X 214 X 215 X X X 216 X X 217 X X X 218 X X 219 X 220 X 221 X X 222 X X X X X 223 X X 224 X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 10 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 113 X X X X 114 X X 115 X X X 116 X X X 117 X X 118 X X X 119 X X X 120 X X 121 X X 122 X 123 X 124 X 125 X 126 X 127 X X X X 128 X X 129 X X 130 X 131 X 132 X 133 X 134 X X X 135 X 136 X X 137 X X 138 X 139 X 140 X 141 X 142 X 143 X 144 X X 145 X 146 X 147 X 148 X 149 X 150 X X 151 X 152 X X 153 X X X X X 154 X X X 155 X X X 156 X X X 157 X X 158 X 159 X X X 160 X X 161 X 162 X X X X 163 X 164 X X 165 X X 166 X X X 167 X X 168 X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 9 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 57 X X X 58 X X 59 X 60 X 61 X 62 X 63 X X 64 X X X X 65 X X X 66 X X 67 X 68 X X 69 X 70 X 71 X 72 X 73 X 74 X 75 X X 76 X X 77 X 78 X 79 X 80 X 81 X 82 X 83 X X X 84 X 85 X 86 X X 87 X 88 X 89 X 90 X X 91 X X X X 92 X 93 X 94 X X X 95 X X 96 X 97 X 98 X X 99 X X 100 X 101 X X X X 102 X 103 X X X 104 X X 105 X 106 X 107 X X 108 X X 109 X X 110 X X X 111 X X X 112 X X MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 8 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures 1 X 2 X X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X X X 7 X X 8 X X X 9 X X 10 X X X 11 X X X 12 X X X 13 X 14 X X X 15 X X X X 16 X X X X 17 X X 18 X X 19 X X X X 20 X X 21 X X 22 X X X 23 X 24 X X X 25 X X X X X 26 X X X 27 X 28 X X X 29 X 30 X X X 31 X X 32 X X X 33 X X X 34 X X 35 X 36 X X X X 37 X X X 38 X X X X X 39 X X X X X 40 X X X X 41 X X X X X 42 X X X X 43 X 44 X X 45 46 X X 47 X X X 48 X 49 X 50 X X X 51 X X X 52 X 53 X 54 X X 55 X 56 X X X X Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 7 VASSAR AVE RUTGERS AVE LOYOLA AVE PRINCETON RD COLUMBIA RD YALE WAY 9 7 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 54 53 52 51 50 49 47 48 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 1 inch = 200 feet April 2011 MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 3 Deterioration of street pavement Deterioration of curb/gutter/sidewalk Insufficient street lighting Inadequate sanitation or water systems Presence of overhead utilities Lack of sidewalks Disputed or defective title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult Insufficient access for emergency vehicles Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii Non-compliances with fire/building codes Non-compliances with fire/building codes Unsafe deterioration of building Inadequate/improperly installed utilities Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at site Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total Vacant units in multi-unit structures (more than 20% vacant) Vacant structures 1 X X X X X 2 X X 3 X X 4 X 5 X 6 X X X X 7 X X 8 X X X X 9 X X 10 X X 11 X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 X X X 15 X 16 X 17 X 18 X X X 19 X 20 X 21 X 22 X 23 X X X X 24 X 25 X X 26 X 27 X X X 28 X X X 29 X X 30 X 31 X X 32 X X X X 33 X X 34 X X X X 35 X X 36 X X X 37 X X 38 X X X X X 39 X X X X X 40 X X X 41 X X 42 X 43 X X X X 44 X X 45 X X X X 46 X X 47 X 48 X X 49 X X 50 X X X 51 X 52 X X 53 X X 54 X Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings Health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of services or underutilized buildings/sites Deterioration of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Slum, Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 2 City Limits Enhanced Travel Corridor Transit Oriented Development Overlay Printed: March 03, 2011 NO NAME 1 East Mulberry Corridor 2 Midtown Corridor 3 Campus West 4 North College 5Downtown 6CSU ATTACHMENT 5