Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/21/2020 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE COLLEGE AND DRAKE URBAN RENEAgenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2020 City Council STAFF Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2020-012 Accepting and Adopting the College and Drake Existing Conditions Survey, Making Findings Determining that the Surveyed Area is Blighted and Designating the Area as Appropriate for an Urban Renewal Project. B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2020-013 Approving the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan and Making Findings in Support of that Approval. The purpose of this item is to consider approval of and Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) for an area containing 13 parcels of land around the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road (Plan Area). The objective of the Plan is for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) to commence an urban renewal project in the Plan Area to remediate the unfavorable existing conditions within it and to prevent further deterioration by implementation of the relevant provisions contained in the following documents: • City Plan (City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan), 2019 • Transit Master Plan, 2019 • Midtown Plan, 2013 • City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, 2013 The Plan intends to stimulate private sector development and redevelopment in and around the Plan Area with a combination of private investment, Authority financing and public investment. Staff prepared an Existing Conditions Survey with assistance from Economic Planning Systems (Survey). The Survey found six conditions of blight within the Plan Area, which conditions satisfy the requirements of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (Urban Renewal Law) for approving an urban renewal plan. Authority staff collaborated with staff of the other 8 taxing entities levying a property tax within the Plan Area and created a list of eligible projects this Plan could fund to remediate the blight conditions found by the Survey. Seven of the taxing entities have reached agreement with the Authority on its tax increment allocation in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law. The Authority and the remaining taxing entity, the Poudre School District (PSD), could not reach an agreement on the allocation of PSD’s tax increment, so the parties conducted the binding mediation required under the Urban Renewal Law and the results of that mediation have been incorporated into the Plan. Both the Planning and Zoning Board and the Authority’s Board have reviewed the Plan and recommend approval of it. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. Agenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PLAN OVERVIEW The College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) is an urban renewal plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) and the City of Fort Collins (City) pursuant to the provisions of Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law (Urban Renewal Law). DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN AREA The area included within the Plan is approximately 30 acres and contains 13 parcels, including right-of-way (Plan Area). The City’s Structure Plan identifies the Plan Area as a General Commercial District. The Plan Area is zoned within the City as a General Commercial District and is also in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The boundary of the Plan Area includes those properties located within the area bounded by: • South College Avenue to the east; • West Thunderbird Drive to the south; • McClelland Drive to the west; and • The north exterior wall of the vacant K-Mart property to the north. DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The College and Drake Tax Increment Financing District has the same boundaries as the Plan Area. PLAN GOALS AND 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 (City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan), 2019 • Transit Master Plan, 2019 • Midtown Plan, 2013 • City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, 2013 The Plan intends to stimulate private sector development and redevelopment 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, including vacancy, underutilization, and underinvestment. • To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements. • To leverage reinvestment and development outcomes to redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner that is compatible with and complementary to community goals and objectives for the Plan Area. • To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land. • To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety. • To encourage the rehabilitation and redevelopment of outmoded buildings, improvements, and conditions. • To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Plan Area. • To accommodate project opportunities to eliminate and prevent the further spread of 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. Agenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 3 • To provide a range of financing mechanisms to incent investment, including utilizing incremental taxes derived from within the Plan Area to enable enhanced development outcomes, both public and private. • To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. AUTHORIZED URBAN RENEWAL POWERS To support progress toward the outlined 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 • Cooperative Agreements • Acquire Real Property, including through the use of eminent domain • Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Preparation • Property Disposition • Redevelopment Agreements • Relocation Assistance • Hiring • Catalyst and Enhancement Projects ANTICIPATED URBAN RENEWAL ACTIVITIES Anticipated activities within the Plan Area include: (1) redevelopment of the vacant K-Mart property north of Drake Road as a grocery superstore, and (2) redevelopment of the Spradley Barr Mazda auto dealership site south of Drake Road as an urban mixed-use development. In addition to these redevelopments, the Plan also anticipates public infrastructure improvements to support these redevelopment activities as well as to support the continued viability of existing commercial uses in the Plan Area as further detailed below (Project). PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES The Authority may, or may not, cooperate with others to, install, construct, and reconstruct any public improvements to promote the objectives of the Plan and the Urban Renewal Law. Public projects are intended to stimulate (directly and indirectly) investment in and around the Plan Area. It is the intent of this Plan that the combination of public and private investment that may be necessary to advance the objectives stated herein, assist in the investment and reinvestment of the Plan Area, and thereby contribute to the overall economic wellbeing of the community. Senior City Planning and Engineering staff identified a preliminary list of eligible public improvements for the Plan Area. To vet the list of public improvements, staff created the Plan Area Review Committee (PRC) comprised of representatives from the taxing entities that levy a property tax within the Plan Area. The PRC provided recommendations on how the Authority funds the proposed public improvements. Based on this discussion, staff revised the list of eligible public improvements and presented them to the Authority Board on February 27, 2019. Various members of the Authority Board recommended that the Authority only fund public improvements related to blight remediation. Based on this feedback, staff updated the eligible list of public improvements and organized these improvements into eight categories as follows: 1. Intersection Improvements and Safety 2. Bicycle and Multi-Use Improvements & Safety 3. Traffic Safety Improvements 4. Parking Management 5. Pedestrian and Sidewalk Improvements 6. Landscaping and Streetscape 7. Bus Stop Improvements on Drake Road 8. Other Expenses Agenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 4 URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FORMATION PROCESS OVERVIEW The formation of a new urban renewal plan involves the following steps: 1. Conduct Existing Conditions Study 2. Draft Urban Renewal Plan 3. Negotiate Tax Increment Allocation Agreements with Affected Taxing Entities 4. Plan Review - Planning and Zoning Board, Larimer County and Poudre School District 5. Public Hearing and Council Consideration of Resolution Approving the Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY The Urban Renewal Law requires the Authority to perform an Existing Conditions Survey to substantiate the existence of blight conditions within the proposed plan area. Four out of the eleven conditions of blight identified in the Urban Renewal Law must exist for approval of a new Plan. On July 9, 2018, the Authority Board approved a resolution directing Authority staff to complete an Existing Conditions Survey for the College and Drake Plan (Survey). Authority staff contracted with Economic Planning Systems (EPS) to conduct the Survey, a copy of which is attached as Appendix B to the Plan. The Survey indicates the presence of six blight conditions within the Plan Area. In November 2018, City Council passed a resolution directing Authority staff to submit the Survey and the Plan to the City’s Planning & Zoning Board (P & Z Board), the Larimer County Board of Commissioners (County), and Poudre School District (PSD). Before adopting the Plan in Resolution 2020-013, City Council must adopt the required blight findings identified in the Survey as proposed in Resolution 2020-012. DRAFT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN The previous section of this Agenda Item Summary discussed the draft plan for Council’s consideration. NEGOTIATE TAX INCREMENT ALLOCATION AGREEMENT WITH UNDERLYING TAX ENTITIES The Urban Renewal Law requires the Authority to engage with all taxing entities that impose a property tax with the Plan Area and whose incremental property tax revenues will be used under the Plan in order to discuss and address service impacts resultant from new development. Before proceeding with the Plan, the Authority must either reach an agreement with each such entity on how revenues will be allocated under the Plan or conduct a binding mediation with those entities with whom an agreement is not reached. The Authority engaged with all the affected taxing entities and reached agreement on tax increment allocation with: • City of Fort Collins • Larimer County, Foothills Gateway and Larimer County Pest Control District • Poudre River Public Library District • Larimer County Health District Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District will not contribute any of its property tax increment under the Plan. After good-faith negotiations, PSD and the Authority could not reach an agreement, so they participated in the binding mediation process to determine how PSD’s tax increment would be allocated under the Plan. The panel of mediators considered the arguments from PSD and the Authority and ruled in the Authority’s favor. The Plan contains language articulating and incorporating the findings of the mediators as required by the Urban Renewal Law. PLAN REVIEW - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, LARIMER COUNTY & POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT In November 2018, the P & Z Board reviewed the Plan for compliance with City Plan as required by the Urban Renewal Law and adopted Resolution #01-2018 finding that the Plan was in conformance with City Plan. Agenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF PLAN BY CITY COUNCIL The meeting this evening is the public hearing for Council’s consideration of the Plan. Staff mailed notice to all property owners in the Plan Area and published notice of the hearing in a newspaper of record in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law. On November 6, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-106 directing the City Manager to submit the Plan to the to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (the “County Board”) the Plan and an “impact report” as required by the Urban Renewal Law. The Plan was submitted to the County Board on October 30, 2018, but the impact report was not submitted because the County Board waived submittal of it in the tax increment agreement the Authority and the County have entered into. City Council Resolution 2018-016 also directed the City Manager to submit the Plan to PSD so that it can, if desires to do so, review and comment on the Plan in an advisory capacity as permitted under the Urban Renewal Law. The Plan was submitted to the PSD on November 9, 2018. In addition to other authorized powers, the Plan authorizes the Authority to acquire any real property within the Plan Area for the Project by using the power of eminent domain for subsequent transfer to a private party. These resolutions contain certain specific findings required under the Urban Renewal Law that are a prerequisite to the Authority exercising this eminent domain power. The Urban Renewal Law also requires the Council to make certain other findings in its approval of the Plan. To assist the Council in making these findings, City and Authority staff have determined the following to be the case with respect to the Plan, Plan Area and the Project: • The Plan Area does not contain any parcel of land that is “agricultural land” as defined in the Urban Renewal Law. • It is not expected or intended that the Project will displace or need to relocate any individuals or families in connection with its implementation, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method for this exists in the Plan that satisfies the requirements of the Urban Renewal Law. • It is not expected or intended that the Project will displace business concerns within the Plan Area, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method for this exists in the Plan that satisfies the requirements of the Urban Renewal Law. • None of the land within the Plan Area has previously been included in a proposed urban renewal plan that the City Council has failed to approve under the Urban Renewal Law. • The Plan conforms to City Plan as it existed in November 2018 and as it has been updated by City Council’s April 16, 2019, adoption of Resolution 2019-048. • The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan Area by private enterprise, as required in the Urban Renewal Law. • Under the Plan and the County tax increment agreement, the Authority will adequately finance, as required by Urban Renewal Law, any additional County infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Plan Area. • The Plan Area does not include any open land that will be redeveloped for residential or nonresidential uses. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The Plan will enable the collection of incremental property tax revenues from the affected taxing entities and incremental sales tax revenues from the City. The current assessed value of all property in the Plan Area is $3.5 million. The estimated assessed value of the Plan Area upon completion of the two redevelopment projects is approximately $12.8 million. Preliminary estimates of property tax increment total $20.3 million over the 25-year period. Agenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 6 Total City sales tax increment is estimated to be nearly $677,000 annually or roughly $23.3 million over the life of the Plan. This represents approximately $13.3 million in time value adjusted dollars (assuming a 4.5 percent discount rate). The current proposal from the Authority pledges 50 percent of the net new increment or approximately $317,000 annually for a total of $10.1 million. This represents approximately $5.8 million in time value adjusted dollars to support the Plan. The City will also receive Lodging Tax revenue, which is split between Visit Fort Collins and Fort Fund grant dollars. It is estimated that approximately $110,000 annually will be generated from the proposed hotel for a total of $3.9 million in total or $2.2 million in present value. In addition, other taxing entities including the State of Colorado and Larimer County will receive additional sales tax revenue from the Project. Using the same assumptions regarding net new revenue the State will received approximately $560,000 annually for a total of $18.3 million over the 25-year period. The County will receive approximately $155,000 annually split across the Base Tax and Mental Health Tax. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On November 15, 2018, the Planning & Zoning Board adopted a resolution finding that the Plan is in conformance with City Plan. The Authority Board also considered this item at their regular meeting on November 7, 2019, and recommended approval of the Plan. PUBLIC OUTREACH Authority staff convened a public open house on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at the Christ United Methodist Church, 301 E. Drake Road to solicit feedback on the proposed plan area. Comments from this workshop included: • Ensure easy and safe pedestrian connections to proposed grocery store on northwest corner of Drake and College, Mason Trail, and other amenities • Mitigate impact of parking structure by making it underground or providing multiple uses (example, a skate park) Attendees also provided feedback on the proposed public improvements. Staff asked attendees to vote for their preferred public improvements with sticky dots. The results broke down as follows: College and Drake intersection improvements 24 votes Improved multi-use trail (grade separation) 19 votes Parking enhancements (i.e. parking structure) 18 votes Traffic safety improvements 18 votes Sidewalk and landscaping enhancements 16 votes Stormwater improvements 13 votes Bus stop improvements on Drake near MAX 6 votes Other outreach associated with establishment of the Plan includes: • Series of meetings with Plan Area Review Committee (including staff from Larimer County, Poudre School District, Northern Larimer County Health District, and Poudre River Library District) • Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce - Local Legislative Affairs Committee - November 9, 2018 • Midtown Business Association (formerly South Fort Collins Business Association) - November 13, 2018 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 15, 2018 (PDF) 2. Urban Renewal Authority Board minutes, November 7, 2019 (draft) (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant; spoke to a proposed student housing complex South of Creekside Park. Mr. Sutherland provided a date: 11/19/2018, for a decision by the judge for litigation, for failure to follow the Land Use Code alleging abuse to the discretion by City Council. He feels there should have been dedication of right-of-way on the project and adequate definitions provided. He is dissatisfied with the Board. No comments provided by staff or City attorney. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from October 18, 2018, P&Z Hearing 2. Annual Work Plan 3. 2018 Three-Mile Plan Update Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Schneider did final review of items on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the November 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board hearing consisting of the draft minutes from the October 18, 2018 P&Z hearing, the 2019 P&Z work plan and the 2018 Three-Mile plan update. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Chair Schneider verified with Board that they had opportunity to see the revised minutes. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. Proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Project Description: The purpose of this item is for the Planning & Zoning Board to review the proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan (URP) for conformance with City Plan, the City of Fort Collins adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed URP is still in draft form. However, portions of the plan that must comply with City Plan are complete and will only minor changes, such as grammatical edits. The P&Z Board must review and evaluate the URP before it can be formally adopted by City Council, currently scheduled for January 15, 2019, and make a recommendation related to the URP’s conformance with City Plan. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails for this item, and that 1 new attachment had been received: attachment 3, titled “Resolution – Fort Collins Planning Commission – UR Plan confo”. Staff Presentation Josh Birks, Director of Economic Sustainability, gave brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant; Wanted to know if there was a representative of the applicant available. Mr. Sutherland offered a few statistics and feels tax dollars should go to the schools. He feels the City is on track with the City Plan and (the City) is in compliance. Mr. Sutherland’s question to the Board; Isn’t this pledge of sales taxes dollars completely unenforceable and is the applicant not taking a huge chance that some future Council will simply refuse to pay it? Planning and Zoning Board November 15, 2018 ATTACHMENT 1 Rory Heath, City Park Dr.; His strong ask is that public safety, different traffic patterns and integration of those traffic patterns, the Mason corridor and the awkward railroad corridor along that area are taken into account. He reiterated the emphasis for public good versus development. Staff Response Director Birks deferred to Caitlin Quander, Council to the Urban Renewal Authority, to respond to the questions asked by the citizens. Ms. Quander responded to Mr. Sutherlands questions. First being that the Urban Renewal Authority is the entity that advances the process. Chair Schneider sought clarification on who the applicant was, Ms. Quander responded that the URA is a sperate entity from the City which is why there is separate legal counsel. As for the question regarding sales tax; within the statutory role, the Board is looking at if this proposed plan is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan and that City sales tax is in conversation with the City and the URA at the appropriate time when those allocation agreements come forward before the City Council. Chair Schneider asked if the sales tax dollars are enforceable based on the complaint filed by Mr. Sutherland. Ms. Quander deferred to City Attorney Yatabe. Mr. Yatabe responded that he did not have any information as he has not been involved with the issue. Member Pardee wanted to know about the legal structure of the URA Board. Ms. Quander replied that it is a quasi- governmental entity much like a metropolitan district or a business improvement district, yet slightly different as it is made up of City Council along with appointees and has different statutory authority. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen commented that this is a complicated plan and that he is glad the Board does not have to be involved in the nuts and bolts other than compliance with the City Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels can use some help and as for the role of the Board, this is an appropriate check box for approval. Attorney Yatabe; the Board has been provided with a written resolution where the stature requires that in reviewing conformance with he Comprehensive Plan and the City Plan that the findings that you make the recommendation regarding that issue be put down in writing so that can be communicated to City Council, who will be the ultimate decision maker. The request is for the Board to adopt the Resolution and direct the Chair to sign the Resolution. Chair Schneider; The Board can state the resolution, we do not have to read the whole resolution? Attorney Yatabe, responded that was correct. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Resolution 012018, a resolution of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board finding that the Drake and College Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with the City Plan and the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan. Member Carpenter seconded. Member Rollins commented that it is not only in compliance, but it is supportive of the plans and is happy to support. Member Whitley supports this item. Chair Schneider; based on the Board’s role and what can be done, this does comply with City Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and helps improve the area. Vote: 7:0. 5. Downtown and Transition Area - LUC Updates Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Divisions 4.16 (Downtown) and 4.9 (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) as they relate to development standards governing these two zone districts. Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails for this item, but that there were two (2) updated attachments: Division 4.9 NCB and Division 4.16 Downtown District and that Member Rollins recused herself from this item. Staff Presentation Comprehensive Planning Manager Gloss and Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this plan. November 7, 2019 City of Fort Collins Page 376 RESULT: RESOLUTION NO. 104 ADOPTED [9 TO 0] MOVER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 SECONDER: Kristin Stephens, District 4 AYES: Smith, Troxell, Cunniff, Stephens, Summers, Wise, Febvre, Pignataro, Gorgol ABSTAIN: Gutowsky ABSENT: Johnson 4. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan (Accepted Staff Recommendation) The purpose of this item is to discuss the proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan and make a recommendation to City Council on adopting the plan. Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager, discussed the location and projects included in the College and Drake Urban Renewal Area. He outlined the process of creating the Urban Renewal Plan to this point and stated the final step will involve bringing the Plan before the Fort Collins City Council. Frickey outlined the documents with which this Plan must have consistency: the recently adopted City Plan, the Midtown Plan, and the Midtown in Motion Plan. Staff has found that the Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with these three overarching plans. Frickey discussed the Plan objectives and how the tax increment will be used based on intergovernmental agreements. He noted tax increment negotiations have been completed with all the taxing entities, except for Poudre School District. He stated staff recommends adoption of the Plan. Acting Executive Director Birks stated staff is requesting a motion from the Board related to recommend City Council adopt the Plan. Commissioner Wise asked if intergovernmental agreements would need to be amended if details change. Birks replied in the affirmative and stated the rationale behind not including those details in the Plan itself is that the process would need to start over again if the Plan is amended. Commissioner Wise asked if the same list of projects is included in each intergovernmental agreement. Birks replied in the affirmative. The main reason for preserving the opportunity for change is that this is a 25-year plan. He noted there are no planned changes at this point. Commissioner Febvre requested clarification on the statement related to negotiations with the School District being complete. Birks replied the mediation, or arbitration, has resulted in two options for the URA: entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the School District codifying the findings of the arbitration or documenting the findings of the arbitration in the Plan. Caitlin Quander, legal counsel, stated the legal representatives from both entities are in agreement that the findings of the mediation should be included in the Plan. Language in the Plan also allows for work to continue on an intergovernmental agreement if desired. Commissioner Febvre noted the project details are not included in an agreement with the School District as there is no agreement in place. Birks replied the arbitration conclusion did not include a limitation on the list of projects. He noted that the limitation does exist with every other taxing district and that may be a reason for the parties to continue work on an IGA. He also noted other Urban Renewal Authority Board November 7, 2019 ATTACHMENT 2 November 7, 2019 City of Fort Collins Page 377 limitations are still in place with the School District, though the arrangement is slightly different due to the mediation process. Commissioner Pignataro asked if the Midtown Plan is scheduled to be updated. Frickey replied that is not currently scheduled, though it is the oldest of the three applicable plans. Commissioner Pignataro asked if alignment with the Midtown Plan was difficult given its age. Frickey replied the vision of the Midtown Plan has yet to be realized and therefore has a great deal of applicability. Commissioner Pignataro asked if there is anything in this Urban Renewal Plan that would constrain something amazing from happening in the area. Frickey replied the project list primarily deals with intersection improvements and similar projects; therefore, an amazing project is not precluded. Vice Chair Cunniff asked if the level of specificity in the anticipated activities is required. Quander replied in the negative and stated some language was included to allow for approximations. Vice Chair Cunniff asked if it is necessary to specify a hotel and big box grocer as the projects. Quander replied staff saw value in describing the two projects that are in mind; however, there is language related to changes in the use. She stated the discussion around the specific projects will come when a redevelopment agreement with the developer is negotiated. Birks stated House Bill 1348 requires an analysis of the impacts of anticipated projects in the area and a great deal of care has been taken in this Plan to do that. The projects are by no means approved and are subject to change. Additional language could be included prior to the Plan going before Council. Vice Chair Cunniff replied that may be his preference. Commissioner Wise stated it is important to keep in mind this is not subsidizing a grocery store or a hotel but rather using revenue that will come from developments to make area improvements. He also noted developers can build the projects with or without approval from the URA. Vice Chair Cunniff asked if facade improvements are part of the project list. Birks replied in the negative but stated sidewalk improvements and other off-site improvements are on the list. Vice Chair Cunniff stated he would still prefer some looser language. Birks replied staff will make some language changes and provide a red lined version to the Board before the Plan goes before Council. Commissioner Gutowsky asked if it is true the property owners can build whatever they would like on the properties. Birks replied the question of what can and cannot be built is part of the development review process and relates to zoning. Both the grocery store and hotel uses are allowed by zoning; therefore, both could advance without assistance from the URA. If assistance is requested, a detailed redevelopment agreement would be required. Commissioner Gutowsky asked why either project would ask for financial assistance. Birks clarified there are currently no conversations related to providing direct assistance to Kroger; however, the project will generate tax increment that allows the public health and safety improvements to be funded. There are ongoing conversations with the developer of the Spradley November 7, 2019 City of Fort Collins Page 378 Barr site however and part of the analysis the Board will see moving forward is the financial performance of the project as proposed. Commissioner Wise stated the developments are a source of funds to be used for desired public infrastructure projects. Chair Troxell noted the developments will create the funds to complete public improvements. Commissioner Gutowsky asked if any parking has been associated with any of the proposals. Birks replied the Plan allows for the URA to improve or acquire a MAX related parking easement as an eligible expenditure. Birks detailed the proposed projects for URA funding. Commissioner Stephens made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers, that the URA Board recommend the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan be adopted by the Fort Collins City Council. Commissioner Stephens stated there is clearly demonstrated blight in the area and commended this as an opportunity to leverage investment in the area. Commissioner Febvre commended the way the URA and staff worked through this process with other taxing entities. Vice Chair Cunniff stated he would support the motion given the language flexibility staff will add as the public improvements are largely desirable. He also stated he does not want to encourage property owners to leave properties vacant for longer than they should in order to cause blighted conditions. Commissioner Wise agreed with Commissioner Febvre’s comments and commended staff and the Board on their work. Commissioner Gutowsky commended staff work on the Plan and agreed the area needs improvement. Chair Troxell commended work on the Plan and discussed the benefits to the area in terms of activation. RESULT: ACCEPTED STAFF RECOMMENDATION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4 SECONDER: Ken Summers, District 3 AYES: Smith, Troxell, Cunniff, Stephens, Summers, Wise, Febvre, Gutowsky, Pignataro, Gorgol ABSENT: Johnson 5. IBE Engagement Update. (No Action Taken) The purpose of this item is to update the Board on the URA’s engagement effort for the North College Plan Area in partnership with the Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) and the Family Center. 1 Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Program Manager College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan ATTACHMENT 3 2 MAX King Soopers Spradley Barr Urban Renew Plan Formation Overview 1. Existing conditions study 2. Draft Urban Renewal Plan (URP) 3. Tax increment negotiation 4. URP review by Planning & Zoning Board 5. Consideration by City Council 3 Alignment 4 Plan Objectives • Redevelopment & New Development • Remedy conditions that impair sound growth of the City • Implement the Comprehensive Plan • Leverage reinvestment complementary to community goals • Effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land 5 Plan Objectives • Improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety • Encourage the rehabilitation and redevelopment of outmoded buildings • Provide financing mechanisms to incent investment, including TIF • Contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities 6 Tax Increment & Use 7 Private Investment = Tax Increment Tax Entity Allocations Project Assistance Plan Area Improvements Additional Options Increment Limitations 8 Duration Allocation Revenue Cap Specific Improvements Tax Increment Negotiations Entity Status City of Fort Collins Complete Larimer County Complete Poudre River Public Library District Complete Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Complete, not contributing increment Larimer County Health District Complete Poudre School District Complete 9 Taxing Entity / Revenue Source Mills / Rate Assumptions Annual Increment to Entity Annual Increment to URA URA Increment Revenue CAP $ 655,105 $ 405,214 $ 12,979,000 Larimer County / Property Tax 2 21.653 60% of Increment Committed $ 78,241 $ 117,361 $ 3,759,000 Foothillls Gateway / Property Tax 0.750 No Increment Committed $ 6,775 $ - $ - Health District / Property Tax 2.167 66% of Increment Committed $ 6,656 $ 12,920 $ 414,000 Library District / Property Tax 3.000 66% of Increment Committed $ 9,214 $ 17,886 $ 573,000 Poudre School District / Property Tax 52.630 20.25 Mills of Increment Committed $ 292,504 $ 182,928 $ 5,859,000 Northern Water / Property Tax 1.000 No Increment Committed $ 9,033 $ - $ - Larimer County Pest Control District / Property Tax 0.142 No Increment Committed $ 1,283 $ - $ - $ 403,706 $ 331,095 $ 10,605,000 $ 1,058,811 $ 736,309 $ 23,584,000 1 Excludes Sales at the Existing King Soopers being relocated 2 Excludes 0.7500 Mills dedicated to Foothills Gateway Subtotal / City of Fort Collins Subtotal / All Other Entities Total 10 Allocation Inputs Key Dates 11 PRC REVIEW Council Adoption Jan. 21, 2020 Public Open House Oct. 10, 2018 P&Z Review Nov. 15, 2018 TAX ALLOCATIONS Allocation Approvals Spring – Winter 2019 Negotiations URA Board Review Nov. 7, 2019 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan 12 -1- RESOLUTION 2020-012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE COLLEGE AND DRAKE EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY, MAKING FINDINGS DETERMINING THAT THE SURVEYED AREA IS BLIGHTED AND DESIGNATING THE AREA AS APPROPRIATE FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the C i t y Council adopted Resolution 1982-010 establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) under Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law in Part 1 of Article 25 in Title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “URL”); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority (the “URA Board”) adopted Resolution No. 087 under URL Section 31-25-107(1)(a) to commission an existing conditions study of an area west of and including the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road in the City of Fort Collins and also directing Authority staff to prepare a proposed urban renewal plan for this area; and WHEREAS, the commissioned “College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey” dated September 5, 2018, has been completed and is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Conditions Survey”); and WHEREAS, the Conditions Survey studied and surveyed a “Study Area” comprised of 13 separate parcels on a total of approximately 30 acres of land as identified, described and depicted in Section 2, Table 1 and Figure 1 of the Conditions Survey (the “Study Area”); and WHEREAS, as directed by the URA Board in Section 2 of Resolution No. 087, Authority staff sent by regular mail in July 2018 to every fee-title-owner of real property in the Study Area, addressed to each Owner’s last-known address of record, a written notice, an example of which is attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference, informing each property owner that the Authority was commencing a study necessary under the URL for making a determination as to whether the Study Area is a blighted area; and WHEREAS, the Conditions Survey has been presented to the City Council for its review and consideration under the URL; and WHEREAS, on this day, January 21, 2020, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to review the Conditions Survey and to receive other evidence to determine whether the Study Area is a “blighted area” and, if so, whether the Study Area should be designated as appropriate for an urban renewal project as contemplated in URL Section 31-25-107(1)(a) (the “Public Hearing”); and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2019, notice of the Public Hearing was duly published as required by URL Section 31-25-107(3) to provide no less than 30 days prior published notice of the Public Hearing as evidenced by the affidavit attached as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference; and -2- WHEREAS, the Authority’s staff has caused to be sent by first class mail on December 20, 2019, the written notice attached as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference to the last known address of record of each property owner, resident and business concern within the Study Area thereby constituting reasonable efforts to provide at least 30 days prior written notice of the Public Hearing as required in URL Sections 31-25-107(3)(b) and 31-25-107(4)(c). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Conditions Survey is hereby accepted and adopted by the City Council. Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds that the evidence at the Public Hearing establishes that there is present within the Study Area, in its current condition and use, the following 6 factors that substantially impair and arrest the growth of the City, retard the provision of housing accommodations, constitute economic and social liabilities and are a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare: (a) Slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures; (b) Predominance of defective and inadequate street layout; (c) Unsanitary and unsafe conditions; (d) Deterioration of site and other improvements; (e) Unusual topography and inadequate public improvements and utilities; and (f) Substantial physical underutilization and vacancy of sites, buildings, and other improvements. Section 4. That the City Council has considered all the evidence presented in the Public Hearing including, without limitation, the Conditions Survey, City and Authority staff presentations and recommendations, testimony of proponents and opponents and the legislative record, and it has given appropriate weight to such evidence and hereby determines, having made the findings in Section 3 above, that the Study Area is a blighted area. Section 5. That the blight determination in Section 4 above is made without regard to the economic performance of the properties within the Study Area, thereby constituting under URL Sections 31-25-107(3)(b) and 31-25-105.5(2) the City Council’s blight determination necessary as a prerequisite to the Authority exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire -3- any real property within the Study Area for subsequent transfer to a private party. Section 6. That based on all of the foregoing, the Study Area is hereby designated as appropriate for inclusion in an urban renewal project under the URL. Section 7. That as required by URL Section 31-25-107(1)(b), the City Clerk shall, within 7 days of the adoption of this Resolution, provide written notice of the blight determination in this Resolution to all of the fee-title owners of real property within the Study Area by mailing the notice by regular mail to each such owners’ last-known address of record. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of January, A.D. 2020. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Draft Report College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. September 5, 2018 EPS #173061 EXHIBIT A Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 1 Colorado Urban Renewal Law .................................................................................... 1 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3 2. STUDY AREA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 4 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 4 Field Survey Approach ............................................................................................. 7 Blight Factor Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................ 7 Results of Field Survey ............................................................................................ 9 Other Considerations ............................................................................................. 12 3. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1 Parcels Contained in the URA Study Area ........................................................... 4 Table 2 Visual Conditions of Blight Observed ............................................................... 10 Table 3 Nuisance Violations, 2013-2018 ..................................................................... 12 Table 4 Police Incidents and Offenses, 2015-2018 ........................................................ 14 Table 5 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 1-30 ......................................................... 29 Table 6 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 31-60 ....................................................... 30 Table 7 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 61-90 ....................................................... 31 Table 8 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 91-113 ...................................................... 32 List of Figures Figure 1 College and Drake Proposed URA Boundary and Parcels ....................................... 6 Figure 2 Study Area Nuisance Code Violations, January 2013 – August 2018 ..................... 13 Figure 3 Image Location Reference Map ....................................................................... 18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 173061-DRAFT-Fort Collins URA Existing Conditions 9-5-18 1. INTRODUCTION In July of 2018, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), working with the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA), conducted the following existing conditions survey (Survey) of the proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area (Study Area). This proposed plan area is a portion of the College Midtown Corridor and is bounded by South College Avenue to the east, West Thunderbird Drive to the south, McClelland Drive to the west, and the north exterior wall of the vacant K-Mart property to the north, as shown in Figure 1. The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) anticipates creating a new plan area around Drake Road and College Avenue to support redevelopment plans for two large sites - the vacant former K-Mart located north of Drake, and the Spradley-Barr Mazda auto dealership located south of Drake. The proposed Urban Renewal Area captures these redevelopment plans and, if approved, will aide in the redevelopment and public improvement of the area. Purpose The primary purpose of this Survey is to determine whether the Study Area qualifies as a “blighted area” within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law. Secondly, this Survey will influence whether the Study Area should be recommended to be established as a URA Plan Area for such urban renewal activities as the URA and City Council deem appropriate. Colorado Urban Renewal Law The requirements for the establishment of a URA plan are outlined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq. In order to establish an area for urban renewal, there are an array of conditions that must be documented to establish a condition of blight. The determination that constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical, environmental, and social factors. Blight is 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 in the Urban Renewal Law is as follows: College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Draft Report Urban Renewal Law Blight Factors (C.R.S. § 31-25-103) “’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 or 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 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.” Use of Eminent Domain In order for an Urban Renewal Authority to use the powers of eminent domain to acquire properties, 5 of the 11 blight factors must be present (C.R.S. § 31‐25‐ 105.5(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.” College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Draft Report Methodology This Survey was completed by EPS to inventory and establish the existing conditions within the Study Area through data gathering and field observations of physical conditions. The Study Area was defined by the URA to encompass the proposed redevelopment on two large properties north and south of Drake Street. The Study Area extends to include a number of adjacent commercial properties within the two block Study Area, as well as the public streets to the east, west, and south (College, McClelland, and West Thunderbird) and the Transport MAX station, along with associated park and ride spaces. An inventory of parcels within the Study Area was compiled using parcel data from the Larimer County Assessor documenting parcel ownership, use, vacancy, and assessed value. A series of Study Area maps were then developed to facilitate the field survey, which documented and photographed visual conditions of blight. The field survey was conducted by EPS in July of 2018. The 11 factors of blight in the state statute were broken down into “conditions” - existing situations or circumstances identified in the Study Area that may qualify as blight under each of the 11 factors. The conditions documented in this report are submitted as evidence to support a “finding of blight” according to Urban Renewal Law. Under the Urban Renewal Law, the final determination of blight within the Study Area is within the sole discretion of the Fort Collins City Council. Urban Renewal Case Law In addition to the State statute, 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. The following parameters have been established through case law for determining blight and the role of judiciary review. Tracy v. City of Boulder (Colo. Ct. App. 1981) • Upheld the definition of blight presented in the Urban Renewal Law as a broad condition encompassing not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisioning the prevention of deterioration. Therefore, the existence of widespread nuisance violations and building condemnation is not required to designate an area blighted. • Additionally, the determination of blight is the responsibility of the legislative body and a court’s role in review is to 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. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority (Colo. 1970) • Determined that blight assessment is not on a building-to-building basis, but is based on conditions observed throughout the plan area as a whole. The presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 173061-DRAFT-Fort Collins URA Existing Conditions 9-5-18 2. STUDY AREA ANALYSIS S t udy Area The proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area is comprised of 13 parcels on approximately 30 acres of land, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Parcels Contained in the URA Study Area The 13 parcels are separated into the two major assemblages for redevelopment and six smaller holdings summarized below and shown in Figure 1: • Parcels 1 and 2: Dillon Companies, Inc. – Parcels 1 and 2 comprising 11.2 acres of land are owned by Dillon Companies, a real estate subsidiary of King Soopers which is wholly owned by the Kroger Company. Parcel 1 is the north portion of a vacant retail center formerly occupied by Cricket, Advantage, and Radio Shack. Parcel 2 is the southern portion of the vacant center formerly occupied by KMart as well as an occupied Loaf and Jug convenience and gas outlet on the Drake Road frontage. It also contains 60 parking spaces under an easement to Transport MAX for park and ride spaces. • Parcel 3: City of Fort Collins – Parcel 3 is a 34,100 square foot parcel behind (west of) the former KMart, owned by the City of Fort Collins for the MAX station and associated right-of- way. • Parcel 4: Dillon Companies, Inc. – This retail strip is owned by Dillon Companies and contains a 4,800 square foot building leased to Larkburger, Cricket, and a Waxing Salon. • Parcel 5: Round Top Investments, LLC. – This 24,700 square foot parcel contains a Jiffy Lube auto service center on the northwest corner of the intersection of College and Drake. • Parcels 6 and 7: Dracol, LLC. – These parcels, comprising 5.7 acres of land, contain the existing Spradley-Barr Mazda dealership buildings and lots. The property is proposed to be redeveloped as a mixed use project, including a hotel and multifamily apartments with ground level retail space. Reference Number Parcel Number Address Year Built Owner Business Name Sq. Ft. Land Occupancy Sq. Ft. Building Assessed Value 1 9723410004 2505 S College Ave 1972 Dillon Companies Inc. Cricket, Advantage, Radio Shack 92,698 Vacant 9,911 $1,180,165 2 9723410002 2445 S College Ave 1977 Dillon Companies Inc. K-Mart, Texaco Convenience Store 395,708 Vacant 90,664 $3,953,874 3 9723400908 City of Fort Collins 34,057 Vacant 0 $500 4 9723410001 2539 S College Ave 2009 Dillon Companies Inc. Larkburger, Cricket, Waxing the City 19,000 Occupied 4,785 $818,790 5 9723412001 2549 S College Ave 1980 Round Top Investments, LLC. Jiffy Lube 24,706 Occupied 2,968 $623,790 6 9726114001 2601 S College Ave 1966 Dracol, LLC. Spradley-Barr Auto Dealership 173,504 Occupied 7,184 $1,855,072 7 9726100023 2601 S College Ave 1973 Dracol, LLC. Spradley-Barr Auto Dealership 73,486 Occupied 0 $413,809 8 9726100016 2627 S College Ave 1966 Dracol, LLC. Sherwin Williams Paints 21,698 Occupied 14,790 $1,153,769 9 9726120001 Dracol, LLC. Vacant Land 4,000 Vacant 0 $22,000 10 9726120002 132 W Thunderbird Dr 1969 Dracol, LLC. Tri City Paint 13,224 Vacant 2,160 $275,068 11 9726127003 2633 S College Ave 1995 Plutus Holdings, LLC. Critter Vet 12,815 Occupied 3,125 $410,050 12 9726127004 2631 S College Ave 1975 Enchante Enterprises, LLC. Enchante Salon 13,332 Occupied 3,047 $525,400 13 9726127001 2635 S College Ave 1976 Brien Buell (Trust) Tortilla Marissas 14,052 Occupied 2,008 $450,072 Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems I:\Data\GIS\173061-Fort Collins URA\Exports\[URA Parcels.xls]T-URA Parcels Format College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Draft Report • Parcels 8 and 9: Dracol, LLC. – Parcel 8 is 21,700 square feet and contains a Sherwin- Williams paint store with frontage on College Avenue. Parcel 9 is a 4,000 square foot vacant, interior lot. Both parcels are owned by Dracol. • Parcel 10: Dracol, LLC. – This 13,200 square foot parcel contains a 2,200 square foot vacant building formerly occupied by Tri City Paint. • Parcel 11: Plutus Holdings, LLC. – This 12,800 square foot parcel is owned by Plutus Holdings and is occupied by Critter Vet Clinic. • Parcel 12: Enchante Enterprises, LLC. – This 13,300 square foot parcel is owned by Enchante Enterprises, LLC, which is affiliated with the Enchante Salon occupying the 3,000 square foot building. • Parcel 13: Brian Buell (Trust) – Tortilla Marissas operates a 2,000 square foot building on this parcel owned by Brien Buell (Trust) on the northwest corner of College and West Thunderbird Drive. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Draft Report Figure 1 College and Drake Proposed URA Boundary and Parcels College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Draft Report F i e l d Survey Approach The following assessment is based on a field survey conducted by EPS in July 2018. The survey team walked the entire Study Area, taking notes and photographs to document existing conditions corresponding to the blight factor evaluation criteria detailed in the following section. The location of each documented condition of blight is identified in the Image Location Reference Map in Appendix A of this report. B l i ght Factor Evaluation Criteria This section details the conditions used to evaluate blight during the field survey. The following conditions correspond with 6 of the 11 blight factors in the Urban Renewal Law. Additional information on a number of these factors for which data was available was also collected. The remaining blight factors cannot be visually inspected and are dependent on other data sources. Given the prevalence of physically observable conditions of blight, these remaining blight factors were not investigated. Buildings The following conditions establish evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(a) slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures,” based on an evaluation of the overall condition and level of deterioration of structures within the plan area. • Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation • Deteriorated Roof • Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts • Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • Deteriorated Windows and Doors • Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Street Layout The following conditions evaluate the Urban Renewal Law blight factor ”(b) predominance of defective or inadequate street layout,” through assessment of the safety, quality, and efficiency of street layouts, site access, and internal circulation. • Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry • Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic • Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians • Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion • Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access • Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites • Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks • Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Draft Report Unsafe/Unsanitary The following conditions establish evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(d) unsanitary or unsafe conditions,” by evaluating visual conditions that indicate the occurrence of activities that inhibit the safety and health of the area including, but not limited to, excessive litter, unenclosed dumpsters, and vandalism. • Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas • Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Evidence of Standing Water • Poor Fire Protection Facilities • Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses • Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems • Existence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials • High or Unusual Crime Statistics • Open/Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters • Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • Illegal Dumping/Excessive Litter • Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity • Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas • Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • Unsafe or Exposed Electrical Wire Site Improvements The following conditions evaluate the Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(e) deterioration of site or other improvements,” by evidence of overall maintenance deficiencies within the plan area including, deterioration, poorly maintained landscaping, and overall neglect. • Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies • Deteriorated Signage or Lighting • Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates • Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb and Gutter, or Sidewalks • Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) • Poor Parking Lot/Driveway Layout • Poorly Maintained Landscaping/Overgrown Vegetation Infrastructure The observation of the following infrastructure insufficiencies is evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(f) unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities.” • Deteriorated Pavement, Curb, Sidewalks, Lighting, or Drainage • Lack of Pavement, Curb, Sidewalks, Lighting, or Drainage • Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards • Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities/Hydrants • Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems • Unusual Topography College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Draft Report Vacancy The following conditions are evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(k) 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.” The primary visual condition observed is building vacancy. • An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area • Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel • Vacant Structures • Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Other Considerations The remaining five blight factors specified in the Urban Renewal Law were not investigated further due to sufficient evidence from the visual field survey supporting a condition of blight in 6 of the 11 blight factors. (c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness. (g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable. (h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or 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. Results o f F i e l d Survey This section summarizes the findings of the visual field survey of the Study Area conducted in July 2018. Table 2 on the next page documents the blight conditions observed. These conditions are then further detailed by category. Image documentation and the location of blight conditions are presented in Appendix A of this report. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Draft Report Table 2 Visual Conditions of Blight Observed 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof X 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits X 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts X 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors X 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks X 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures X 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Evidence of Standing Water X 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Existence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity X 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas X 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes X 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) X 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area X 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel X 11.06 Vacant Structures X 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures X VacancyInfrastructure Conditions Observed SiteUnsanitary Improvements UnsafeLayout / StreetBuildings College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Draft Report 1. Buildings: slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures All of the structures in the Study Area are commercial buildings. The most prevalent conditions observed were broken windows, cracks and deterioration in external walls, peeling exterior paint, and damaged roofs. While broken windows and major exterior wall damage were observed primarily in vacant structures, other deterioration conditions were observed throughout the Study Area. The majority of the buildings in the Study Area were constructed in the 1970s or earlier and a number of the original facades are deteriorating. 2. Street Layout: predominance of defective or inadequate street layout South College Avenue and McClelland Drive are the major north/south routes for vehicular traffic within the Study Area. Drake Road is a major arterial and provides the primary east/west connection while West Thunderbird Drive provides local site access. Throughout the Study Area, poor provisions of streets and walkways for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic were observed in the form of deteriorated safety striping, poor internal circulation, lack of sidewalks, and blocked or constrained site access. South of Drake Road, the inefficient frontage roads along South College Avenue create a hazard for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. These frontage roads present a barrier to site access and contribute to unsafe conditions for pedestrian traffic. 3. Unsafe/Unsanitary: unsanitary or unsafe conditions Throughout the Study Area, unsafe and unsanitary conditions were documented, including open/unenclosed trash dumpsters, cracked or uneven sidewalk surfaces, illegal dumping and litter, graffiti and vandalism, exposed electrical wires, and steep slopes. The most prevalent conditions were the presence of unenclosed/open dumpsters and excessive litter, primarily in less trafficked areas. In several areas attempts to cover graffiti were evident, while in other areas some graffiti was left untreated. Vandalism in the form of broken windows was also documented in most of the vacant structures, along with excessive litter and dumping. 4. Site Improvements: deterioration of site or other improvements The deterioration and overall neglect of properties throughout the Study Area is well documented. The main conditions of site deterioration include the deterioration of signage, deteriorated parking surfaces and curbs, poorly maintained vegetation, and poor parking/driveway layouts. Most of the onsite parking areas showed major deterioration, in many cases creating a safety hazard. Overall, there was evidence that site improvements throughout the area are not being maintained. 5. Infrastructure: unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities Inadequate infrastructure was observed throughout the Study Area, predominantly in the form of deteriorated or missing curbs and sidewalks. Other inadequate utility systems could not be observed visually. The majority of missing and deteriorated public improvements were located in parking lot landscaping islands and sidewalks interior to the sites that were unkempt. There are also several missing sidewalk connections. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Draft Report Along South College Avenue, tree roots underneath the sidewalk stonework has created unstable walking surfaces. There is evidence that asphalt was placed over top of the stonework to level the surface; however, this temporary fix is not effective and is showing signs of deterioration. 6. Vacancy: 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 There is a total of 102,735 square feet of vacant buildings in the Study Area, including spaces previously occupied by KMart, Cricket, and Tri City Paint, compared to 37,907 square feet of occupied space - a 73 percent vacancy factor overall. In addition to vacant structures, the Study Area can be characterized as underutilized with an average 0.16 floor area ratio (FAR) overall (140,642 square feet of building / 892,280 square feet of land area), which is well below the average of 0.25 FAR or greater found in other segments of the College Avenue Corridor. Largely vacant or underutilized and undeveloped parcels were documented in the Study Area including Parcels 6, 7, and 9. Parcel 7 and the portion of Parcel 6 at the corner of McClelland Drive and Drake are underutilized by the existing Automobile Dealership. Parcel 9 is a small vacant parcel interior to the south block. Other Considerations The team collected and analyzed additional non‐visual information on the Study Area that contributed to the documentation of blight factors. Nuisance Violations Nuisance violations cover multiple Urban Renewal Law blight factors including, “d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions” and “(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements.” The City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department issues notices for violations of the nuisance code related to the misuse of property. From January 2013 to August 2018 the Study Area had a total of 22 nuisance violations, as shown in Table 3. Nuisance violations in the Study Area consisted of twelve unmaintained weeds violations, six outdoor storage and rubbish violations, three un- shoveled snow violations, and one noxious weeds violation, shown in Figure 2. Table 3 Nuisance Violations, 2013-2018 2013-2018 [1] Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 [1] Total Study Area 3 7 6 0 3 3 22 City of Fort Collins 7,037 8,634 8,684 9,387 12,094 7,674 53,510 [1] 2018 count is year to date (August 1) Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Data\[173061-Nuisance Violations and Crime.xlsx]T-Nuisance Violations College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Draft Report Figure 2 Study Area Nuisance Code Violations, January 2013 – August 2018 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Draft Report Crime High or unusual crime is one determining criteria for the Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions.” Fort Collins Police Services provided both incident related data and offense related data for the Study Area. Incident related data includes any and all police calls generated, regardless of whether or not a crime is committed. Offense related data pertains to only criminal offenses. There were a total of 858 police incidents and criminal offenses in the Study Area from 2015 to 2018, as shown in Table 4. Based on this data, there is no evidence of high or unusual crime in the Study Area. Table 4 Police Incidents and Offenses, 2015-2018 Transportation Evaluation criteria for the Urban Renewal Law blight factor,”(b) predominance of defective or inadequate street layout,” assess the safety, quality, and efficiency of street layouts, site access, and internal circulation. The team reviewed traffic volumes, operations, and safety related information for the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road. The intersection is the third busiest intersection in the City and sees about 73,500 entering vehicles per day. Over the past 15 years the vehicle per day count has fluctuated between 72,000 and almost 76,000. City of Fort Collins Staff indicated that because the intersection is at capacity, any area growth over the past 15 years has relied on alternate routes thus resulting in static vehicle per day counts. Levels of Service are calculated by determining an average delay in seconds per vehicle entering the intersection, then assigning a letter grade. For College and Drake, the intersection is at a Level of Service “D” in the evening rush hour. Every entering vehicle in the afternoon rush hour has an average delay of 52 seconds in getting through the intersection. During the evening rush hour there are 6,200 entering vehicles which collectively experience a total of 90 hours of delay, which results in congestion, added emissions, and safety concerns. The national Highway Safety Manual uses a statistical evaluation to determine whether an intersection has more crashes than what would be expected given geometry and volumes. At College and Drake this evaluation expects 47 crashes per year with nine that involve some level 2015-2018 YTD Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD Total Police Incidents Study Area 202 191 232 155 780 City of Fort Collins 104,202 111,149 110,590 69,499 395,440 Offenses Study Area 19 24 20 15 78 City of Fort Collins 11,696 12,227 11,836 6,994 42,753 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Data\[173061-Nuisance Violations and Crime.xlsx]T-Crime College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Draft Report of injury. The intersection has an average of about 55 crashes per year, 11 of which involve some level of injury, and four of those are considered severe (non-incapacitating or incapacitating injuries). This intersection has six extra non-injury crashes and two extra injury crashes each year. The societal costs of the extra crashes is $344,000 per year. In terms of ranking, this intersection is number seven in the City in terms extra crash costs. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Draft Report 3. CONCLUSIONS Based on the definition of a blighted area in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq., and based on the field survey results of the Study Area, EPS concludes that the Study Area is a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq. The visual field survey conducted in July 2018 documented 6 of the 11 factors of blight within the Study Area. Therefore, this blighted area, as written in the Urban Renewal Law, “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.” Evidence of the following Urban Renewal Law blight factors are documented in this report: (a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures. (b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. (d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. (e) Deterioration of site or other improvements. (f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. (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. Evidence of the following Urban Renewal Law blight factors were not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant physical conditions, these factors of blight did not warrant further investigation. (c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness. (g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable. (h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or 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. As established by Urban Renewal case law in Colorado, this assessment is based on the condition of the Study Area as a whole, and recognizes that there are properties within the Study Area in standard condition. However, there is substantial evidence and documentation of 6 of the 11 blight factors in the Study Area as a whole, predominately in the vacant structures and underutilized parcels. Appendix A College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Appendix A Figure 3 Image Location Reference Map College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Appendix A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Appendix A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Appendix A 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Appendix A 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Appendix A 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Appendix A 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Appendix A 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Appendix A 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Appendix A 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Appendix A 110 111 112 113 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Appendix A Image 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 26 27 28 29 30 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof X X 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts X 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X X X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors X X X X X 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X X X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X X X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity X 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X X X X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X X X X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X X X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X X ? 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel 11.06 Vacant Structures X 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures X X X Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteLayout Unsafe / Unsanitary Street Buildings Table 5 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 1-30 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 Appendix A Image Number 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X X X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X X X X X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks X 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures X 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X X X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X X X X X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X X X X X X X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel 11.06 Vacant Structures 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteUnsanitary UnsafeLayout / Street Buildings Table 6 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 31-60 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Appendix A Image Number 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof X 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits X 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts X 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X X X X X X X X X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors X X 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures X 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X X X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X X X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water X 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity X X X 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X X X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) X X 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel 11.06 Vacant Structures X X 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteUnsanitary UnsafeLayout / Street Buildings Table 7 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 61-90 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Appendix A Image Number 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation 1.02 Deteriorated Roof 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X X X X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X X X X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas X 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes X X 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) X 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area X X X 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel X 11.06 Vacant Structures 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteUnsanitary UnsafeLayout / Street Buildings Table 8 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 91-113 EXHIBIT C Urban Renewal Authority 222 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2231 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com December 20, 2019 Dear Property Owner: The primary purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Fort Collins City Council will conduct a public hearing Tuesday, January 21, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue to consider the following around the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road: 1. Adoption of an Urban Renewal Plan 2. Adoption of an existing conditions survey finding conditions of blight 3. Determine whether to authorize the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of private property interests within the Urban Renewal Plan area for the purpose of undertaking an urban renewal project A map showing the area included in the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is on the back of this letter. An Urban Renewal Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around a designated area. A combination of private investment, URA financing, and public investment will assist progress toward the following 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 conditions in the area that may hinder 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 improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation and safety. ▪ To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. ▪ To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and conditions. The City of Fort Collins considers your interest and input in this matter an extremely important part of this process. If you are unable to attend the Council’s public hearing, but would like to provide input, written comments are welcome. Please email comments or questions to cfrickey@fcgov.com. The mailing list for this public meeting was derived from official records of the Larimer County Assessor and City records. You may access a draft of the proposed plan at https://www.renewfortcollins.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Draft_College_and_Drake_Urban_R enewal_Plan.pdf. Sincerely, Clay Frickey, AICP Redevelopment Program Manager | Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority 970.416.2517 | cfrickey@fcgov.com EXHIBIT D Urban Renewal Authority 222 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2231 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com EXHIBIT D -1- RESOLUTION 2020-013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE COLLEGE AND DRAKE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THAT APPROVAL WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution 1982-010 establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) under Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law in Part 1 of Article 25 in Title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the “URL”); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority (the “URA Board”) adopted Resolution No. 087 under URL Section 31-25-107(1)(a) to commission an existing conditions study of an area west of and including the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road in the City of Fort Collins and also directing Authority staff to prepare a proposed urban renewal plan for this area; and WHEREAS, the urban renewal plan that has been prepared is titled “College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan” and dated January 6, 2020, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Plan”); and WHEREAS, the Plan describes an “urban renewal project,” as this term is defined in the URL, consisting of certain public undertakings and activities for the elimination of blight (the “Project”) within the urban renewal plan area identified, described and depicted in Section 1, Figure 1 and Appendix A of the Plan (the “Plan Area”); and WHEREAS, the commissioned existing conditions study for the Plan Area, titled “College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey” and dated September 5, 2018, a copy of which is attached as Appendix B to the Plan, (the “Conditions Survey”) was presented to City Council at a noticed public hearing on this day and the City Council adopted Resolution 2020- 012 accepting and approving the Conditions Survey, determining the Plan Area to be a blighted area and designating the Plan Area as appropriate for inclusion in an urban renewal project under the URL (the “Blight Determination Resolution”); and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2019, the Authority’s Board adopted a motion directing that the Plan be presented to City Council for consideration of approval under the URL and recommending that City Council adopt the Plan; and WHEREAS, on this day, January 21, 2020, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to review and consider approval of the Plan as contemplated in URL Section 31-25-107 (the “Public Hearing”); and WHEREAS, notice of the Public Hearing was duly published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on December 15, 2019, as required by URL Section 31-25-107(3) to provide published notice no less than 30 days prior to the Public Hearing as evidenced by the affidavit attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference; and -2- WHEREAS, the Authority’s staff has also caused to be sent by first class mail on December 20, 2019, the written notice attached as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference to the last known address of record of each property owner, resident and business concern within the Study Area thereby constituting reasonable efforts to provide at least 30 days prior written notice of the Public Hearing as required in URL Sections 31-25-107(3)(b) and 31- 25-107(4)(c); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the URA Board adopted Resolution No. 088, in accordance with URL Section 31-25-107(9.5)(a), directing the Authority’s Executive Director to notify the governing boards of all the taxing entities levying a property tax within the Plan Area and whose incremental property tax revenues are being proposed for use under the Plan, that the Plan proposes to use their respective incremental property tax revenues and for the Executive Director to begin negotiations with the representatives of these taxing entities to reach an agreement on how their incremental property tax revenues generated under the Plan will be allocated; and WHEREAS, the Plan proposes to use the incremental property tax revenues of seven of the eight taxing entities levying a property tax within the Plan Area, which are Larimer County, Foothills Gateway, the Larimer County Pest Control District (the “Pest Control District”), the Health District of Northern Larimer County (the “Health District”), the Poudre River Public Library District (the “Library District”), the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) and Poudre School District R-1 (“PSD”); and WHEREAS, the Plan also proposes to use the City’s incremental sales tax revenues; and WHEREAS, the Plan does not propose to use the incremental property tax revenues of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“NCWCD”), the remaining taxing entity; and WHEREAS, these notifications and negotiations under URL Section 31-25-107(9.5)(a) have resulted in the Authority entering into agreements with Larimer County, Foothills Gateway, the Pest Control District, the Health District, the Library District and the City, and in conducting and completing with PSD the mediation required in URL Section 31-25-107(9.5)(d); and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2019, the URA Board adopted Resolution No. 098 approving the Authority’s tax increment revenue agreement with Larimer County, Foothills Gateway and the Pest Control District (the “County Tax Increment Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2019, the URA Board adopted Resolution No. 099 approving the Authority’s tax increment revenue agreement with the Health District; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2019, the URA Board adopted Resolution No. 100 approving the Authority’s tax increment revenue agreement with the Library District; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2019, the URA Board adopted Resolution No. 097 approving the Authority’s tax increment revenue agreement with the City, which includes the use of the City’s incremental sales tax revenues as well as use of the City’s incremental property tax revenues; and -3- WHEREAS, the Authority and PSD were not able to reach an agreement on the use of PSD’s incremental property tax revenues so they conducted a mediation as required by URL Section 31-25-107(9.5)(d) and on October 21, 2019, the mediator panel issued an order with its findings concerning the use of PSD’s incremental property tax revenues and, as required by URL Section 31-25-107(9.5)(d)(III)(C), this order and its findings have been incorporated into the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority has therefore satisfied all the applicable prerequisites and requirements under URL Section 31-25-107(9.5) necessary for the City Council’s adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-106 directing the City Manager to submit the Plan to the City’s Planning and Zoning Board (the “P & Z Board”), as required by URL Section 31-25-107(2), for the P & Z Board for review and recommendations concerning the Plan’s conformity with the City’s adopted “general plan for development,” which is the City’s comprehensive plan titled “City Plan – Fort Collins” dated February 15, 2011, as amended (“City Plan”); and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2018, the P & Z Board adopted Resolution #01-2018 finding that the Plan is in conformity with City Plan; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution 2018-016 also directed the City Manager to submit to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (the “County Board”) the Plan and an “impact report” as required by URL Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a); and WHEREAS, the Plan was submitted to the County Board on October 30, 2018, but the impact report was not submitted because the County Board waived submittal of it in Section 8 of the County Tax Increment Agreement, as authorized in URL Section 31-25-107(9.5)(b), acknowledging that the “Fiscal Impact Model” and related process developed by a group of taxing entities, including the Authority, City and Larimer County, was being utilized in place of the impact report required under the URL; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution 2018-016 further directed the City Manager to submit the Plan to PSD so that it can, if desires to do so, review and comment on the Plan in an advisory capacity as permitted under URL Section 31-25-107(9)(d); and WHEREAS, the Plan was submitted to the PSD on November 9, 2018; and WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Plan authorizes the Authority to acquire any real property within the Plan Area for the Project by any legal means, including using the power of eminent domain in accordance with the URL to acquire such property and, in some cases, to subsequently transfer the property acquired by eminent domain to a private party; and WHEREAS, as required by URL Sections 31-25-107(3)(b) and 31-25-105.5(2), in order for the Authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and transfer the acquired property to a -4- private party for the Project, the City Council must first hold a public hearing prior to the acquisition, provide 30-day prior written notice of the public hearing to each affected property owner, the property to be acquired must be within an area determined by City Council to be blighted area without regard to the economic performance of the property to be acquired and the Project must be commenced no later than seven years after the required blight determination has been made; and WHEREAS, the determination in the Blight Determination Resolution that the Plan Area is a blighted area was made by City Council, as stated in Section 5 of the Blight Determination Resolution, without regard to the economic performance of the properties within the Plan Area, so that such determination constitutes the blight finding required under URL Sections 31-25- 107(3)(b) and 31-25-105.5(2) in order for the Authority to use its power of eminent domain to acquire real property within the Plan Area for subsequent transfer to a private party but, as also required under URL Sections 31-25-107(3)(b) and 31-25-105.5(2), this blight determination shall only be valid if the Project is commenced within 7 years of the date of the Blight Determination Resolution; and WHEREAS, based on City Council’s review of the Plan and all the evidence presented to it at the Public Hearing on the Plan and the use of eminent domain, the City Council hereby finds and determines that approval of the Plan is in the best interests of the City and its residents, it satisfies all applicable provisions of the URL and it furthers the public purposes of the URL by facilitating redevelopment of the Plan Area, eliminating blight and preventing injury to the public’s health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations, findings and limitations contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the boundaries of the Plan Area have been drawn as narrowly as is feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the Plan. Section 3. That the Plan does not contain any parcel of land that is “agricultural land” as defined in URL Section 31-25-103(1) and, therefore, the provisions of URL Section 31-25- 107(1)(c)(II), (III) are not applicable to the City Council’s approval of the Plan. Section 4. That it is not expected or intended that the Project will displace or need to relocate any individuals or families in connection with its implementation, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method exists in the Plan, as required in URL Section 31-25-107(4)(a), for the relocation of individuals and families in decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families. Section 5. That it is not expected or intended that the Project will displace business concerns within the Plan Area, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a -5- feasible method exists in the Plan, as required in URL Section 31-25-107(4)(b), for the relocation of such business concerns within the Plan Area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities and public and commercial facilities. Section 6. That no more than 120 days have passed since the commencement of the Public Hearing on the Plan, which complies with URL Section 31-25-107(4)(d). Section 7. That URL Section 31-25-107(4)(e) does not apply to the Plan because none of the land within the Plan Area has previously been included in a proposed urban renewal plan that the City Council failed to approve under the URL. Section 8. That as required by URL Section 31-25-107(4)(f) and as previously determined by the P & Z Board in its Resolution #01-2018, the Plan conforms to the City Plan as it existed in November 2018 and as it has been updated by City Council’s April 16, 2019, adoption of Resolution 2019-048. Section 9. 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 Plan Area by private enterprise, as required in URL Section 31-25-107(g). Section 10. That under the Plan and the County Tax Increment Agreement, the Authority will adequately finance, as required by URL Section 31-25-107(4)(h), any additional Larimer County infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Plan Area for the period in which all or a portion of the property taxes described in URL Section 31-25- 107(9)(a)(II) and levied by Larimer County are paid to the Authority. Section 11. That to the extent that the Plan Area may constitute open land which is to be redeveloped under the Plan for residential uses within the meaning of URL Section 31-25- 107(5), the City Council hereby determines that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas; that the conditions of blight in the Plan Area and the shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare; and that the acquisition of the Plan Area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the City. Section 12. That to the extent that the Plan Area may constitute open land which is to be redeveloped under the Plan for nonresidential uses within the meaning of URL Section 31-25- 107(6), the City Council hereby determines that such nonresidential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives and the contemplated inclusion of the Plan Area for such nonresidential uses may require the exercise of government action under the URL because of being in a blighted area. Section 13. That the Plan meets the requirements of URL Section 31-25-105.5(5)(a) related to the use of eminent domain to acquire real property within the Plan Area for subsequent -6- transfer to a private party, insofar as at least five factors of blighted conditions have been found in the Blight Determination Resolution to be present within the Plan Area without regard to the economic performance of the property to be so acquired, and that the notice requirements of URL Section 31-25-107(3)(b) have been met through the notices provided for this Public Hearing for City Council’s consideration of the Blight Determination Resolution and this Resolution. Section 14. That a public hearing has been duly and timely held in accordance with the URL on the Plan and the Authority’s exercise of the power of eminent domain to acquire property within the Plan Area for subsequent transfer to a private party, that the Plan meets the requirements of URL Section 31-25-105.5(2) and that the principal public purpose for adoption of the Plan is to facilitate redevelopment in the Plan Area in order to eliminate or prevent the spread of physically blighted areas. Section 15. That based on all of the foregoing, the Plan is hereby approved and the Authority is authorized to take any and all actions necessary to execute the Plan, including the exercise of the power of eminent domain, and to commence and undertake the Project, subject to all the conditions and limitations set forth in this Resolution and all applicable requirements of the URL. Section 16. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to promptly deliver a certified copy of this Resolution with attached exhibits to the Larimer County Assessor as required by URL Section 31-25-107(10). Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of January, A.D. 2020. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Prepared for: City of Fort Collins and Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. January 6, 2020 EPS #173061 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 2. BLIGHT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 4 3. PLAN GOALS AND CONFORMANCE ................................................................................. 6 Plan Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 6 Plan Conformance ................................................................................................... 7 4. AUTHORIZED URBAN RENEWAL POWERS ...................................................................... 10 Public Improvements and Facilities .......................................................................... 10 Cooperative Agreements ........................................................................................ 10 Purchase of Property ............................................................................................. 10 Demolition, Clearance, Environmental Remediation, and Site Preparation ...................... 11 Property Disposition .............................................................................................. 11 Redevelopment Agreements ................................................................................... 11 Relocation Assistance ............................................................................................ 11 Hiring .................................................................................................................. 11 Legal Authority ..................................................................................................... 12 Catalyst and Enhancement Projects ......................................................................... 12 5. ANTICIPATED URBAN RENEWAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................... 13 Private Project Investments .................................................................................... 13 Public Improvement Priorities ................................................................................. 17 6. PROJECT FINANCING .............................................................................................. 18 Property Tax Increment Financing ........................................................................... 19 Sales Tax Increment Financing ............................................................................... 25 Tax Increment Reimbursements .............................................................................. 29 7. MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN ................................................................................... 30 8. SEVERABILITY AND REASONABLE VARIATIONS ................................................................ 31 9. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN .................................................................................. 32 List of Tables Table 1 Proposed Grocery-Anchored Development Summary (August 2018) .................... 13 Table 2 Proposed Mixed-Use Development Summary (August 2018) ............................... 15 Table 3 Plan Area Existing and Estimated Property Tax Values ....................................... 21 Table 4 Property Tax Increment Revenues by Taxing District ......................................... 22 Table 5 Estimated Taxable Sales ................................................................................ 27 Table 6 Estimated Sales Tax Revenue......................................................................... 28 List of Figures Figure 1 College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area and TIF Area .................................... 3 Figure 2 Proposed Mixed-Use Development Concept Plan (August 2018) ........................... 16 College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 1. INTRODUCTION The College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan (“Plan”) is an urban renewal plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“Authority”) and the City of Fort Collins (“City”), pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Renewal Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 et seq., as in effect on the date of approval of this Plan (“Urban Renewal Law”). Unless otherwise stated, terms used in this 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 and activities constituting an urban renewal project (“Project”) under the Urban Renewal Law in the College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area as legally described in Appendix A and depicted in Figure 1 of this Plan (“Plan Area”). This Plan was prepared for adoption by the Fort Collins City Council (the “City Council”) in recognition that the Plan Area requires a coordinated, cooperative strategy, with financing possibilities, to eliminate unfavorable existing conditions and prevent further deterioration and blight. This Plan intends to accomplish the City’s development objectives for improving the overall condition of this area by creation of the Plan Area. The principal goal in the establishment of this Plan is to enable the use of 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 and blight. 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. This Plan effort originated in response to two proposals for private development in the Plan Area. While these two projects are anticipated to occur in the near term, additional development and redevelopment may occur incrementally over a period of time, with the potential for the Authority to engage in additional redevelopment activities at a faster pace than might occur otherwise. The Plan has been made available to City of Fort Collins residents. Input was solicited from area residents, property owners, 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 Plan Area stating the following: time, date, place, and a description of the Plan and its general scope. Meetings were held before the Planning and Zoning Board and the Authority’s Board in Fall 2018 to receive comments and input on this Plan. To the extent provided by the Colorado Open Records Act 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 30 acres and contains 13 parcels, including right-of-way. The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan identifies this area as a General Commercial District. The City of College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Fort Collins Zoning Map indicates this area is zoned as a General Commercial District and is also in a Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The boundary of the Plan Area to which this Plan applies generally includes those properties located within the area bounded by: • South College Avenue to the east; • West Thunderbird Drive to the south; • McClelland Drive to the west; and • The north exterior wall of the vacant K-Mart property to the north. The Plan Area is depicted on the Boundary Map in Figure 1 on the following page. A legal description of the area is attached as Appendix A. Description of the Tax Increment Financing Area The College and Drake Tax TIF Area has the same boundaries as the Plan Area and is depicted on the Boundary Map shown in Figure 1 on the following page. A legal description of the TIF Area is attached as Appendix A. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Figure 1 College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area and TIF Area College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 2. BLIGHT CONDITIONS Before an urban renewal plan can be adopted by the City Council, City Council must make a determination that the area constitutes a blighted area. This determination depends upon the presence of several physical, environmental, and social factors. Blight is 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 (C.R.S. § 31-25-103) 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 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 College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 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. If eminent domain is to be authorized, the definition of “blighted” requires that five of the eleven blight factors must be present (C.R.S. § 31-25-105.5(5)(a)): (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. The methodology used to prepare the College and Drake Existing Conditions Survey for the Plan Area involved the following steps: (i) identify parcels to be included in the Plan Area; (ii) gather information about the properties and infrastructure within the Plan Area boundaries; (iii) evaluate evidence of blight through field reconnaissance; and, (iv) record observed and documented conditions which qualify as blight factors under the Urban Renewal Law. The entire College and Drake Existing Conditions Survey is included as Appendix B of this Plan. Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the College and Drake Existing Conditions Survey dated July 2018, and concurrently with the presentation and approval of this Plan, the City Council made a finding that the Plan Area was “blighted” as defined by the Urban Renewal Law, by the existence of the following six factors: (a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures. (b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. (d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. (e) Deterioration of site or other improvements. (f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. (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. 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 health, safety and welfare of the community. Based on evidence of these factors, the Plan Area is appropriate for authorized undertakings and activities of the Authority pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 3. PLAN GOALS AND CONFORMANCE Plan Goals and Objectives The overall objective of this Plan is to remediate unfavorable existing conditions and blight and prevent further deterioration by implementation of the relevant provisions contained in the following documents: • City Plan (City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan), 2011 • Midtown Plan, 2013 • City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, 2013 • City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan, 2011 The Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development and redevelopment in and around the Plan Area with a combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public investment in order to remedy and prevent blight. 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, including vacancy, underutilization, and underinvestment. • To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements. • To leverage reinvestment and development outcomes to redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner that is compatible with and complementary to community goals and objectives for the Plan Area. • To more effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land. • To improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety. • To encourage the rehabilitation and redevelopment of outmoded buildings, improvements, and conditions. • To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Plan Area. • To accommodate 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. • To provide a range of financing mechanisms to incent investment, including utilizing incremental taxes derived from within the Plan Area to enable enhanced development outcomes, both public and private. • To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Plan Conformance Urban Renewal Law This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of the Urban Renewal Law. 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. The City of Fort Collins recently updated City Plan in April 2019. This Plan is intended to provide the mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan, and therefore it is in direct conformance with the updated City Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board approved Resolution No. 01-2018 on November 15, 2018, finding that this Plan is in conformity with the earlier version of City Plan. Because the provisions cited below are consistent between the earlier City Plan and updated City Plan approved in April 2019, the Planning and Zoning Board’s Resolution remains applicable and consistent. The following excerpts from City Plan highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Plan. These are representative excerpts, and not an all-inclusive list of relevant statements: City Plan. Policy EH 4.2 – Infill and Redevelopment Barriers in Mixed-Use Employment Districts. Develop new and modify current policies, procedures and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to infill development and redevelopment in mixed-use employment districts. Utilize and support public funding and financing tools that facilitate redevelopment, reduce costs associated with redevelopment, increase access to amenities and services and address feasibility gaps. City Plan. Policy LIV 2.1 – Revitalization of Underutilized Properties. Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings, including, but not limited to: • Adaptive reuse of existing buildings (especially those that have historic significance); • Infill of existing surface parking lots – particularly in areas that are currently, or will be, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in the future; • Public/private partnerships; • Infrastructure improvements / upgrades; • Streetscape enhancements; and • Voluntary consolidation and assemblage of properties to coordinate the redevelopment of blocks or segments of corridors where individual property configurations would otherwise limit redevelopment potential. City Plan. Policy LIV 2.2 – Priority Locations for Infill and Redevelopment. Ensure appropriate use of the City’s public investments in infrastructure / improvements in the following areas to achieve the City’s strategic goals: College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 • Downtown District; • Urban Mixed-Use Districts; • Mixed- Employment Districts; and • Metro Districts. Make regulatory and other incentives, within the City’s control, available only to projects that are consistent with the long-term vision for these districts in terms of density, intensity, overall mix of uses and affordability. City Plan. Policy LIV 3.3 – Gateways. Enhance and accentuate the community’s gateways, including Interstate 25 interchanges and College Avenue, to provide a coordinated and positive community entrance. Gateway design elements may include streetscape design, supportive land uses, building architecture, landscaping, signage, lighting and public art. Other Notable City Plan Concepts • Policy CR 2.2 – Interconnected System. Support an interconnected regional and local system of parks, trails and open lands that balances recreation needs with the need to protect wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas. Where appropriate, place trails along irrigation ditches and storm drainageways to connect to destinations such as schools, open lands and neighborhood centers. • Policy LIV 2.3 – Transit-Oriented Development. Require higher-density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by BBRT and/or high-frequency transit in the future as infill and redevelopment occurs. Promote a variety of housing options for all income levels. • Policy EH 2.3 – Climate Economy. Support local and regional efforts to help attract support and develop businesses that are adapting to and/ or developing profitable solutions for a lower-carbon future economy. Midtown Plan City Council adopted the Midtown Plan on October 1, 2013, which establishes guidelines for future redevelopment of the Midtown Area—a major economic engine in the City—in compliance with the adopted City Plan. The Midtown Plan seeks to complement current and forthcoming investment by developing a vision and associated land use tools to guide the design of future redevelopment, and identify opportunities to further enhance streetscapes and multi-modal connectivity. The Plan Area is located in the Upper Midtown Character Area in the Midtown Plan. This Plan is in conformance with the following concepts from the Midtown Plan: • Improved Internal Circulation - Internal streets should be developed that provide access between properties at a slower, calmer pace that is inviting to business and residential users. • Incent New Investment - “Incentivize new investment and enact policies” for implementation that aligns with the Plan’s vision. • Vitality - Midtown will be a vital corridor with a mix of uses and activities. • Craft a parking strategy that supports increased densities. • Promote optimum use of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit system. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Midtown in Motion The Midtown in Motion transportation design plan for College Avenue was adopted by City Council in October of 2014, encompassing College Avenue from Prospect Road to Harmony Road. The design plan addresses College Avenue, the adjacent frontage roads, and connections to the Mason Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. Midtown in Motion is an implementation element stemming from the City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan and the Midtown Plan. The following concepts included in Midtown in Motion support this Plan: • Improving safety for all modes of travel. • Providing bicycle circulation options. • Enhancing pedestrian circulation across College Avenue and to MAX BRT. • Ensuring mobility and accessibility for people of all ages and abilities. • Utilizing frontage and circulation roads to provide business access. • Creating beautiful, identifiable, and unique design. • Identifying funding and building partnerships. Development Standards and Procedures All development within the Plan Area shall conform to the City’s Land Use Code and any site specific City zoning regulations and policies which impact properties in the Plan Area, all as in effect and as may be amended from time to time. However, as authorized by the Urban Renewal Law, the Authority may arrange with the City for the planning, replanning, zoning or rezoning of any part of the Plan Area as needed in connection with the undertakings and activities in furtherance of this Plan. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 4. AUTHORIZED URBAN RENEWAL POWERS To support progress toward the outlined objectives of this Plan, the Authority may pursue any of the following undertakings and 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, transit, and pedestrian access 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, other public entities and private parties. Such agreement may include provisions regarding project financing and implementation; design, location, construction of public improvements; revenue sharing or other measures approved by the Authority to offset urban renewal project impacts on improvements or services; and any other matters required to implement this Plan. Potential entities include, but are not limited to: Xcel Energy, CenturyLink, Comcast, Poudre Valley Fire Authority, 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 and in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law. If the power of 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 developers have been rejected by the property owner. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 • 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 Preparation 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, all in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law. 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 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. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Legal Authority In implementing and conducting the urban renewal project authorized in this Plan, the Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban Renewal Law and any other applicable law. Catalyst and Enhancement Projects There may also be opportunity for 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. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 5. ANTICIPATED URBAN RENEWAL ACTIVITIES Anticipated undertakings and activities within the Urban Renewal Plan Area include, without limitation: (1) redevelopment of the vacant K-Mart property north of Drake Road as a grocery superstore and (2) redevelopment of the Spradley Barr Mazda auto dealership site south of Drake Road as an urban mixed-use development. The Plan also anticipates public infrastructure improvements to support these redevelopment activities as well as to support the continued viability of existing commercial uses in the Plan Area as further detailed below. Inclusion of these two proposed developments in the Plan does not constitute approval of either development or indicate the Authority’s support for providing TIF assistance to either project. The details of both developments are subject to change and a revision to either development shall not be considered a substantial modification of the Plan. Private Project Investments Proposed Grocery-Anchored Development A grocery-anchored development is proposed for the parcels owned by Dillon Companies/ Kroger on the northwest corner of Drake Road and College Avenue, currently containing the vacant K-Mart structure. As currently envisioned, this project would involve the relocation of an existing King Soopers store, currently located 0.2 miles to the north of the parcel. The existing fuel station on the site would remain and be rebranded. In this plan, the existing 5,500 square foot Jiffy Lube Auto Center at the southeast corner of the site is anticipated to remain. However, in the event that the plan of Dillon Companies/ Kroger change or the market changes prior to the execution of this specific proposal, the Plan goals could be accomplished with other retail focused users in this location. In such event, the revised redevelopment plan shall not be considered a substantial modification of the Plan. Table 1 Proposed Grocery-Anchored Development Summary (August 2018) Description Size Dillon Companies Property Grocery (King Soopers) 92,000 sq. ft. Ancillary Retail 8,100 sq. ft. Existing Retail 5,500 sq. ft. Parking 433 spaces Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Data\[173061- Development Plan Summary.xlsx]Dev Program Summary College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 The current proposal includes approximately 373 parking spaces dedicated to the development (including 8 cart corrals), as well as 60 spaces of parking dedicated for MAX BRT located just west of the proposed supermarket under an existing easement. The site plan is currently in the planning stages, however there is a desire for the development to “urbanize around the fringe” to enhance the public spaces and urban elements in the area. Proposed Mixed-Use Development A mixed-use development is proposed for the Dracol owned parcels on the southwest corner of Drake Road and College Avenue, currently containing the Spradley-Barr Mazda dealership and service center. The proposed development would include approximately 17,200 square feet of retail in three structures, a 110-room hotel, and two multifamily apartment buildings with a total of 190 residential units, as shown in Table 2. The design of the development is oriented towards the street, with landscaping around the edge and parking internal to the site, as shown in College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Figure 2. However, in the event that the redevelopment plan or the market changes prior to the execution of this specific proposal, the Plan goals could be accomplished with other mixed-use focused users in this location. In such event, the revised redevelopment plan shall not be considered a substantial modification of the Plan. Table 2 Proposed Mixed-Use Development Summary (August 2018) Description Size Dracol Property Residential Building A 99 units Building B 91 units Retail 17,200 sq. ft. Hotel 110 rooms Source: Economic & Planning Systems College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Figure 2 Proposed Mixed-Use Development Concept Plan (August 2018) College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Public Improvement Priorities The Authority may cooperate with others or may act unilaterally to, install, construct, and reconstruct any public improvements for the purpose of promoting the objectives of the Plan and in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law. Public projects are intended to stimulate (directly and indirectly) investment in and around the Plan Area. It is the intent of this Plan that the combination of public and private investment that may be necessary to advance the objectives stated herein will assist in the investment and reinvestment of the Plan Area and thereby contribute to the overall economic wellbeing of the community. Eligible Public Improvements Senior City Planning and Engineering staff have identified a preliminary list of eligible public improvements for the Plan Area. These improvements are grouped in three categories, as follows: 1. Development Related – These Category 1 improvements include improvements that address blighted conditions and are required to be built to implement the two private redevelopment projects proposed to be built in the near term. These improvements are anticipated to be built and paid for by the private developer; however some TIF may be needed to address project feasibility. 2. Plan Area Improvements – These Category 2 improvements include public improvements that address blighted conditions and improve the overall Plan Area environment, but are not specifically needed or required by the anticipated private development activity. These improvements are expected to be paid for by TIF and/or other public funds. 3. Additional Opportunities – These Category 3 improvements include other Plan Area improvements that are either more long term, lower priority, or require additional study compared to those listed in Category 2. One or more of these projects could move up in priority if future conditions and needs change. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 6. PROJECT FINANCING Financing Powers Except as hereafter specifically provided, the undertakings and activities of the urban renewal project described in this Plan may be financed, in whole or in part, by the Authority to the full extent authorized under the TIF provisions of CRS § 31-25-107(9)(a) in the Urban Renewal Law, in effect on the date of approval of the Plan, and with any other available sources of revenues and means of financing authorized to be undertaken by the Authority pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law and under any other applicable law, which shall include, without limitation: • The collection and use of 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. • The issuance of bonds and other indebtedness, including, without limitation, notes or any other financing instruments or documents in amounts sufficient to finance all or part of the Plan. The borrowing of funds and creation of other indebtedness. • The use of any and all financing methods legally available to the City, the Authority, any private developer, redeveloper, or owner to finance in whole or in part any and all costs, including without limitation the cost of public improvements, described or anticipated in the Plan or in any manner related or incidental to the development of the Plan Area. Such methods may be combined to finance all or part of activities and undertakings throughout the Plan Area. • The principal, interest, any premiums and any other amounts legally due on or in connection with any indebtedness or obligation of the Authority may be paid from property tax increments, sales tax increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or property legally available to the Authority. This Plan contemplates, however, that the primary method of assisting with financing eligible expenses in the Plan Area will be through the use of revenues from Property Tax Increment and Sales Tax Increment. It is the intent of the City Council in approving this Plan to authorize the use of TIF by the Authority as part of its efforts to advance the vision, objectives, and activities described herein. Tax Increment Financing Area Pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 31-25-107(9) of the Urban Renewal Law, in approving this Plan, the City Council hereby approves the Plan Area as a single tax increment financing area with the same boundary as the Plan Area (the “TIF Area”). The boundaries of this TIF Area shall therefore be as depicted in Figure 1 and legally described in Appendix A. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Property Tax Increment Financing The Authority is specifically authorized to collect and expend property tax increment revenue to the full extent authorized by the Urban Renewal Law, this Plan, and the intergovernmental agreements negotiated with the other taxing bodies, and to use that revenue for all purposes authorized under this Plan. Property Tax Increment Limitations The Authority shall establish a fund for the financing authorized under this Plan that shall be funded with the property tax allocation authorized to the Authority under the Urban Renewal Law in C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(9), in effect on the date of approval of the Plan. Under this method, the property taxes of specifically designated public bodies, if any, 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 the designated public body must 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: Property Tax 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. Property Tax Increment Amount – That portion of said property taxes in excess of such base amount must 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. Any excess property tax collections not allocated in this way must be paid into the funds of the municipality or other taxing entity, as applicable. 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 the taxable property in the Plan Area must be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies. When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in the Plan Area must be paid into the funds of the respective public bodies, and all moneys remaining in the special fund that have not previously been rebated and that originated as property tax increment generated based on the mill levy of a taxing body, other than the City, within the boundaries of the Plan Area must be repaid to each taxing body based on the pro rata share of the prior year’s property tax increment attributable to each taxing body’s current mill levy in which property taxes were divided. Any moneys remaining in the special fund not generated by property tax increment are excluded from any such repayment requirement. In calculating and making these payments, the County Treasurer may offset the Authority’s pro rata portion of any property taxes that are paid to the authority under these terms and that are subsequently refunded to the taxpayer against any subsequent payments due to the authority College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 for an urban renewal project. The Authority shall make adequate provision for the return of overpayments in the event that there are not sufficient property taxes due to the Authority to offset the Authority’s pro rata portion of the refunds. The Authority may establish a reserve fund for this purpose or enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the municipal governing body in which the municipality assumes responsibility for the return of the overpayments. The portion of taxes collected may be irrevocably pledged by the Authority for the payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness. This irrevocable pledge shall not extend to any taxes that are placed in a reserve fund to be returned to the county for refunds of overpayments by taxpayers or any reserve funds reserved by the Authority for such purposes in accordance with Section 31- 25-107(9)(a)(III) and (b), C.R.S. The Authority shall set aside and reserve a reasonable amount as determined by the Authority of all incremental taxes paid to the Authority for payment of expenses associated with administering the Plan. At the time of general reassessment of taxable property valuations in Larimer County, including all or part of the Plan Area 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 or change. Note that at the time of this Plan adoption, such a general reassessment occurs every two years, in the odd-numbered years. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Property Tax Increment Forecasts The estimated property tax valuations and Plan Area tax increment associated with the two proposed redevelopment projects are shown in Table 3 below. The estimated actual value of the grocery-anchored component of the Project, including the existing retail that will remain onsite, is $13.7 million and the estimated actual value of the Brinkman Development is $60.4 million, resulting in a total of $74.2 million. Including the existing uses in the rest of the Plan Area, the total estimated actual value of property tax increment for the Plan Area is $75.7 million. The total estimated assessed value of the combined new developments (Real Property only) is $12.4 million, and for the entire Plan Area is $12.8 million, as shown. Table 3 Plan Area Existing and Estimated Property Tax Values Description Size Value Factor Estimated Actual Value1 Base (2019) Assessed Value1 Estimated (2021) Assessed Value1 Total Assessed Value Increment King Soopers Development King Soopers 92,000 sq. ft. $110 /sq. ft. $10,120,000 $1,146,602 $2,934,800 $1,788,200 Ancillary Retail 8,100 sq. ft. $269 /sq. ft. $2,180,700 $342,200 $632,398 $290,200 Existing Retail 5,500 sq. ft. Tax Records $1,442,400 $418,296 $418,296 $0 Total $13,743,100 $1,907,100 $3,985,494 $2,078,400 Brinkman Development Apartments 190 units $220,000 /unit $41,800,000 $3,009,600 Hotel 110 keys $127,288 /room $14,001,700 $4,060,487 Retail 17,200 sq. ft. $269 /sq. ft. $4,630,600 $1,342,869 Total $60,432,300 $1,199,600 $8,412,957 $7,213,400 Other URA Parcels Retail 2,008 sq. ft. Service 6,172 sq. ft. Total $1,487,210 $431,291 $431,291 $0 GRAND TOTAL $75,662,610 $3,537,991 $12,829,741 $9,291,800 1 Real Property Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems Grocery-Anchored Development Grocery-Anchored Mixed-Use Other Parcels in Plan Area College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 The assessed value of all existing uses in the Plan Area represents the Base Amount, which totals $3.5 million as also shown above. Subtracting the Base Amount from the new assessed value provides an estimate of the net assessed value used in calculating the Plan Area Tax Increment Amount. The total assessed value is expected to be approximately $12.8 million when these two redevelopment components are complete in 2020, which represents a net increase of $9.3 million. The associated property tax increment forecasts are shown in Table 4. The forecasts are shown for each taxing district within the Plan Area and in total. The total annual Increment Amount is forecast to be approximately $844,000 in the first year of stabilization in 2021, totaling $20.3 million over the 25-year period during which the Authority is entitled to receive property tax increment. The Poudre Valley School District, with a combined mill levy, comprises the largest component of the total 25-year Increment Amount at $11.7 million, which is comprised of general fund mill levy of 38.683 and a Bond Payment mill levy of 13.947. The next largest is Larimer County, with 22.092 mills at $4.9 million. The City of Fort Collins mill levy is 9.797 and would generate approximately $2.2 million in property tax Increment Amount over the 25-years. Table 4 Property Tax Increment Revenues by Taxing District Taxing District Cooperative Agreements Pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 31-205-107(9.5)(a) of the Urban Renewal Law, in effect on the date of approval of the Plan, the Authority has notified the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County and the governing boards of all other taxing entities whose incremental property tax revenues would be allocated under this Plan. Representatives of the Authority and the governing body of each taxing entity have met and attempted to negotiate an agreement governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue allocated to the special Description Mill Levy Tax Liability Annual Increment 2021-2044 Total Total Assessed Value Increment $9,291,800 $843,956 Taxing District Larimer County 22.092 $205,274 $205,274 $4,926,587 City of Fort Collins 9.797 $91,032 $91,032 $2,184,762 Poudre R-1 General Fund 38.683 $359,435 $359,435 $8,626,433 Poudre R-1 Bond Payment 13.947 $129,593 $129,593 $3,110,226 Poudre River Public Library District 3.000 $27,875 $27,875 $669,010 Health District of No. Larimer County 2.167 $20,135 $20,135 $483,248 N. Colorado Water Conservation District 1.000 $9,292 $9,292 $223,003 Larimer County Pest Control District 0.142 $1,319 $1,319 $31,666 Total 90.828 $843,956 $20,254,935 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Models\[173061- Order of Magnitude TIF 9-6-18.xlsx]Property Tax District Detail College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 fund of the Authority. The agreements address, without limitation, estimated impacts of the Plan on county or district services associated solely with the Plan. Any such shared incremental tax revenues governed by any agreement are limited to all or any portion of the incremental revenue generated by the taxes levied upon taxable property by the taxing entity within the area covered by the Plan in addition to any incremental sales tax revenues generated within the Plan Area by the imposition of the sales tax of the City. Copies of this Plan have been provided to all public entities having taxing authority within the Plan Area for their review and comment. Larimer County received the Impact Report required by C.R.S. § 31- 25-107(3.5) of the Urban Renewal Law, and all other taxing entities having taxing authority within the Plan Area received a copy of an Impact Report similar to that required by C.R.S. § 31-25-107(3.5) of the Urban Renewal Law for counties, which includes information necessary to comply with HB 15-1348 and SB 16-177 and for the taxing entity to analyze the proposed Plan. For each taxing entity the Impact Report indicates the current property tax revenues being generated from the Plan Area, the current proposed development plan, and the proposed capture of Increment Amount from the Plan Area as it relates to each taxing entity. As required by the Urban Renewal Law, the Authority entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) with each taxing entity within the Plan Area to set out the terms and conditions governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue within the Plan Area. IGAs authorizing the use of Property Tax Increment within the Plan Area have been negotiated and approved with the following taxing bodies: • Larimer County (including Foothills Gateway and Larimer County Pest Control District) Tax Increment Revenue Agreement • Poudre River Library District Tax Increment Revenue Agreement • Health District of Larimer County Tax Increment Revenue Agreement • City of Fort Collins Cooperation Agreement The following taxing bodies have not agreed to share Property Tax Increment in support of the Plan and the incremental property tax revenues generated by their mill levies will not be included within the revenues the Authority is authorized to receive: • Northern Colorado Water Conservation District The Authority and the Poudre School District were not able to agree upon an intergovernmental agreement regarding the sharing of tax increment revenues. Therefore, the Authority and the Poudre School District submitted to mediation, under Urban Renewal Law, the issue of appropriate sharing of incremental property tax revenues and urban renewal project costs. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-25-107(9.5)(d), the statutory mediation made Findings of Fact in an Order dated October 21, 2019 that found the appropriate sharing of the Increment Amount associated with the Poudre School District to be the following: • The Authority may retain and expend in furtherance of the Plan, 75% of the Increment Amount from the general mill levy. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 • If the Poudre School District’s eligible electors approve a new or increased mill levy for any lawful purpose above the existing mill levy at the time of Plan approval any Increment Amount derived therefrom shall be passed through to the Poudre School District and not considered part of the Increment Amount. • For any voter-approved, bond dedicated mill levy revenues existing or approved by the Poudre School District’s eligible electors an Increment Amount derived therefrom shall be passed through to the Poudre School District and not considered part of the Increment Amount. If the Authority and the Poudre School District choose to enter into an intergovernmental agreement ratifying the mediators’ decision, it shall not be a substantial modification to the Plan. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Sales Tax Increment Financing The Project under the Plan may also be financed by the Authority under the sales tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law in C.R.S. § 31-25-107(9). The Urban Renewal Law allows that upon the adoption or amendment of an Urban Renewal Plan, sales taxes flowing to the City may be “frozen” at their current level. The current level is established based on the previous 12 months prior to the adoption of this Plan (the “Sales Tax Base Amount”). Thereafter, the City continues 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) that are generated above the base (the “Sales Tax Increment Amount”). The Authority may use these incremental sales tax 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 Plan and for any other purpose authorized in the Urban Renewal Law. The Sales Tax Increment Amount is not an additional sales tax, but rather is a portion of the established tax collected by the City, and the incremental sales tax revenues resulting from redevelopment efforts and activities contemplated in this Plan. Pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 31-25-107(9) of the Urban Renewal Law, in approving this Plan and pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement between the Authority and the City, the City Council specifically authorizes the use of sales tax increment generated under this Plan to be received by the Authority to further the goals of the Plan from the 2.25% City general purpose sales tax, and agrees to sharing 50% of the Sales Tax Increment Amount, after deducting $450,000 and subject to the total property tax Increment Amount and Sales Tax Increment Amount associated with the City being $12,979,000. City Sales Tax Increment Limitations A fund for financing projects may be accrued and used by the Authority under the tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law. Under this method, municipal sales taxes collected within the Plan Area, by or for the benefit of the designated public body must 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: Sales Tax Base Amount – That portion of municipal sales taxes, not including any sales taxes for remote sales as specified in § 39-26-104 (2), C.R.S., collected within the boundaries of the Plan Area in the twelve-month period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of approval 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. Sales Tax Increment Amount – All or any portion of said municipal sales taxes in excess of such base amount, must 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. Any excess municipal sales tax collections not allocated in this way must be paid into the funds of the municipality, as applicable. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Unless and until the total municipal sales tax collections in the Plan Area exceed the base year municipal sales tax collections in the Plan Area, all such sales tax collections must be paid into the funds of the City. The portion of taxes collected may be irrevocably pledged by the Authority for the payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness. This irrevocable pledge shall not extend to any taxes that are placed in a reserve fund to be returned to the county for refunds of overpayments by taxpayers or any reserve funds reserved by the Authority for such purposes in accordance with C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(9)(a)(III) and (b). The Authority shall set aside and reserve a reasonable amount as determined by the Authority of all incremental taxes paid to the Authority for payment of expenses associated with administering the Plan. In the event there is a change in the sales tax percentage levied in the City including all or part of the Plan Area subject to division of sales taxes between base and increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for sales taxes to be allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with such change. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Sales Tax Increment Forecasts The City can commit all or a portion of the incremental sales tax revenues from the City’s general fund sales tax generated by the proposed redevelopment as tax increment. The grocery- anchored component of the development is forecast to generate $46.5 million in annual taxable sales based on 92,000 square feet at an estimated rate of $505 per square foot, as shown in Table 5. Based on estimates, this average sales rate represents a modest 5 percent increase over the average of existing grocery stores in Fort Collins of $480 per square foot. The new 8,100 square feet of ancillary retail space in the grocery-anchored component of the development is projected to generate $1.8 million in annual taxable sales, based on an average $225 per square foot for an unspecified mix of retailers. Similarly, the 17,200 square feet of ancillary space in the mixed-use redevelopment is projected to generate $3.9 million in annual taxable sales. The total new taxable sales within the Plan Area is estimated at $52.15 million as shown. Table 5 Estimated Taxable Sales Description Size Sales/Sq.Ft Total Sales Dillon Companies Site King Soopers1 92,000 sq. ft. $505 $46,460,000 Ancillary Retail 2 8,100 sq. ft. $225 $1,822,500 Dillon Companies Site Total 100,100 sq. ft. $48,282,500 Dracol Site New Retail 17,200 sq. ft. $225 $3,870,000 Dracol Site Total 17,200 sq. ft. $3,870,000 Total Plan Area Net New $52,152,500 Total Sales Tax @ 2.25% $1,173,431 1 Existing King Soopers S. College store; sales/sq.ft. based on average Fort Collins grocery sales 2 Existing 5,500 sq.ft. of retail on the site is not included Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Models\[Table 6_9-7.xlsx]Table 6 Property College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Applying the City’s 2.25 percent sales tax rate to the projected new sales results in an estimated $1.2 million in annual new sales taxes from the Plan Area. This excludes sales and sales taxes from existing retail uses within the Plan Area that area expected to remain. The portion of grocery-anchored taxable sales and sales taxes that can be considered net new to the City and potentially eligible for tax increment is shown in Table 6. As currently envisioned, this project would involve the relocation of an existing King Soopers store, currently located 0.2 miles to the north of the parcel. Taxable sales at the existing store are estimated at $24.0 million based on the 50,000 square foot store size and an average of $480 per square foot in sales (this equates to the average 2017 annual sales of all Fort Collins grocery stores). Table 6 Estimated Sales Tax Revenue This results in annual net new sales of approximately $24.3 million for the Dillion site and $28.2 million for the Plan Area. At the 2.25 percent tax rate, the net new sales taxes would equal $546,000 per year for the grocery-anchored site and $633,000 per year for the total Plan Area as shown. Description Size Sales/Sq.Ft Total Sales Tax Rate Tax Revenue Dillon Companies Site King Soopers 92,000 sq. ft. $505 $46,460,000 2.25% $1,045,350 Ancillary Retail 2 8,100 sq. ft. $225 $1,822,500 2.25% $41,000 Existing Store Sales 1 50,000 sq. ft. $480 $24,000,000 2.25% $540,000 Dillon Companies Site Net New $24,282,500 $546,350 Dracol Site New Retail 17,200 sq. ft. $225 $3,870,000 2.25% $87,075 Dracol Site Total 17,200 sq. ft. $3,870,000 $87,075 Total Plan Area Net New $28,152,500 $633,425 1 Existing King Soopers S. College store; sales/sq.ft. based on average Fort Collins grocery sales 2 Existing 5,500 sq.ft. of retail on the site is not included Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Models\[173061- Order of Magnitude TIF 9-6-18.xlsx]Sales Tax V2 Property Sales Tax Grocery-Anchored College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Tax Increment Reimbursements Tax increment revenues (both property and sales) may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs incurred for improvements related to a redevelopment within the Plan Area to pay the debt incurred by the Authority with such entities for urban renewal activities and purposes. Tax increment revenues may also be used to pay bonded indebtedness, financial obligations, and debts of the Authority related to urban renewal activities under this Plan. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 7. 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 intergovernmental agreements entered into between the Authority and other taxing entities. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 8. SEVERABILITY AND 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 reasonable 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. If any portion of this Plan is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity will not affect the remaining portions of the Plan. College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan January 6, 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 9. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN This Plan shall be effective upon its final approval by the City Council. Except as otherwise permitted under the Urban Renewal Law, the term of collection of property tax increment 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. APPENDIX A APPENDIX B Draft Report College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. September 5, 2018 EPS #173061 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 1 Colorado Urban Renewal Law .................................................................................... 1 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3 2. STUDY AREA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 4 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 4 Field Survey Approach ............................................................................................. 7 Blight Factor Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................ 7 Results of Field Survey ............................................................................................ 9 Other Considerations ............................................................................................. 12 3. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1 Parcels Contained in the URA Study Area ........................................................... 4 Table 2 Visual Conditions of Blight Observed ............................................................... 10 Table 3 Nuisance Violations, 2013-2018 ..................................................................... 12 Table 4 Police Incidents and Offenses, 2015-2018 ........................................................ 14 Table 5 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 1-30 ......................................................... 29 Table 6 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 31-60 ....................................................... 30 Table 7 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 61-90 ....................................................... 31 Table 8 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 91-113 ...................................................... 32 List of Figures Figure 1 College and Drake Proposed URA Boundary and Parcels ....................................... 6 Figure 2 Study Area Nuisance Code Violations, January 2013 – August 2018 ..................... 13 Figure 3 Image Location Reference Map ....................................................................... 18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 173061-DRAFT-Fort Collins URA Existing Conditions 9-5-18 1. INTRODUCTION In July of 2018, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), working with the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA), conducted the following existing conditions survey (Survey) of the proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area (Study Area). This proposed plan area is a portion of the College Midtown Corridor and is bounded by South College Avenue to the east, West Thunderbird Drive to the south, McClelland Drive to the west, and the north exterior wall of the vacant K-Mart property to the north, as shown in Figure 1. The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) anticipates creating a new plan area around Drake Road and College Avenue to support redevelopment plans for two large sites - the vacant former K-Mart located north of Drake, and the Spradley-Barr Mazda auto dealership located south of Drake. The proposed Urban Renewal Area captures these redevelopment plans and, if approved, will aide in the redevelopment and public improvement of the area. Purpose The primary purpose of this Survey is to determine whether the Study Area qualifies as a “blighted area” within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law. Secondly, this Survey will influence whether the Study Area should be recommended to be established as a URA Plan Area for such urban renewal activities as the URA and City Council deem appropriate. Colorado Urban Renewal Law The requirements for the establishment of a URA plan are outlined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq. In order to establish an area for urban renewal, there are an array of conditions that must be documented to establish a condition of blight. The determination that constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical, environmental, and social factors. Blight is 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 in the Urban Renewal Law is as follows: College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Draft Report Urban Renewal Law Blight Factors (C.R.S. § 31-25-103) “’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 or 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 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.” Use of Eminent Domain In order for an Urban Renewal Authority to use the powers of eminent domain to acquire properties, 5 of the 11 blight factors must be present (C.R.S. § 31‐25‐ 105.5(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.” College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Draft Report Methodology This Survey was completed by EPS to inventory and establish the existing conditions within the Study Area through data gathering and field observations of physical conditions. The Study Area was defined by the URA to encompass the proposed redevelopment on two large properties north and south of Drake Street. The Study Area extends to include a number of adjacent commercial properties within the two block Study Area, as well as the public streets to the east, west, and south (College, McClelland, and West Thunderbird) and the Transport MAX station, along with associated park and ride spaces. An inventory of parcels within the Study Area was compiled using parcel data from the Larimer County Assessor documenting parcel ownership, use, vacancy, and assessed value. A series of Study Area maps were then developed to facilitate the field survey, which documented and photographed visual conditions of blight. The field survey was conducted by EPS in July of 2018. The 11 factors of blight in the state statute were broken down into “conditions” - existing situations or circumstances identified in the Study Area that may qualify as blight under each of the 11 factors. The conditions documented in this report are submitted as evidence to support a “finding of blight” according to Urban Renewal Law. Under the Urban Renewal Law, the final determination of blight within the Study Area is within the sole discretion of the Fort Collins City Council. Urban Renewal Case Law In addition to the State statute, 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. The following parameters have been established through case law for determining blight and the role of judiciary review. Tracy v. City of Boulder (Colo. Ct. App. 1981) • Upheld the definition of blight presented in the Urban Renewal Law as a broad condition encompassing not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisioning the prevention of deterioration. Therefore, the existence of widespread nuisance violations and building condemnation is not required to designate an area blighted. • Additionally, the determination of blight is the responsibility of the legislative body and a court’s role in review is to 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. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority (Colo. 1970) • Determined that blight assessment is not on a building-to-building basis, but is based on conditions observed throughout the plan area as a whole. The presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 173061-DRAFT-Fort Collins URA Existing Conditions 9-5-18 2. STUDY AREA ANALYSIS S t udy Area The proposed College and Drake Urban Renewal Plan Area is comprised of 13 parcels on approximately 30 acres of land, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Parcels Contained in the URA Study Area The 13 parcels are separated into the two major assemblages for redevelopment and six smaller holdings summarized below and shown in Figure 1: • Parcels 1 and 2: Dillon Companies, Inc. – Parcels 1 and 2 comprising 11.2 acres of land are owned by Dillon Companies, a real estate subsidiary of King Soopers which is wholly owned by the Kroger Company. Parcel 1 is the north portion of a vacant retail center formerly occupied by Cricket, Advantage, and Radio Shack. Parcel 2 is the southern portion of the vacant center formerly occupied by KMart as well as an occupied Loaf and Jug convenience and gas outlet on the Drake Road frontage. It also contains 60 parking spaces under an easement to Transport MAX for park and ride spaces. • Parcel 3: City of Fort Collins – Parcel 3 is a 34,100 square foot parcel behind (west of) the former KMart, owned by the City of Fort Collins for the MAX station and associated right-of- way. • Parcel 4: Dillon Companies, Inc. – This retail strip is owned by Dillon Companies and contains a 4,800 square foot building leased to Larkburger, Cricket, and a Waxing Salon. • Parcel 5: Round Top Investments, LLC. – This 24,700 square foot parcel contains a Jiffy Lube auto service center on the northwest corner of the intersection of College and Drake. • Parcels 6 and 7: Dracol, LLC. – These parcels, comprising 5.7 acres of land, contain the existing Spradley-Barr Mazda dealership buildings and lots. The property is proposed to be redeveloped as a mixed use project, including a hotel and multifamily apartments with ground level retail space. Reference Number Parcel Number Address Year Built Owner Business Name Sq. Ft. Land Occupancy Sq. Ft. Building Assessed Value 1 9723410004 2505 S College Ave 1972 Dillon Companies Inc. Cricket, Advantage, Radio Shack 92,698 Vacant 9,911 $1,180,165 2 9723410002 2445 S College Ave 1977 Dillon Companies Inc. K-Mart, Texaco Convenience Store 395,708 Vacant 90,664 $3,953,874 3 9723400908 City of Fort Collins 34,057 Vacant 0 $500 4 9723410001 2539 S College Ave 2009 Dillon Companies Inc. Larkburger, Cricket, Waxing the City 19,000 Occupied 4,785 $818,790 5 9723412001 2549 S College Ave 1980 Round Top Investments, LLC. Jiffy Lube 24,706 Occupied 2,968 $623,790 6 9726114001 2601 S College Ave 1966 Dracol, LLC. Spradley-Barr Auto Dealership 173,504 Occupied 7,184 $1,855,072 7 9726100023 2601 S College Ave 1973 Dracol, LLC. Spradley-Barr Auto Dealership 73,486 Occupied 0 $413,809 8 9726100016 2627 S College Ave 1966 Dracol, LLC. Sherwin Williams Paints 21,698 Occupied 14,790 $1,153,769 9 9726120001 Dracol, LLC. Vacant Land 4,000 Vacant 0 $22,000 10 9726120002 132 W Thunderbird Dr 1969 Dracol, LLC. Tri City Paint 13,224 Vacant 2,160 $275,068 11 9726127003 2633 S College Ave 1995 Plutus Holdings, LLC. Critter Vet 12,815 Occupied 3,125 $410,050 12 9726127004 2631 S College Ave 1975 Enchante Enterprises, LLC. Enchante Salon 13,332 Occupied 3,047 $525,400 13 9726127001 2635 S College Ave 1976 Brien Buell (Trust) Tortilla Marissas 14,052 Occupied 2,008 $450,072 Source: Larimer County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems I:\Data\GIS\173061-Fort Collins URA\Exports\[URA Parcels.xls]T-URA Parcels Format College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Draft Report • Parcels 8 and 9: Dracol, LLC. – Parcel 8 is 21,700 square feet and contains a Sherwin- Williams paint store with frontage on College Avenue. Parcel 9 is a 4,000 square foot vacant, interior lot. Both parcels are owned by Dracol. • Parcel 10: Dracol, LLC. – This 13,200 square foot parcel contains a 2,200 square foot vacant building formerly occupied by Tri City Paint. • Parcel 11: Plutus Holdings, LLC. – This 12,800 square foot parcel is owned by Plutus Holdings and is occupied by Critter Vet Clinic. • Parcel 12: Enchante Enterprises, LLC. – This 13,300 square foot parcel is owned by Enchante Enterprises, LLC, which is affiliated with the Enchante Salon occupying the 3,000 square foot building. • Parcel 13: Brian Buell (Trust) – Tortilla Marissas operates a 2,000 square foot building on this parcel owned by Brien Buell (Trust) on the northwest corner of College and West Thunderbird Drive. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Draft Report Figure 1 College and Drake Proposed URA Boundary and Parcels College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Draft Report F i e l d Survey Approach The following assessment is based on a field survey conducted by EPS in July 2018. The survey team walked the entire Study Area, taking notes and photographs to document existing conditions corresponding to the blight factor evaluation criteria detailed in the following section. The location of each documented condition of blight is identified in the Image Location Reference Map in Appendix A of this report. B l i ght Factor Evaluation Criteria This section details the conditions used to evaluate blight during the field survey. The following conditions correspond with 6 of the 11 blight factors in the Urban Renewal Law. Additional information on a number of these factors for which data was available was also collected. The remaining blight factors cannot be visually inspected and are dependent on other data sources. Given the prevalence of physically observable conditions of blight, these remaining blight factors were not investigated. Buildings The following conditions establish evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(a) slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures,” based on an evaluation of the overall condition and level of deterioration of structures within the plan area. • Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation • Deteriorated Roof • Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts • Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • Deteriorated Windows and Doors • Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks • Deteriorated Ancillary Structures Street Layout The following conditions evaluate the Urban Renewal Law blight factor ”(b) predominance of defective or inadequate street layout,” through assessment of the safety, quality, and efficiency of street layouts, site access, and internal circulation. • Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry • Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic • Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians • Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion • Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access • Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites • Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks • Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Draft Report Unsafe/Unsanitary The following conditions establish evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(d) unsanitary or unsafe conditions,” by evaluating visual conditions that indicate the occurrence of activities that inhibit the safety and health of the area including, but not limited to, excessive litter, unenclosed dumpsters, and vandalism. • Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas • Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Evidence of Standing Water • Poor Fire Protection Facilities • Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses • Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems • Existence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials • High or Unusual Crime Statistics • Open/Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters • Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • Illegal Dumping/Excessive Litter • Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity • Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas • Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas • Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • Unsafe or Exposed Electrical Wire Site Improvements The following conditions evaluate the Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(e) deterioration of site or other improvements,” by evidence of overall maintenance deficiencies within the plan area including, deterioration, poorly maintained landscaping, and overall neglect. • Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies • Deteriorated Signage or Lighting • Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates • Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb and Gutter, or Sidewalks • Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) • Poor Parking Lot/Driveway Layout • Poorly Maintained Landscaping/Overgrown Vegetation Infrastructure The observation of the following infrastructure insufficiencies is evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(f) unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities.” • Deteriorated Pavement, Curb, Sidewalks, Lighting, or Drainage • Lack of Pavement, Curb, Sidewalks, Lighting, or Drainage • Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards • Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities/Hydrants • Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems • Unusual Topography College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Draft Report Vacancy The following conditions are evidence of Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(k) 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.” The primary visual condition observed is building vacancy. • An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area • Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel • Vacant Structures • Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Other Considerations The remaining five blight factors specified in the Urban Renewal Law were not investigated further due to sufficient evidence from the visual field survey supporting a condition of blight in 6 of the 11 blight factors. (c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness. (g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable. (h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or 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. Results o f F i e l d Survey This section summarizes the findings of the visual field survey of the Study Area conducted in July 2018. Table 2 on the next page documents the blight conditions observed. These conditions are then further detailed by category. Image documentation and the location of blight conditions are presented in Appendix A of this report. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Draft Report Table 2 Visual Conditions of Blight Observed 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof X 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits X 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts X 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors X 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks X 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures X 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Evidence of Standing Water X 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Existence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity X 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas X 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes X 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) X 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area X 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel X 11.06 Vacant Structures X 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures X VacancyInfrastructure Conditions Observed SiteUnsanitary Improvements UnsafeLayout / StreetBuildings College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Draft Report 1. Buildings: slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures All of the structures in the Study Area are commercial buildings. The most prevalent conditions observed were broken windows, cracks and deterioration in external walls, peeling exterior paint, and damaged roofs. While broken windows and major exterior wall damage were observed primarily in vacant structures, other deterioration conditions were observed throughout the Study Area. The majority of the buildings in the Study Area were constructed in the 1970s or earlier and a number of the original facades are deteriorating. 2. Street Layout: predominance of defective or inadequate street layout South College Avenue and McClelland Drive are the major north/south routes for vehicular traffic within the Study Area. Drake Road is a major arterial and provides the primary east/west connection while West Thunderbird Drive provides local site access. Throughout the Study Area, poor provisions of streets and walkways for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic were observed in the form of deteriorated safety striping, poor internal circulation, lack of sidewalks, and blocked or constrained site access. South of Drake Road, the inefficient frontage roads along South College Avenue create a hazard for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. These frontage roads present a barrier to site access and contribute to unsafe conditions for pedestrian traffic. 3. Unsafe/Unsanitary: unsanitary or unsafe conditions Throughout the Study Area, unsafe and unsanitary conditions were documented, including open/unenclosed trash dumpsters, cracked or uneven sidewalk surfaces, illegal dumping and litter, graffiti and vandalism, exposed electrical wires, and steep slopes. The most prevalent conditions were the presence of unenclosed/open dumpsters and excessive litter, primarily in less trafficked areas. In several areas attempts to cover graffiti were evident, while in other areas some graffiti was left untreated. Vandalism in the form of broken windows was also documented in most of the vacant structures, along with excessive litter and dumping. 4. Site Improvements: deterioration of site or other improvements The deterioration and overall neglect of properties throughout the Study Area is well documented. The main conditions of site deterioration include the deterioration of signage, deteriorated parking surfaces and curbs, poorly maintained vegetation, and poor parking/driveway layouts. Most of the onsite parking areas showed major deterioration, in many cases creating a safety hazard. Overall, there was evidence that site improvements throughout the area are not being maintained. 5. Infrastructure: unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities Inadequate infrastructure was observed throughout the Study Area, predominantly in the form of deteriorated or missing curbs and sidewalks. Other inadequate utility systems could not be observed visually. The majority of missing and deteriorated public improvements were located in parking lot landscaping islands and sidewalks interior to the sites that were unkempt. There are also several missing sidewalk connections. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Draft Report Along South College Avenue, tree roots underneath the sidewalk stonework has created unstable walking surfaces. There is evidence that asphalt was placed over top of the stonework to level the surface; however, this temporary fix is not effective and is showing signs of deterioration. 6. Vacancy: 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 There is a total of 102,735 square feet of vacant buildings in the Study Area, including spaces previously occupied by KMart, Cricket, and Tri City Paint, compared to 37,907 square feet of occupied space - a 73 percent vacancy factor overall. In addition to vacant structures, the Study Area can be characterized as underutilized with an average 0.16 floor area ratio (FAR) overall (140,642 square feet of building / 892,280 square feet of land area), which is well below the average of 0.25 FAR or greater found in other segments of the College Avenue Corridor. Largely vacant or underutilized and undeveloped parcels were documented in the Study Area including Parcels 6, 7, and 9. Parcel 7 and the portion of Parcel 6 at the corner of McClelland Drive and Drake are underutilized by the existing Automobile Dealership. Parcel 9 is a small vacant parcel interior to the south block. Other Considerations The team collected and analyzed additional non‐visual information on the Study Area that contributed to the documentation of blight factors. Nuisance Violations Nuisance violations cover multiple Urban Renewal Law blight factors including, “d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions” and “(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements.” The City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department issues notices for violations of the nuisance code related to the misuse of property. From January 2013 to August 2018 the Study Area had a total of 22 nuisance violations, as shown in Table 3. Nuisance violations in the Study Area consisted of twelve unmaintained weeds violations, six outdoor storage and rubbish violations, three un- shoveled snow violations, and one noxious weeds violation, shown in Figure 2. Table 3 Nuisance Violations, 2013-2018 2013-2018 [1] Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 [1] Total Study Area 3 7 6 0 3 3 22 City of Fort Collins 7,037 8,634 8,684 9,387 12,094 7,674 53,510 [1] 2018 count is year to date (August 1) Source: City of Fort Collins; Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Data\[173061-Nuisance Violations and Crime.xlsx]T-Nuisance Violations College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Draft Report Figure 2 Study Area Nuisance Code Violations, January 2013 – August 2018 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Draft Report Crime High or unusual crime is one determining criteria for the Urban Renewal Law blight factor “(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions.” Fort Collins Police Services provided both incident related data and offense related data for the Study Area. Incident related data includes any and all police calls generated, regardless of whether or not a crime is committed. Offense related data pertains to only criminal offenses. There were a total of 858 police incidents and criminal offenses in the Study Area from 2015 to 2018, as shown in Table 4. Based on this data, there is no evidence of high or unusual crime in the Study Area. Table 4 Police Incidents and Offenses, 2015-2018 Transportation Evaluation criteria for the Urban Renewal Law blight factor,”(b) predominance of defective or inadequate street layout,” assess the safety, quality, and efficiency of street layouts, site access, and internal circulation. The team reviewed traffic volumes, operations, and safety related information for the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road. The intersection is the third busiest intersection in the City and sees about 73,500 entering vehicles per day. Over the past 15 years the vehicle per day count has fluctuated between 72,000 and almost 76,000. City of Fort Collins Staff indicated that because the intersection is at capacity, any area growth over the past 15 years has relied on alternate routes thus resulting in static vehicle per day counts. Levels of Service are calculated by determining an average delay in seconds per vehicle entering the intersection, then assigning a letter grade. For College and Drake, the intersection is at a Level of Service “D” in the evening rush hour. Every entering vehicle in the afternoon rush hour has an average delay of 52 seconds in getting through the intersection. During the evening rush hour there are 6,200 entering vehicles which collectively experience a total of 90 hours of delay, which results in congestion, added emissions, and safety concerns. The national Highway Safety Manual uses a statistical evaluation to determine whether an intersection has more crashes than what would be expected given geometry and volumes. At College and Drake this evaluation expects 47 crashes per year with nine that involve some level 2015-2018 YTD Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD Total Police Incidents Study Area 202 191 232 155 780 City of Fort Collins 104,202 111,149 110,590 69,499 395,440 Offenses Study Area 19 24 20 15 78 City of Fort Collins 11,696 12,227 11,836 6,994 42,753 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\173061-Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority\Data\[173061-Nuisance Violations and Crime.xlsx]T-Crime College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Draft Report of injury. The intersection has an average of about 55 crashes per year, 11 of which involve some level of injury, and four of those are considered severe (non-incapacitating or incapacitating injuries). This intersection has six extra non-injury crashes and two extra injury crashes each year. The societal costs of the extra crashes is $344,000 per year. In terms of ranking, this intersection is number seven in the City in terms extra crash costs. College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey September 5, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Draft Report 3. CONCLUSIONS Based on the definition of a blighted area in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq., and based on the field survey results of the Study Area, EPS concludes that the Study Area is a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) § 31‐25‐101 et seq. The visual field survey conducted in July 2018 documented 6 of the 11 factors of blight within the Study Area. Therefore, this blighted area, as written in the Urban Renewal Law, “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.” Evidence of the following Urban Renewal Law blight factors are documented in this report: (a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures. (b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. (d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. (e) Deterioration of site or other improvements. (f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. (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. Evidence of the following Urban Renewal Law blight factors were not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant physical conditions, these factors of blight did not warrant further investigation. (c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness. (g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable. (h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or 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. As established by Urban Renewal case law in Colorado, this assessment is based on the condition of the Study Area as a whole, and recognizes that there are properties within the Study Area in standard condition. However, there is substantial evidence and documentation of 6 of the 11 blight factors in the Study Area as a whole, predominately in the vacant structures and underutilized parcels. Appendix A College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Appendix A Figure 3 Image Location Reference Map College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Appendix A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Appendix A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Appendix A 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Appendix A 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Appendix A 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Appendix A 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Appendix A 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Appendix A 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Appendix A 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Appendix A 110 111 112 113 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Appendix A Image 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 26 27 28 29 30 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof X X 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts X 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X X X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors X X X X X 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X X X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X X X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity X 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X X X X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X X X X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X X X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X X ? 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel 11.06 Vacant Structures X 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures X X X Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteLayout Unsafe / Unsanitary Street Buildings Table 5 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 1-30 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 Appendix A Image Number 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X X X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X X X X X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks X 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures X 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X X X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X X X X X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X X X X X X X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel 11.06 Vacant Structures 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteUnsanitary UnsafeLayout / Street Buildings Table 6 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 31-60 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Appendix A Image Number 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation X 1.02 Deteriorated Roof X 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits X 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts X 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes X X X X X X X X X 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors X X 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures X 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X X X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X X X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water X 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians X X 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity X X X 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting X X X 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks X 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) X X 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel 11.06 Vacant Structures X X 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteUnsanitary UnsafeLayout / Street Buildings Table 7 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 61-90 College and Drake URA Existing Conditions Survey July 20, 2018 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Appendix A Image Number 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 1.01 Deteriorated External Walls / Visible Foundation 1.02 Deteriorated Roof 1.03 Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits 1.04 Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts 1.05 Deteriorated Exterior Finishes 1.06 Deteriorated Windows and Doors 1.07 Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes/Loading Docks 1.08 Deteriorated Ancillary Structures 2.01 Inadequate Street or Alley Width / Cross-section / Geometry 2.02 Poor Provision of Streets or Unsafe Conditions for Vehicular Traffic X X X X 2.03 Poor Provision of Sidewalks/Walkways or Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians X X X X 2.04 Insufficient Roadway Capacity Leading to Unusual Congestion 2.05 Inadequate Emergency Vehicle Access 2.06 Poor Vehicular or Pedestrian Access to Buildings or Sites X 2.07 Excessive Curb Cuts / Driveways along Commercial Blocks 2.08 Poor Internal Vehicular or Pedestrian Circulation X 4.01 Floodplains or Flood Prone Areas 4.02 Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems/Ev idence of Standing Water 4.03 Poor Fire Protection Facilities 4.04 Above Average Incidences of Public Safety Responses 4.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 4.06 Ex istence of Contaminants or Hazardous Conditions or Materials 4.07 High or Unusual Crime Statistics 4.08 Open / Unenclosed Trash Dumpsters X 4.09 Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians 4.10 Illegal Dumping / Excessive Litter X 4.11 Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti/Gang Activity 4.12 Open Ditches, Holes, or Trenches in Pedestrian Areas X 4.13 Poorly lit or unlit areas 4.14 Insufficient grading/steep slopes X X 4.15 Unsafe or exposed electrical wire X 5.01 Neglected Properties or Evidence of Maintenance Deficiencies X 5.02 Deteriorated Signage or Lighting 5.03 Deteriorated Fences, Walls, or Gates 5.04 Deteriorated On-Site Parking Surfaces, Curb & Gutter, or Sidewalks 5.05 Unpaved Parking Lot (Commercial Properties) X 5.06 Poor Parking Lot / Driveway Layout X X 5.07 Poorly Maintained Landscaping / Overgrown Vegetation X X X 6.01 Deteriorated pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X X 6.02 Lack of pavement, curb, sidewalks, lighting, or drainage X X X X X 6.03 Presence of Overhead Utilities or Billboards 6.04 Inadequate Fire Protection Facilities / Hydrants 6.05 Inadequate Sanitation or Water Systems 6.06 Unusual Topography 11.04 An Undeveloped Parcel in a Generally Urbanized Area X X X 11.05 Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcel X 11.06 Vacant Structures 11.07 Vacant Units in Multi-Unit Structures Vacancy InfrastructureImprovements SiteUnsanitary UnsafeLayout / Street Buildings Table 8 Blight Conditions Image Reference, 91-113 APPENDIX C Appendix C Eligible Public Improvements Item Development Related (Financial Gap) Plan Area Improvements (Blight Remediation) Plan Related Expenditures (Subtotal) Additional Opportunities (Community Benefit) Total Intersection Improvements & Safety $ 125,000 $ 3,900,000 $ 4,025,000 $ - $ 4,025,000 1. Dual Left Turns EB Drake to NB College $ 10,000 $ 740,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 2. Pedestrian Refuge Islands (Drake & College) $ 15,000 $ 210,000 $ 225,000 $ - $ 225,000 3. Relocate College Ave. Street Lights from Medians $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 4. Right Turn Decel. Lane EB Drake to SB College $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 5. Color concrete crosswalks at Drake & College (4 Total) $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000 6. New Traffic Signal System at Drake & College $ - $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000 7. Extend Concrete Pavement on Drake for College Approach $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 8. Dual Left Turns WB Drake to SB College $ - $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ 750,000 Bicycle & Multi-Use Improvements & Safety $ 150,000 $ 1,490,000 $ 1,640,000 $ - $ 1,640,000 1. McClelland & MAX Promenade $ 150,000 $ 90,000 $ 240,000 $ - $ 240,000 2. Eastside College Multi-use path $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 3. Bike & Pedestrian Grade Seperated Crossing - Mason Trail $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 Traffic Safety Improvements $ 325,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,625,000 $ - $ 1,625,000 1. Mid-block left turns on Drake - College & McClelland $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 2. Thunderbird Improvements - College to McClelland $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 3. Connecting Roadways - East to West $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 4. Access / turn lane improvements on Drake - College to Redwing $ - $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000 5. Access / turn lane improvement on Drake - College to Harvard $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 Parking Management $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1. Expand and/or Acquire the Easement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Pedestrian & Sidewalk Improvements (ADA Compliance) $ 530,000 $ 115,000 $ 645,000 $ - $ 645,000 1. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways $ - $ 115,000 $ 115,000 $ - $ 115,000 2. Mid-Block Drive/Private Street Sidewalk & Enhancements $ 530,000 $ - $ 530,000 $ - $ 530,000 Landscaping & Streetscape $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 1. Landscape Medians Per Streetscape Standards $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 Transit Access & Improvements $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 170,000 $ - $ 170,000 1. Bus Stop Improvements on Drake Road (4 Total) $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Other Expenses $ 4,660,000 $ - $ 4,660,000 $ - $ 4,660,000 1. Demolition (Include Underground Tank Remediation) $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 2. On-site Low Impact Design Requirements (Water Quality) $ 410,000 $ - $ 410,000 $ - $ 410,000 3. On-site Public Sitework $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 4. Site Utility Infrastructure $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 5. Affordable Housing Commitment (Covered by Developer) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 5,875,000 $ 7,390,000 $ 13,265,000 $ 200,000 $ 13,465,000 * NOTE: Costs may escalate based on the Engineering News Record annual rate for the Denver/Boulder Metropolitan Statistical Area Urban Renewal Authority 222 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2231 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com December 20, 2019 Dear Property Owner: The primary purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Fort Collins City Council will conduct a public hearing Tuesday, January 21, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue to consider the following around the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road: 1. Adoption of an Urban Renewal Plan 2. Adoption of an existing conditions survey finding conditions of blight 3. Determine whether to authorize the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of private property interests within the Urban Renewal Plan area for the purpose of undertaking an urban renewal project A map showing the area included in the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is on the back of this letter. An Urban Renewal Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around a designated area. A combination of private investment, URA financing, and public investment will assist progress toward the following 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 conditions in the area that may hinder 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 improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation and safety. ▪ To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. ▪ To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and conditions. The City of Fort Collins considers your interest and input in this matter an extremely important part of this process. If you are unable to attend the Council’s public hearing, but would like to provide input, written comments are welcome. Please email comments or questions to cfrickey@fcgov.com. The mailing list for this public meeting was derived from official records of the Larimer County Assessor and City records. You may access a draft of the proposed plan at https://www.renewfortcollins.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Draft_College_and_Drake_Urban_R enewal_Plan.pdf. Sincerely, Clay Frickey, AICP Redevelopment Program Manager | Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority 970.416.2517 | cfrickey@fcgov.com Urban Renewal Authority 222 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2231 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com