HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-080-09/06/2011-ADOPTING THE MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY AND MAKING FINDINGS DETERMINING AN AREA WITHIN THE C RESOLUTION 2011-080
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
AND MAKING FINDINGS DETERMINING AN AREA WITHIN THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS TO BE A BLIGHTED AREA AND APPROPRIATE FOR
INCLUSION IN AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
WHEREAS,the City has conducted a study and survey to determine whether conditions that
constitute a blighted area, as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, sections 31-25-101, et
seg., C.R.S. (the "Act") exist in the City's South College Avenue commercial corridor; and
WHEREAS, the results of that study and survey have been prepared and embodied in the
"Midtown Existing Conditions Survey"dated April 2011,(the"Conditions Survey"),which includes
maps, a description of existing conditions and numerous photographs; and
WHEREAS,the Conditions Survey has been presented to the City Council for its review and
consideration,which Conditions Survey shows that the area described in Section 3 of this Resolution
qualifies as a blighted area as defined in the Act; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing and
reviewed said Conditions Survey pursuant to the procedural and notice requirements of the Act;and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the Conditions Survey and the physical
conditions found in the proposed urban renewal area was published as required by section 31-25-
107(3), C.R.S., at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, reasonable efforts have been made to provide written notice of the public
hearing to each property owner, business, and resident of the area as described in Section 3 of this
Resolution informing them of the public hearing at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence presented in support of and in
opposition to the Conditions Survey and staff recommendations and has also considered the
legislative record and given appropriate weight to the evidence and has determined to adopt the
Conditions Survey and find that the area described in Section 3 is blighted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Conditions Survey attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
"A", is hereby accepted and adopted.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds,determines and declares that the following
conditions exist in the area described in Section 3 below:
• Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
• Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
• Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
• Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
• Deterioration of site or other improvements;
• Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;
• The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of
municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites,
buildings, or other improvements.
Section 3. That the following described area is hereby found and declared to be a
blighted area as defined in the Act and appropriate for inclusion in an urban renewal project pursuant
to the Act. This is a finding by the City Council based upon the Conditions Survey and other
evidence presented to City Council. The blighted area is described as follows:
A tract of land located in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 and 36 of Township 7 North,
Range 69 West and in Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 North, Range 69 West, all of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado,
contained within the following described area;
Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the
easterly extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road,the TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING of this description;
THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of
way to the west line of the plat of"Griffin Plaza Subdivision';
THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly
line of the said plat of"Griffin Plaza Subdivision';
THENCE easterly and southerly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of
way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE easterly and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of
the BNSF Railway;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the east west centerline of
the said Section 26;
THENCE easterly along the said east west centerline and returning to the said
easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the south line
of the said Section 26;
THENCE westerly along the said south line and returning to the said easterly right
of way of the BNSF Railway;
-2-
THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north line
of the said Section 2;
THENCE easterly along the said north line and returning to the said easterly right of
way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north line
of the plat of"George T. Sanders Co. P.U.D.";
THENCE easterly along the said north line to the westerly right of way of Fossil
Boulevard;
THENCE southerly along the said westerly right of way to the westerly extension of
the southerly right of way of West Fairway Lane;
THENCE easterly along the said extended line and along the said southerly right of
way, its easterly extension and along the southerly right of way of Fairway Lane to
the southerly extension of the east line of the plat of"Replat Of A Part Of Fairway
Estates";
THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said east line of the
"Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates", along the east line of the plat of"Replat Of
A Part OF Lot 7, Lot 8, Lot 9, And A Part Of Lot 10 Of the Replat Of A Part Of
Fairway Estates"and continuing along the east line of the said plat of"Replat Of A
Part Of Fairway Estates"and its northerly extension to the southwest corner of that
certain tract of land as described in a Warranty Deed Recorded April 2, 2002 at
Reception No. 2002038320 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the said Larimer
County;
THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said tract described at Reception
No. 2002038320 to the southwest corner of the plat of "Fort Collins Supportive
Housing Subdivision";
THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said plat to the southeast corner of
the said "Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision";
THENCE northerly along the easterly line of the said plat to the southerly right of
way of East Harmony Road;
THENCE easterly along the said southerly right of way and its easterly extension to
the easterly right of way of Hogan Drive;
THENCE northerly to the intersection of the northerly right of way of East Harmony
Road with the easterly right of way of John F. Kennedy Parkway;
THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of way of John F.Kennedy Parkway
and along the easterly right of way's extension through intersecting side streets
through the East Horsetooth Road right of way,to the southerly line of Tract Nine as
shown on the plat of"The Foothills Fashion Mall Expansion";
THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said Tract Nine to the westerly right
of way of Stanford Road;
THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the northerly line of the
plat of"The Foothills Fashion Mall Foley's Expansion";
THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract K of the
plat of"Southmoor Village Fifth Filing";
THENCE southerly along the said easterly line of Tract K to the southerly line of the
said Tract K;
-3-
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line of the said Tract
K;
THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the northerly line of the said plat
of"Southmoor Village Fifth Filing";
THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract H of the
said plat of"Southmoor Village Fifth Filing";
THENCE southerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the said Tract
H;
THENCE westerly along the southerly line of the said Tract H to the southerly right
of way of Remington Street as shown on the plat of"A Replat Of Tracts F, G, And
J, And Vacated Service Road, Southmoor Village Fifth Filing";
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the westerly right of way
of the said Remington Street;
THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way and along the westerly right
of way's extension through intersecting side streets, to the northerly right of way of
Harvard Avenue;
THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of Lot 13
of the plat of"Plat Of Thunderbird Estates Seventh Filing";
THENCE northerly along the easterly line of Lot 13 and its northerly extension to the
easterly line of the plat of"Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of Lot 3 of the
said plat of"Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing";
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line of the said Lot
3;
THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the southerly right of way of Drake
Road;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension
of the easterly line of Lot 1 of the Plat of"The Resubdivision of Tract A, South
College Heights Fourth Subdivision";
THENCE northerly along the said southerly extension and along the said easterly line
of Lot 1, to the southerly right of way of Princeton Avenue;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the easterly right of way
of South College Avenue;
THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of way and along the easterly right
of way's extension through intersecting side streets, to the northerly right of way of
Rutgers Avenue;
THENCE easterly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly line of the
"Rutgers Building Condominiums";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of
"Raising Cane's";
THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of
"Raising Cane's";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of"A
Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of Block 1
of the St. Vrain Subdivision";
-4-
THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the westerly right of way of
Remington Street;
THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the southerly right of way
of Spring Park Drive;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension
of the easterly line of the plat of"Human Bean At Spring Creek";
THENCE northerly along the said extended line and along the said easterly line and
along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of"Moran's Subdivision" to
the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street;
THENCE northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the
easterly line of the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of"Maynard Subdivision";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot
5;
THENCE westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat
of"A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet
of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of Lot 1
of the said plat of"A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the
West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision" to the northerly line of the
said plat of"A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West
350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision";
THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of the west 240
feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of"Maynard Subdivision";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the
southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of"Maynard Subdivision";
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly
213 feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of"Maynard Subdivision";
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the
northerly right of way of Parker Street;
THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of way
of the north-south alley through Block 1 of the plat of"I.C. Bradley's Addition To
The City Of Fort Collins",-
THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to the southerly right of
way of East Prospect Road;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Excepting there from all of the plat of"Amended Final Plat of Parkway Townhomes
P.U.D."
-5-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
OF FO/?r
•0
° 'z
CO City Clerk
s
i
�ORADO
-6-
EXHIBIT A
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ \
■■ ...............
loom mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm oo No
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
F. � J I J f J Fj Jll" ' [ IJ rF. 1
IFF IL 2011
r1k Aim.
sw
t
PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PREPARED FOR : FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
LV ` rt Collins 1
`��
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
CONTENTS
I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A . PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B . COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C . SURVEY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II . STUDY AREA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A . STUDYAREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B . FIELD SURVEY APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C . BLIGHT FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C . BLIGHT FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
D . RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
III . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 : MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FIGURE 2 : MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FIGURE 3 : FIELD SURVEY STUDY SECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
FIGURE 4 : LOCATION OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS 1999- 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FIGURE 5 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FIGURE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
TABLE 2 : NUISANCE CODE VIOLATIONS 1999- 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE 3 : LEVEL OF SERVICE ( LOS ) BY INTERSECTION 2009 - 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
TABLE 4 : AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2009- 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLE 5 : AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 2007-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A : PHOTO DOCUMENTATION , SECTIONS 1- 3
APPENDIX B : SOURCES CONSULTED
Fort O < < ins 2
-71
/"-_'
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
I . INTRODUCTION
The following report, the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey ( Survey), was prepared for the
City of Fort Collins, Colorado in April 2011 . The area of Fort Collins known as Midtown
encompasses the South College Avenue commercial corridor extending north to south from
Prospect Road to Fairway Lane, just south of Harmony Road . A once vibrant and active
commercial and retail corridor, Midtown has been in decline as a prominent regional
destination .
In 2009, the City Council initiated the Midtown Redevelopment Study, a report that
documented and analyzed the area ' s existing economic conditions and retail redevelopment
opportunities . Several implementation actions were identified to achieve the redevelopment
vision, including direction to study the area further and evaluate the statutory requirements for
findings of blight to establish the basis for the formulation of an Urban Renewal Plan ( URP )
area .
In response to the recommended action item, City Council initiated this Survey in February
2011 . This report presents the field survey findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding whether
a URP is applicable .
A. PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this Survey is to determine whether the Midtown Study Area (Study
Area ) constitutes a " blighted area" within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law ( See
Figure 2 for a map of the Study Area ) . Secondly, this Survey will influence whether the Study
Area should be recommended for such urban renewal efforts as the URA and City Council may
deem appropriate to remediate existing conditions and prevent further deterioration .
B . COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW
In the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes ( C. R . S . ) § 31-25- 101 et seq .
( Urban Renewal Law ), the legislature has declared that an area of blight "constitutes a serious
and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents
of the state in general and municipalities thereof; that the existence of such areas contributes
substantially to the spread of disease and crime, constitutes an economic and social liability,
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of municipalities, retards the provision of
housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems and impairs or arrests the elimination of
traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that the prevention and elimination
of slums and blight is a matter of public policy and statewide concern . . ." .
The determination that constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several
physical , environmental , and social factors . Blight is indeed attributable to a multiplicity of
conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration of an
rt 3
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
area . For purposes of the Survey, the definition of a blighted area is premised upon the
definition articulated in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows :
"Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and,
by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors,
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality,
retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout
C. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or
usefulness
d Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
e Deterioration of site or other improvements
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable
h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and
other causes
i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in
because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective
design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities
j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property
k. 5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of
municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of
sites, building, or other improvements
I. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or
tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property
in an urban renewal area, "blighted area " also means an area that, in its
present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of
the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of this subsection (2),
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality,
retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (I), the fact that an
owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion of
such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner
has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing
condemnation
To be able to use the powers of eminent domain, "blighted " means that five of the eleven
factors must be present ( C. R . S. § 31- 25- 105 . 5 ( a ) ) :
� Cityt 4
Fort Collins
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
"Blighted area" shall have the some meaning as set forth in section 31 -
25- 103 (2); except that, for the purposes of this section only, "blighted
area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason
of the presence of at least five of the factors specified in section 31 -25-
103 (2)(a) to (2)(I), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of
the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or
constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public
health, safety, morals, or welfare.
Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of
whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law . First, the absence of
widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of
blight . The definition of "blighted area" contained in the Urban Renewal Law is broad and
encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify
condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration . Tracy v. City of
Boulder, 635 P. 2d 907, 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
Second, the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an
area constitutes a blighted area . A determination of blight is based upon an area "taken as a
whole, " and not on a building- by- building basis. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban
Renewal Authority, 473 P. 2d 978, 981 (Colo. 1970).
Third, a governing body' s "determination as to whether an area is blighted . . . . is a legislative
question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted . " Tracy, 635 P. 2d at 909. A
court' s role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to independently verify if the
conclusion is based upon factual evidence determined by the City Council at the time of a public
hearing to be consistent with the statutory definition .
C. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
This Survey was executed internally by URA staff to inventory the existing conditions within the
Study Area using both visual observation of physical conditions in the field , and the collection of
non-observable data from reliable sources . Non-observable data was obtained from numerous
City of Fort Collins departments, including Geographic Information Systems ( GIS), Planning,
Neighborhood Services, Transportation, Utilities, and Economic Health . URA staff conducted 12
field investigations during the months of February and March 2011 for the purpose of
photographing visual conditions of blight . There are 11 broad factors of blight defined in the
state statutes with an undefined amount of conditions associated with each factor .
"Conditions" are existing situations or circumstances that are identified in the Study Area that
may qualify as blight. Staff documented a variety of conditions as evidence in this Survey to
support a "finding of blight" according to Urban Renewal Law .
1� City rt 5
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
This Survey was divided into several tasks as follows :
Task 1 : Research and collect data associated with the Study Area , as well as prepare
base maps of existing conditions for the Study Area .
Task 2 : Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the City of
Fort Collins and Larimer County .
Task 3 : Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in the
Urban Renewal Law, exist in the Study Area .
Task 4 : Document survey findings in a graphic and report form to present to City
Council .
The actual determination of whether the Study Area is blighted remains the responsibility of
the legislative body; in this case, the Fort Collins City Council .
II . STUDY AREA ANALYSIS
A. STUDY AREA
The area analyzed in the Midtown Redevelopment Study encompassed the entire commercial
corridor along South College Avenue from Prospect Road to Fairway Lane, one block south of
Harmony Road ( Figure 1 ) . Within this broader area, two subareas had been previously analyzed
for conditions of blight : Foothills Mall and Prospect South . The entire Midtown Commercial
Corridor is comprised of approximately 660 acres and includes 404 parcels of private property.
The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan (URP) were adopted by
the City Council in May 2007 . Based on the property owner' s economic situation , and the lack
of redevelopment activity, the Foothills Mall URP was dissolved in 2008 to protect the TIF from
accumulating prematurely. The Mall remains a prominent focal point in Fort Collins and prime
opportunity for a regional retail destination, and the Midtown Redevelopment Study provides
concepts for key future redevelopment efforts .
The Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan (URP) were conducted
in 2008 . Although the Survey concluded that sufficient blight factors were present to warrant a
URP, the Plan was never adopted based on the lack of a catalyst project within the proposed
Plan Area .
Since these two areas have been recently surveyed, they were excluded from the same level of
scrutiny that the remaining area received . Figure 2 identifies the entire Midtown Commercial
Corridor, and highlights the Study Area that is the focus of this effort (shown in red ) and the
areas that have been previously studied (shown in blue) .
Fort
6
� �r t�s
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 1 : MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
W PROSPEC*T RD E PU SPECZT RD
J �� 1 'J n sSf t r „• et �P' � ��n s�
41
Q
r- ^ W DRAKE RD E Q
, �►' ;i E D KE RD
W
w 0.1
- . Li
ui
Lu
✓ J
_ UJI a
RS E HORSETOOTH RD '
LA -
yr,1 .
. x
W HARMONY ' E HARMONY RD
kr
a G T t' Q
v : or -1Ts -.'
KS�'+L1S' .: s � '1�. -! ^ r V ♦� . ..1 .
� �. �. Y •W � I �Y. l• q ort _
Midtown Commercial Corridor . Fora terns
P:lajor Streets 1 inch = 2 , 100 feet
Midtown Commercial Corridor April 2011
aty
- rt`!1 7
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 2 : MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA
Y , " ;' W PROSPECT RD E PROSPEC"T RD
rt..
,
Q
Q
W DRAKE RD _ ;00. E DD KE RD
V1
W
N Q
N W
� W
W J
Vf
W HORSETOOTH RD `" E HORSE TOOTH RD
W
W H R ONY RD E HARMONY
1
i � r�' � SS
LL
Study Area Boundary �,� r't� 0
1S
w r0ajor Streets �► ►
0 Midtown Study Area 1 inch = 2,100 feet
Previously Studied Areas April 2011
x1il F� �-f g
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Be FIELD SURVEY APPROACH
Physical surveyance of the Study Area necessitated 12 field investigations over a multi-week
timeframe in February and March 2011 . Due to its size, the Study Area was divided into three
sections that are consistent with sections defined in the Midtown Redevelopment Study.
Section 1 : The first mile, from Prospect Road to Drake Road, is generally populated with the
oldest developments; many are at or near the end of their initial lifecycle .
Section 2 : The middle mile, between Drake and Horsetooth Roads, was largely developed in
the late 1970s and is dominated by Foothills Mall to the east and auto dealerships to the west .
Section 3 : The southernmost mile and a half, extending from Horsetooth Road south to
Fairway Lane, is the most recently developed area with the exception of the former Wal- Mart
site .
Figure 3 identifies the three study sections .
The survey team walked the entire study area one section at a time and took photographs and
notes as existing conditions of blight were observed . The location of each observation was
recorded and documented with a photograph (Appendix A) .
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 3 : FIELD SURVEY STUDY SECTIONS
.t 5I IL
W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD LL,
i a
uml
/ � J
Sectio -- - /
Q
I _ _
LU
WHO RSETOOTH RD J E HORSETOOTH RD
J
■
v
_ _Secti }�
W HARMONY RD n E HARMONY RD — j
Q
I W
Study Sections Fo-r� Collins
Midtown Study Area Study Section 1
Major Streets Study Section 2 1 inch = 1, 800 feet
qPStudy Section 3 April Z011
City
r of 10
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
C. BLIGHT FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA
Listed below are the criteria used in the field survey to evaluate each blight factor.
1 . Slum, Deteriorating or Deteriorated Structures
Field survey efforts examining this factor focused on the general condition and level of
deterioration of the existing buildings' exterior components, such as :
External walls
Visible foundation
Fascia and soffits
❖ Roofs
Gutters and downspouts
Exterior finishes
❖ Windows and doors
Stairways and fire escapes
Loading dock areas
❖ Fences, walls and gates
❖ Ancillary structures
Structural integrity and/or environmental factors were not considered . The intent of this
portion of the field survey was to identify observable physical conditions of neglect, disrepair,
and/or deterioration on the exterior of the structures found within the Study Area .
2. Defective or Inadequate Street Layout
The analysis for this blight factor evaluated the effectiveness or adequacy of the streets that
surround and/or penetrate the Study Area . Evaluation criteria included :
❖ Inadequate street/alley width
❖ Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of traffic
❖ Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of pedestrians
Inadequate emergency vehicle access
❖ Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual traffic congestion
❖ Poor vehicle access
❖ Poor internal circulation
❖ Excessive curb cuts/driveways along commercial blocks
❖ Poor parking lot layout
3. Faulty Lot Layout
The following parcel conditions can hinder successful redevelopment and reduce a parcel ' s
usefulness and/or desirability :
❖ Faulty lot shape ( long, narrow, or irregularly shaped )
1� City of
Fort Collins 11
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Faulty lot layout ( impractical configurations resulting in stagnant, misused , or unused
land )
Inadequate lot size
4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
The presence of the following conditions is indicative of an environment that can be unsanitary
and/or unsafe :
❖ Poorly lit or unlit areas
❖ Floodplain or flood prone areas
❖ Poor fire protection facilities
Inadequate sanitation or water systems
Evidence of contaminants or hazardous conditions or materials
High or unusual crime statistics
❖ Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians
Open/unenclosed trash dumpsters
❖ Open ditches, holes, or trenches
Poor drainage and/or evidence of standing water
Insufficient grading and/or steep slopes
❖ Illegal dumping, excessive litter, trash, debris, or weeds
❖ Abandoned vehicles
❖ Unsafe or exposed electrical wire
❖ Vagrants, vandalism, graffiti , or gang activity
5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements
This factor focuses on conditions that indicate the lack of general maintenance of a structure,
site, or through the presence of these conditions, create an environment that reduces the
market desirability . The conditions are as follows :
Presence of billboards
Deterioration of signage or lighting
Deteriorated fences, walls, or gates
❖ Deteriorated on -site parking surfaces, curb and gutters, or sidewalks
❖ Unscreened trash or mechanical equipment
❖ Neglected site and/or site maintenance deficiencies
❖ Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained/overgrown vegetation
6. Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities
This section identifies unique topographic conditions and key deficiencies in the public
infrastructure system serving the Study Area, including :
Unusual topography/floodplain
Deterioration of street pavement
.Fort Collins 12
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Deterioration of curb, gutter or sidewalk
Insufficient street lighting
❖ Inadequate sanitation or water systems
Presence of overhead utilities
❖ Lack of sidewalks
7. Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Rendering the Title Non-Marketable
Conditions of title rendering the title non - marketable include the following :
❖ Properties with disputed or defective title
❖ Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult or impossible
8. Conditions that Endanger Life or Property by Fire or Other Causes
The presence of any of the following conditions is indicative of potential endangerments to life
or property by fire or other causes, including :
❖ Buildings or sites inaccessible to fire and emergency vehicles
❖ Blocked or poorly maintained fire and emergency access routes or frontages
❖ Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii
❖ Buildings or properties not in compliance with fire codes, building codes, or
environmental regulations
9. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for People to Live or Work
This factor focuses on conditions that render buildings unsafe or unhealthy for people to live or
work in, as follows :
❖ Buildings or properties not in compliance with fire codes, building codes, or
environmental regulations
❖ Buildings with deteriorated elements that create unsafe or unhealthy conditions
❖ Buildings with inadequate or improperly installed electrical , natural gas, or other utility
components
10. Environmental Contamination of Buildings or Property
The following condition is indicative of environmental contamination :
❖ Presence of hazardous substances, liquids, or gasses found at a site
11 . Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal
Services or Substantial Underutilization or Vacancy of Buildings, Sites, or
Improvements
Health , safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantially
underutilitized sites are evidenced by the following conditions :
rt 13
Fort
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
❖ Sites with a high incidences of fire, police, or emergency responses
❖ Sites adjacent to streets/alleys with a high incidence of traffic accidents
❖ Sites with a high incidence of code enforcement responses
❖ An undeveloped parcel in a generally urbanized area
❖ A parcel with a disproportionably small percentage of its total land area developed
❖ Vacant units in multi - unit structures ( more than 20% vacant)
❖ Vacant structures
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
D . RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY
The overall findings of the field survey are presented in this section . Table 1 tabulates the
results according to the criteria described in Section C .
TABLE 1 : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED
Deteriorated external walls ✓
Deteriorated visible foundation
Deteriorated fascia/soffits ✓
Deteriorated roofs ✓
Slum, Deteriorated gutters/downspouts ✓
Deteriorated or
Deteriorating Deteriorated exterior finishes ✓
Structures Deteriorated windows and doors ✓
Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes ✓
Deteriorated loading dock areas ✓
Deteriorated fences/walls/gates ✓
Deteriorated ancillary structures ✓
Inadequate street/alley width ✓
Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of traffic ✓
Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of pedestrians ✓
Defective or Inadequate emergency vehicle access
Inadequate Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic ✓
Street Layout Poor vehicle access ✓
Poor internal circulation ✓
Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts ✓
Poor parking lot layout ✓
Faulty lot shape ( long, narrow, or irregularly shaped ) ✓
Faulty Lot Faulty lot layout ( impractical configurations resulting in stagnant,
Layout misused, or unused land ) ✓
Inadequate lot size ✓
moommooll
Fort Collins 15
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
TABLE 1 ( CONTINUED) : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED
Poorly lit or unlit areas ✓
Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians ✓
Poor fire protection facilities
Inadequate sanitation or water systems ✓
Open/unenclosed trash dumpsters ✓
Evidence of contaminants or hazardous conditions or materials ✓
Unsanitary or High or unusual crime statistics
Unsafe Floodplains or flood prone areas
Conditions Open ditches/holes/trenches ✓
Poor drainage/evidence of standing water ✓
Insufficient grading/steep slopes
Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds ✓
Unsafe or exposed electrical wire ✓
Abandoned vehicles
Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity ✓
Presence of billboards
Deterioration of signage or lighting ✓
Deterioration Deterioration of fences, walls, gates, or poles ✓
of Site or Other Unscreened trash/mechanical ✓
Improvements Deteriorated on-site parking surfaces/curb/gutter/sidewalk ✓
Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies ✓
Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown
vegetation ✓
Unusual topography/floodplain
Unusual Deteriorated/inadequate street pavement ✓
Topography or Deteriorated/inadequate curb and gutter ✓
Inadequate Insufficient street lighting
Public Inadequate sanitation or water systems ✓
Improvements presence of overhead utilities ✓
Lack of sidewalks ✓
of
..., .. .. . , , . FOr't,.,�n5 16
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED
Defective or
Disputed or defective title
Unusual
Conditions of
Title Multiplicity of ownership making assemblages of land difficult
Conditions that Insufficient access for emergency vehicles
Endanger Life Blocked or poorly maintained fire/emergency access routes
or Property Insufficient fire and emergency vehicle turning radii
Non-compliance with fire/building codes
Unsafe or Non -compliance with fire/building codes
Unhealthy Unsafe deterioration of a building
Buildings Inadequate/improperly installed utilities
Environmental presence of hazardous substances, liquids, gasses found at site
Contamination
Health, safety, Sites with high incidence of fire/police/emergency responses
or welfare Sites with high incidence of traffic accidents
factors Sites with high incidence of code enforcement responses
requiring high
levels of Undeveloped parcels in urbanized area ✓
services or Disproportionately small land area developed compared to total ✓
underutilized Vacant units in multi - unit structures ( more than 20% vacant) ✓
buildings/sites Vacant structures ✓
1 . Slum, Deterioration or Deteriorated Structures
All of the structures evaluated are commercial businesses or retail locations along the corridor .
The vast majority are not in disrepair, however several structures were observed to be
deteriorating . Most of the buildings along the corridor were constructed in the 1970' s and
many of the facades have not been updated since . This consisted of documenting peeling
exterior finishes, rotting fascias, unkempt roofs, dilapidated loading docks, and multiple broken
fences, for example .
There were no observations of condemned buildings or visible foundation deterioration .
Fort Collins 17
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
2. Defective or Inadequate Street Layout
The majority of traffic travels north/south along College Avenue with the exception of a few
alternative north/south connections, including frontage roads, McClelland Drive, South Mason
Street, and John F . Kennedy (JFK ) Parkway.
In Section One, there is clearly a lack of secondary access other than College Avenue, and the
result is excessive traffic behind the Kmart and Whole Foods shopping centers . This indicates
poor provisions for the flow of traffic as well as poor vehicular access . Additionally, congestion
occurs as a result of the frontage roads in close proximity to College Avenue . Traffic waits at the
signal to turn onto College Avenue and obstructs safe access into the intersection for the
vehicle entering and/or exiting the frontage road .
Along McClelland Drive there are excessive curb cuts and unused driveways especially around
the car dealerships . Otherwise, it functions as a viable north/south alternative to College
Avenue .
South Mason Street south of Horsetooth Road was observed to have insufficient capacity for
the amount of vehicles travelling, especially at the Albertson' s shopping center access points .
This road segment is generally a compliment to College Avenue as a parallel street connection,
however it was noted that the heavy traffic during peak travel times was under-controlled for
vehicular circulation and difficult for pedestrian crossing.
3. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness
Midtown is an urbanized commercial corridor with very few parcels that are unable to develop
as a result of faulty lot layout . By examining the parcel data, it was observed that in the
instances where vacant land exists, it is usually the result of impractical lot size or shape . Also,
there were conditions where lot layouts were inadequate in regard to accessibility and the
presence of buildings spanning lot lines .
4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
Unsanitary or unsafe conditions involve the environment for the pedestrian, and dozens of
examples were visually documented . The prevalent conditions throughout the Study Area
include cracked and uneven surfaces for pedestrians, exposed electrical wire, graffiti, illegal
dumping, and excessive trash or debris . All waterways and ditches were observed to have
excessive amounts of trash, in conjunction with graffiti under their bridges . In most areas with a
tree- lined pedestrian sidewalk, there was evidence of overgrown tree roots creating lifted or
uneven surfaces .
Homeless persons loitering in alleyways as well as a homeless camp at a ditch embankment
were observed . The graffiti was overwhelmingly located along South Mason Street facing the
railroad , as well as on utility boxes, light poles, under bridges, and loading dock areas . Evidence
of contaminants was found at several restaurant sites where food grease was improperly
contained and spilling onto the pavement.
. " ' _ � Fort
�t�S 18
��
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements
Due to the age of development along the corridor, the conditions of this factor were
widespread and extensive . Most of the onsite parking surfaces showed different levels of
deterioration ranging from minor to extreme . Sites with more than one visible condition
resulted in the documentation of a maintenance deficiency of that parcel . Trash areas that had
deteriorated and were left unscreened contributed to the overall evidence of neglect .
Visual observations documented a decline of signage and light poles throughout the corridor,
such as peeling paint, rust, makeshift or missing signage, and those that were broken or bent .
6. Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities
Conditions of this factor observed most frequently include the deterioration of street
pavement, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks . On two occasions, overhead utilities were present,
and there were several missing pedestrian sidewalk connections . On College Avenue,
throughout the Study Area, there was noticeable deterioration of the travel lanes, e . g .
potholes, cracked pavement, and ruts . There were dozens of cracked curbs and gutters, with
the most extreme examples of mutilated curbs found on JFK Parkway adjacent to The Square
shopping center .
7. Defective or Unusual Conditions of Title Rendering the Title Non-Marketable
This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant
physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation .
8. Conditions that Endanger Life or Property by Fire or Other Causes
This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant
physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation .
9. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for People to Live or Work
This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant
physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation .
10. Environmental Contamination of Buildings or Property
This factor was not visually observable, and based on the presence of other, more significant
physical conditions this factor of blight did not warrant further investigation .
11 . Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal
Services or Substantial Underutilization or Vacancy of Buildings, Sites, or
Improvements
The Study Area is not considered to generate unusually frequent calls for municipal services;
however, there is evidence of several underutilized parcels and vacancies throughout the
corridor . Eleven undeveloped parcels were documented , in addition to 63 vacancies . While
there were a few large, vacant big- box stores, most vacancies were located within multi - unit
buildings . The Midtown Redevelopment Study documented approximately 650, 000 square feet
Fort Collins 19
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
of vacant retail space along the corridor, mostly due to national retailer bankruptcies and
mergers .
12. Additional Considerations
The team collected and analyzed additional non-visual information about the Midtown
Commercial Corridor that contributed to the documentation of the inventory of blight factors .
Nuisance Violations
The City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department issues notices for violations of the
nuisance code related to the misuse of property . These violations are typically related to
unmaintained weeds, illegal parking, outdoor storage/rubbish, un-shoveled sidewalks, etc .
Table 2 is a tabulation of all nuisance code violations; there have been 535 violations within the
Midtown Commercial Corridor since 1999 . Figure 4 is a map showing the addresses associated
with the violations . Note that often one address is associated with multiple violations .
TABLE 2 : NUISANCE CODE VIOLATIONS 1999-2010
Nuisance Code 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 TOTAL
Violation
Combination - 2 9 3 2 - 1 - 2 1 1 1 22
Inoperable Vehicle - - 4 3 1 1 - - 1 1 - - 11
Noxious Weed - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2
Outdoor Material
Storage - - - - - - - 14 7 - - - 21
Parking on Lawns - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
Rubbish 3 6 12 19 4 5 - 2 4 3 2 6 66
Sight Obstruction - - - - - - - 1 2 1 - - 4
Smoking in Public
Places - - - - 38 6 - - - - 1 - 45
Unshoveled
Sidewalks - - 19 19 6 14 12 12 4 10 2 1 99
Unscreened Trash - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1
Weeds 23 43 35 38 18 15 17 14 15 21 9 15 263
TOTAL 26 51 79 82 69 41 30 44 36 37 15 25 535
��t�S 20
��
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 4 : LOCATION OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS 1999-2010
W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECi 'RD
7-
•
■
•
W
Q
DRAKE E"DRAKE RD
O �
r
IA
0
J
W_
H
N
f
HORSETOOTH RD E 'HORSETOOTH D
0
i
W
W HARM ONY�RD E HA MONY RD
a
_ a
1 �
s_ r
Nuisance Violation Locations 1999 -2010 Frei dins
" Major Streets 1 inch = 2,100 feet
Midtown Commercial Corridor April2011
• Nuisance Violation Locations
I r_ - Fort 21
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Transportation
The team reviewed traffic data for the corridor, including average daily traffic counts for the
major intersections, level of service, and the average annual number of traffic accidents from
2007-2009 for the major intersections on South College Avenue .
The major intersections along College Avenue function with a Level of Service ( LOS) at C or D
(Table 3 ) . With a LOS of D, "the delay per vehicle is greater than 35 seconds but not greater
than 55 seconds . At LOS D, more vehicles are stopped at the intersection, resulting in a longer
delay . The number of individual cycles failing is now noticeable ." (Traffic and Highway
Engineering, Fourth Edition, Nicholas J . Garber, 2010) . While functioning at LOS C or D is fairly
typical for an urban environment, it is important to note that as redevelopment occurs along
the South College Corridor and increases density, the effects on the LOS should be taken into
consideration to mitigate further congestion .
TABLE 3 : LEVEL OF SERVICE ( LOS) BY INTERSECTION 2009-2010
Intersection LOS (AM/PM )
College/ Prospect C/D
Col lege/Stuart A/B
College/Spring Park A/A
College/Rutgers A/A
College/Columbia A/A
College/Drake C/D
College/Harvard A/A
Col lege/Swallow A/B
College/Foothills A/B
College/ Monroe A/A
College/Horsetooth D/D
College/ Boardwalk A/B
Col lege/Troutman A/C
College/ Kensington A/B
College/Harmony * D/D
* College/Harmony reported LOS does factor in recent intersection improvements .
The inability of the major intersections to adequately accommodate such large traffic volumes
increases the likelihood of traffic accidents . Average daily traffic volumes are reported in Table
4, followed by the average number of traffic accidents in Table 5 .
Will — -�'F�trS 22
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
TABLE 4: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2009-2010
Intersection Average Daily Traffic
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
College/ Prospect 21, 900 20, 600 15, 000 11, 600
College/Drake 21,400 23, 700 15,400 11, 600
College/Horsetooth 20, 600 21, 700 14, 200 12, 600
College/Harmony 16, 800 18,900 13, 300 16, 300
TABLE 5 : AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 2007-2009
Intersection Average Number of Accidents
Col lege/Prospect 29
Col lege/Stuart 3
College/Spring Park 6
Col lege/Rutgers 7
College/Columbia 10
Col lege/Drake 37
College/Harvard 9
Col lege/Swallow 22
College/Foothills 22
College/Monroe 32
Col lege/Horsetooth 37
College/Boardwalk 17
College/Troutman 26
College/Kensington 19
College/Harmony 29
In addition to traffic data , the team also reviewed the recently updated list of transportation
capital improvement projects . Within the corridor, two pedestrian trail crossings are planned
along the railroad , in addition to several pedestrian connection improvements to remediate
discontinuous sidewalks . There are several intersection improvements planned along South
College Avenue at Horsetooth Road , Prospect Road, Boardwalk Drive, Monroe Drive, and
Swallow Road . A grade separated railroad crossing is another major project planned on Drake
Road . Figure 5 shows all the pedestrian , roadway, and railroad improvements planned for the
area .
Fort CoUins 23
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 5 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
W PRO-SPECT. RCILL If PROSPECT RD �
f
■
1-7
W DRAKE RD E -DRAKE RD
i - J
1 H
�l
1I I LLA
' QJune=
W
W
LN 7 Z
r J
o Legend
in J E : HO
dry
�.i Midtown Commercial Corridor
Streets
Pedestrian Improvement
1
Railroad Improvement
T *0 Roadway Improvement
0 Pedestrian Improvement
W HARMONY RD
0 Intersection Improvement
Railroad Improvement
Roadway Improvement
aime
Capital Improvement Projects
City of 1 inch = 2, 100 feet
Fort Collins
April 2011
_ or or 24
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Stormwater
City Stormwater staff assisted in identifying potential drainage issues within the Midtown
corridor . In general , the storm drainage infrastructure is old and undersized, and incorporating
stormwater detention with redevelopment projects will be essential . Another major issue to
note is the Spring Creek floodway/floodplain which runs east-west just south of the Prospect
Road/College Avenue intersection . Table 6 reports the location of each area and the issues
involved, and Figure 6 is a map identifying the location of each problem area .
TABLE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS
Map Location Issue
ID
1 Prospect/College Intersection
Major surface drainage problem during significant
rain storms .
Surface flooding due to runoff from developed
2 West side of College between properties and frontage road entering College
Drake and Swallow Avenue in conjunction with limited and
undersized storm sewers .
Larimer #2 ditch crossing on
Ditch crossings are problematic to develop
3 College south of Swallow around and can be a significant cause of flooding
due to water spillage during a large storm event .
4 SE corner of Swallow/College Possible soil contamination .
5 College near Foothills Parkway Large 60" storm sewer crossing that continues
east under the mall property .
6 Horsetooth/College Intersection Multiple Larimer #2 ditch crossings .
7 NE corner of Harmony/College Possible soil contamination .
8 SW corner of Harmony/College
Large box culvert that conveys Mail Creek flows
underneath previous Walmart site .
r�t�S 25
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS
T
HIt
W PROSPECT RD E PR05PECT RD
;A -
N
j
- -�-%A
LALh �
♦ ~ W
a S
h ' -
W DRAKE RD iE; DRAKE RD W_I
W
J f
ri
n i
_ n
II
n
n
M1 II
r 1 \ h
� 11
W HORSETOOTH RD — n E H IORSETOOI TH RD J
_ n
— n
C` •. � W r4 - �- -
— r' r
W n i
}
Tt_ 'r�
I W HARMONY RD E HARMONY RD
ni U Iit
n u �``�. .• r,
\\ u 1
u \ ,
I i
Drainage Problem Areas For"tCoulns
l 'ri I.lidtov,n Commercial Corridor I.loderate P isl. Floodplains
Streets High Pisl. Flo odplains 1 inch = 2, 100 feet
•' Table Peference lJ umber Flo d%sar April 2011
rr f.11ir City t 26
Fort Collins
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
III . CONCLUSION
Due to the presence of seven of the 11 factors of blight, staff concludes that the Study Area is a
blighted area as defined in Urban Renewal Law. By reason of the presence of numerous factors
identified in Section 103 ( 2 ) of the Urban Renewal Law and discussed above in Section D, the
Study Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort Collins, retards
the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic and social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare .
While some properties in the Study Area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and
substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area . It should be noted that this
conclusion is for the Study Area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties .
Appendix A documents the photographs that were taken during the field survey. The
photographs are divided according to the study section in which they were observed . A table
reports the condition of blight that the photograph represents, and that photograph can be
located on its corresponding study section map . Finally, each photograph can be viewed in
thumbnail form .
These results have been verified by a third party consultant for accuracy and qualified
assessment of the existing conditions .
,.. ... FO�"�-1't5
, 27
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
'll F - I Fi 11 F rF.
APPENIX VSECTIONS 1 - 3 APRIL 2011
1
PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PREPARED FOR : FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 1
Slum,cetenora[M or oetenorMing Structures Defective or lnatleq oats StreetlayoN Faulty Lot layout Unssmdry or Unsafe Contl Nons cetenorrtlon of Site or other Improvements Unusual Topography orinadequMe Pub it Unusual Enormous that Endanger Unsafe or Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or welfare factors requ:ring M1lgh
Improvements or Ut?fig Condroons of the or Fmperty Buildings Contamination (eves of services or untleruUllxe] b u l l tlings/slles
3 3ED T'
is aIs
IS
E ➢ „ EllWe I
E 0IFF ym 3 G °�' E k E u 3 8 _ & q Y Y E
8 5 Y Y Ed opo a ry 00
➢ ➢ s „ _ 3 - 9 E - E ; ty x d a S _ d e g _ G
P 3 _ xO b 3 ➢ F lis
Q ➢ a EIs
- 2 - 8 3 _ E E� ffi e _
3 ! r S _ - _ E 8 _ e x 3 a4 E g $ e _ r - -
_ 9 is p ° - E _I. e � - a _ _ - � m _ 5° o $ i d .e E a i
E Y _ 5 m - yGy o IIr
f b _ tl �_ n` �` S o n Y S Y cT _II
L' o m & ➢ E
� o _ - tv
Q. 0 - 2 9 E Y $ _ nw3 _ G 'S p'& L E E _ s _ -
S � S F 9 _ _ 0 _ r E c E $ _ � 8 g E E L na
his
FMma ➢u ➢u ➢u G Eq on
�' a - - ES
'1 WE . g Y V c F' t` " yl Is Is — o x _ a .So a '". so u o -Is I A E
1 _ _ _ _ z _ _z % o%_ % _ _ _ _ _
2 x x
3 x x
x x
6 x
6 x x x x
2 x x
a x x x x
9 x x
18 x x
11 x x
1z x x
0 x x
14 x x x
US x
16 x
1] x
13 x x x
19 x
20 X
21 X
22 X
23 X % % X
20 X
2s x x
26 x
22 x x x
28 x x x
29 x X
30 x
31 % X
32 X % X X
M % %
30 % % % %
3S % %
36 % X X
32 % X
38 X % % X X
ID % X % % %
a % % %
01 % X
02 %
0.3 % % X X
VO X %
QS X X X %
WE % X
02 X
a % X
9 % %
0 % % X
51 %
X
X X
51 X
2
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
/ r
� O I r ~ ] M � ,�!
16 4j
'-` ' ' F m
r: . -
It
I—I 1 r
, RUTIGERS . VE
i •
it ♦��
t
r, #*� j .. ,
oTe _ r, r, r iP .
+ tA�/, w
3� rJ 7.1 rl
❑ t 14
z
= ► IIt
I .
ILL
c �
�♦ ppppppyyy - r : ! !P . b ..
— 12
19� 1 GOLUMBIA RD
Ht
^ r "
r ,
(�6) • 10, QJ
if
� = d9 9 it
.
1 1
c
r— o
a
en
CC7 1341,
a 18 7 8
lif1
.'d35
5 32 53
{psi-• --q"�," w
L at f pf `_ 36 P 33 3 y, ,- • y �'
Hit 22
I. �52 w
LI 37), - •1:. 6s
19 . 2 _
q%i Ei 0! Fr 20 49 Q
38
39
40
I
26
r 25 24 28
41� t. '
I— f— 42 Lilt .. 2
r
Illu► .
30
P CET '
45 29
54
46 e 4 48 53
W DRAKE U E DRAKE U
Section 1 Photo Reference Map , ort` l
O Photo Rerence Number
r Study Section 1 1 inch = 200 feet
April 2011
3
MIDTOWN • •
I
��� � ��. • ..I Sri
• 9.JPG 10 .JPG
e y ,
• . . .
•l- � y 1
rzq
API JOF
Pi
9
• • .JPG 1
glow
• • ' 1
r ,
. .
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
4q. l
Al-
�4 or
400
36 .JPG 37.JPG 38 .JPG 39 . JPG 40 .JPG
gig
Li
41 .JPG 42 .JPG 43 .JPG 44.JPG 45 .JPG
•.Y,hft _
46.JPG 47.JPG 48 .JPG 49.JPG 50.JPG
51 .JPG 52.JPG 53.JPG 54.JPG
5
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 2
Defierawor
gum,oetenorzRa or Determinating structures Deferave or Inadequate Street layau[ Fal TA laymt Ueandaryu Unsafe Continues cefenorMlon of Site v other Impersona n6 unusual Topography or Inadequate Pudic unusual Conafims MM Fnaanger unsa@orunM1eanhy Environmental Hei safety, or vaeVare facfce requiring high
Impaouxmems or Ublltles Cont of U@or huge" Buildings Communal leaves of erviss or underutilized baildingso es
Title
im m
$ £ E c IS
an x ffi d " _ u E In w §
d? 3 as
m d S a m m a " " Y EE' V - E E
- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3
S m -. c - V 5. 3 80 & Utit Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _
; 3 `a lidc s n -"" 73
� p� 9 2 's 12 _ a _ m �2 r ai 0 8 - B e
if 1° 'c — .� ' 9y L F w 3 ue P L' X ' w 45
— 5 = u c a c n
is
is
9 : E d � \3 —IMF
$ E 2 E _ `Y _ 9 S' 3
5 " sei a a sE z ' e a as 'f? € a " s ei; m x 1 —0a 9 x x e _ E mE : v E e
4 i i s _ a € - _ - s _ s �, - _ - v _" = c _ & s le 9 _ re s _ & z _ oQ _ o as � ; i _ aY -
a � an >� . � a a$ a; s a _ �" $ F E v „ 5 an
= $ " _ : g da 3 30 aE se
PM1moa G L 5 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8tlan
93 b dam" 5 � ' 9 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >" $1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ % _ _ _ _ _
2 x x
3 x
0 x
5 x
6 x x x
2 x x
8 x x x
9 x x
N x x x
v x x x
12 x x x
13 x
la x x x
ss x x x x
ss x x x x
n x x
M x x
19 x x x x
m x x
n x x
n x x x
x
24 x x x
25 x x x x x
2s x x x
27 x
N x x x
29 x
30 x x x
31 x x
32 x x x
x x x
3a x x
3s x
w x x x x
3) x x x
M x x x x x
39 x x x x x
eB x x x x
e1 x x x x x
u x x x x
u x
w x x
es
w x x
n x x x
w x
e9 x
m x x x
51 x x x
s2 x
x
so x x
u x
% x x x x
7
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2
Detectivemr
Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormangS oil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high
Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes
Title
75
E 3 as
m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E
to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3
8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _
y0 .p0 ; 3 `a a n _ 17
s n q Y 2 's - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e
9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c -IMF & ' oy c` i '3 ¢ P � � 0 45 S - 5 = r u c a i t s " .. � .E,
j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ , to _ 9 S' 3 is E 3 3 _ Q $ �
_ _
m a s & "s E; � E % - - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a m a s % .. ° e E m E - - E e
4 i isee
_ __, € - _ - s _ _s _ _ - v _" = c _ & s 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i
a Zr$ a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ 3_ � aE
Photos G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8 x L 93 b d 5 0 ' z 9 ` L 3 — F ^ x " 2
n x x _ _ _ _ _ _ = ox" _ _ _ _ _
se x x
59 x
6B x
61 x
6z x
0 x x
64 x x x x
6s x x x
x x
6) x
6a x x
69 x
ro x
n x
n x
x
]a x
n x x
]6 x x
n x
]8 x
9 x
80 x
8 x
8E x
0 x x x
& x
HIS x
B6 x x
8) x
88 x
0 x
yB x x
y x x x x
y1 x
cm x
y6 x x x
9s x x
96 x
9) x
9g x x
w x x
1m x
101 x x x x
1@ x
1m x x x
HIM x x
M x
M x
m x x
M x x
M x x
to x x x
in x x x
11 x x
8
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2
Detectivemr
Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high
Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmpeny Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes
Title
75
E 3 as
m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E
to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3
8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _
y0 .p0 ; 3 `a a n _ 17
s n q Y 2 's - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e
9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c -IMF 1 71
' oy c` i '3 ¢ P � � S - 5 = r u c a .. � .E,
j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 S' 3 le E
_ _
m a s & "s E - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag ? € a = s a ;; m a ra
mas 1i E ee
e
4 i is _ __, € - _ rl�- s _ _s _ _ - v _" = c _ & s 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i ao s & _ nY n �
a a$ a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " _ : � da 3 3_ a aE
PM1otoa G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8 x 98 b d 5 0 ' 3 ` 3 — Fti x " 2 08 >' $
1v _ _ _ _ x % _ _X ox" _ _ _ _ _
114 x x
in x x x
116 x x x
117 x x
in x x x
in x x x
vn x x
M x x
M x
M x
u6 x
u x
vn x
ui x x x x
vn x x
9 x x
130 x
01 x
M x
M x
x x x x
115 x
w x x
07 x x
B x
lie x
IQ x
141 x
142 x
10. x
I" x x
Its x
146 x
1m x
148 x
149 x
ssB x x
ss1 x
1sz x x
1s3 x x x x x
1sa x x x
1u x x x
1w x x x
m x x
ssn x
ss9 x x x
160 x x
161 x
Mar x x x x
163 x
Her x x
6 x x
Hill x x x
161 x x
168 x x
9
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2
Detectivemr
Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors req Wnrig high
Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes
Title
75
E 3 as
m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E
to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3
8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _
y0 .p0 ; 3 `a a n _ 17
s n q Y 2 's - a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e
9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c -IMF & ' oy c` i '3 ¢ P � � 0 45 S - 5 = r u c a i t s " .. � .E,
j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 S' 3 E 3 3 _ Q $ � 2' _
_ _
m a s tY & "s E; � E % - - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a ;; m a s % .. ° e E m E - - : v e
4 i is _ Is
_ € - _ - s _ _s _ _ lu
- v _" = c _ & s 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i ao s & _ nY n �
a zr a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " aE
Photos G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8x 98 b d 5 � ' 3 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >' $
1® _ _ _ _ _ _ v ox... _ _ _ _ _
in x
171 x
in Ix x x
in x
1]a x
1R x x x
136 x x
1n x x x x x
1]8 x x x
1N x
1tm x
]H1 x x
M x x
103 x x
M x
M x
M x
M x x x
HIS x x x x
» x x x x x x
190 x x
191 x
19 x
1% x
191 x x
1% x
1% x
197 x
198 x
1% x
200 x
IDI x x
Z@ x x
203 x
N x
205 x
205 x x x
M x x
0 x x x x
➢B x x x x
20 x x
211 x x x x
212 fill x x
213 x
210 x
215 x x x
216 x x
217 x x x
218 x x
z19 x
M x
221 x x
rz x x x x x
m x x
se x
10
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2
Detectivemr
Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high
Impmeements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes
Title
75
E 3 as
m d S a m m a o ` Y o V - E E
to, 0- o• 'o ` $' N a v m 9 c Y mS $' c S Y Y = ` $ v d E 3
8 & tl Y E {9. S 3 E _ E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _
32
; 3 `a a n _ 17
- a _ m �2 r w2 0 8 - B e
Si
a ` E ¢ C c -IMF & ' oy c` i '3 el � � S 45
- 5 = r u c a .. � .E,
j m R - - fr EE x _ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9 S' 3 le E
_ _
m a s & "s E; � E % - - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a ;; m a s % .. ° e E m E ran lal
- - : v - e
4 i i s _ __, € - _ - s _ _s _ _ - v _" = c _ lu
& s 9 _ K s _ - at _ � Q _
Mail
: q a a$ a; x a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " _ : � da 3 3_ � aE
PM1otoa G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8x 98 b d 5 � ' 3 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >' $
vs _ _ _ _ Is
_ _ _ x % _ _ _ _ _
Jou x
n7 x
M x x x x
Jou x
Join x x
zu x x x x
M x x
M x x
a x x
u x x
Joa x x
zsn x x x
uB x x x x
ue x x x
John x x
zal x x
zaz x x x x x
Jong x x
Jona x x x x
Jons x
John x
zm x x
John x x x x
249 x
Jose x x
ui x x x
M x
M x
u x
Joss x
Jose x x
m x
JoSB x
Jos9 x x x x x
John x
ui x x x
e x x
Jova x x x x
Joey x x x
Joel x
Joeb x x
uJo x x
M x x
M x
M x
Jon x x
M x x x
Jon x
na x x x x x x
Jou x x x x x x
Jou x x
Jon x x x
Jou x x x
2n x x
zm x x x
11
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE — SECTION 2
Detectivemr
Mum, oefenorzRtl or W[enormang Moil Detective or l natlequate Street layout Faulty lM layout UnsanRary or Unsak rental cetenorMlon of Site or other lmprovenents Unusual Tc{pgaphy or Inadequate Pud¢ Unusual Commons MM Huai UnzafemmmaWy EnNronmental Health,sal or malfare factors reg Wnrig high
Impmrements or Ublltles Conditions of U@orFmperty Buildings Communa fim lives of ervlss or undembliz N buAtlings/sxes
Title
75
E 3 E
as
m d S a m m a o ` E Y o V - E
S 9 '" u a - - o•to, 0 'o 1 $' N 15 v m 9 c Y mS $' c
S m -. c - V 5. 3 8 & tl 2 E {9. S 3 E _ � E - E & ry Y m $ c 9 - " b _
a, s a 3 y0 .p0 ; _ s e q Y 2 's - E _ m �2 r D w 2 S e
9 £ S a S fr 5 a ` E ¢ C c - & ' oy c` i 00
32
'3 ¢ P � � S - 5 = r u c a i t s " .. � .E,
j m R - ia
- fr EE xIMF
_ 9 9 : E d 8 - $ E 2 E _ � `Y _ 9
_ _
ee
m a s & "s E - �" s a s" a s` E a $ a ag '„? € a = s a ;; m a s % .. ° e E mE - - : v e
4 i is _ __, € - _ rl�- s _ _s _ _ - v _" = e _ & s p 4 ' 9 _ K s _ - £_ _ � Q _ E i ao s & _ nY n �
in
a a$ Is
a; s a _ �" $ F E s " s = $ " _ 3_ � aE
PM1otoa G L 5 G S 5 5 L S G o5 85 = 8x 98 b d 5 � ' 3 ` 3 — F ^ x " 2 08 >' $
at
_ _ _ _ x x _ _ _ % _ _ _ _ _
M x x
M x x
APT x
ms x
mx x x
M x x
M x
M x
mB x
M x x
M x
M x
zpq x x x
2915 x x x x
ms x x
2!KF x x x x
M x x x
M x x
m x x x x
3B1 x x x
3m x x
3m x
a x x x x
305 x x x x x
3B6 x x
3m x x
® x
3® x x
30 x x x
311 x x x x x x x
x x x
313 x x x
314 x
ass x
316 x
317 x
30 x x
3D x
3m x x
M1 x
3xz x x
12
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
-W DRAKE RD - — 3 _1 E-DRAKE RD y '
m
,�i. E THUNDERBIRD OR
,r C
C �
K Q
2 5 W
W
Z
0 5
PV
4~i V�. DEL GLAIR RO
•e; 1 I C 9�4j
� 9
Z 6F w:
5
g
A'So
JUNCO CT
W � .
{7 _
E SWALLOW RO � '`
a N
w W SWALLOW
J W
c
'Li = r • rr r
1101311NrCT
- rc
,.:
To
P`Ad'�
i R / Moog .
rr+ S ,._+� .. . 1' . W Ir I,
�
L R- j . '.'IA - 0 O ! _ —S t- r, 319 _ E 1vI0NR0E OR 'al, -
� * Q Ej w . [G -
P. Q FA ' ry)
RIVA RIDGEtIN . Tc. ,. T. . , . nTv ". . r ,21 'r-
Rol 13 �Y•.3t �.
,.�, t., . '. j ❑ r - .{�-2pg. ..n � r �y ' i � . �1. q ti _ 'rnrr.,, �
P z 20 r2
it Yk IQ�. w Qbl. 1 .21 217 r^ • _ 1 . -% -
T1 20E21 y r j� 18-nJ pop
�y�• RIVA RIDGE 21 5a!
O
-+ r -iDR'0�; �73'123 Y9�rs.�
'�'j tPfr rr, b 240E '�' , r .
w r2�3y � rr.
41- 25A /247 rl r `29
7Cy °
r - - - ,. _ Lt70pCco17ccCcc 21 ccC _ccccOccC7Cdaoc7cO OLD =oo
-W HORSETOOTH-.RDE HORSET00TH RD
•+sA. � `, tTif-. � - _ - —_ 'wee -i - ,y•
Section 2 Photo Reference Map Girtlpf
��trins
Photo Reference Number
1 inch - 375 feet
�s Study Section 2
April 2011
13
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
1 .JPG 2.JPG 3 .JPG 4.JPG 5 .JPG
R
All
by
6 .JPG 7 . JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10 .JPG
III
11 .JPG 12.JPG 13 . JPG 14.JPG 15.JPG
man=
16.JPG 17. JPG 18 .JPG 19. JPG 20.JPG
iixf : I
21 .JPG 22.JPG 23 .JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG
26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG
E
31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35 .JPG
14
MIDTOWN • •
_
p m
36.JPG 37.JPG 38.JPG • I I
4+ I
f
I I 1 .JPG I
4 IL
NIL,
j �II�IIIIILl
!�
46 .JPG 47 . JPG 48 .JPG 49.JPG1
r
59.JPG . 1
ati
61 .JPG 62.JPG 63.JPG 64.JPG 65 .JPG
66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG 69.JPG 70 .JPG
MIDTOWN • •
7�y
• •
dr
_ . -
. � � Idii• Nam\
76.JPG 77. JPG 78 .JPG • : 1
Nita V
WAI
y
r
•
86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 91
EL
EL° ti_. - �•
.440Ary
pp
r y � y i d '. Jr ! •
..: ._ � I .iT i f ✓•may`' { .lf,•• - - -
T �
J
101 .JPG 102.JPG1 14 1
MIDTOWN • •
Pi
106 .JPG 107. JPG 108 .JPG0 •
• 9.JPG 120.JPG
HIM
� �.. - - _.... �, IIIIIILIIIIII� I► II �
I pg �
17
o -
r
-
s r � �
MIDTOWN • •
A AAA- -
v
lk
A t
.:
N
AA
vi AAA
.tee+ at. AAA
146 .JPG 147.JPG 148 .JPG
® � ji
A .
A.
6w
- mom A
_ " 1
. 0
i i
to
161 .JPG 162 .JPG • • 4
ml lili Eli:
AA-
AAA pp
• • .JPG 1 • • .JPG • •
Q .Y
18
� s
MIDTOWN • •
w
il
.v
• : • : 1
77
jot
: • JPG 187.JPG 188.JPG 189.JPG • 1
- t
i �
. •r — n
201 .JPG 202.JPG1 1 1
16 17.JPG 208.JPG 209.JPG1
MIDTOWN • •
m
;
Dim AL
Al
�
i .
1
20
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
IL
246 .JPG 247 . JPG 248 .JPG 249.JPG 250 .JPG
PIE
It _
251 .JPG 252.JPG 253 .JPG 254.JPG 255 .JPG
256.JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG
p"ill,
261 .JPG 262.JPG 263 .JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG
r �
266 .JPG 267.JPG 268 .JPG 269.JPG 270 .JPG
LOCK
271 .JPG 272.JPG 273 .JPG 274.JPG 275 .JPG
276.JPG 277.JPG 278.JPG 279.JPG 280 .JPG
21
MIDTOWN • •
_ ;lid
. t
'T jEnj
281 .JPG 282.JPG : :4 :
mod
\ /
286 .JPG 287 . JPG : : • 91
- r
301 .JPG 302 .JPG1 1 1
1 U
16 17.JPG 308.JPG 309.JPG1
°a .:
22
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
L �7
316.JPG 317.JPG 318.JPG 319.JPG 320.JPG
321 .JPG 322.JPG
23
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
Defective or
Slum,ceLenoraLM or DHcnoming Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Faulty Lot Layaut Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or offer Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Carl Had Endanger Unsafe or Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or werare factors requiring high
Improvements or UUGfies Contlitlons of the or Property Buildings CondminMlon levels of services or underublhetl build ngs/sites
Tide
c 3 m —a IS
IS c
l5 m .. ` a
` o o — Y a wE in 5
E c E o Y
3 8 C i E 3 3 s E H E d = _ t E
Z 5 3 C a — 2 E 3 b° _ a G — E pp o� _ E 5 g aN 8, T' 2
_ Y a 3 3 lu y — ` _ c m i d y 3 E
— �_ ` ^ E _ Y e �' Y u n 3 $m q
o _ a w ` ` $ $ ip
_ C _ _ " _ � �. _ E 'c — — E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ w � E � ° @ _ �' `a• ° E 3 3 _ — _
f C _ t , � - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
w o S _ 2 9 _ �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a '- 5 S 3 & S Y _ Ea, Mai E
5 _ & — E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a
75
use, n � a - 3 - - - e - _ ay 0 _ - 21: E E a - - - �` & " g - E E
8 � 8a 8 8 " � 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B oy _ �' o ' a a8 5 58 ? E 3W 9
vham% g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 t o - - = 8 8 3 ., 8 8 - - -
1 _ _ _ _ _ % _ _ _ _ _ _
x
3 x x
a x
5 x x
6 x x x
2 x
a x x x
9 x
lD x
11 x
12 x x x x
13 x
la x
IS x x x
16 x x x x
1] x x x
v x x x
19 x
m x x
21 x x
22 X
23 % X
20 %
25 x
26 x x
27 x x
a x x x
29 x x
30 x
31 X % X
32
33 X
M %
35 % %
36 X
32 X
H X % X
39 X
a X
01 %
02 X
0.3
VO X
QS X
Am X x X
02 %
a X
09 X
SO % % %
51 X
S2 X
53 X % %
25
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
oefearve or
Slum,Deteriorated!or Oetcnorating Structures Deflective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or force ContlRlons Determination of SRe or Wber lmpmvemen6 Unusual Topogrzpby or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Hnsafeor Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or meMarefcmrs requiring high
Impmvemen6 or UUllties ContlRlons of the or Property Bulltllngs Contamination levels ofservlres or undermilhed build ngs/sms
Tide
c 3 m —a IS
IS c
ir
` o o — _ a F Ir
Y a wE E c E o Y
3 8 C i E '3 3 s E H E d = _ a L' $ j E
8' S '& L b - air5 3 .8'. at b° _ a r — E pp Is
o� = E 5 g aN y £ $ 2
_ IS
Y a 3 3 y — ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a
�_ ` ^ 3 $m q
o _ a .n ` L'
E 'c — — E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ — `a• E E 3 3 _ — _
f C _ - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as5 IS e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
.N o 3 - Y YY. w o S _ 2 9 _ �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a '- 5 S 3 & S Y _ E
& _ _ 5 _ 5 - E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a
- - e - _ ab a s _ _ el: E E a - - - & $ " g _ e = E E
8 � 8 a 8 8 " � 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B °' � oy �' o ' a a8 5 y8 ME 3x 9
vhomx g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = 8 8 8 ., 8 8 - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x _ _ _ _ _
Sir
SS x x
516 x x
51 x
Sly x x
S9 x x
6B x
61 x
62 x
63 x x x x x
fi0 x
65 x
66 x x
6T x
68 x
69 x
x x x
n x
rz x
n x
TQ x
]S x x
]6 x
rz x
Te x x x
79 x x x
sB x
51 x x x x
ffi x
IS x
m x
IS x x
m x x
m x
m x
By x x x x x x
9B x III
91 x
92 x x x
% x x x
9q x x
9S x
96 x
w x
yB x x
99 x
law x x x x x
1B1 x x x x
102 x x x x
103 x
INx x x
UM x
x x
PS x x x x
26
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
oefearve or
Slum,Determining!or 3HcnoraLing Structures Deflective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy La[Layout Unsanitary or form ContlRlons Determination of SRe or Wber lmpmvemen6 Unusual Topogrzpby or Inadequate Public Unusual Conditions Had Endanger Hnsafeor Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or meMarefctors requiring high
Impmvemen6 or Udders Eurobonds of the or Property Bulltllngs ContaminMlon levels of sconces or undermilhed build ngs/sms
Tide
c 3 m -a IS
IS c
ry i i m - m .. ` a
` o o - Ir
Y a wE E c E o Y
3 8 C i E '3 3 s E H E d = _ Is
IS
Z 5 3 .8'. C a - 2 E at b° _ a r - E pp o� = E 5 g aN y £ $ 2
_ Y 3 3 y - o 0 ` _ c m i d y 3 E - aIt
w _ Y e Y u n 3 $m q c 6 - v - y - p
o _ L' g `3 5 ` $ $ E
E 'c - - E = E V _ .. 3 _ ip
E _ � � E _ - `u E E 3 3E in _ - _
f C _ t , � - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
.N o 3 - Y YY. 9 _ �' is co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C g '- 5 S p & S Y _ Ete
E 'c aI $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a
n � a - 3 - - - e - _ aynii
0 _ - ? I: & E a - - - & & " g _ 2 = E E qE � 3 � - ae
8 � 8a 8 8 faFm 8 8 8 - 8 � r B ytyt
ox 5 s� o ' a a8 s" s" 8 eE `3a 3
Mutual8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 � a - - = 8 8 3 8 8 - � - -
1w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = x _ _ _ _ _ _
IN x x x x
IN x x x
110 x x x
v1 x x x
112 x x x
113 x x
114 x
115 x x x
116 x
117 x
119 x x
119 x
120 x
121 x x
1EE x x
1E3 x
124 x
125 x
126 x x
127 x
129 x
129 x
13o x x x
131 x x
132 x
133 x x z x
13a x x
135 x x x
136 x
137 x x x
139 x
139 x
140 x
141 x x x
IQ x
I" x
I" x x
UP x
145 x x
147 x x
1w x
149 x
ISO x
151 x
152 x
153 x x x
1sa z
SS x
156 x
157 x
159 z x
159 x
27
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
Defective or
Slum,Deteriorated or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy La[Layout Unsanitary or Dnsak ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high
Improvements or Utilities Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites
Tide
c 3 m -a IS
IS c
ry i i l5 m .. ` a
` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y
E H E d = _
Cw
- _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu
E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2
_ Y 3 3 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a
w y - p
o _ $ $ E
- E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E `a• E E 3 3 _ - _
f - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
.N o 3 - Y YY. �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C g '- 5 S p & S Y _ Eif
E 'c aI $. _ _ & E E
�4 a
n � a - 3 - - - e - _ ay 0 _ - ? I: & & & " g _ 2 = qE � 3 � is
�' o ' a a8 5 y8 aE 3x 9
vhom% g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = yt
1W >xn
161 x
162 x
10 x
16o x x
166 x
166 x
167 x x
16a x
169 x
170 x x
171 x x
172 x x
173 x
174 x x x x
175 x x
176 x x x
177 x x x
179 x
179 x
IN x x
191 x x
19E x x
1e3 x
IN x
1&5 x x
IN x
197 x x
in x
199 x x
1% x x
191 x x
192 x
193 X x
194 x x
195 x x x
196 x
197 x
199 x x
199 x
IN x x
IN x x x
zoz x x
203 x
zan x x x
zas x
206 x x
zoJ %
zaa %
20d % X
zlo
zll % X
zlz %
28
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
oerearve or
Slum,Deteriorated!or 3HcnoraLing Structures Deflective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or force Cond Rlons Determination of SRe or Wber lmpmvemen6 Unusual Topogrzpby or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Unsafeor Unhealthy Environmental Health,safety,or meMarefchas requiring high
Impmvemen6 or UUllties ContlRlons of the or Property Bulltllngs Contaminamon levels of sconces or undermilhed build ngs/sms
Tide
c 3 m -a IS
IS c
ir
` o o - Ir
Y a wE E c E o Y
3 8 C i E '3 3 s in
E H E d = _ a L' $ j E
tilit
IS
Z 5 3 .8'. C a - 2 E at b° _ a r - E pp Is
o� = E 5 g aN y £ $ 2
3 y - o 0 ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a
3 0 3 a< t, - �_ ` ^ E _ Y e �' Y u n 3 $m q c 6 - v - E - _ _ - p
o _ a .n ` L' g `3 5 ` $ $ E
M _ C in
W_ _ " _ �. _ E 'c - - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ - if `a• E E 3 3 _ - _
R F _ ; £ - '4 = �_ _ a n _ x E a;i a B' E ` Y x �, '7 ° c u s g y E
E o S _ 2 9 _ �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a I, '- 5 S 3 & S E
10;ri� _ 5 _ a - E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a
E a e = E E asIs
8 � 8 a 8 8 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B � oy �' o ' a a8 5 y8 is 3 9
Mutualg g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = 8 8 8 ., 8 8 - - -
v3 _ _ _ _ _ % _ _ = x _ x _ _ _ _ _
zlo x
zls x
216 x
zn x
zla x
219 x x x
220 x x
zzl x x x
zzz x x
zza x x x
zza x x
zzs
226 x x
zn x x
zza x
229 x x
230 x x x
231 x x x
232 x x
233 x x x x
211 x x
235 x x
236 x
237 x x
239 x x x
239 x x x
MO x x x x
241 x
by x
2" x x
zxa x x
zu x
245 x
zn x x x
24111 x x x
za9 x
z5B x
251 x x
zsz x x x
253 x
sa x x
zss x x x
256 x x
257 x x
259 x x
259 x
260 x
261 x x
262 x
263 x x x x x x
2601 x x x
ASS x x
29
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
Defective or
Slum,Deteriorated!or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high
Improvements or UUhties Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites
Tide
c 3 m -a IS
IS c
` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y
E H E d = _
Cw
- _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu
E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2
_ Y 3 3 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a
w y - p
o _ $ $ E
_ C _ _ _ - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ - `a• E E 3 3 _ - _
f C _ t , � - 3 _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
in
E _ a _ _ 5 ,C a '- 5 fs 3 & S Y _ E co vs
` 'c g E
_ 5 _ 5 - EE 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a
iDs
- _ ay 0 _ - ? I: & E a -ccis - - & & " g _ 2 = E E qE w 3 a
8 8 °' 4 oy �n o ' a aoc 5 y8 o „ E 3x 9
w m - - = g 8 8 .. g 8 - F ` _
zw _ _ % _ _ _ _ x _ _ _
267 x x
2611 x x
20 x x
no x
nl x x
nz x x
273 x
na x x
ns x
276 x
n) x x x
na x x
279 x
zxu x x
291 x x x
zllz x x x x
20 x
zxi x x x
285 x
286 x x x x
za) x x x x
288 x
299 x
290 x x
291 x x x
292 x
293 x x x
294 x x x x
29s x x
296 x
297 x
299 x
299 x
00 x
301 x x
302 x x
Jim x x
w x
JIGS x
306 x x
307 x x x
3oa x
309 x
310 x x x x x
311 x x x x
312 x
313 x
314 x
31s x
316 x x
v3TEE
x x
319 Er TT;1
30
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
Defective or
Slum,Deteriorated!or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high
Improvements or UUhties Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites
Tide
c 3 m -a IS
IS c
ry i i l5 m .. ` a
` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y
E H E d = _
Cw
- _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu
E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2
y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a
3 0 3 a< t, - �_ ` ^ E _ Y e �' Y u n 3 $m q c 6 - v - E - _ _ - p
o _ s .n ` L' g `3 5 ` $ $ E
_ C _ _ " _ �. _ E 'c - - E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E � ° @ _ - `a• E E 3 3
fin
C _ t , � - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
.N o 3 - Y C E os _ 2 9 _ �' of _ a _ _ 5 .`p a '3 & tr
ri� _ 5 _ 5 - E � 2 & E, \ E 'c ad $. _ _ & _ _ �4 a
E
8 8 8 fa Fro 8 8 8 - 8 � r B � oy �' o ' a a8 5 y8 is 3x 9
vhomx g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8Is
a - - = 8 8 8 .,319 x _ _ _ _
320 x x x
321 x x x
322 x
323 x x x
324 x
325 x x x
326 x x x x x
327 x x
329
329 x x x x
330 x x x
331 x x x
332 x x x x x x x
333 x
311 x x
335 x
336 x x
337 x x
339 x x
339 x
3nD x x x
3a1 x
M x
M x
114 x x
345 x x x
116 x
3ro x x x
118 x x
119 x
3ro x
351 x x
352 x x
353 x x
354 x x
ass x
356 x x x
357 x x x
359 x
359 x x x
360 x x
361 x x
362 x x
30 x x
36x x
365 x x x x
356 x x x
367 x
3611 x x x x
30 x x
3)o x x x
371 x x x
31
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
PHOTO REFERENCE TABLE - SECTION 3
Defective or
Slum,Deteriorated!or DHcnoraLing Structures Defective or Inadequate Street Layout Fauhy Lot Layout Unsanitary or Unsafe ContlRlons Determination of Site or Wber Improvements Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Unusual Cantlfions Had Endanger Dnsafem Unhealthy EnvlmnnenUl Health,safety,or meRarehcmrs requiring high
Improvements or UUhties Contlitlons of the or Property Dulltllngs CondminMlon levels of sconces or commandeer]build ngs/sites
Tide
c 3 m -a IS
IS c
ry i i l5 m .. ` a
` o o - nq Y a wE E c E o Y
E H E d = _
Cw
- _Z S' 3 .8'. C 5 - 'e lu
E at b° _ a G - E ppo� = E 5 g uN y £ $ 2
_ Y 3 3 y - ` _ c m i d y 3 E - a
w y - p
o _ $ $ E
- E = E V _ .. 3 _ E _ � � E `a• E E 3 3 _ - _
f - 3 �_ _ a ,. _ x as e $ E ` � a ° o s a E
.N o 3 - Y YY. �' co E _ a _ _ 5 ,C g '- 5 S 3 & S Y _ Eif
E 'c aI $. _ _ & E E
�4 a
n � a - 3 - - - e - _ ay 0 _ - ? I: & & & " g _ 2 = qE � 3 � is
R �' o ' a a8 5 y8 aE 3 9
vhomx g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a - - = yt
372
x x _ _ v x x
373 x
374 x x x x
375 x
376 x
377 x x
379 x x x x
379 x x
380 x x x x x
Sal x x
382 x x
3" x
Sea x x
38s x
3% x x
32
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
r r
O
c1 WHORSETOOTH RD - - - -= E HORSETOOTH
L � Nr�� w - ''Z -tii SKIN D, R11
j o I A.- 108 : 76 77 72 ❑ �.. .
ii `^ _ u 107 109fl0 �75 I78 7a �� �. fj_r, • � ' t
- 6 31041005000794 80
c12 $ @ fit 667 � /34G 93 65— i. 35. 11u O1 . 958 J9 8 64 Iz 2 - 97 4. 63
E � 36 10
cAV 9�98 86 i59 60 /90
..
. . p
A
. { !� 8988 875f� 113 37 - o LEEW
a' NEW AV' � \. ° 131 . . 130114' 5-7 ARD, CT
- WAEpE '�'� ii 128 54 39 'r
FP 53—�55 56 4038 8.. 8 i
r r 126 aq
N ❑ 12125129 16 48 1921 1 14 9 �, $OWLINE'CT�_, ;!-e }-� -... ❑ 117 52
n 1184651
DENNISON CT m 124 47 21
« ,
-93,42
a id 123 � 4j-
DENNISON AVE { j io 132 - �� ,-� � z •' r - "' ,
122 25 E4 p -
'�'34133 - 121 119 27 { �r f" fP.
g �
- _c : i 1� *-� / 143 120�142 11 v ' y✓ s ,
ALBION WAY ih36 ,{} - 1W 30 2928 -
z 1
I r 0137 140 31 P3 �� �' " - - - z
145 139138 :. n. w
146
15 50 i148 % 7 0 (2 _; W - Z _ it
., I
¢ W B T '^ 147 162 - - r AROw
SM 2as,�7 Atka
,:. 212213 23 R 'a• a ��. •�
/225Av
211 206r `.. r � P' •r' {
APIE ' N 210 208 n �`
{215 209 207
t
ST RUNG ST
S
f} +*u B AI( TE DR
• � W �'S -� - p u
z M N p ru
o � tR, Ut
W •�
TH HER 5T o
!
C J r
r
Y H
1 .r '.:.Y . -. . .1 ' .
W( E KAR - - .. . : 325f -
pB
0 f' 0 328 34 1
TOWHEE ST iui J 33T :/ -. o , .
° 335333 K' 327 326 1 -
36
RD - E H RMONY RD
. -.'�� 3813 -
;_� c` �' 341 361
. . 362 1360 G 382 i
338 o 385 383 - . ..
337 359 w 384
- r 363 O 369 370 ❑� o� r �, -
SO,
fl VI "11 S W -
r ., 0 45.34 348 349350 367368 37 4
346 - J. k tiT a
358 351 352 373
• 01357 353 374 C 1 w ♦ q'f� n�.
356 355354 °f r j 1 €-, � • ! �72�` 'a- w.
K ❑
-
0 376 yr �
. :_
1, ryq
r 379 �� � I� r� ° x - �� ° 3,� Z
r i
r ° 384 ❑
386 it — . i,.!
! m] IWJFA'IRWAYRN 365 380 FAIRW V N J
i
Section 3 Photo Reference Map �t_11s
Photo Reference Number
o�
1 inch = 550 feet
�� Study Section 3 April2011
33
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
i=72t
L i
1 .JPG 2.JPG 3 .JPG 4.JPG 5 .JPG
ids1 It
. .t
11
_ yam
1
', �. dl • /
l 4,
6 .JPG 7.JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10.JPG
11 .JPG 12 .JPG 13 .JPG 14.JPG 15.JPG
16.JPG 17.JPG 18.JPG 19.JPG 20.JPG
F
I W
21 .JPG 22.JPG 23 .JPG 24.JPG 25 .JPG
mum4
;# 4
r•
• t w; .
26.JPG 27.JPG 28 .JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG
- ' ow 9
31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG
34
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
LAW
36 .JPG 37. JPG 38 .JPG 39 . JPG 40 .JPG
bra} 4-600
41 .JPG 42 . JPG 43 .JPG 44.JPG 45 .JPG
lot
f mil'• _ .� x
46 .JPG 47. JPG 48.JPG 49.JPG 50 .JPG
r ,
Lit
I ` .
.wy
51 .JPG 52.JPG 53 .JPG 54.JPG 55.JPG
'ilk
S p
56.JPG 57.JPG 58 .JPG 59.JPG 60 .JPG
7e• ;ra
4 _
v yi
61 .JPG 62 . JPG 63 .JPG 64.JPG 65 .JPG
La
66.JPG 67 . JPG 68 .JPG 69 . JPG 70 .JPG
35
MIDTOWN • •
ppp
PL
f N1`
^ z
1• � . i y r T i • �-
- . 1
;� ��iii►ll. .�
t
79.JPG : 1
,1yT � II11 _
. /� tii • 1 - , r ��. n ♦��Ilfti�' ` mow( �
86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 91
_ � 1 1 • 13
� r
Emma
r+• .
r c
101 .JPG 102.JPG1 14 1
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
mr
qr
L t
1_- Y
106 .JPG 107.JPG 108 .JPG 109 . JPG 110 .JPG
ld OF
00
IL po
111 .JPG 112.JPG 113 .JPG 114.JPG 115 .JPG
1 .--r r? _
_ _ 1
116.JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120 .JPG
121 .JPG 122.JPG 123 .JPG 124.JPG 125.JPG
a
126 .JPG 127.JPG 128 .JPG 129.JPG 130 .JPG
' J
131 .JPG 132.JPG 133 .JPG 134.JPG 135.JPG
god
136 .JPG 137.JPG 138.JPG 139.JPG 140.JPG
37
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
141 .JPG 142.JPG 143 .JPG 144.JPG 145 .JPG
lit � r ^
146 .JPG 147.JPG 148 .JPG 149.JPG 150 .JPG
Aio
Fig id
151 .JPG 152.JPG 153.JPG 154.JPG 155.JPG
156.JPG 157.JPG 158.JPG 159.JPG 160.JPG
6
161 .JPG 162 .JPG 163 .JPG 164.JPG 165.JPG
I
166 .JPG 167.JPG 168 .JPG 169.JPG 170.JPG
NL77
� r>•
171 .JPG 172.JPG 173 .JPG 174.JPG 175.JPG
38
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
wool
-
b 31
.
lbk� .l t�= mp
176 .JPG 177 . JPG 178 .JPG 179.JPG 180 .JPG
v'
181 .JPG 182.JPG 183 .JPG 184.JPG 185 .JPG
II
186 .JPG 187.JPG 188 .JPG 189. JPG 190 .JPG
on
Its mid
191 .JPG 192.JPG 193.JPG 194.JPG 195.JPG
1
196 .JPG 197.JPG 198 .JPG 199.JPG 200.JPG
201 .JPG 202.JPG 203 .JPG 204.JPG 205.JPG
xAge
•. - �� "
i
206 .JPG 207.JPG 208 .JPG 209.JPG 210 .JPG
39
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
211 .JPG 212 . JPG 213 .JPG 214.JPG 215 .JPG
iL
216 .JPG 217.JPG 218 .JPG 219.JPG 220 .JPG
221 .JPG 222.JPG 223.JPG 224.JPG 225.JPG
226 .JPG 227.JPG 228 .JPG 229.JPG 230 .JPG
77 �u
231 .JPG 232 .JPG 233 .JPG 234. JPG 235.JPG
by 'A' : `.
-ts►:•
236.JPG 237.JPG 238 .JPG 239. JPG 240 .JPG
-r x
241 .JPG 242.JPG 243.JPG 244.JPG 245.JPG
40
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
-
y � A;
246 .JPG 247.JPG 248 .JPG 249.JPG 250 .JPG
251 .JPG 252.JPG 253 .JPG 254.JPG 255 .JPG
r -
256 .JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG
261 .JPG 262.JPG 263.JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG
ELI
rr F
266 .JPG 267.JPG 268 .JPG 269.JPG 270 .JPG
r
271 .JPG 272.JPG 273 .JPG 274.JPG 275 .JPG
- we � ' _ • •/ . � _�
job
276 .JPG 277.JPG 278 .JPG 279.JPG 280 .JPG
41
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
"woo"
-
� r �
281 .JPG 282 .JPG 283 .JPG 284.JPG 285 .JPG
Ao
286 .JPG 287.JPG 288 .JPG 289.JPG 290 .JPG
�R� w
ol
291 .JPG 292 .JPG 293 .JPG 294.JPG 295.JPG
i -
296 .JPG 297.JPG 298.JPG 299.JPG 300.JPG
�r
301 .JPG 302 .JPG 303 .JPG 304.JPG 305.JPG
0 �L"kIXA- _
306 .JPG 307.JPG 308 .JPG 309.JPG 310.JPG
J"
•. `
311 .JPG 312.JPG 313.JPG 314.JPG 315.JPG
42
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
316 .JPG 317.JPG 318 .JPG 319.JPG 320 .JPG
sno. c, m.. r n•. RL
�I.YRf Ir,4i.
rr 11g ml
w..n..
.q rr
- 3
321 .JPG 322.JPG 323 .JPG 324.JPG 325 .JPG
326.JPG 327.JPG 328 .JPG 329.JPG 330.JPG
WE
y Milo _
331 .JPG 332.JPG 333.JPG 334.JPG 335.JPG
336 .JPG 337.JPG 338 .JPG 339.JPG 340 .JPG
lg .
3
341 .JPG 342.JPG 343 .JPG 344.JPG 345.JPG
lam
pp
` 1 • 1
:J
346.JPG 347.JPG 348 .JPG 349.JPG 350 .JPG
43
MIDTOWN • •
14
Tralilimmomomm
:urrrrurrrrrr
t -
• JPG 357.JPG 358 .JPG 359.JPG 360 .JPG
t
361 .JPG 362.JPG • • 4
U 4
LA
w�fi. � �" • _- tom• t
366.JPG 367.JPG . : . •
r �►
]Nil
378 .JPG 379.JPG 380.JPG
y
: 1 .JPG 382.JPG 383.JPG 384.JPG 385 .JPG
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
szY
386 .JPG
45
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
APPENDIX B - SOURCES CONSULTED
1 . State of Colorado Statutes Urban Renewal Law § 31- 25- 101
2 . City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department
3 . City of Fort Collins Building Department
4 . City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department
5 . City of Fort Collins Geographic Information Systems (GIS ) Department
6 . Larimer County Assessor' s Office
7 . Transportation Master Plan, prepared by Clarion Associates, March 2011
8 . Prospect South Existing Conditions Study, prepared by URS, October 2008 .
9 . Midtown Redevelopment Study, prepared by ELS Architecture and Urban Design,
Economic Planning Systems, and Warren Wilson Advisors, September 2010
10 . North College Avenue Existing Conditions Study, prepared by the City of Fort Collins,
December 2004
11 . Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey, prepared by the City of Fort Collins, May 2007
12 . City of Castle Pines North Conditions Survey, prepared by Leland Consulting Group, April
2010
46
r �
1. t •
IOICI •
y
■
� y EtU111111s'�
- �
y
r
c
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING
i
j"R
CONDITIONS STUDY
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
F City
yof ins AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
f� ❑ C TO BE R 200 S
. 111
URS
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
Table of Contents
1 .0 Introduction ..................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
L2 Colorado Urban Renewal Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 3 Study Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.0 Study Area Analysis............................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 3
2 . 1 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 .2 Field Survey Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 .3 Blight Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 .4 Results of the Field Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.0 Summary of Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................... .. 14
3 . 1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 .2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2- 1 Study Area Boundary Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Exhibit2-2 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Exhibit 3 - 1 Photograph Reference Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Exhibit 3 -2 Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table2- 1 Field Survey Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2-2 Prospect South Municipal Code Violations 1999-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3- 1 Field Survey Photograph Reference Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Figures
Figure2- 1 Faulty Lot Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendices
Appendix A Sources Consulted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
AppendixB Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Appendix C Field Survey Photographs (Bound Separately)
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
1 . 0 Introduction
This report presents the conditions survey analysis, findings and conclusions for the Prospect South
Existing Conditions Study ("Study"), which was undertaken by URS for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) and the City of Fort Collins under an Agreement for Professional Services, dated
August 29, 2008 . URS conducted the Study in September and October 2008 .
1 . 1 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the Prospect South Study Area ("Study Area")
constitutes a "blighted area" within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law, and whether the Study
Area should be recommended for such urban renewal efforts as the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
and the City of Fort Collins may deem appropriate to remediate existing conditions and to prevent further
deterioration.
1 .2 Colorado Urban Renewal Law
In the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes § 31 -25- 101 et seq. (the "Urban
Renewal Law"), the legislature has declared that an area of blight "constitutes a serious and growing
menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state in general
and municipalities thereof; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially to the spread of
disease and crime, constitutes an economic and social liability, substantially impairs or arrests the sound
growth of municipalities, retards the provision of housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems
and impairs or arrests the elimination of traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that
the prevention and elimination of slums and blight is a matter of public policy and statewide concern . . . .".
Before remedial action can be taken by a public agency, however, the Urban Renewal Law requires a
finding by the appropriate governing body that an area constitutes a blighted area.
The determination that an area constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical,
environmental, and social factors . Indeed, blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions, which, in
combination, tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration of an area. For purposes of the study,
the definition of a blighted area is premised upon the definition articulated in the Urban Renewal Law, as
follows :
"Blighted area " means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the
presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound
growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
e. Deterioration of site or other improvements;
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;
1 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable;
h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes;
i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building
code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or
faulty or inadequate facilities;
j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property; or
k. 5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal
services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other
improvements; or
1. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or tenants of
such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion ofsuch property in an urban renewal
area, "blighted area " also means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by
reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of
this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality,
liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. For purposes
of this paragraph (l), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not
object to the inclusion ofsuch property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the
owner has waived any rights ofsuch owner in connection with laws governing
condemnation.
To be able to use the powers of eminent domain "blighted" means that five of the eleven factors must be
present (Colorado Revised Statutes § 31 -25- 105 . 5(2)(a)(I)) :
(a) 'Blighted area " shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 31 -25-103 (2); except that,
for purposes of this section only, "blighted area " means an area that, in its present condition and
use and, by reason of the presence of at least five of the factors specified in section 31-25-103 (2)
(a) to (2) (l), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the
provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area
constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law. First, the absence of widespread violation of
building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of blight. The definition of "blighted area
contained in the Urban Renewal Law is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties
so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration."
Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P.2d 907, 909 (Colo . Ct. App . 1981 ) .
Second, the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area
constitutes a blighted area. A determination of blight is based upon an area "taken as a whole," and not
on a building-by-building basis. Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 473
P .2d 978, 981 (Colo . 1970) .
2 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Third, a governing body' s "determination as to whether an area is blighted. . . is a legislative question and
the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted." Tracy, 635 P .2d at 909. A court ' s role in reviewing
such a blight determination is simply to independently verify if the conclusion is based upon factual
evidence determined by the City Council at the time of a public hearing to be consistent with the statutory
definition.
1 . 3 Study Methodology
URS was retained by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority to perform an independent survey of the
Study Area and to determine if it qualifies as a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law. Based upon
the conditions observed in the field, this Study will provide an opinion as to whether the Study Area is
blighted within the meaning of the Urban Renewal Law. The actual determination itself remains the
responsibility of the legislative body, in this case, the Fort Collins City Council.
An important objective of this study is to obtain and evaluate data on a wide range of physical and non-
physical conditions that are present in the Study Area. Data about the Study Area were collected,
analyzed, and ultimately portrayed through three tasks :
• Task 1 : Project Initiation, Data Collection and Mapping
• Task 2 : Field Survey, Research and Verification
• Task 3 : Documentation and Presentation of Findings
Tasks 1 and 2 are described in Section 2, Study Area Analysis. Task 3 is described in Section 3 ,
Summary of Findings and Conclusions.
2 . 0 Study Area Analysis
2 . 1 Study Area
The Study Area is comprised of approximately 69 acres and includes 93 parcels of private property, in
addition to public right-of-way (ROW) and railroad ROW parcels . Exhibit 2- 1 delineates the Study Area
boundary, and correlates with respective City of Fort Collins and Larimer County Assessor' s parcel data.
Exhibit 2-2 shows the Study Area and surrounding vicinity, entirely within the City of Fort Collins
boundaries.
3 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 2-1 : Study Area Boundaries
I i�ZWJAKEtSL,`.
E LAKE IT
'ggg
fi
I r,
im Elk.
♦ Q
No It Holz
511
e ; ' • •r:.:tiJ u a.W PROSPECT RD _ �tlomm , ; - E P■ RO.SPEGTIRDNOW ...I ego IL
i � r
, r
r� ' '•'It "n o; I �_ L'is K TA �1 Y i11��
MV
;ram ..A - � �-IN Impoll1�1416�m ( �
mo
Luld
Oft to 4 Mir,
m
yFA
O
I-A CD go LqTll ,
go
- -
rm7' mowi 'I "' ?tea: o _ EKTUAR�TC§
•; *t i - 1r ,r Y
v , N
CM
2I� • .
99 r ,
!mil-.66 3tY�a ~ ' �
�- III OHNSON DR '
• Ii ` t" SPRING PARKIDRN ;
• ' 1
Ar
loor
04
14
i i ' ✓ / , j I _ — RUTGERS:AVEIL - t = t, �
Exhibit 2- 1 : Study Area Boundary Map
Prospect South Stud, 4rea 0 100200 400 600 800
URS Feet E)
4 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 2-2 : Vicinity Map
ja
A r + - - :' 1ST • , ~ 7VAX
LA ( i
iv � y � • - f. . MM.' � l�
• �tlRi ••1 . adQate UrirrsR�, r�j •
� cn
Mgt
f ,•ti ` 1 7 - ilk
p : 1 s
T 4414
r L J .
110 ` ProspeActjRda . - I`zsTt
" -
� I
(
4 It AP
re
Cz
1.,r.�
. r '� 1'
14110, LAID
izot
►�(
ti
JOW
L _ ya � � "� � . iAIN
Aff
1Dr It
]�
AO
`• Y t�j TTT �4.
�. . ,mow ; y �SIQ * n ~4��� r - I _�• 8
nt-;�44S
'j� ` � ► +a�t � '� ��� _ -�,�y4 .. '
Exhibit 2 - 2 : Vicinity Map
Ftospect South Study Area
— Fixed water course FEMA floodway Um 0 qi i _so = 9iFeet
5 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
2 .2 Field Survey Approach
A physical survey was conducted during a site visit on September 9, 2008 . The survey team walked the
entire site and took photographs and notes as existing conditions of blight were observed. After review
of the survey results and survey boundary, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority made decisions to
extend the survey area north and to the east. Additional surveys were conducted on October 13 , 2008 and
October 28, 2008 . The revised survey area is the subject of this report. The surveys resulted in field
observations of six of the blight factors described in Section 1 . Each observation was tallied on a survey
matrix and documented with a photograph. The field survey information is provided in a number of
formats in Section 2 :
• Locations of the observations and photographs are documented on an aerial photo, as shown
on Exhibit 3 - 1 .
• An index of photographs is provided as Exhibit 3 -2, and each individual photograph is
printed in larger format in the appendix.
• The survey observations are described on a photo-reference matrix included as Table 3 - 1 .
2 . 3 Blight Factor Evaluation Criteria
The field survey team reviewed the eleven blight factors found in the Colorado Revised Statute definition
of blight as described in Section 1 . The team observed the following six factors in the Study Area (the
examination of structural elements was limited to a visual inspection of conditions and not a detailed
engineering or architectural analysis) :
• Slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures
• Defective or inadequate street layout
• Faulty lot layout
• Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
• Deterioration of site or other improvements
• Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
Listed below are the criteria that URS used in the field survey to evaluate the blight factors .
2.3. 1 Slum, Deteriorating or Deteriorated Structures
Field survey efforts examining this factor focused on the general condition and level of deterioration of
the existing buildings ' exterior components, such as :
• Exterior walls
• Visible foundation
• Exterior finishes
• Fascia and soffits
• Gutters and downspouts
• Windows and doors
• Exterior stairways and fire escapes
• Loading dock areas
6 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
• Fences, walls, and gates
• Ancillary structures
Structural integrity and/or environmental factors were not considered. The intent of this portion of the
field survey was to identify observable physical conditions of neglect, disrepair, and/or deterioration in
the exterior of the structures found within the Study Area.
2.3.2 Defective or Inadequate Street Layout
The analysis conducted for this blight factor evaluated the effectiveness or adequacy of the streets that
surround and/or penetrate the Study Area. Evaluation criteria for this factor include:
• Poor vehicular access
• Poor internal circulation
• Substandard driveway or curb cut definition
• Poor parking lot layout
The transportation related deficiencies were evaluated during the field survey.
2.3.3 Faulty Lot Layout
The following parcel conditions can hinder successful redevelopment and reduce a parcels usefulness
and/or desirability:
• Faulty lot shape
• Faulty lot layout
• Inadequate lot size
Instances of these conditions were discovered through analysis of parcel data and aerial photography.
2.3.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
The presence of the following conditions arc indicative of an environment that can be unsanitary and/or
unsafe :
• Poorly lit or unlit areas
• Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians
• Poor drainage
• Insufficient grading or steep slopes
• Presence of trash, debris, or weeds
• Presence of abandoned vehicles
• Presence of vagrants, vandalism, or graffiti
Instances of these conditions were evaluated through field observations.
2.3 .5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements
This factor focuses on conditions that indicate the lack of general maintenance of a structure, site, or
through the presence of these conditions, create an environment that reduces the market desirability. The
conditions are as follows :
• Presence of billboards
7 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
• Deterioration of signage
• Neglected properties
• Unscreened trash or mechanical equipment
• Parking surface deterioration
• Site maintenance problems
• Lack of landscaping
This factor was evaluated through field observations .
2.3.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities
This section identifies unique topographic conditions and key deficiencies in the public infrastructure
system serving the Study Area, including:
• Unusual topography/floodplain
• Deterioration of street pavement
• Deterioration of curb and gutter
• Insufficient street lighting
• Presence of overhead utilities
• Lack of sidewalks
These conditions were observed during the field survey and noted during the review of floodplain maps .
2 . 4 Results of the Field Survey
The overall findings of the field survey are presented in this section. Table 2- 1 on the following page
tabulates the results according to the criteria described in Section 2 . 3 . Observations of physical
conditions found in the Study Area contributed to our recommendation to the City of Fort Collins that
conditions exist to make a finding of blight.
8 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 2-1 : Field Survey Matrix
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
Deteriorated External Walls •
Deteriorated Visible Foundation •
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits •
Deteriorated Gutters/ Downspouts •
SLUM ,
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes •
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors •
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes •
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas •
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates •
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures •
Poor Vehicle Access •
DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation •
INADEQUATE
STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts •
Poor Parking Lot Layout •
Faulty Lot Shape
FAULTY LOT Faulty Lot Layout •
LAYOUT
Inadequate Lot Size
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas •
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians •
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage •
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes •
CONDITIONS Trash/ Debris/Weeds •
Abandoned Vehicles •
Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti •
Presence of Billboards •
Deterioration of Signage •
DETERIORATION Neglected Properties •
OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/ Mechanical •
IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration •
Site Maintenance Problems •
Lack of Landscaping •
Unusual Topography/ Flood plain •
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement •
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter •
INADEQUATE
PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities •
Lack of Sidewalks •
TOTAL 34
• Physical Condition Observed
9 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
2.4. 1 Slum, Deteriorating or Deteriorated Structures
Buildings within the Study Area show signs of deterioration and poor maintenance and/or damage. These
deteriorated building components include broken windows, worn and cracked fascia treatments,
crumbling external stairwells, and deterioration of ancillary structures.
2.4.2 Defective or Inadequate Street Layout
Examples of defective street layout were observed throughout the Study Area, specifically along S .
College Avenue where frequent curb cuts for vehicular access pose a particular threat to pedestrian safety,
and present a unique set of automobile maneuvering challenges. There are instances where three or four
access points connect to S . College Avenue within a 200-foot span. Additionally, throughout the Study
Area, parking lot layouts exist where vehicles are backing out directly into traffic or into pedestrian
walkways.
2.4.3 Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness
The Study Area contains individual lots that either have poor vehicular access or contain buildings that
span property lines . There are eight parcels in which buildings cross the property boundary. Nine parcels
do not have direct access to a public right-of-way, of which seven are further constrained by the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad to the west. Strict Federal regulatory requirements
related to the BNSF railway embankment lead to technical difficulties and extraordinary costs for
modifying the floodplain to allow for redevelopment of the west portion of the Study Area. Two
triangular lots are inaccessible at the intersection of South College Avenue and Spring Park Drive. Figure
2- 1 on the following page highlights the faulty lots as described in this section.
2.4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
Evidence of unsanitary and unsafe conditions was found throughout the Study Area. Observations of
graffiti, trash and debris, and poor drainage circumstances are often indicative of unsafe and unsanitary
conditions for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Uneven and cracked surfaces for pedestrians pose a
significant risk for injury, especially at night.
2.4.5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements
Many instances of deterioration of site and other improvements were observed. Trash dumpsters and
mechanical equipment are unscreened throughout the Study Area. A number of properties show signs of
general neglect and poor maintenance, and landscaping is sparse throughout. There are further site
maintenance problems as described in the Field Survey Photo-Reference Table, provided as Table 3 - 1 .
2.4.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities
The presence of fixed water courses (Spring Creek and Sherwood Lateral) impedes efficient planning of
the southern portion of the Study Area. A large portion of the Study Area is within the 100-year
floodplain and floodway. The Study Area also includes a steep slope running east-west through the
southern portion of the site. At the crest of the slope there is a ditch that traverses the Study Area. These
factors make redevelopment of the site more difficult and costly. Additionally, deteriorated street
pavement and curb and gutter were observed throughout the Study Area. These conditions create a
10 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
hazard for vehicular travel, and pedestrians who use the sidewalks, particularly for people pushing
strollers and for the disabled. Sidewalks are impassable or nonexistent in certain areas, thus
compromising the overall pedestrian network. The presence of overhead utilities within the Study Area
creates a cluttered, unappealing environment as well as a potential hazard during a significant storm
event.
w IV" most OM
-Y•• ==WAWWWAKE ;ST. . E L KE 5T t
( LOW VV
Wei 1
l I�
" • ' ♦ � ' t `- u 16 W P•ROSPECT RD _ E,P•RO:SPECTJRDIMI",r
ti!
It Its
I if
MLMtoo Pow
try [�3i1 1,
- I
i " PARKER,ST Z �1uw ,. .n99 ,t
LIL
It
Sol
LU ALP.ERUAVE
Uj
Is MORI
MWE
o
m - _ E1SIUARTLS
ma>� JOHN SON� DR
G'
PARKIDRD S-A
1Ab,z
��_ ,� •
aLL
- 1
A
UE -
w „�,�, • - U I4
��� Jt7l1r ! � AMP ' . , � n.��o ,
or oI
r
do
ji; 1 100 200 400 600 E�6
` - Isw ma`s ? ' �" IT
_ Felt
tNQ
Figure 2-1 : The highlighted lots exhibit inadequate layout in regard to accessibility and the presence of
buildings spanning lot lines.
11 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
2.4.7 Additional Considerations
The team collected and analyzed information related to the Study Area, in a number of categories,
including streetscape, traffic, crime reporting, etc . Following is a brief analysis of these conditions, which
represent potential barriers or factors which need to be addressed by redevelopment.
Streetscape
Streetscape infrastructure includes sidewalks, streetlights and landscaping. It was the field survey team' s
observation that the Study Area is not well served with pedestrian infrastructure, with the exception of the
Spring Creek Trail. On-street sidewalks are attached to the street, with little or no landscaping, are very
narrow (especially considering they are adjacent a busy State Highway), and are not consistently present.
Internal parking lot landscaping is not consistently provided and maintained.
Traffic
The team reviewed February, 2007 traffic counts on S . College Avenue between W. Prospect Road and
Rutgers Avenue. There were approximately 2,600 vehicle trips on S. College Ave. , during the morning
and evening commutes. There were 655 vehicle trips per day that enter S . College Avenue from Stuart
Street. According to the Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004, S . College Avenue functions at a
Level of Service (LOS) F (high level of congestion) as it approaches E. Prospect Road. North of E.
Prospect Road and south of Parker Street, S . College Avenue functions at LOS D or E (growing amount
of congestion) . According to the Mason Corridor Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Environmental
Assessment, May 2008 the intersection of Prospect Road and College Avenue operated at a LOS D during
the PM Peak in 2005 , and is projected to perform at LOS E or F by 2035 .
Stormwater
There is a lack of sufficient stormwater management facilities (in the form of curb and gutter,
underground channels and culverts), and those that exist are either undersized or in need of replacement.
The existing facilities were constructed to a more rural standard (i. e. rely on surface rather than
underground storm drains) . The stormwater runoff has deteriorated the paved areas, which creates
hazards for pedestrian and vehicle traffic . According to City staff, during the winter months these areas
freeze creating additional hazards. Currently, there is one stormwater pipe within the Study Area that
carries the "low flow" of Spring Creek and the City does not have any stormwater facility improvement
projects planned for the Study Area.
12 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Municipal Code Violations
The City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Department issues citations for violations of the
municipal code related to the misuse of property. These citations are typically related to illegal parking,
outdoor storage/rubbish, un-shoveled sidewalks, smoking, etc. Since 1999, there have been 69 code
violations recorded on parcels within the area west of College Avenue from Prospect Road south to
Rutgers Avenue, and east of College Avenue from Prospect Road south to Parker Street. Table 2-2 below
is a tabulation of those citations :
Table 2-2 : Prospect South Municipal Code Violations 1999-2008
Code Violation 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Weeds 11 9 8 5 4 1 1 3 7 6 55
Rubbish - 2 1 2 - - - - - - 5
Combination 2 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 5
Weeds/ Rubbish
Inoperable Vehicle - - 2 2 - - - - - - 4
TOTAL 11 13 13 9 4 1 1 3 7 7 69
13 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
3 . 0 Summary of Findings and Conclusions
3 . 1 Findings
Within the Study Area, there were 34 different physical conditions observed within the six factors
described in Section 2, in addition to the other conditions discussed in Section 2 .4.2. The following
conditions are indicative of blight within the Study Area. Specific examples of these conditions can be
found in Exhibit 3 -2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet.
• Deteriorated external walls • Presence of billboards
• Deteriorated visible foundation • Deterioration of signage
• Deteriorated fascia/soffits • Neglected properties
• Deteriorated windows and doors • Unscreened trash/mechanical
• Deteriorated gutters/downspouts • Parking surface deterioration
• Deteriorated exterior finishes • Site maintenance problems
• Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes • Lack of landscaping
• Deteriorated loading dock areas • Deterioration of street pavement
• Deteriorated fences/walls/gates • Deterioration of curb and gutter
• Deteriorated ancillary structures • Presence of overhead utilities
• Poorly lit or unlit areas • Lack of sidewalks
• Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians • Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts
• Poor drainage • Poor internal circulation
• Insufficient grading/steep slopes • Poor parking lot layout
• Trash/debris/weeds • Faulty lot layout
• Abandoned vehicles • Floodplain
• Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti • Poor vehicle access
3 . 2 Conclusions
It is the conclusion of the Prospect South Existing Conditions Study that the Study Area, in its present
condition and use, is a blighted area as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised
Statutes § 31 -25- 101 et seq. (the "Urban Renewal Law") . By reason of the presence of factors identified
in the Urban Renewal Law and as documented in this report, URS is of the opinion that the Study Area
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort Collins, retards the provision of
housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health,
safety, morals and welfare. While there are properties within the Study Area that may be found in good
condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the Study Area. Further,
temporary measures would be unlikely to effect a long-term remediation of these conditions .
Per Urban Renewal Law, conditions in the Study Area must constitute at least four of the factors
indicative of a blighted area. As described in this report, the following six factors were observed in the
Study Area:
14 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
• Slum, deteriorating, or deteriorated structures
• Faulty lot layout
• Defective or inadequate street layout
• Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
• Deterioration of site or other improvements
• Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
Based on the results of this Study and URS ' past experience conducting similar studies, the Study Area is
a clear-cut example of a blighted area, as defined by Urban Renewal Law. Furthermore, there are other
conditions within and surrounding the Study Area, which present potential barriers or factors which need
to be addressed by redevelopment:
• Lack of streetscape infrastructure
• Poor traffic conditions along S . College Avenue (LOS D and below)
• Inadequate stormwater drainage facilities
• Multiple municipal code violations
The following pages document the photographic evidence of conditions observed during the field survey.
Exhibit 3 - 1 shows the location each photograph was taken, Table 3 - 1 identifies which criteria were
observed for each photograph, and Exhibit 3 -2 is an index of all photographs taken during the field
survey. The same photographs are included in a larger format as Appendix C (bound separately).
15 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
� ZWILAKE4S;T E LAKE S
■ � �■ t 87 8593 88PON
y
> ' ��� `�'•d Jam'.
•
spy 1 V l
Lu
Lu ► ill"
�� Lu
we
' suF'J 6, : J �� o1f� a L�1 �pjW �, ��LTL`
„Y 6 r L.. ^ , c�1 �1L Ls • ��r�
79 90 _ ! . . i � �>ei � 16c� � .J
4r wW FROSPEC,T.RD . &. � .• 7 :e ' ! }+fir••• _ � E;P,ROSPECT.IRD
21 _ jai
i�•}�
20 r {•\\ l
45
zaf .. 4o �... IIIi: a �!4 411, mal 3 0, e I
�_ �E'RF,
% a r'g aim:: It•,
s - 4 �r 1 r2 �25� Y 70 I 8 , . 7 'fn .� ��zL.
27 8 y °131afi opt �o
r ,•.• �,. �.,OV ' Y1F 1 t"�i112� . �� ' � ��18s'�i; 'R�� �W Z4
rav ` r - - 7, ��o tt g �� ..lt�i?ARKER_ST_ . I�
r1 , p, 1
LU
Ui
in
��s Fp ti 33J8� 7 e 1 :ALP.ERIME�..
%� +7 � t . i � iw ,a y�iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiE �� ��� ,
�-, ro '• r -- 614
-
in _ RRR���ttt �. . . Ir . :AESTUAA
. �
LLJ
• .
Fps
t14, 1 z 14rr � �•
113
JOHNSON;F R ;' � j � w�SPRING PARK -
� Uj
Ica ►� � i si 1' �-
, U) � 171 111 ; 11
►� ,2• '
/ tlf �) 1
in
Inc .126
� � -
tiYw 21 ,nt
ti t Y74 N
.�+. i _ TH
"+ice , �� . 'u. '—►� t,' - 6� 7s72 DARTVIPMOU �TRL�
A ' ,', µ" RUTGERS AVE Leal 1��
vq� : Pilo. Ada;
1 M.•tl 1 4 rn 1 - �- ' �0
Exhibit 3 = 1 : Photograph Reference Map
25 Photograph Reference Number 0 100 200 400 600 800
`'t"POPP Prospect South Study Area URS Feet
16 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Deteriorated External Walls •
Deteriorated Visible Foundation
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits •
SLUM Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts
,
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • •
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • •
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes •
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates •
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures •
Poor Vehicle Access •
INADEQUATEE DEFECTIVE Poor Internal Circulation
STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts
Poor Parking Lot Layout •
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians •
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage • • • •
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes
CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds •
Abandoned Vehicles
Va rants/Vandalism/Graffiti • •
Presence of Billboards •
Deterioration of Signage •
DETERIORATION Neglected Properties
OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • • • •
IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • • •
Site Maintenance Problems •
Lack of Landscaping •
Unusual Topography/Floodplain
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter
INADEQUATE PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities
Lack of Sidewalks •
• Physical Condition Observed
17 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Deteriorated External Walls
Deteriorated Visible Foundation
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits
SLUM Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts •
,
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • •
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes •
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas •
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates •
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures 144,44, 1 • •
Poor Vehicle Access
INADEQUATEE •
DEFECTIVE Poor Internal Circulation •
STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts •
Poor Parking Lot Layout • •
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians •
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes
CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • •
Abandoned Vehicles
Va rants/Vandalism/Graffiti •
Presence of Billboards
Deterioration of Signage • •
DETERIORATION Neglected Properties •
OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical
IMPROVEMENTS Parkin Surface Deterioration •
Site Maintenance Problems
Lack of Landscaping •
Unusual Topography/Flood plain •
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement •
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter • •
INADEQUATEInsufficient Street Lighting
PUBLICC
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities •
Lack of Sidewalks
• Physical Condition Observed
18 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Deteriorated External Walls
Deteriorated Visible Foundation
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits • •
SLUM, Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts •
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • • •
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors •
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures
Poor Vehicle Access
INADEQUATEE DEFECTIVE Poor Internal Circulation
STREET LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts • •
Poor Parking Lot Layout • •
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians •
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage •
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • •
CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • • • • •
Abandoned Vehicles
Va rants/Vandalism/Graffiti • • • •
Presence of Billboards
Deterioration ofSignage • • •
DETERIORATION Neglected Properties • •
OF SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • •
IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • •
Site Maintenance Problems •
Lack of Landscaping
Unusual Topography/Flood plain • •
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter •
INADEQUATEInsufficient Street Lighting
PUBLICIC
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities
Lack of Sidewalks •
• Physical Condition Observed
19 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Deteriorated External Walls • •
Deteriorated Visible Foundation •
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits
Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts
SLUM,
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes • • •
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors • • •
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • • •
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures •
Poor Vehicle Access
DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation
INADEQUATE STREE
LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts •
]Poor Parking Lot Layout •
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage •
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • •
CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • •
Abandoned Vehicles •
Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti • • •
Presence of Billboards
Deterioration of Signage •
DETERIORATION OF Neglected Properties
SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical •
IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration •
Site Maintenance Problems
Lack of Landscaping
Unusual Topography/Flood plain
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter •
INADEQUATE
PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities • • • •
Lack of Sidewalks •
• Physical Condition Observed
20 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photograph Number
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125
Deteriorated External Walls
Deteriorated Visible Foundation
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits •
SLUM Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts
,
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates • •
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures
Poor Vehicle Access
DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation
INADEQUATE STREET
LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts •
Poor Parking Lot Layout • •
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas •
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians • • •
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage •
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes • •
CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds • • • •
Abandoned Vehicles
Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti • I I I I • • •
Presence of Billboards
Deterioration of Signage • •
DETERIORATION OF Neglected Properties
SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical • •
IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration • •
Site Maintenance Problems
Lack of Landscaping
Unusual Topography/Flood plain
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter
INADEQUATE
PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities •
Lack of Sidewalks • • • •
• Physical Condition Observed
21 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Table 3-1 : Field Survey Photograph Reference Table (continued)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS Photo #
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY 126 127 128 129
Deteriorated External Walls
Deteriorated Visible Foundation
Deteriorated Fascia/Soffits
SLUM, Deteriorated Gutters/Downspouts
DETERIORATED OR Deteriorated Exterior Finishes
DETERIORATING Deteriorated Windows and Doors
STRUCTURES Deteriorated Stairways/Fire Escapes
Deteriorated Loading Dock Areas
Deteriorated Fences/Walls/Gates
Deteriorated Ancillary Structures
Poor Vehicle Access
DEFECTIVE OR Poor Internal Circulation •
INADEQUATE STREET
LAYOUT Substandard Driveway Definition/Curbcuts
Poor Parking Lot Layout •
Poorly Lit or Unlit Areas
Cracked or Uneven Surfaces for Pedestrians
UNSANITARY OR Poor Drainage
UNSAFE Insufficient Grading/Steep Slopes •
CONDITIONS Trash/Debris/Weeds •
Abandoned Vehicles
Vagrants/Vandalism/Graffiti •
Presence of Billboards
Deterioration of Signage
DETERIORATION OF Neglected Properties
SITE OR OTHER Unscreened Trash/Mechanical
IMPROVEMENTS Parking Surface Deterioration
Site Maintenance Problems
Lack of Landscaping
Unusual Topography/Floodplain
UNUSUAL Deterioration of Street Pavement
TOPOGRAPHY OR Deterioration of Curb and Gutter •
INADEQUATE
PUBLIC Insufficient Street Lighting
IMPROVEMENTS Presence of Overhead Utilities
Lack of Sidewalks
• Physical Condition Observed
22 October 2008
Prospect
ExhibitPhotograph
,
.���_ �-•. 'fin •� ��+��� � � "�
6 ..TPG 7 . JPG • • ,
V+!!� _ - -
, .
October23 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued)
26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30.JPG
31 .JPG 32.JPG 33 .JPG 34 .JPG 35.JPG
tki
ark
36 .JPG 37.JPG 3ti . JPG 39 .JPG 40 .JP0
r tL
f
41 .JPG 42 .JPG 43 .JPG 44 .JPG 45 .JPG
Mimi
Z.
46.JPG 47.JPG 48 .JPG 49 .JPG 50 .JP6
24 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued)
51 .JPG 52 .JPG 53 .JPG 1 ,rPc 55 .JPG
56.JPG 57 .JPG 58.JPG 59.JPG 60.JPG
L:
61 .JPG 62 .JPG 63 . 111( f 64 .JP0 65 . .111
wo
66.JPG 67 .JPG 68 .JPG 69.JPG 70.JPG
., ,.
71 .JPG 72 .JPG 73 .JPG
25 October 2008
Prospect
Exhibit ' 1
0- iml
. .
44
11W
nib
I t -
: . 89.JPG . 0
91 .JPG
. • . • . I
98 .JPG 99.JPG 100.JPG
26 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued)
101 .JPG 102 .JPG 103 .JPG 104.JPG 105 .JPG
��
•^ 1
106.JPG 107 .JPG 108 .JPG 109.JPG I I O . JPG
- Ll .t,
L I list
EM
111 .JPG 1121NG 1 1 i . JPG 114 . JPG 115 .JPG
116 .JPG 117 .JPG 118 . JPG 119 .JPG 120 .JPG
~ R IP
121 .JPG 122.JPG 123 .JPG 124.JPG 125 .JPG
27 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued)
126.JPG 127.JPG 1 ? 8 .JPG 129 .JPG
28 October 2008
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
Appendix A
Sources Consulted
1 . State of Colorado Statutes Urban Renewal Law § 31 -25- 101
http ://www, state .co,us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes .htm
2 . City of Fort Collins website http ://www. fcgov. com
3 . Zoning information found at http ://www. colocode. com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm
4 . Crime statistics found at http ://www. fcgov.com/police/crime-map.php
5 . Final Report, Mason Corridor Economic Analysis, Fort Collins . Prepared by Economic
& Planning Systems, Inc . , December 28 , 2007, EPS # 17830 .
6 . Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004. Prepared by PBS&J, February 2004 .
7 . Mason Corridor Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment, Prepared
by the City of Fort Collins for the Federal Transit Administration, May 2008 .
i October 2008
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY
Appendix B
Contacts
Christina Vincent, MCP Steve Gilcrest
Advanced Planning Traffic Operations
Urban Renewal Authority City of Fort Collins
City of Fort Collins TrafficOperations@fcgov. org
970-416-2294
cvincent@fcgov.com Ginny Sawyer
Neighborhood Services
Dwight Dufloth City of Fort Collins
Ray Fisher 970-224-6070
Utilities Administration gsawyer@fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins
970-221 -6700 Denise Weston
970-221 -6233 Transportation Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
Brian Varrella dweston@fcgov.com
Stormwater and Drainage
City of Fort Collins Tim Morales
970-416-2217 GIS Programmer/Analyst
barrella@fcgov.com City of Fort Collins
970-416-2728
Glen Schlueter tmorales@fcgov. com
Utilities- Stormwater
City of Fort Collins
970-224-6065
gschlueter@fcgov. com
Matthew Wempe
Transportation Planning
City of Fort Collins
970-224-6058
mwempe@fcgov.com
ii October 2008
i
i y
+
r
_ 1 r
1
i
�1
fop
t
lullb
S 1 8 1 EA S T T U FITS AVE ,
D E N V E R + ❑ ❑ S ❑ 2 3 7
.,
- I !v
1101Ce 1
enter
T _
rpqFGPr
APPENDIX C -
FIELD SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING
CONDITIONS STUDY
L
T COLLINS
M PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
F City
yof ins AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
f� ❑ C T ❑ B E R 200 S
r .
r
_. 111
1
� 10 4Ft, T
,i •,• 1
fk
mom �„
7
�J
0dam
: •.' .
Alf
r . . OMPA '
i.
//3 I
AOA
• �. • • �c. � - I • _ _
If
L.J• �,� AM! 1 . .
7 • I
3 .JPG
.,
: 4? -
4
4.JPG
- lEV�11tJ
1
f
� r
• r �r1
7.JPG
- ' 1R
i
1 •
8.JPG
• `_ art„,llni r
•
0low
All,
�'• '
r
i
fir l
L 44
Abe
♦ 1 • .,to
•�
Alt
le
�► - -
9.JPG
It
s
1 O.JPG
APIP �► •fi _
ABA
. v
s e
i •
1
I �
N - = lilt
1 MONA V
or
A '
rAZL
-
WIMP
_
vAND
AAA A,
13 .JPG
I
14.JPG
��.. .. .'.'• �_ , Wit, 7 �'� G' � }
• - 1 �. i � � . ` i4. � �,I�,i�r stir. ' rw..•�7�',.♦ . . � �� � 'C�
y '
.I 1
v
r
I• Vr
• : ti
• + � : �x.i�' •` f• -ly�. f _ . • .�_ _ Imo- � _
1
1
t
J -
t '
1
ti • '
l
ISM MEW
1
ictm • I1Av oil Comperlies I '
uv /ell.ei plenty trum u► _
■t Ifiv Iruma
fri
Po they really "Sold
r to ►iih•Idyt
•nuult*
a t
- c
� .
ppppp `•�1 „Atli ,��►t~-':cif- -
19.JPG
r .
M. 1
.� , All,
IP
%w .1
r � '
20.JPG
- . , . • •
� M
Cal
r .
.,_ Jew rj,,
cjcj
7-7
t • t ��I
: .
. ti
II I � y M
1,
1
- _ 'fir � �..•,•
Ak .
25 .JPG
1
h -
26.JPG
Ir �. , .
P.
it
Y ►. ' r I
-
—woo r
ol
j
�' •
t-' +
; 1
.} . :y
it d `
It
1
2 / .JPG
1 '
ILI
ld
\ I
I ~ `
kit, Ty I
, T .
j r � •
r S.
28 .JPG
` � 1
! d t�
� a
� t
M
7G-
29.JPG
TOO LS
for ;
A � r .
�M r
141
30.JPG
I �
l , ,
1
,� 1
r. '
'I
i
1 ��
�. . `
35 .JPG
r 1
• 1 1
I _
1
1
V
i 1
I `
36.JPG
y
: s di
1 14 11
ONO
v
37 .JPG
i
38 .JPG
VAR
�� � - ♦ j ^� '' �� � ` •. ice♦ ��� • � �4r, M - � l • '_� r .
moo
Vat
`` 41 VOW
.l } ' . 1
Pt45
�
_ .
of It
lb N4
45
It
. , t
( ' ' !ARP
NIL
,
. . - •�
39.JPG
r SAS
M - . .t
1 Ti - Ip _ 1 r 0. r
r� {
w
r �
I A �
`�
•� f ` •
40.JPG
1
-y
MIT
Ir
ilk Alp
43 .JPG
- � CLIMATEGM •'� '•
a
r�.
44 . JPG
I
• 1 1
1
� � 1
1
�4 _ 1 Qom•
1
H
II
y i
1 �
', 1 • .-� J • may,. '�' .1 \
• �I
1
' r
T�
J
r
x
r
1
i1
s
IL 6-
r - �
1
r
f
i
1 y _
1 ~�
y ' .•`. ��� • T -
. .t + • -
ti
- pY / .
ALP
LL Or
Lee
PP
most
Leek-
Ae
V v
• 1 • . f
• r
�� �y �•
r• A
Nl
•
r
1
3
57 .JPG
sea
58 .JPG
tPMEHT
u ,
M
1 �
♦ rr•
tr '
•'ice
•
rJ ^
:c
• 1 '
i
4
Y
r , ». ' 'k its l� ���/ •i�i (. >> � D'• -
f
i4=ate
� .
r
65 .JPG
� I ol
900
l
T
r�
1
66.JPG
I
f
•'�tlr �t
r
r
f• r� � t • .•. •e t ' Y '�
♦y � f '
dk
y '
i•
1 Y � •
` M
+ f .
• w
t
1
1 '
w
yc
L`
T
i
♦ 1
AM
r� 16
1
I •
04
ligill
zoz of,
r ,
1
raE PRESSER FOOT :�'
� . EC WENT
Ndil Spd . "'r TO L L
jift Boutique , MC IRLESS
r• � � I l
49�
r
1
i
• 1
r
r
1
PAP
v Vfm
�•- - ,�?� , '�' h ,. WHIM' _
I _ 1
•
.mil . • orVr
. _ . _.
77 .JPG
IF 0 Wood,
•-- �' mil•. ^ : - . ,, ' r •' � - 1 . - . •,
t
11
78 .JPG
Sekction
r
✓ b
NA ;
_4
Fal
79 .JPG
. � ♦ Ott trr�� .;' :�. • .. .
Sao
10
00,4
A VIA
M .
�.tE � l , ter
80.JPG
�� � . s • t
7
..
IMPP
KL&
de I
I
1 ,
I .
l �
• , . P: Rt
L •' � t ,
NO
lop
JP
two NO"
�•
1 :• pFV
G `40
y .
pop
IF
0
• ? i 4 - I If
` '
do
36 . fi� I r
• s r _ I/'
Wn • r
lip
OWN
\ / � : 4 •
.406
Op
r; AL - t
71 .41
too
pli
41111,
if
i !
kit
r , w . •
•
,r r.
r
(` 1
I
It
r
•►
If fit . ,
400
•� ♦ T ,•!
J � �
ins• • , r• i � � ; `� � � w's�N�s-
•' It
'r C
I
� I �
. , IF
99
• LL
ip
l 4
i
d �
1 - -
89 .JPG
MEELIL
WON
1
J A
� r
i
90 .J1 G
■
wV-
i
OWN
10
74
` '�. ' . Fes , , ..r `� , � , }� ; . � . '� ,• 's• ,I �4'-s' � .
OL
IF
rip
., '
1
1 ti
-. .a , '•[jai , h r
' r
1 -9
J
r _
. : � . '._, _ ►.. tee .^. _ � �. .,E -..� 1, � � •.��►�`� a
1 �
r
t
f^
• 4 , f
1 ,! ••yam
•� t
::t� '• Sf
f � '
Y
PW rim
�. .r. .. to _
moplooll
atoll
n _ _ aX_ _ _ _• _ _ u�
95 .JPG
ON
Auto 117sur8nCe
Aseguranza
-;.Or " tit
- r
96.JPG
1 -ram -, � i - � • � . . ;,} ., , _ ,, - _ -
1
� 1
r
ddd
97 .JPG
. M
fi
n
98 .JPG
1
1
1 -
•
99 .JPG
pp
AIL
1 0D.JPG
, .
x ; r ,
AV
- i
� r
1
i
103 .JPG
m Will
t
I
104.JPG
I10
1 r
ad
:7 1
♦ }•.�f
� 4
A�joRI
• \\� •t •. r i��YJ 1
T
0i
•
• l � � r
\
r�
♦ � ; `.� � r�-1 1 . -. - i -_ = .
� I
' J I
yl
- - s
111 .JPG
t
ti
t
1 ] Z.JPG
t
■
r� I
Q •
S '
v � ,
� � � I • I . 1"• . d t.
G
owl
115 .JPG
err
ro„ I
r 1
A
116.JPG
1
• I
• y
i
I
I
V �
1 ?
2 he
Nil
r �
117.JPG
118.JPG
'-
�. . -
i
1
• 1�
as r
r
1
Enter rise
R ,
J r • � I• I III _ I 1 .1
I 1
a
PPF
l �
� ,. �'&Nftf 1 ., '• .
1
.. Y
- .,r�i�_: ��1 � 1 , tf'• ,
125 .JPG
r
{`, /
ri
- 5y
a
sj 1
�A V
•f
Fir
I•
_ `
126.JPG
- — - �— rob MWOO
—
r .
.om Ab
ff
yy
J,O RP
IrA
OR, mAr
. t
r iI.
�S
i
•J
ti \ o Nei
_
NO
LL
r w +
OR
OND- low Rom - ~j3 � % . � �_4 • -- y • • � � v ' � - • `
jo
ONO
_ M _
. 0 vp Rl ��
f.
Pill ti ,
;Oil Ilk;
Ilk
.0 .. .
- All .r
r "
129.JPG
r
! r" .
h
4*0
OICY '
' nte1
61-1 Ott
i
e w 4T. .
' L
J
FORT COLLINS
Q urban renewal authority
MEMORANDUM
DT : April 15, 2011
TO : Mayor and City Council Members
FM : Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
RE : Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey Update
Background
The Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey was conducted in 2008 ( study area map
attached ) . Although the survey concluded that sufficient blight factors were present to warrant
an Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) , a Plan was never adopted due to the lack of a catalyst project
within the proposed plan area .
In 2009, Council initiated the Midtown Redevelopment Study to analyze the economic
conditions and retail redevelopment opportunities of the commercial corridor that runs along
South College Avenue from Prospect Road to the north , to Fairway Lane to the south , including
Foothills Mall . One of this study' s action items was to examine the area further and evaluate
the statutory requirements for findings of blight to establish the basis to form a URP for the
corridor .
Council initiated the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey in February 2011 . Since Prospect South
had been recently surveyed for blight factors, the area was excluded from the same level of
scrutiny that the rest of the area received . Staff conducted a field investigation in April 2011 to
validate whether the area can still be considered blighted as defined by Colorado Urban
Renewal Law .
Summary of Findings
Staff concludes and recommends that the Prospect South study area , in its present condition
and use, is a blighted area as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law . Some improvements
have been made since the 2008 survey, but there were some new observations of blight noted
as well . Overall , the six blight factors documented in the original survey are still present .
During the field investigation , staff reviewed the field survey photograph reference table and
found that the following physical conditions originally observed no longer apply : 1, 2, 11 , 24,
251 261 57 - 591 61 - 691 71 - 721 75 -951 1141 116, and 118 . Additional observations of blight were
documented with a photo ( attachment ) .
Attachments
1 . Map of the Prospect South study area
2 . Addendum to Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey
300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 • Fort Collins , CO 80522 - 0580
970 - 221 - 6505 TDD 970 - 224 - 6002 • renewfortcollins . com
lot
V.: r r
It IV .
U1/�PROSPECT -RD '- E PROSPECT RD -
p M ram_ a {''''� •� . "
N jpq 94 . J� r �b i!��.++( ra w r
I T
billo: Vv
lot
.. r n
• -.s+ _ T T I 0 LU
El
to 11
f El
Vh
-
G`❑ CT_❑�Q' � fed ,; p t rr A _ ,
40
..4 y 1 r 'WIT F-1rf r'
JJ
I °
OV .0 of-
IF
rmi
LJ
El 'IN
Li
~ Q L1J �\
i. ` 4.$ Q l II a• f7-
r
y�J �c • '
t IV
1-
Li e
v ' 't ❑ I �
- - - — - � V.
. < awe
Li
�•1 0� .lr�,y. 1 Per
yon Oda
gh
To
aci
f lj
y ^ t +
VhVoq
Li
L
° � ��,► 1'♦ ..
rF r, of ♦ 1. . t ' I [
. , ,.1 , V. �t �_❑-ram _� �;.g' >�
r j__1111 Ith � �
r 'L14 4 '
Prospect South Study Area City of
/ / Major Streets 1 inch = 350 feet
1n Prospect South Study Area April 2011
Addendum to the Prospect South Existing Conditions Survey
Section 1 . 0 Introduction should read :
This report presents the conditions survey analysis, findings and conclusions for the
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study ( "Study" ) , which was undertaken by URS for
the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority ( URA ) and the City of fort Collins under an
Agreement for Professional Services , dated August 29 , 2008 . URS conducted the Study
in September and October 2008, and City staff conducted a field survey in April 2011 to
verify the conditions found in 2008 .
1
91
• yox
I IL
m
Y
J
.r'
NNW
f
IAI 'oil
111; ntoo _- -
a ;
-
;ITT r
y
• �FkA1
{ TA, Mi
. rI . r �. -ram �Y�.,: �? •.,` �a � �.:
! / ./� � tJ �� „ter � • ` . V ' I
1\t:
ES SERVICE SUP® _
.1
Aw
FOOTHILLS MALL
EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
City of Fort Collins
11'
�. . . r j��f! s+•
,. ... rote
a aNaLlON 11O a
YQ
_A0.� .
• . 't. . lp
a F
a a
Ll
t 'At4k (N A ~
May 15 , 2007
Prepared by:
Terrance Ware + Associates
Table of Contents
1 . 0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 . 0 Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 . 0 Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 . 1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 .2 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 . 3 Existing Planning and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 . 0 Determination of Blight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 . 1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 . 2 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 . 3 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 . 4 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements
orUtilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 . 5 Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live
orWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 . 6 The Existence of Health, Safety or Welfare Factors Requiring
High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical
Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites, Buildings or Other
Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5 . 0 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4
6 .0 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Figures
Figure 1 : Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure2 : Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure3 : Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4 : Survey Area Findings Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendices
Appendix 1: Photo Inventory Sheets
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 1 -
1 . 0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope
The determination that an area constitutes a "blighted area" is a cumulative conclusion,
attributable to the presence of several physical, environmental, social, and economic
factors. Blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination, tend
to accelerate the deterioration of an area. For the purposes of this survey, the pertinent
portion of the definition of a blighted area is articulated in the Colorado Urban Renewal
Law (the "Act"), Colorado Revised Statute 31 -25 - 103 (2), as follows :
A "blighted" area means " . . . an area that, in its present condition and use and, by
reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially
impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of
housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare:
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
e. Deterioration of site or other improvements;
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;
g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable;
h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other
causes;
i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of
building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical
construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities;
j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property;
k. 5. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of
municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites,
buildings or other improvements; or
1. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenant or
tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion of such property in any
urban renewal area, "blighted also means an area that in its present condition
and use and, by reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in
paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the
sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing
accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace
to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (1),
the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the
inclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the
owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing
condemnation.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 2 -
Several legal principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the
determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Colorado Urban
Renewal Law. The absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does
not, by itself, preclude a finding of blight. The presence of one well maintained building
does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. An authority ' s
determination as to whether an area is blighted . . . . is a legislative question and the scope
of review by the judiciary is restricted. The principle purpose of determining blight and
the related urban renewal plan and programs and/or projects of redevelopment is to
eliminate blight or to prevent the spread of blight and/or the further deterioration of
blighted areas (Sec . 31 -25 - 107(4 . 5) CRS).
Thus, the determination of blight (and the application of blight factors) is for an area;
blight need not be present (in fact it would be atypical to find blight) on every property,
building, street, public improvement, or utility. For an area to be termed "blighted" the
law does not specify the degree of deterioration or precise percentage of obsolescence of
blight factors since the combination and effects of such things are highly variable from
one urban renewal plan area to the next. The purpose of this Existing Conditions Survey
is to assist the Fort Collins City Council in deciding whether the study area constitutes a
"blighted area" as defined in the CRS 31 -25 - 103 (2) .
Terrance Ware Associates were retained by the City of Fort Collins to conduct an
independent survey of the Foothills Mall area and to determine if it constitutes a blighted
area as defined above . Based upon the conditions existing in the survey area, this
document will make a recommendation as to whether the survey area contains the
characteristics of a blighted area. The actual determination itself remains the
responsibility of the Fort Collins City Council.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 3 -
2 .0 Survey Methodology
An important objective of this survey is to obtain and evaluate data, where possible, on a
wide range of physical and non-physical conditions present in the survey area. Data was
collected from various public agencies and field research was conducted on these various
topics : parcel and ownership patterns and history; traffic, circulation and parking;
utilities ; street, building, and site conditions ; land use ; environmental conditions ; and
compliance with the City of Fort Collins ' s City Plan and City ordinances .
Supplemental information was sought from various professionals and public agencies
concerning the conditions of public facilities, services, and issues in the survey area.
Several variables have been considered, as required by the state statutes .
The Existing Conditions Survey is divided into several tasks as follows :
Task 1 : Collect base data associated with the project and research, as well as
prepare base maps of, existing conditions for the Foothills Mall Existing
Conditions Survey area.
Task 2 : Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the
City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
Task 3 : Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in
the Act, exist in the survey area.
Task 4 : Document survey findings in graphic and report forms, and present the
findings as required by the signed contract.
Information for this survey has been gathered from four principal sources :
■ Examination of existing reports and records of the City of Fort Collins and other
public and quasi-public agencies;
■ Interviews with existing staff of General Growth Properties , owners and operators of
the Foothills Mall;
■ Interviews with existing and former staff in various operating departments of the City
of Fort Collins and Larimer County; and
■ A comprehensive field investigation of conditions in the survey area.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 4 -
3 .0 Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Area Description
3. 1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries
The survey area is located within the City of Fort Collins which is part of Larimer
County, Colorado . Fort Collins is located approximately 60 miles north of Denver and
adjacent to the communities of Timnath, Windsor, and Loveland.
The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area is a rectangular shaped area of
approximately 72-acres, bounded by East Swallow Road on the north, Stanford Road on
the east, South College Avenue on the west and the extension of Monroe Drive on the
south (see Figure 1 ) .
The topography of the area gently slopes to the east. No major landforms or grades are
present within the area.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 5 -
W + E
rroposea roomms mail
s Urban Renewal Area 1 inch equals 350 feet
DEL CLAIR RD
N
0 O M G�9i�F0D 9`�0
Z v d 0
W SWALLOW RD E SWALLOW RD o
0 ❑ a a � � a a z
Q�
e
Ez=
�o
0
� o
MONROE DR
w � ❑
w
U
w
J
Q O O
U
N
E HORSETOOTH RD
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 6 -
3 .2 Existing Land Use
The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area is composed primarily of
commercial, retail, and office uses. Single-family, duplexes, and multi-family residential
structures front on Swallow Road, but are not included in the study area boundaries .
The Foothills Mall is the predominate structure in the study area - surrounded by several
pad buildings containing one or more retail, restaurant, and/or office users . The Mall
opened in the fall of 1973 and has been expanded twice — in 1980 and again in 1989 .
Currently, the land area is approximately 100% developed (see Figure 2) .
3.3 Existing Planning and Zoning
3 . 3 . 1 Existing Planning
The 2004 Fort Collins City Plan - Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) is the applicable
land use policy for the area. The Foothills Mall lies within an area identified on
the Structure Plan map as a Community Commercial District (CCD) which the
Plan describes as : a " . . . hub of high frequency transit system offering retail,
offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing. The physical
environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit use, and ridesharing, as well
as provide a high quality urban life for residents . Vertical mixed-use (multi-story
buildings) will be encouraged with housing and/or offices located above ground-
floor retail and services .
The Foothills Mall is also identified in City Plan as a "Targeted Redevelopment
Area." A targeted redevelopment area is a part of the city where general
agreement exists that redevelopment is beneficial . A major goal of City Plan is to
increase the economic activity in a targeted redevelopment area and, where
necessary, provide a stimulus to redevelop .
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (the Code) is the applicable regulation
for the study area, including the Zoning Ordinance and the Site Development
Standards . Some of the Code ' s standards pertaining to the study area include :
screening trash and mechanical equipment, placement of street lighting,
placement of electric and communication utilities, compliance with ADA
Standards, and the use of conforming signage in the area.
3 . 3 .2 Existing Zoning
The zoning map provided shows zoning in the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions
Survey area (see Figure 3 ) . Currently, the study area is zoned in the Commercial
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 7 -
FORT COLLINS
Foothills Mall
W SWALLOW RD - - - - 9SWALLOW RD
: l t r! 6\` — I�$ f' L ¢I � • . �`
to
V I fix 4/7 -1 1 1
rt
Q
' OGP
TMLLS VR WY ! - —yn �. ^ r • I' . / - •
% . 111
Hm
map
►���
Ad
X
_ C YORROE OR
L
� F IL r
* top
�w AloaaoL DR 'A
qr
A to
J . .
1 J
i tit
ow y .+ Fk o`��''`L
W 110RSETOOTN RD. '.. - -� tP
_ - - EHORSETOOMAO
to
j f ' . s •
♦_: a. P.
404
r Y
z a
® Existing Conditions Survey
Figure 2: Survey Area Boundaries N
Cih• of Fort CRIMEM Q 150 300 600
1:. ..pAI, InImm.u", Feet
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 8 -
FORT COLLINS
Foothills Mall
RL
NONE=
s
Ilk
s�
AW
C
�irawrr
10A7
MMN
E
Legend Existing Conditions Survey N
® parcehweaaarcol uk arC" ZoWng M ,um Density ml,ee-Use *:ergnearneoe FIGURE3: ZONING n
t nor rd Fu.r c d� n. Cenwe Tocfi _ Ca rcml law De Uy9MemW 0 100 200 400 y
. . ..��., .1,.I_.l, 0 EmpbrmeM Feet , V
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 9 -
District (C) . The Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development,
redevelopment, and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices,
and personal and business services . Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of
other uses including creative forms of housing.
While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related
and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City' s intent that the Commercial District for the
Mall area emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms , with planning
and design that accommodates pedestrians .
The zoning permits a wide variety of uses including : civic, public, institutional,
residential, office, and retail uses .
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 10 -
4 . 0 Determination of Blight
The significant findings of the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area are
presented in this section. This evaluation is based on an analysis of documents and
reports, interviews, and several field surveys conducted in July and August 2006 and,
January 2007 . Each parcel and building along with all public improvements within the
survey area were evaluated and deficiencies noted. The purpose of this Existing
Conditions Survey is to determine whether conditions of blight as defined by the Act,
exist in the survey area.
The following standards were applied to aid the consideration of structures and
improvements :
Standard, Sound
These buildings or sites contain no or relatively minor defects, are adequately
maintained and require no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance.
Substandard, Minor Deficiencies
These buildings or sites contain deficiencies which require minor/major repairs to
secondary structural elements, such as fascia/soffits, gutter/downspouts, exterior
finishes, windows, doors, stairwells and fire escapes . Sites with surface pavement
deterioration of 25 -75 % of the survey area are considered minor deficiencies . These
types of deficiencies might possibly be corrected through normal maintenance,
however, replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building
trades is recommended.
Substandard, Major Deficiencies
These buildings or sites contain major defects over a widespread area and would be
difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings in the major deficiency
category would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in
the building trades . Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 75 % or more of the
survey area are considered major deficiencies .
The following conditions were observed in the survey area, and the factors that contribute
to the blight conditions are described below. They are not listed in order of importance .
Representative photos showing blight conditions in the Foothills Mall Existing
Conditions Survey area are provided in Appendix I.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates
4. 1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures
Within the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey area, all of the structures show
evidence of minor deterioration. Most of the structures have deteriorating exterior
finishes, caused by weathering and a lack of maintenance . Exterior walls, facades, and
fencing require painting, trim repair, and/or tile replacement.
The Mall building(s) itself and the majority of the pad buildings have signs of major
building deficiencies, both exterior and interior. This includes primarily major building
infrastructure components such as HVAC, lighting, gas, electrical, sanitary sewer,
drainage, fire protection and telecommunication facilities. These issues are shared by
many of the pad buildings surrounding the Mall as well. The costs of repairing or
replacing the building systems are greater than the value of the buildings resulting in
economic obsolescence and general deterioration of the site and area.
4.2 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
There were many examples of this factor. Several of the properties lack sufficient lighting
around the building and surrounding parking and access areas . Weeds, trash, and other
debris were present in the survey area.
Drainage facilities lack adequate capacity. This includes curb and gutters, culverts, and
drainage channels which are needed to convey stormwater away from the existing
facilities . These factors have resulted in the deterioration of the paved areas as well as
created hazards for pedestrian movement throughout the study area. During winter
months, these areas freeze creating hazardous situations for vehicular travel.
Sidewalks are missing along College Avenue and other sidewalk segments are inadequate
in size and condition, failing to meet ADA standards . Pedestrian facilities connecting the
outparcels and the Mall are non-existent leaving pedestrians to navigate the haphazard
parking lot and drives between these uses . Loading areas extend into drive aisles and onto
sidewalks . This creates on-going hazardous situations for pedestrian circulation.
Elevation changes in the Mall's interior create potential hazardous slip and fall situations,
and are difficult for the elderly and disabled to navigate due to the unusual angles and
slopes on stairs and ramps .
Vandalism, crimes against property, auto theft, and graffiti have increased dramatically
over the previous two years. This may be attributable to inadequate lighting and
distribution of parking facilities in isolated locations, and a loss of tenants and activity
on-site due to the increase vacancies .
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 12 -
4.3 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements
Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the study
area. This includes neglect of landscaping, and vacant areas, exterior finishes of existing
structures, parking lot surfacing, and business signage. Several buildings within the
study area have graffiti on at least one exterior surface.
Several of the buildings within the study area have unscreened trash disposals and service
areas .
Drainage on the 72-acre parcel is highly inadequate . There are only six drains to
facilitate drainage for the entire property. This causes significant back ups often resulting
in flooding during heavy rainstorms . On the south side of the Mall from the Wells
Fargo/Mall intersection to the JC Penney building a small river forms creating vehicle
and individual safety concerns . Water routinely expands eight feet across the walkway
six to eight inches in depth.
4A Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities
There is lack of sufficient lighting, adequate sidewalks, and drainage facilities . In
addition, most of the site infrastructure including drainage, irrigation, water, sanitary and
storm systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of replacement.
4.5 Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work
A number of instances of poor or unsafe ingress/egress were noted, where building exits
place occupants directly into the vehicular path in alleys. Also, several buildings fail to
meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for ingress and egress .
The building systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of
replacement as many of the systems are obsolete and unable to be repaired because parts
are no longer available. This includes all basic HVAC , plumbing, and electrical
components .
4.6 The Existence of Health, Safety or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of
Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites ,
Buildings, or Other Improvements.
Several interior tenant spaces are vacant or underutilized, as are several pad sites around
the Mall. This is due to the growing physical obsolescence of the Mall building and
physical constraints to redevelopment of the site . The underutilization of these properties
leads to reduced revenues and subsequent reduced investment. Over time this will cause
deterioration of the site and buildings as the costs exceed revenue. Increased vandalism
and crime result in greater police services .
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 13 -
Summary of Findings
It is the conclusion and recommendation of this survey that the Foothills Mall Existing
Conditions Survey area, in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined in
Colorado Revised Statute / 31 -25 - 103 (2) . By reason of the presence of numerous factors
identified in Section 103 (2) of the Urban Renewal Law and discussed above in Chapter 4,
the survey area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort
Collins, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or
social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare.
While some properties in the survey area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated
and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area. It should be noted that this
conclusion is for the survey area as a whole and is not based on separate individual
properties.
As described in this survey, conditions existing in the survey area constitute at least four
of the factors or incidents indicative of a blighted area. The conclusion of this survey is
based on the following summaries of the six blighted conditions found in the survey area
and described previously in this report:
1 . Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures. Deterioration of structures,
deterioration of exterior finishes, and major exterior and interior building
deficiencies within the survey area.
2 . Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions. Pavement deterioration, accumulation of
weeds, trash, and debris, vacant structures and tenant spaces, poor site drainage,
elevation changes within the structure, and poor site lighting.
3 . Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements. Obsolesce of site infrastructure and
building systems (electrical, water, telecommunications, drainage, etc. ) contribute
to the overall deterioration of the site.
4. Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities . Inadequate
sidewalks, parking, roadways vehicular, drainage facilities, sanitary and storm
systems, and utilities .
5 . Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy. Poor and unsafe ingress and egress at
several buildings within the survey area is present. Major building systems in
need of repair or replacement due to deterioration or capacity. Vandalism and
property crimes also occur within the survey area.
6 . The Existence of Health, Safety or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of
Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites,
Buildings or Other Improvements . Several interior tenant spaces are vacant or
underutilized, as are several pad sites around the mall. This is due to the growing
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 14 -
physical obsolescence of the mall building and physical constraints to
redevelopment of the site.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 15 -
FORT COLLINS
Foothills Mall
. . r - - - PITY
t DQ cinm rtD
b .s,� Rif
ode
eve
old
lip off
�..
w SWALLOW RD - - - _i E OwNlilimRD
M. . IS - � `k 1 _. '. , ' t • . . . ',��
of
[S �• D Loading aiell 1 � •
• 4 , 1 + drive lan{�ra4� site . S e°
of rf` s r
o
it Building ro ..
constrai etj by to
vJ pooreiusrnwv , corl LVIiori )a oo
lool,
r �
Missinc }dewalk \ Ar . ) \,7 • .Wool
room .fir,
t Vow
41
\\, , : Nall itt
_ „ mil. ! j _�ts •
_ t r l _ _ Y a t ca Relives r e •Dr1RDE OR
DR
Poorly defined circulauoP ;,ria .
W _
�.,u . . .� ,f. . - � • ' .• \• •� ' .' to*
mill ow
1 . 0
... . . IselIli I - ` h � . . .e .1 n
ai
oil 4
oil
l6i
tell moo A
W 9AORSETOOTH RO -- .r it - - El101t[ETDOf1YtD a•�" `
—ew Ai
15ramV 'moll ir
OR
="•a.44r Vile
woe 4 -
P
. , V
Existing Conditions Survey
Figure 4: Survey Finding Examples A
N
0 150 300 600
.J,rn. rnn��ourwa Feet
sn.....
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Tlare Associates - 16 -
6.0 Sources
City of Fort Collins, 2003 City Plan,
City of Fort Collins, Municipal land Use Code,
City of Fort Collins, Website, http ://www. fcgov. com/
Kimberly Straw, AICP, City Planner, Urban Renewal Authority
Cynthia Eichler, General Manager, Foothills Mall, General Growth Properties, Inc.
Paul Brown, Operations Manager, Foothills Mall
Lori Frank, City of Fort Collins Police Department
Doug Martine, City of Fort Collins Electric Project Engineering Supervisor
Marsha Hines-Robinson, City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administrator
Jon Cowling, Assessors Office, Larimer County
Jeremy Reese, Sales Tax Manager
Terrance Ware Associates Field Surveys, July and August 2006 ; January 2007 .
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 17 -
Appendices
I . Photo Inventory Sheets
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates
Appendix I
Photo Inventory Sheets
4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
4.8 Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities
Lack of pedestrian facilities along College Avenue.
4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
Lack of definition of vehicular routes or pedestrian facilities in parking areas.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 19 -
,r
r
-
w
!. rrrJ ;yr
i---t
43FaultyLot Layout
Lot size and shape constrain development of the site. Parking facilities, vehicular and
pedestrian facilities are impacted by the lot size and configuration. The configuration of mall
on this sit, and the sites size create these conditions .
4A Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
The lack of adequate loading facilities impacts the safety of vehicles and pedestrians .
All
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 21 -
4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions
Drainage and access are poor throughout the study area.
43 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements
Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the Study Area.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 22 -
FORT COLLINS
Q urban renewal authority
MEMORANDUM
DT : April 15, 2011
TO : Mayor and City Council Members
FM : Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
RE : Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Update
Background
The Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) were adopted by
City Council in May 2007 . Based on the property owner' s economic situation and the lack of
redevelopment activity, the URP was dissolved in 2008 to protect the Tax Increment Financing
(TIF ) from accumulating prematurely .
In 2009, Council initiated the Midtown Redevelopment Study to analyze the economic
conditions and retail redevelopment opportunities of the commercial corridor that runs along
South College Avenue from Prospect Road to the north to Fairway Lane to the south , including
Foothills Mall . One of this study' s action items was to examine the area further and evaluate
the statutory requirements for findings of blight to establish the basis to form a URP for the
corridor .
Council initiated the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey in February 2011 . Since Foothills Mall
had been recently surveyed for blight factors, the area was excluded from the same level of
scrutiny that the rest of the area received . Staff conducted a field investigation in April 2011 to
validate whether the area can still be considered blighted as defined by Colorado Urban
Renewal Law .
Summary of Findings
Staff concludes and recommends that the study area surveyed in the Foothills Mall Existing
Conditions Survey remains a blighted area as defined by Colorado Urban Renewal Law ( map of
study area attached ) . The six blight factors documented in the 2007 survey are still existing
conditions . In addition , the following observations were documented which contribute to the
area ' s deteriorated state :
■ Four of the six self-standing outlying buildings surrounding the mall are vacant .
■ The strip mall in the northeast corner of the study area is 50% vacant .
■ The former location of Mervyn ' s, one of the mall ' s anchor tenants, is vacant .
■ The JC Penney building, another anchor tenant location , has been demolished per an
agreement with mall property owner ( see Figure 1 ) .
300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 • Fort Collins , CO 80522 - 0580
970 - 221 - 6505 TDD 970 - 224 - 6002 • renewfortcollins . com
Figure 1 : Site of Former JC Penney Building
In addition to the above findings, the attached addendum offers text changes to the survey
document to reflect the latest information .
Attachments
1 . Map of the Foothills Mall study area
2 . Addendum to the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey
' -c� i •� 'r-� r Y7 'f .t 4 .°i° `2 ,f ,',, � vJl
r
CL4_` _ CCLi; r� 1 G =f CCC C�Cf L�cC _
Li �. �r j�
17
Tu i
ral
Iu Li
l yl�, ^,yT Li r it it, 1 r . rr II r
n. f. N .! • •1 � r • .
9"
rl
YMir - T rry
,. rf
�*
i� • � I-I ✓ r ' � 1 ' _. / " s ♦rStiS I '9, = Y r • � _ ' / /�. t ' - . C] /`f.
I—I =l'� . . ' { rre a w erar
. er
ell
a W 11i � +�
Or If
W n4 @ r . E
W t; .r
IF
J .
LL
lie
U i Tr t
t y 1 -. .,[!, '� si'••A'ly, a .. : '.
c car r rift
T
L t
ri rr ♦. AI
TI
or
AIR
n a� V���.- , tj lrr tt. ry 1 { .jLi
I j .. ♦ rr� i 7r .
ri r /pp Ir iIlk,
r .rr.rreetr ' r �.� CCL'LCL G(� Rr •� y` k` Imo ^ e • - <<[.._ �$'�. G y!J r r 'i r' . s _.
' 4 � � .ti^3t• TA.i ' .,' ' IWd
TCCCCCCCCCCC E - • I.
t— ♦ ;
. . .�
�. - r r -n , ..� Kr � •� rrw yr .
rf � jy,a V i Ole, ,
r 1
E HORSE ,Li I
O.OTH
_ Iz ` � i "`--In- - 1i- - � - ' � ,- � r y .♦. ? / --+ram ,� 1. „ "� ' . .+ _ i N
4 , t
Foothills Mall Study Area ,ort�1
^/ Major Streets
rq_) 1 inch = 350 feet
Foothills Mall Study Area
April 2011
Addendum to the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey
Paragraph one in Section 3 . 3 . 1 Existing Planning should read :
Plan Fort Collins , the 2011 update to the City' s Comprehensive Plan ( the Plan ) , is the applicable
land use policy for the area . The Foothills Mall lies within an area identified on the Structure
Plan Map as a Community Commercial District ( CCD ) which the Plan describes as : " . . . higher
intensity, mixed - use activity centers intended to serve as destinations for surrounding
neighborhoods and the community . Community Commercial Districts offer a mix of retail ,
restaurants, offices, small civic uses, and higher density housing . . . both vertically and
horizontally mixed - use development forms will be encouraged . Higher density development is
encouraged in Community Commercial Districts to support their role as hubs of the City' s high -
frequency transit system and to promote an active, pedestrian -friendly environment . The
physical environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit use and ridesharing as well as
provide a high quality urban life for residents . "
Paragraph one in Section 4 . 0 Determination of Blieht should read :
The significant findings of the Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey Area are presented in
this section . This evaluation is based on an analysis of documents and reports, interviews, and
several field surveys conducted in July and August 2006, January 2007, and April 2011 . Each
parcel and building along with all public improvements within the survey area were evaluated
and deficiencies noted . Field inventory forms are provided in Appendix II . The purpose of this
existing conditions survey is to determine whether conditions of blight as defined by the Act,
exist in the survey area .