HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-014-02/28/2013-MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS RATIFYING AND REAFFIRMING THE APPROVAL OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN RESOLUTION 2013-014
OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS RATIFYING AND REAFFIRMING THE
APPROVAL OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN, INCLUDING THE USE OF
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING IN A PORTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA,
AND RATIFYING AND REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE REAL
PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER TO A PRIVATE
PARTY IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE BLIGHT AND
REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA
WHEREAS,by Resolution 2011-080,adopted and approved on September 6,2011,the City
Council found and declared that the area described in such resolution is a blighted area as described
in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law,Sections 31-25-101,et seq.,C.R.S.(the"Act')and appropriate
for an urban renewal project; and
WHEREAS, such findings were based on a document prepared by City staff entitled
"Midtown Commercial Corridor Existing Conditions Survey" dated April 2011 (the "Conditions
Survey"), which has been confirmed by City staff to accurately describe the currently existing
conditions in the Survey area in all material respects and is attached to and incorporated herein as
Exhibit"A;" and
WHEREAS,by Resolution 2011-081,adopted and approved on September 6,2011,the City
Council made findings and approved the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan"), and found,
determined and declared the area included with the Plan(the"Urban Renewal Area")to be a blighted
area as defined in the Act, and established a tax increment financing district known as "Prospect
South", which Plan is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B;" and
WHEREAS,the Plan and Resolution 2011-081 authorized the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (the "Authority") to acquire any interest in property by any means available, including,
without limitation, by exercise of the power of eminent domain under certain terms and conditions
consistent with the Act as stated in Section 5 of Resolution 2011-081 and in Section 4 of the Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority has been carrying out redevelopment activities in the Urban
Renewal Area,which activities have not heretofore included the acquisition of property interests by
means of the power of eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, in order to eradicate or prevent the spread of blight and to facilitate
redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area, it may become necessary for the Authority to acquire
interests in real property, including fee interests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest to ensure that
all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the Urban Renewal Area have
adequate notice of the provisions of the Plan, including those provisions related to the acquisition
of interests in real property by the Authority by means of eminent domain, if necessary, to
accomplish the elimination of conditions of blight and the redevelopment of the Urban Renewal
Area by private enterprise; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is a matter of public record and has been in the custody of the City
Clerk and has been available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk during business
hours ofthe City and on the Authority's website at http:www.renewfortcollins.com/plan-areas since
its adoption and for more than thirty days; and
WHEREAS, notice was mailed to all property owners, residents, and owners of business
concerns in the Urban Renewal Area on January 25,2013,that a public hearing would be held by the
City Council on February 28, 2013, for the purpose of(1) ratifying and reaffirming that the area
included in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan is a blighted area as described in Section 31-25-103,
C.R.S., (2)ratifying and reaffirming the adoption of the Plan, including the adoption of the Prospect
South Tax Increment Financing District,as described in Section 31-25-107, C.R.S., (3)ratifying and
reaffirming that the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority is authorized to acquire real property by
all legal means, including eminent domain,and to convey real property so acquired to private parties,
all as described in the Plan, (4) amending the Plan to authorize the use of tax increment financing in
the Foothills Mall area of the Plan; and (5) other undertakings and activities in accordance with the
Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Sections 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, notice was published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on January 26, 2013, that
a public hearing would be held by the City Council on February 28, 2013, for the purpose of(1)
ratifying and reaffirming that the area included in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan is a blighted area
as described in Section 31-25-103, C.R.S., (2) ratifying and reaffirming the adoption of the Plan,
including the adoption of the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing District, as described in
Section 31-25-107, C.R.S., (3) ratifying and reaffirming that the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority is authorized to acquire real property by all legal means, including eminent domain, and
to convey real property so acquired to private parties, all as described in the Plan, (4) amending the
Plan to authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan; and (5)
other undertakings and activities in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law,Sections 31-
25-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has conducted a public hearing and reviewed the Plan pursuant
to the procedural and notice requirements of the Act,and has given appropriate weight to the evidence
it has received at the public hearing held on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will consider and act on the subject of amending the Plan to
authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan separately from the
other matters described in the notices, above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds,determines,declares,ratifies and reaffirms the
following with respect to the Plan:
2
(a) As found, determined, and declared in Resolution 2011-081, the Urban
Renewal Area described in the Plan is declared to be a blighted area by reason of the
presence of seven factors as defined in the Act, which factors, taken together,
substantially impair the sound growth of the City, constitute an economic and social
liability,and negatively affect the public health,safety,morals and welfare of the City.
This is a legislative finding by the City Council based upon the Conditions Survey and
other evidence presented to City Council.
(b) As found, determined, and declared in Resolution 2011-081, the boundaries
of the Urban Renewal Area have been drawn as narrowly as the City Council
determines feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the
Plan.
(c) As found,determined,and declared in Resolution 2011-081,the Plan has been
submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County as required by
Section 31-25-107(3.5) of the Act.
(d) The City Council has taken reasonable efforts to provide written notice of the
public hearing prescribed by Section 31-25-107(3) of the Act to all property owners,
residents, and owners of business concerns in the Urban Renewal Area at their last
known addresses at least thirty days prior to the public hearing.
(e) As found, determined, and declared in Resolution 2011-081, the Plan meets
the requirements of Section 31-25-105.5(2)of the Act,and the Authority is authorized
to acquire any interest in property(including a fee interest, for subsequent transfer to
a private party) by any means available, including, without limitation, by exercise of
the power of eminent domain under the terms and conditions or the Plan and any other
requirements of any applicable law.
(f) The decision by the City Council to authorize the use of eminent domain is
based on its finding that the Area is a blighted area as defined in the Act.
(g) The activities and undertakings that constitute the urban renewal project as
defined in the Act and described in the Plan have been commenced no later than seven
years from the effective date of Resolution 2011-081.
(h) The Plan requires full compliance with all statutory requirements applicable
to the exercise of eminent domain by the Authority, which include, but may not be
limited to, the following:
(1) Prior to the commencement of.negotiation of an agreement for
redevelopment or rehabilitation of property acquired or to be acquired by
eminent domain, the Authority shall have provided notice and invited
proposals for redevelopment or rehabilitation from all property owners,
residents, and owners of business concerns located on the property acquired
-3-
or to be acquired by eminent domain in the Area by mailing notice to their last
known address of record.
(2) In the case of a set of parcels to be acquired by the Authority in
connection with the Project, at least one of which is owned by an owner
refusing or rejecting an agreement for the acquisition of the entire set of
parcels, the Authority must make a determination that the redevelopment or
rehabilitation of the remaining parcels is not viable under the Plan without the
parcel at issue.
(3) Acquisition of any property by eminent domain shall be for the
purpose of preventing or eliminating conditions of blight without regard to the
economic performance of the property to be acquired.
(4) The Authority shall have adopted relocation assistance and land
acquisition policies to benefit displaced persons that are consistent with those
set forth in Article 56 of Title 24, C.R.S., to the extent applicable to the facts
of each specific property,and,at the time of the relocation of the owner or the
occupant, shall provide compensation or other forms of assistance to any
displaced person in accordance with such policies, and, in the case of a
business concern displaced by the acquisition of property by eminent domain,
the Authority shall make a business interruption payment to the business
concern not to exceed the lesser of $10,000 or one-fourth of the average
annual taxable income shown on the three most recent federal income tax
returns of the business concern.
(5) In any case where the acquisition ofproperty by eminent domain by the
Authority displaces individuals,families,or business concerns,the Authority
shall make reasonable efforts to relocate such individuals,families,or business
concerns within the Area, where such relocation is consistent with the uses
provided in the Plan,or in areas within reasonable proximity of,or comparable
to, the original location of such individuals, families, or business concerns.
(6) The Plan meets the requirements of the Act, and the principal public
purpose for adoption of the Plan is to facilitate redevelopment of the Urban
Renewal Area in order to eliminate or prevent the spread of a physically
blighted area as defined in the Act.
(i) To the extent any relocation of individuals or families will be required in
connection the Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals
and families in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their
means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families.
0) To the extent any relocation of business concerns will be required with the
Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns in the
-4-
Urban Renewal Area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with respect
to public utilities and public and commercial facilities.
(k) The Plan was approved within one hundred twenty days of commencement of
the first public hearing on the Plan.
(1) Section 31-25-107(4)(e) of the Act does not apply because the City Council
did not fail to previously approve the Plan.
(m) In connection with the adoption of the Plan, Latimer County communicated
to the City and the Authority that no additional County infrastructure and services are
required to serve development within the Urban Renewal Area.
(n) The Plan conforms to the general plan of the City as a whole.
(o) The Plan has afforded, and will continue to afford, maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the city as a whole, for the rehabilitation or
redevelopment of the urban renewal area described in the Plan by private enterprise.
Section 2. That approval of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan by the City Council in
Resolution 2011-081 is hereby ratified and reaffirmed, and the Authority is authorized and directed
to continue to carry out the Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Act, including but, not
limited to, the acquisition of real property by all legal means, including, but not limited to, eminent
domain, and to convey real property so acquired to private parties, in accordance with the Act, all as
described in the Plan.
Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
28th day of February A.D. 2013.
r,ITY O or
O
ATTEST:
n' 'n
City Clerk �qo0�.....�'
-5-
EXHIBIT A
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IffEl
■■■
low
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
Fj
Iri
-- Fj
[ [ IJ J r � r i�' llF - I
1, FF, I . 2r, 01 Ti
1Iry
j
PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PREPARED FOR : FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
of
..� ... Fort, ins 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
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
Fort Collins
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 ) ) :
City 4
.. r �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 .
City 5
Fort Collins
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) .
CityFort
of 6
� �r�t�s
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 1 : MIDTOWN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
0. f. .
l , f
W 'PROSPECTvRD ' k '. E PROSPECT Rouxv
• JI vu3I r �• . xs
.+ I - 1 �L,
L ILL
ur ILL
It
ui
WW DRAKE RD ; j E D KE RD
I . ILILW
IL
S
� I
� W
Vf Q
W
W_ (�
= J
{A J
RSET Ti RD v E HORSETOOTH RD
rn
I Jr
3 � + 4k
= +
� I
►. = w HARMONY RD E H R NY RD
Inv __ _ ;
14
a Q
al
CC
Midtown Commercial Corridors
Fort Collins r
w PAajor Streets 1 inch = 2 ,100 feet
Midtown Commercial Corridor April2011
aty of�"�tf 7
. • • . •
At
S S �._. , • • 0 G • ° L _. .Irt�RSrkMY. tifd �'t : � nrf '.�:.'itii • `• O •1 r ° �'
AD
`r
�( a - -
Ad
. e
LLl . o • oo • D a � or ooU d
• ° - .
F
91 I
r Ad
Y .
Olt
r
r aye .. •
. I
1 I I
. I I
• r
foal CIll Li)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
W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD u,
II
i
W
<k -
Y Section — = _- -:
LLJ
LLJ W HORSETOOTH RD J E HORSETOOTH RD
O o
J ` �
K
Sectio
W HARMONY RD�-� E HARMONY, RD
a
1 W
Study Sections FbrtCollins
;0 Midtown Shady Area Study Section 1
Major Streets Study Section 2 1 inch = 1, 800 feet
Study Section 3 April2011
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 )
City of
Fort S 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
C 12
Fort 5
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
108 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 Collins
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
Fortes has 14
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
D . RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY
The overall findings of the field survey are presented in this section . Table 1 tabulates the
results according to the criteria described in Section C .
TABLE 1 : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED
Deteriorated external walls ✓
Deteriorated visible foundation
Deteriorated fascia/soffits ✓
Deteriorated roofs ✓
Slum, Deteriorated gutters/downspouts ✓
Deteriorated or
Deteriorating Deteriorated exterior finishes ✓
Structures Deteriorated windows and doors ✓
Deteriorated stairways/fire escapes ✓
Deteriorated loading dock areas ✓
Deteriorated fences/walls/gates ✓
Deteriorated ancillary structures ✓
Inadequate street/alley width ✓
Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of traffic ✓
Poor provisions or unsafe conditions for the flow of pedestrians ✓
Defective or Inadequate emergency vehicle access
Inadequate Insufficient roadway capacity leading to unusual congestion of traffic ✓
Street Layout Poor vehicle access ✓
Poor internal circulation ✓
Substandard driveway definition/curb cuts ✓
Poor parking lot layout ✓
Faulty lot shape ( long, narrow, or irregularly shaped ) ✓
Faulty Lot Faulty lot layout ( impractical configurations resulting in stagnant,
Layout misused, or unused land ) ✓
Inadequate lot size ✓
moommooll
Fort Collins 15
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
TABLE 1 ( CONTINUED) : VISUAL CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT OBSERVED
Poorly lit or unlit areas ✓
Cracked or uneven surfaces for pedestrians ✓
Poor fire protection facilities
Inadequate sanitation or water systems ✓
Open/unenclosed trash dumpsters ✓
Evidence of contaminants or hazardous conditions or materials ✓
Unsanitary or High or unusual crime statistics
Unsafe Floodplains or flood prone areas
Conditions Open ditches/holes/trenches ✓
Poor drainage/evidence of standing water ✓
Insufficient grading/steep slopes
Illegal dumping/excessive litter/trash/debris/weeds ✓
Unsafe or exposed electrical wire ✓
Abandoned vehicles
Vagrants/vandalism/graffiti/gang activity ✓
Presence of billboards
Deterioration of signage or lighting ✓
Deterioration Deterioration of fences, walls, gates, or poles ✓
of Site or Other Unscreened trash/mechanical ✓
Improvements Deteriorated on-site parking surfaces/curb/gutter/sidewalk ✓
Neglected site/maintenance deficiencies ✓
Lack of landscaping/poorly maintained landscaping/overgrown
vegetation ✓
Unusual topography/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
..., .. .. . . FOn�.,�115 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 S 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.
Cityof 19 g
Fort Collins
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 1 23 1 43 1 35 38 1 18 15 1 17 1 14 15 1 21 1 9 15 263
TOTAL 26 51 79 82 69 41 30 44 36 37 15 25 535
,. . .�. .. �^�City of� 20
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 4 : LOCATION OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS 1999-2010
W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT 'RD
77=
f ■
f � �
i
_ v
W
� Q 1
Y
W DRAKE RD a
E'DRAKE RD �
p
v '^
N
N
in
0
JJ
W_
H
N
V HORSETOOTH RD 1 E HORSETOOTH D
a
W HARM NY'RD E HARMONY RD W
a
I n0 }
n O
n
n y�
n
M
u ® ■
ti M
1
Nuisance Violation Locations 1999 - 2010 Fo`' �uns
Major Streets 1 inch = 2,100 feet
Midtov/n Commercial Corridor April2011
Nuisance Violation Locations
ff� City of���tr 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 .
Fort Collins 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
College/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
College/Horsetooth 37
College/Boardwalk 17
College/Troutman 26
College/Kensington 19
College/Harmony 29
In addition to traffic data , the team also reviewed the recently updated list of transportation
capital improvement projects . Within the corridor, two pedestrian trail crossings are planned
along the railroad , in addition to several pedestrian connection improvements to remediate
discontinuous sidewalks . There are several intersection improvements planned along South
College Avenue at Horsetooth Road , Prospect Road, Boardwalk Drive, Monroe Drive, and
Swallow Road . A grade separated railroad crossing is another major project planned on Drake
Road . Figure 5 shows all the pedestrian , roadway, and railroad improvements planned for the
area .
Cit�Y�" t�ns 23
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
MOO
FIGURE 5 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
W PROSPECT RD" E PROSPECT RD
TO I Or
dr
Li
;�.
r
,
W DRAKE RD ; E -DRAKE RD
w ,
W
< / ui �f} f / �✓ w
y - Lu L Z
�r Legend
v, E •-HO d.,,
Midtown Commercial Corridor
Streets
Pedestrian Improvement
Railroad Improvement i
J Roadway Improvement
W HARMONY RD Pedestrian Improvement
maw
Intersection Improvement
Railroad Improvement
—{ Roadway Improvement
Capital Improvement Projects
crty or
. ForortCollins 1 inch = 2, 100 feet
'f1 AVril 2011
City t 24
Fort Collins
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 .
�t25
Jll1s
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
FIGURE 6 : DRAINAGE PROBLEM AREAS
1-_ r
W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD } 1
LLI
^L �til 1,
— ~W
_ � v
--
W DRAKE RD h E DRAKE RD +-,
n i
f ,
n N
r�
r•I i
u
- W HORSETOOTH RD n E HORS ETOOTH RD
n
> iti - -
Q
r
P
W HARMONY RD 1- �' E HARMONY RD
n
-i
Lj
I
r u
SIT O
Drainage Problem Areas , Fo;icoul►s
rrr'ti I.lidtov,n Commercial Corridor Moderate P isl. Floodplains
Streets High Pisl, Flo odplains 1 IIT( h = 2, 100 feet
Table P.et erence liumber Floodv,ar
April 2011
Girtof 26
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
III . CONCLUSION
Due to the presence of seven of the 11 factors of blight, staff concludes that the Study Area is a
blighted area as defined in Urban Renewal Law. By reason of the presence of numerous factors
identified in Section 103 ( 2 ) of the Urban Renewal Law and discussed above in Section D, the
Study Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City of Fort Collins, retards
the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic and social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare .
While some properties in the Study Area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and
substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area . It should be noted that this
conclusion is for the Study Area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties .
Appendix A documents the photographs that were taken during the field survey. The
photographs are divided according to the study section in which they were observed . A table
reports the condition of blight that the photograph represents, and that photograph can be
located on its corresponding study section map . Finally, each photograph can be viewed in
thumbnail form .
These results have been verified by a third party consultant for accuracy and qualified
assessment of the existing conditions .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
INN ...............
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
ci I 1" J Fj I Fj ci c � F —
I FFERDIX ANNSECTIONS i - 3 APRIL 201i
l
��
K i
NINON mNN,
.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
z ❑O=�o C o �,� � T . . � 4P;�x
16 e
' ! m I r r
.., . . 2� r:tw
..
u �• O I �— _F fj
�I r
RUTiGERS . VE
i.,
2 rit
--
r, r, r, r + ,iP P.
I yA� � •- � � 3� rl F1 rl
3R 14
I � Q
-
r
�13t
� A r
c �
q
� 5 .'
y ' 1 12
GOLUMBIov
A RD
E
In a :. yp to
1
, f y❑{ I ow
rV J
AV
� I
I
- iH
�. - CL=u 34 w • { 18 7 8
.'d35
5 32 56
L 9 I 1 If `• ,�,I 36� r 33 3 • y h.,iV
to
rot
1
II ° 19 . .6 2 _
.i q%i Ei 0! Fr 2l1 49 Q
38
39
40
I
16
r 25 24 28
41� t-
I— [_ 42 Lilt .. 2
r
Illu► .
30
P CET '
45
54
e
4 48 53
o_lo:jo "
W DRAKE U ""• "' �� E DRAKE U
1
Section 1 Photo Reference Map , ort` l
O Photo Rerence Number
r Study Section 1 1 inch = 200 feet
April 2011
3
MIDTOWN • •
• .r
/1 S
6.JPG • 7.JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10 .JPG
• • • •
L'
• JPG 17.JPG 18 .JPG 19.JPG 20.JPG
r
• .JPG 27.JPG 28 .JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG
a-r _
!OVA
-
_
•T
• •
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS
Mil,
• JPG 37.JPG 38 .JPG 39 . JPG I 1
ir
LL .
m
iiis
� l• a
• I i
1
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
. • . .
MEN
Ville Ill
All w
fill
116.
4ft
'
mil I
s d� c:
S - -
for jro
t
. .. GO
• � - ,
• �6 __
rU _x �; CmC�/yG3G0
Y Uab
t
,y' @ ,
rid q �:
r� ,t - :t
`V
Ill 09 tR
19
MI
It
JI
. !t . , a
101.1
I,I *EMfb
4,
If
♦ ,f 1 ,
� t Qq _a u iu
II
—„ .I ..
ac p� T
- _
v-, t� tit„y svi
V . ,. : :' CIII
fill
p 11 r F a Ly 011, 1 11 : i1 u XU4 : € • . .
;
QIt
I • . 00 T �' ' ..� • y pp..0 np' 1111iiiiiiiii .. • IN • .. . s " aN� iii"s� o • o off° "'
• • AAll
•
•ti
` . p
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
1 .JPG 2.JPG 3 .JPG 4.JPG 5 .JPG
i
6 .JPG 7.JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10 .JPG
fir
11 .JPG 12.JPG 13 .JPG 14 . JPG 15 .JPG
i
16 .JPG 17.JPG 18.JPG 19.JPG 20.JPG
At ip
t
it
1 �
21 .JPG 22.JPG 23 .JPG 24.JPG 25.JPG
S�
26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG
i MR
31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35 .JPG
14
MIDTOWN • •
36.JPG 37.JPG 38 .JPG • I 0
c R.
i as1" •` A b1
-_"'%- - 'ice' . '•�'''%-,
n- fo�
I
46 .JPG 47 . JPG48 .JPG 49.JPG ,
Nit
59.JPG . 0
•gyp nnuu:�� �J_ - ��.�
Opp
...�
M
66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG • •
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
. .,� ..V-..
l
71 .JPG 72 .JPG 73 .JPG 74.jpg 75 .JPG
.. . • ^ I +F�1. a V _
76 .JPG 77. JPG 78 .JPG 79.JPG 80 .JPG
k;A I
A'A
' Y
81 .JPG 82.JPG 83.JPG 84.JPG 85.JPG
F.. •aK �lVyl
t
t
86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG 90.JPG
EL
"mow
mum w
91 .JPG 92.JPG 93.JPG 94 . JPG 95 .jpg
96 .JPG 97.JPG 98 .JPG 99. JPG 100 .JPG
- f
1.
V "
1
101 .JPG 102.JPG 103.JPG 104.JPG 105 .JPG
16
MIDTOWN • •
J • g�� M1f • w• JL _ _
w
16 17.JPG 108 .JPG 109. JPG1
_ •!all
• JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120 .JPG
1
IIIIIIIIIIIlllllll►I' p�,� ��,�
i
129.JPG 130 .JPG
Nil
t 0 t
• JPG 137.JPG 138.JPG 139.JPG 140.JPG
MIDTOWN • •
141 .JPG 142.JPG 143 .JPGi
WARifilla
4.
lip
MAa6 Ir. &m -=I- I I
I • I • .JPG '
� 1
t� n��e. t � �•/ri1Q.+ . R i
•
• JPG 157.JPG 158 .JPG 159.JPG` 160.JPG
• • • • I
Ilk 21!:
• • .JPG • • i .JPG • •
IR
_ r A�
60
18
MIDTOWN • •
176 .JPG 177. JPG • : 1
Yt
181 .JPG 182.JPG : : :
ICEAt
: • 7 : 7.JPG 188.JPG 189.JPG 190 .JPG
r
201 .JPG1 / 3 .JPG 204.JPG 205.JPG
repv - - - r
a�
� 1
_ � r
16 17.JPG 208.JPG 209.JPG1
MIDTOWN • •
WWI
qq
PL
I
wC
• JPG 217.JPG 218 .JPG 219.JPG 220.JPG
229.JPG 230.JPG
7d
�v 1
` •
i'
• JPG 237.JPG 238 .JPG 239.JPG 240.JPG
AL
20
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
F"aA�w
4 JA I W,
246 .JPG 247.JPG 248 .JPG 249.JPG 250 .JPG
251 .JPG 252.JPG 253.JPG 254.JPG 255 .JPG
256.JPG 257.JPG 258.JPG 259.JPG 260.JPG
_ :
._ JiI1
r
i
r� 1�4� 1
00
261 .JPG 262.JPG 263 .JPG 264.JPG 265.JPG
i
266 .JPG 267.JPG 268 .JPG 269.JPG 270 .JPG
271 .JPG 272.JPG 273 .JPG 274.JPG 275 .JPG
_ r
ttk
276.JPG 277.JPG 278.JPG 279.JPG 280 .JPG
21
MIDTOWN • •
:4
288 .JPG 289.JPG 290 .JPG
Aube
lv�* L `
1,
299.JPG 300 .JPG
0 -
- U
22
E '
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
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
.% O i
HORS � _
m IN HORSETOOTH RD - - - -= E ETOOTH RD -
�i .^ F 107E 101 8 N It 56 771 72 * - 2 io �.. : T f "».,..gp ryD T '
m - FT
r u 110 �7 78 71 �,a
Q .i' ' > _ 104105d01n007344 - 80 69 66 67 �334 . . .
, .' ' _ c 102, 9.3 95 8&41 62 65— �i35 11 t ..
I. Om r ._. I'I O 12 111 �7 96 83 4: 8561 6364 -7. L
10
HAVEN OR r-- 90,fjg�98 86 i59 60 /36 c A
. { Y l ll � l 8988 1307 5� 37
4 '113 LEEWARD,' ..P ENEW R ' a 131 1- 5] CT ,
128 54 39 S„
tC {f,: r 126 53—�5 56��gg4038 8. F i
127 115\. 52 50�nq 19 18 �- 9, - - �r BO
i �� �. ❑ 117� --116 Zg 1 WLINE7CT-r'
n 125129
DENNISON CT m 118g651 _47 -
.. a ❑ 453i,42 b-r.v..s
s id 123 4 4j- �i ! r _ 4
DENNISON AVE { Z.
io 132 - �� ' ',-� � z •' s - "' ,
122 25 2.4 m "
'�'34133 121 119 27 { �r f" fg (
i 1� *-� / 143 120�142 �� v ' y✓ s ,
ALBION WAY ih36 ,{} - 1W 302928 -
z 1
I r 0137 _ - _� 140 31 P3 �� - z
'.O E _ ' ir' • 145 139138 :. n. w
146 Q NZ IF
" 15
a W B 162 r AROw
SMAtka r , p
,:. 212213 23 R 'a• •�
/225
211 206 �
APIE ' H 210 208
{215 209 207 r
a r
ST RUNG 5T
S '
z p .,
a
� au 32 G
-
�
s1r ,• C v ' t ` •
Rk rQ c
44
SI
❑
. : 325f -
n I 0 328 34 t
TOWHEE ST iui 334 31T :/ o , .
335333 K' 327 326 1 -
36
RCI - E H RMONY RD
3813l* '
341 361 w
. . 362 1360 G 382 i
p � � 'r�� 1 338 o 385 383 - . ..
s 337 359 w 384 -.) c
- r 363 O 369 370 ❑I o� `� �,
u ui C9 .w♦ p
` n -
., ` 0 4,5 347348 349350 367308 311 4
346
: ❑1 358 351 352 373 i ` =d .t . . (iR • _ -
07356 35535453 374 -" alr�, r-` _ '� €'�•,,a. �i'2 a�. E.y
F e
1rw Ito
i
/376 y w• * k�.• E QR•
k:. . I,. ., '. .e .
Iv,
P
pi 379 it py . rn_ .,
It
it
S J r. 01 364 ❑ «"„'.....-"r � Ox u
366
< m] IWiFA'IRWAI 365 380 FAIRW V N J -
OLL . •.
i 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
1 .JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG 4.JPG 5 .JPG
74
lA
r A
`•�� i
6 .JPG 7. JPG 8.JPG 9.JPG 10.JPG
11 .JPG 12 .JPG 13.JPG 14.JPG 15.JPG
aim
16.JPG 17.JPG 18.JPG 19.JPG 20.JPG
MIN
21 .JPG 22.JPG 23.JPG 24.JPG 25 .JPG
26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 30 .JPG
�: ,. I � ��, ~+r • -tee
31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34.JPG 35.JPG
34
MIDTOWN • •
36 .JPG 37.JPG 38 .JPG • ' 41
•-
t
1� 4
f
46 .JPG 47. JPG 48 .JPG 49.JPG1
•
Y • ; Yw
- L•
. . 't".�... Mgr _ _ T .-'_► �'d _ . , � .'a - ' �
a_
59.JPG . 1
' 7v r.•" t
Jam• ' i` ^i4 � . � .
• • ,
t \\ 1 1
.' � ` . ` • I r St-.4 ' �//r � �,, ` . , / -yam
P Ll
66.JPG 67.JPG 68 .JPG 69.JPG 70 .JPG
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS
IF
doIot __ -_
to
toAoitJ 16666
I
tm�mwr
._I ' FL
79.JPG : 1
ik i k9l lim
86.JPG 87.JPG 88.JPG 89.JPG • 1
yi
101 .JPG 102.JPG1 II 1
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
kk
106 .JPG 107.JPG 108.JPG 109 . JPG 110 .JPG
r
111 .JPG 112.JPG 113 .JPG 114.JPG 115 .JPG
• log
116.JPG 117.JPG 118.JPG 119.JPG 120 .JPG
a
imp,.
121 .JPG 122.JPG 123 .JPG 124.JPG 125.JPG
I
i
si. -
log
126 .JPG 127.JPG 128 .JPG 129.JPG 130 .JPG
`., . -
jr
131 .JPG 132.JPG 133 .JPG 134.JPG 135.JPG
136.JPG 137.JPG 138.JPG 139.JPG 140.JPG
37
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
.. i . All
141 .JPG 142.JPG 143 .JPG 144.JPG 145 .JPG
oz
f � t .
146 .JPG 147.JPG 148 .JPG 149.JPG 150 .JPG
id�7
151 .JPG 152.JPG 153.JPG 154.JPG 155.JPG
� Dw
156.JPG 157.JPG 158.JPG 159.JPG 160.JPG
4 9
� I
� � I
�+ a
161 .JPG 162 .JPG 163 .JPG 164.JPG 165.JPG
s�
166 .JPG 167.JPG 168 .JPG 169.JPG 170.JPG
171 .JPG 172.JPG 173.JPG 174.JPG 175.JPG
38
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
L IqK �
PI
. t, A &
176 .JPG 177 . JPG 178 .JPG 179.JPG 180 .JPG
1
r l Aloo
-
181 .JPG 182.JPG 183 .JPG 184.JPG 185 .JPG
►-- � � -+sly -. - � - t-
IA„ To" Avrare+n[
IY .�Yf je
186 .JPG 187.JPG 188 .JPG 189.JPG 190 .JPG
4 _ _
191 .JPG 192.JPG 193.JPG 194.JPG 195.JPG
196 .JPG 197.JPG 198 .JPG 199.JPG 200.JPG
_
1
'r
201 .JPG 202 . JPG 203 .JPG 204.JPG 205 .JPG
N1
04. _
206 .JPG 207.JPG 208 .JPG 209.JPG 210 .JPG
39
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
211 .JPG 212 . JPG w 213 .JPG 214.JPG 215 .JPG
' cr
216 .JPG 217.JPG 218 .JPG 219.JPG 220 .JPG
a 0 FjL
221 .JPG 222 . JPG 223.JPG 224.JPG 225 .JPG
771
ti
226 .JPG 227.JPG 228.JPG 229.JPG 230.JPG
F
. �
� r
231 .JPG 232 .JPG 233 .JPG 234.JPG 235.JPG
-fiAr
236.JPG 237.JPG 238 .JPG 239. JPG 240 .JPG
-�, . •Ir 4 - - - - - -
h
241 .JPG 242.JPG 243.JPG 244.JPG 245.JPG
40
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
!!!111��yClll 1
246.JPG 247.JPG 248 .JPG 249.JPG 250 .JPG
- I
772
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
not
/ yr
1
266 .JPG 267.JPG 268 .JPG 269.JPG 270 .JPG
271 .JPG 272.JPG 273.JPG 274.JPG 275 .JPG
wit7 _
276 .JPG 277.JPG 278.JPG 279.JPG 280 .JPG
41
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
7;,q
-
281 .JPG 282 .JPG 283 .JPG 284.JPG 285 .JPG
r _
will
r
286 .JPG 287.JPG 288 .JPG 289.JPG 290 .JPG
> .
a` 1 lowIr
♦ . fit � _ Mom, . 1r^,J• .
Aq
v._ .
291 .JPG 292 . JPG 293 .JPG 294. JPG 295 .JPG
i
-
F
296.JPG 297.JPG 298.JPG 299.JPG 300.JPG
301 .JPG 302 .JPG 303 .JPG 304.JPG 305.JPG
f � -
306 .JPG 307.JPG 308.JPG 309.JPG 310.JPG
•.� s . ® y
C 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
--r
321 .JPG 322.JPG 323 .JPG 324.JPG 325 .JPG
1
326.JPG 327.JPG 328 .JPG 329.JPG 330.JPG
+.
y
331 .JPG 332.JPG 333.JPG 334.JPG 335.JPG
336 .JPG 337.JPG 338 .JPG 339.JPG 340 .JPG
Aid f- a
341 .JPG 342.JPG 343 .JPG 344.JPG 345.JPG
_ q
t
346 .JPG 347. JPG 348 .JPG 349.JPG 350 .JPG
43
MIDTOWN • •
Tnilm AS
go
bib
356 .JPG 357.JPG 358 .JPG • • 1
366.JPG 367.JPG 368.JPG . • 1
Adkp
• .JPG 377.JPG 378 .JPG 379.JPG 380.JPG
S
• • 4
MIDTOWN EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
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
A
4p I .
t' ' � il01Ce -
enter �. _ , . _ ► �,
t
- 0 r f� ■
irm Am
_ 1
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING
FORT COLLINS CONDITIONS STUDY
L
M
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
F City llinS AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
f� ❑ C T ❑ B E R 200 S
� II
• ®r
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
IF
I � E 4 UI� 6 woo I
� •`= w
-
IWN`.�WILFAK ::---r—� :: T - k
i�
W1 INN
` r • � twr
1 • • •• • + •- . Val
4 - &,W PROSPECT , _ E P.RQSPEOT+RD
1
Fr
•■ rin Not
INC A = r» ■ " r� 3� 1!'1►►�
on
ANN
t e Iv
- " PARKER.ST I
AII.J"-O •o- a
y
?, N. w tui
wall
IF I
liALPEMAVE
NWI
_ . � x . •
`" -• V0 ; 11 �161
�' � Ili-
_ � . Jo r' E(S;Tt)ARTc& _
' +
&4"
r�l 1 � No
2 c l _ h Y
NO
e JOH N DR '
�-' t s!"� jSPRING PARKIDRI a
c >LtL , - lot �. l -
m zr�- t
z ,
n 0
i 1
.• -� , ! — tom;. � ... iT ' 401.� �,JJ
'N.T
ilk
! _ - UTGERS AVEL � • = L
Clio
Exhibit 2- 1 : Study Area Boundary Map
Prospect South Study Area 0 100200 4W 600 800
URS Feet
4 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 2-2 : Vicinity Map
"91"IF1 VOW VIP
1 1
Ift
Ift
oft .r ' r r - �` # fy _ ram' • _ tEi:• ti �j ' • � ''a'�'' ys� eLaureliSt: ' "
It 11
A
��,3►, � Food
� f rye r!' . � 4
1 • � ` .� a 1 I 6W Not
Wit i� •4
I ��i�.`i •Z . �• � C��0f3-C�;�3.r ��f ':'rEiiY:1/� � - � - 1, .' � Ilk
-
WIN
(= 1
r - f oil -
: i: - : I
N . � ( � . � •.A! ' ti .ry Ill / ; I .i Y .
IT
�R_ M�I w • . . ,� L - Moms � � � • also. 1
Vot
nsoft
♦ Y 11 �.
t 1
J ' To . l �` + k `Prospe�cttRd I • i' I'zs —►
MAN AIW to
INK IF
A4 I ; �� . mow, � •
10 Fool,
to
to
INLo
IF Fk
Foot '= '�
Mine
� . t r r �¢ 1 • �
n
(/� , nC �. ti7-c ` Mfg
.1 . . ` , . : - - - to V : ' - - - • JIB ) ■,
Vt
`� , r 2 I • y.
se�*\ i
IF
Volk �1� Drake.Rd : :,
4 ~
(IVJ L.AN
iMe
r ..
Exhibit 2 - 2 : Vicinity Map
NProspect South Study Area
— Fixed water course FEMA floodway US 0 625 =M = Feel
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.
!ITT In TIT
� ' Mr /!
see
•—� ,—�,E- W1L�AK: M i EI gel
LA IT Ll�
�En ,
�It.S R fie, �SN J[�
. ' lug
_TIT
ift
Rol W
u is W P,ROSPECT 'RD • 2 . ., _ ElP.RO,SP. ECTjRD VAM. ,.
Slid
agoo rp
Clap 64
AN
En Pa
�� � ,
0 ]rpm
7L'!1' K r PARKER ST Kim � lujff i
r
i� «1� Q' 71�
4 I��C �!� '
Ili . NOW", .
- •aI �a " ou
� �ALP.ERMAVE
1 Uj
MIT Veto
01 Mh���
t9 (� l 'fwlii • IW .
=j Mot
�. W•
� � � • � 0EISILl1QRT�5:T �o •
+ r M—. z •�
�1f r -
it NDR. j
»� jSPRING •PARKIDRS a � r
f"
` '� " I ` A
• ' age
tlrige
/* It
- -_• got Feet
A/M4
1 rlt MG -
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
tit . 1
i�sy _ �.� "-WILAKE4S;TsrL► maw E LAKE S
' ■ m or 8503 88
Li
01101 ;p 1 # 4 - 11 11 U)
it 113
� ; ■ "`. �•�l,�amg 1 ' 1 LIVEJ
'Ill� IYi e9`IIW �'
-Zj "JILT
Mai 82
I 1 F•—! . � ' , aaE >f ' 1-,_-w a �' s, ( [LAIIII,• �;�i1L, � .>ei � f � .
iO1WPROSPECT.RD .ra. � .. 7 :6 't � E;P,RO_SPECTjiRD
21 It
19
at tit 23 114060 0: 2 1 A
Lt
awl
W.
( N ' . a . `1� 5�tr� �.T'lZfJ� lti11
. M �. J_�/` _ ''� IliQ , 9' '28 2a 38I I �: 'H ��I H. a> � �:::C9���
�25� 11. 30 6 �, 7 � �� � ��iam 'SZI.
- _ 4 as ZY r. Q.. - ... . �
e Tit
I r 7+ g10 11 zt - .II�PARKER_ST , I 15
"Mow , �W ��I ' �E `Uj
UI
_
432KIM Ill.ERT�AVE
1 I
R+ ' ^ � �i . l__ •4 �> ErSTUA. T ST
' , UP ` I . �
C ►' ss
ro E, fy a4 � f i rq V 1� a ' _t t !!r
O �•• Aits ZZ
na+ . 0
Ifl , / I� �. , � P.
I p JOHNSONDR5i -' '• Q�
W SPRING ' PARKTDRItimis
1
z121
II in
,
MINIMUM- ' g i �1 ' .•
62' 73 ' tom '•• I ?lu 1 I _
59
074 i11 _ titIP
+W}7s'I�' M DARTMOWHOM
70
; /41
fi♦. 'fit�ITI ; )!1 �e7 V t � . 1 . l►.i l _ ii3 � J
( ' I'1 1 �j "' '>f l RUTGERS ACE L �� 1F, J
till 1.41
Fm
4rid
Exhibit 3 = 1 : Photograph Reference Map
25 Photograph Reference Number 0 100200 400 600 800
Prospect South Study Area MIS 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 South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet
r
1 .JPG 2.JPG 3 .JPG 4.JPG S .JPG
6.JPG � . JPG 8 .JPG 9.JPG 10.JPG
all —
--A- -- ZEE
11 .JPG 12 .JPG 13 .JPG 14.JPG 1 S .JPG
16.JPG 17.JPG 18 .JPG 19.JPG 20.JPG
21 .JPG 22.JPG 23 .JPG 24 . JPG 2 S .JPG
23 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued)
1
26.JPG 27.JPG 28.JPG 29.JPG 1 LJPG
„ter
31 .JPG 32.JPG 33.JPG 34 .JPG 3 S .JPG
36 .JPG 37 .JPG 38 .JPG 39 .JPG 40 .JPG
µ , .
41 .JPG 42 .JPG 43 .JPG 44 .JPG 4 S .JPG
- ► - r/ r
0.4
46 .JPG 47.JPG 48 .TPG 49 .JPG 50 .TPG
24 October 2008
Prospect South Existing Conditions Study
Exhibit 3-2 : Field Survey Photograph Index Sheet (continued)
51 .JPG 52.JPG 53 .JPG 54.JPG 55 .JPG
56.JPG 5 7 .J PG 58.JPG 59.JPG 60.JPG
61 .JPG 62 .JPG 63 .JPG 64.JPG 65 .JPG
66.JPG 67.JPG 68.JPG 69.JPG 70.JPG
71 .JPG 72 . JPG 73 .JPG 74.JPG 75 .JPG
25 October 2008
Prospect
ExhibitField Survey Photograph In1 1
[NEE
76.JPG 77.JPG . ; ,
r _ K
Q • 4;
, � y
81 .JPG 82.JPG • • ; ,
@A [A� m
"t - -
k
; ; .
AL
7460
. .
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 1 OS .JPG
106.JPG 107.JPG 108.JPG 109.JPG 110 . JPG
111 .JPG 112 .JPG 11 3 . JPG 1 14 . JPG 115 .JPG
% R
l441.
1 16 . JPG 117 . JPG 11 S . JPG 119 . JPG 120 .JPG
IL
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 128.JPG 1 ? 9 . 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
. i
i
� 7
F! 1
R
J■ J �
4�
J
OL
meow
t� v
fop
ip
t.
alai EAST TUFTS AVE ,
D E N V E R ❑ ❑ S ❑ 2 3 7
i
MN 16 �d
A
01ce � 1 '
- _ enter i•A- , . } . - T
Aw
SPIN
,I
IIII II 1
APPENDIX C -
FIELD SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS
PROSPECT SOUTH EXISTING
L
M
CONDITIONS STUDY
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
F City
yof i115 AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
f� ❑ C T ❑ B E R 200 8
r .
, ,
Fi _ .
i
1
i
. tars • � ,
J
Mao
We
1
,awa
Alf or
1 ` —• / - r
A.
Ast
dy
fwo
4 WrOf a
4,
dor
10
� - _ . { i fir• I A.. M o/
AMA 4
.1
IF
* 'FFF
3 .JPG
r
At -
y
t ,
L r $ � V
r , � - t tK�
v r '
4.JPG
ey _
ego" J
� 1
1
5 .JPG
l
6.JPG
I
7.JPG
RR
I
C► �
.ti
s —l7
a , d �
8.JPG
wrnin point g
lk
m * ,
�.
AR
Nr
. 44
Al
dtf
Lo
� %�.�;,ry �� Sri' - -y�► � � � � ..
low
9.JPG
ol
y +
il' ' tit •�
•5 . / fs`
1 O.JPG
_ r
10
Ali, N
,
L4AM
i I � ► ti
oil
09
jroWr
A �- �. •'
-
7 � ` r �
. 7
J _
`. . . .
i
ice '•
1Pod
t
II '
III VON
A '
r
U
13 .JPG
Ir
14.JPG
7 _
_ r+
- l . fit> > • • ' - .
y .
r '
v
� �,1 - •• - . _ ��,,• Imo• ' �' !� �;. � •
p
T
��� Ire—. .s - i � ! . ` -Y• � �
All
1
`. Ow 1
to
It
oil
yi `��`.. f. j mil, -' �� • : �. - ,' T*• �y_ , �
• tj f
I
r�
1
t
_'
Y � r
4 � _
l 1
w Awl
S �
i
4
, I
1 �
Art galloolit Plenty flum Us
at this P1,11191
Do the) F&AIIY 0190d
I
or
"emu lifie Oil eampal4i*s
n
19.J
�� err ' 4.wrS.t rrw Y •
_``,r�' ��� •- — cif.��� _t'�' , �� ���
t
Oat
Nip
to Air 0 A am
41,
10
- i
� ' .
. y
. •
.►
1 '
• Tait 4
kCal
cicj
•
bps
y
.r.
Y
mw�
1
bib
Y 1
• _
1 -
A - -
'1
i
y - i
25 .JPG
, 1
t
r
26.JPG
Way
y . . .
�tv
•r1 ( ip. . •1e�• .• . .
� V7�r' n
- Mr � • r - T
�1 y
off
: 4 1
1 .
2 / .J i V
I
I 1 ,
I y
I I 11KIM
r .
i
1
I = i
o
I � IY
r
2s .JPG
t `
Y
L � t
s ,
: _ y
_ 7
v
_ h _
r
1
I
I
1
I
II
I �
r�
s
35 .JPG
y
• r v '
I
36.JPG
y 1 -
- . f — -
It I
• � 1
it ♦ /
♦ It , • �
r ^
Ott
It
iy� , . ► .
It
IF
.116
r `
a r
37 .JPG
r
all ,
4/ —
38 .JPG
Apt rAL
-� �, . , � • *41
aj
NO!IkO
f •,
POP
;• : � `.
IV
-k mks
R .. i `.;
°: 1me
Ad
to
Alm-
_ - . �� 5.1 4 • `� . mil,
1
39.JPG
40
r
OR
lr t M` , • , �•I • - w
i { •� � IIL' ' , � } ~ - 'tom+ -
ov
ti• '
td4 e
04
40
� f
1
40.JPG
ps two
am
Z �
FISHING
1� 1
1
L •
�• I
1 Ir,
1�
r
_ mow i
.y
43 .JPG
CLIMATE�H •��
44 . JPG
� ni 4 �1
I`
" I
kT
•
45 .JPG
1
46.JPG
A blu
�
� I
VL
v' •� , .r_ :I . . .�� • � '' , NX � ' � 4'N ram'.+-� ' � f�. ' ,' �� �
1 � I
• I
era;'�•�;, `� ;�i .. � ,,�.< . • ; 1
t.
�f M
I •
. H
i
1
1. • - t
- 1
_- 4 - � _ _ 1 1 •tip tip.
49.JPG
!mot r -
ilk L9
i .dCT
� r
50.JPG
F
Ir
51 .JPG
who
IL
. .�
�1
52 .JPG
r �
toes
T _
r �..�.�
_- - - 1
Aft - . .
`� •
- r
i
op
• r s r
• � mot* � I
AL
010
I i
IPWW
6xbrC1 .
Y-
• �.
PON
t
/ a a/ fir ► .r , .. �� �• - - 1
�•s.rr ••1 .�.• 71'' •i . � . . � L1
s . . ,c
owe
r i r-r4
few-wopbft
OV
_ _�" � .r .,,. �.,� _•ter
� la
seam 1
IVOR
ftr -ArL
� w
57 .JPG
I
S �
58 .JPG
y
• 1 '
. , .
, �
� •
�:
. , � ,
- . -�`
- . ..� � •sue `��-e�
,� �ap�
. ,
�' - r
' ' , .♦
r
� .
•� i t.
• , . � =� . -
� �_ � ' �
� � �
� • �.
..�1 � - �
e
• N
M � �
t .
LEsAtE
ol
1
•
iLk
65 .JPG
r �
I
i
l -
-
66.JPG
r
J
r ,
Y
1
z�
V
. • A� 1
71 .JPG
7 "'- ktM U.
p T
oil
FF
72 .JPG
i
t`
J
T
7mr � 11AADMUT
RECUMBENTruE PRf.CSER FOOT
: sic .►p
Nail spa & *Eire] TOLL
v
jift
Boutique MESS ��fl -I -. 1 • "•
491
�, � �,,,.�'1*GSM � • .
t'
t v
�c
r
- 1
i
r
iA
77 .JPG
rTi. .-
ale
14
1
78 .JPG
r — - - --ram.
»a•
twat
SSrlcctiun =�
l tn%urPA%Wd!lk
_
f l
I
�i
r i K
4 •� a
79 .JPG
7w INK
is
'1• • JAM
. 1
• fln .
14
J �� r
f )► �tF: r� r r
r . f � fry �
� f�l►lr.� , , , . r , r �
80.JPG
1 .y
_ �. .. _
` '� •� l i •i�,l T - i•• .v � r ;,, ;� . , sf,�., y , _ .� . ' r����nfi�• l _
_ ; + • � � a c• ,
r. .
f• � I
s . �.. its . r - �f t • ,
� Nam/ {. • . . - - ._
'�'� , ..mot ,. ' . 1 ��:�;Y'� • , .
Af - • AI '�
1
1 i' .. IF ' 1 � • ' 4 • -
qd
Its 0
oc
• • r � ilp � � 1~I
.4 11
4 ► .
f
_ � ram;••.S'
K �•
7
_ 1 �
� r
•mot � . .
1
� S r
- - t
•
1 \
1 -
I
AN
IMP
I.
io
Ip
klet
40 ,
amp
AT
ti � I
Arm
rL i
' r
• � J
+ �s �
i
•
l
t
89 .JPG
r
9o .JPG
r s•
• V
N . •
� 1
• . A
It rA
lip
t i A • ' ' • • I f `.
orpr
tI
iv
• �� •, 1 K ,
` � _y 1 - 'yt• ( \ : � ` . • Mom , • •�
. r 1tp
♦j '
It
1 ^ {
• ' ' 1 s
I f •�
• - 1
. r , • -
INV .
r
95 .JPG
ON
Auto Insurance
Asegurt al
V ,
pppp
1
96.JPG
i1 � 7 l • � .�F �
�t
i
1
97 .JPG
98 .JPG
— -& , ` +`
14% . alkp
l� .
i
!,d%EL—
I
t
.s
-
s �
M
0
� r
mop" '
LO
• . , ',,� + .fir_ �., -
VA
1 �`
. .+oH
dome
, .
Y • , � � I Irl • 1 I '
� I I
1 •
_ _ r
I •
I
'I
L ,
I
r ;
I _
t
103 .JPG
L L -
j - aw . -
104.JPG
� -
ip
e'
1 '
a �
J
1 1 � • 4�
r
1 . '
J �
AR,�oRI
?Yi
� 1 r
r
i
kq
_ •fir .
107.JPG
i
0i '
,,-
1
ti
• a •� r / 1
T �
t 4t
LOP
Jir-
1 ' '
' � � • �~mot/
41
K �
1 '
• �w
L "
t .
111 .JPG
r -
. � L
J L �� •
C _
\
• it
ti
7 � �
112.Ji G
j�
l' �^
1
• - e
G
ppr
l
115 .JPG
rr
' 1
WC
10
Of. -
� err
� 4
r
116.JPG
tr
� � '1�1WiIlJWWJI
41
PIZ
tt
117.JPG
pp
118.JPG
LOANSPAYDAY
liflm
♦ "•
r �l
i
RESERVED
PARKING
RETAIL &
Him
7 IF 0
:.4 .:.o
' ; r
Oki
It • ?
Enter rise
,
F
1
t _ ••
` tto IF, vol
b�
r �
A� •T
i
w
125 .JPG
.r�
As
. L
�r
r
v .
126.JPG
do
Y ,
all
r_
S To f du
f�y(ry�aQY S.
I ON
�ir
hk
ils
Poo
60 • ' Pt �T'•it
Ok
WNC
4
r,
•, t
f
0 AV
+ `
ORD
o
ry
Go
VP
to-14 o Moo
No
dMb
Ama
• _ •� mo J• 1
� Lr A
129.JPG
ri
i
1 �
— e
IlTft -
' R --V 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
Ov
N .0 ly r t V.: r r
It IV .
W�PROSPECT -RD '- E PROSPECT RD % -
p
N jpq 94 r • r, r �b ++( ra w r
!) .: I r\ 11 f1T r.. ' • - � I ' I� � w >< _• ,. 1 p vA _ t . 4 �• � ° 1 f�
ip
bill t
I
e: •. r0 n IT
0
to
f El
LU
VV
El I
IV
�:,�pi; r Rid• _ Z '�1_ 4� �
+5 CTI( 1 a
�"• Li
Li- Y
U- - ;y r_ 1 i i V Op u 1�
Els
IF 0
Li W r ArJ IV
� _
Li
lift
AT r
Y
JLJ
1 -
r1 k t
❑
- - - — p
��rL.._ ..,.
Vi
ode w
Lwt
r
aci
_ sT t
El
'l l Fc
p vEl
LJ
El
- . ,.
n r, .. r, �".
y 1
_ ❑ r lot
h •'
t r • •
Prospect South Study Area City of
Major Streets 1 inch = 350 feet
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
s
T
i1 • r ` �f ��
' � r
- I �
�• T `f�lY y 4
nitL�YN,� '• .a ;�. � few�� - ` � • ^\- i ';C_W � :j :;3
F �
y � { ' ' c G�'4 ♦ .n 'Yf �8 �.
�•S i i ' �- y r vim '. ,- . \ � =�! � -
iw r }
tyi � y
L . 'S:f'9� ��.t • - _ r'c �/�w Z_ - �v, _ .- by 1_ . .- - c _
1 --
BEHNINA'
1
1
3
FOOTHILLS MALL
EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
City of Fort Collins
r 71*� v lop, 4
pc Al A
14
r. . . ,. ,a..•
. '
.� I
46
1 1s + '+
jw
r • f y . � f
LL ' { r
16
w�wsaroo+ww �. - - - SVC
40
IV r
— - er,uumom•e � _
► -� J *.
May 15 , 2007
Preparcd 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 CIAIR RD
C7 O Gw,Y(c�'P 94�0
Z
ElEl L
W SWALLOW RD E SWALLOW RD o
0 ❑ � C� � ; C� � Z
N
e
0
Q
0
�o
o
��NROE DR
w
a
w
U
w
L) O
U
N
0 0 a
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
VON
it
11 so
..:;._ ♦ .�. :� �.!Y r .Its.► .•� ANN ; OKI
'4t
ESWALLOW RO
-Ole m%bm
417,
_
\ ? 9 iF.. VOI
d7 yh '
•P
f 1 � � f• a\Ob ` � Q•
Ir
Q
IN I
ot
•- mow.. � 1 , I . y �i � -'.
4QK
1 I aOr
_ t . ' l - j . . ;u wait
.
i
' C MOXROC OR
• t, • a w�.; . , � ' . , 11 .,1/�l ' - -1 �• '. � - _ �t tom. Ijra WWI
♦ .. . N � • ` f,
. • \ . . .4 '
'w MoaRuc DR y r � �� ' -
L
,, ♦ r� '1
W 11ORSCTOOiH RO- M, - .f • - - E HORSETOOTNJlO �••'�` }
• 3 17
ix 4
3. .. e_ t .+ •� '
NIX
- Ijai .,
® Existing Conditions oon
� Figure 2: Survey Area Boundaries
Boundaries nN
CIWo( renCei ' 0 150 300 600
..,Il.pw mm, Feet
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Tare Associates - 8 -
FORT COLLINS
Foothills Mall
RL
pt
a+ R F
i!] S
MMN
. . I e rrarroe u•
w .neeeaerww t.uxut�o:.. ..
E ].O < < .
® Existing Conditions Survey L1g6vndcen +.enoarceirrumoei C" Zoning ® LA nimCV aeyMnea.u» r{epMD.vnow FIGURE 3 : ZONING nN
CmatItinLullim ce�.,eTma - Gdlneotl F— 1 D yRw Mml 0 100 200 400 A v Feet
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
Sompomolt
n 7, 1 Sol
•1R!
g ..
WA
it
-... _ �
moo �. ,e_�r .ice -,
W SKAI l OW RO _
SSW 5
D
Pla
Sells a
a `
0 it
It
M _ S 90
Loading arca;6extetL ,
drive lanjWA Si
4p � cp d
Building
.,. . I 04F r _ 'E S constrai ed by to
K FUO1111LLS PRwr _ > ` Tor . " conflgu>Ml ion' It •
lmil
♦ ���
y MlssincL3ldewalks\ I !^ ' � • / `` s � '.
le r
41
�qf 3"d look
� '1 0
O • 1 "to Aj
. r
_ f 1 . V a �u ,. v � .
E MONROE OR
Poorly defined circulauo "r .Sol $
" fkd 9 . • —
� * le
` oral ` • •- � K t I
la
mar
Sol I So
t _ Ir • ,r , . lea
..c ••
YV MpRROL DR 1 .t Ir r •• rt
Wolf
It
sill
iSol I
w � • Y� 1
f\ r
. . I .. ' Ir ,'� .I - r / r IS~ .• •:.oral . yu ' -
�\.
�—ft loom
IF do
_
"ORSETOOTN RO - moral i - E NOR 51; TO Gr V • . 3 _
r ii • - al � . XjJ rib"• •.
L al tmal
Iw I
t loll
• 03
wr
OWt
Existing Conditions Survey
Figure 4: Survey Finding Examples N
Lrn ,rllrrrlL .rflr". 0 150 300 600 A
Feet
4rrr n
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
a -
'1)
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�
Yam::
Z
y�
l
K ITy
� t• -�, �.'� � ill 4 .
4Ki �
4.3 Faulty Lot Layout.
Foothills Mall Existing Conditions Survey — City of Fort Collins Terrance Ware Associates - 20 -
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 im acts the safety of vehicles and pedestrians .
Ow
\ v
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
f r h or
1 �i t • � .1., _ �� 1 r _ tt
r y�
_ � rI , � �' �• f� p{ -�4�� :1 �`.•� r ~ r �,tr ,.�i � � ti. : f�r•� i FA _ 1 � ,� ' .
ty� k Fr+7CCTt CCU ; f� _ t + rr O C f=G =CCC�Cf LAC _ Cf 7 ' 7=Lt C ?
Li
El
n A y - LA
Li •' t , rr tl Y r , n r r - _ "1 `C .
if I-1 fly. ;1r�Li
r - - • .
l
w
• 1*4
T-
n ° ter. is �• <l` � ,ter ` lr / . •_ � �
All
_
i� • � n F .J. t ' t a� � . I
r n r r6> > 4 ...is . .. ' .� � // / � t � � - � • f µ` (rei�
41
�• " ire/� __ fil w , j/ .F L`•- k •j�•-iJW
yt�
I.
a W +, -
r v
rdi
tk, n
ri
zio -
ff
J . dd
V / t • ,' J _ .^�!' � �°. � I ' •C-••R�, a .'
r r
t c�n ri
r
r 1,. ..
n' t�
or
'_6. { .LJ .. �.S i '
r •rr•tteFH - r • LLCCL'LCL GC_ �'r �C d f ii �41�
_ ,p• I . �
• r ' � �'� � � " ; - I � {A'.rf^� $ �` .�• ' �I TCCCCCCCCCCCC �, _
f
Wd
AW
it
or
f 4k* r -rf , ;s Kr 1 frw41r AA X
N [ r
10 1 - rC f 'I 1 iff I i ., - V. ,r
E HORSETO.OTH
_ _ ^ _ a_ M• f �,C - �i awl• � R
_ _ _ Z _` � I aar_ _ k1 � : I L � " � �iwF 'v�-�' y' T � �.: r �,°y��'• '�'"� .
Foothills Mall Study Area Fort Collins
^/ Major Streets
rn-) 1 inch = 350 feet
�L 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 .
EXHIBIT B
Midtown
Urban Renewal Plan
City of
Fort o 'mins
Prepared for :
City of Fort Collins and
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
May 17, 2011
Prepared By :
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
This page intentionally left blank .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 2
Contents
1 . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 . Blight Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 . Plan Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 . Authorized Urban Renewal Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Public Improvements and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Cooperative Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Purchase of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Demolition , Clearance, Environmental Remediation , and Site Prep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
PropertyDisposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Redevelopment Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Relocation Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legal Authority . , , , , , , , , , , , , poem me 13
Catalyst and Enhancement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5 . Development Standards and Procedures . , 13
6 . Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
UrbanRenewal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CityPlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7 . Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Tax Increment Financing (TIF ) District Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Property Tax Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sales Tax Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Tax Increment Reimbursement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8 . Modifications to the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9 . Reasonable Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10 . Effective Date of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendices
Appendix A — Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix B — Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT — PROSPECT SOUTH . . . . 23
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2 : Tax Increment Financing Area — Prospect South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 3
1 . Introduction
The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan ( Plan ) is a plan prepared for the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority ( Authority ) and the City of Fort Collins ( the City ) , pursuant to the
provisions of the Urban Renewal Law, Colo . Rev . Stat . § 31 - 25 - 101 et seq . ( Urban
Renewal Law) . Terms used in the Plan have the same meaning as in the Urban Renewal
Law .
The jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority are the same as the boundaries of the
City . Within the City boundaries there may be one or more urban renewal plan areas .
This Plan describes the framework for certain public undertakings constituting urban
renewal projects and other authorized activities under the Urban Renewal Law in the
Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area ( Plan Area ) , located in the City of Fort Collins,
Larimer County, Colorado .
This Plan was prepared for adoption by the City Council in recognition that the Midtown
Commercial Corridor requires a coordinated , cooperative strategy, with financing
possibilities, to eliminate unfavorable existing conditions and prevent further
deterioration . This Plan intends to accomplish the City' s development objectives for
improving the viability of the commercial corridor by creation of the Plan Area .
The driving interest in the establishment of this Plan is to begin offering tax increment
financing (TIF ) as a tool to stimulate and leverage both public and private sector
development ( including redevelopment ) , to help remedy adverse conditions and
prevent the spread of further deterioration . It is the intent of this Plan for any
development projects and other implementation actions to be done in a responsive
manner, with full consideration for interests and concerns of property owners in the
Plan Area . Development and redevelopment is anticipated to occur incrementally over a
substantial period of time, with the potential for Authority financing to provide the
impetus and means to undertake this redevelopment at a faster pace than might occur
otherwise .
The Plan effort originated in response to the Midtown Redevelopment Study adopted in
2010 where one of the primary action items for implementation concluded the need for
an Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan .
The Plan has been made available to City of Fort Collins residents . Input was solicited of
area residents, property owners and business owners and tenants prior to completion of
the Plan . Notifications of public hearings and an open house was provided to property
owners, tenants, and residents within and surrounding the study area stating the
following : time, date, place, and a description of the Urban Renewal Plan ( URP ) and its
general scope .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 4
Meetings were held before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council in spring
2011 to receive comments and input on this Plan . To the extent provided in Colorado
Public Records Act, Colo . Rev . Stat . Title 24, Article 72, Part 2 as the same may be
amended from time to time, and pursuant to policies adopted by the Authority, project
plans and proposals will be made available to the public .
Description of the Plan Area
The Plan Area is approximately 660 acres with 404 parcels of private property, including
the right-of-way . The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan identifies this area as a
commercial corridor . The City of Fort Collins Zoning Map indicates this area is primarily
zoned C- commercial with some additional zones; HC — Harmony Corridor, E —
Employment, and CC- Community Commercial .
The Plan Area is depicted on the Boundary Map on the following page ( Figure 1 ) . A legal
description of the area is attached hereto as Appendix A .
The boundary of the Plan Area to which this Plan applies generally includes those
properties located within the area bounded by :
■ Prospect Road on the north ;
■ The Burlington Northern Santa Fe ( BNSF ) railroad right-of-way on the west ;
■ An irregular line following commercial parcels typically one or two parcels
deep to the east; and
■ Fairway Lane on the south .
Description of the Tax Increment Financing District - Prospect South
The Tax Increment Financing District - Prospect South is depicted on the Boundary Map
in Figure 2 . A legal description of the district is attached hereto as Appendix B .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 5
Figure 1 : Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Boundary
W PROSP. ECof RD E PROSPECT
LL
� G
w
.r
W
Q
Q �
W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD
W
Uj
N
W
= J
RSET OTiH RD emu' ' .� E HORSETOOTH RU
;;
. �" � it � � -., �r - J -_�- + rt � "•Y•� "4'�l. _,
t4 upe
. fir ' 1 f Y
1. Oki
i ..
, r ' H('i/-r' -{� ,`� ,• 1W7 ? ' Y a l'C I- �'Y ( . �r.• it. .e :. ,r ,.. .: - . .
,
W HARMONY RD I E HAR ONYsRn
Uj
rl
,74
1to j
L
41
W
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 6
Figure 2 : Tax Increment Financing District — Prospect South
rfr f )
P. ROSPEC,T RDA _ E PROSPECT RD
a Will
NI
1
' .
r �
rz _
1 . 1
Yh
q r 1
IN
ail
LU
LU
i
r 4 .
of
r ''► 1 r �' , ^'
J
"
oi
CL
ta
FA
r� "
r
A - . '. ' w•
r . a ,VV
.
IN
` all
,��J � � to �' � �•
I r
Jilt Orr,.%
IN
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 7
2 . Blight Conditions
Before an urban renewal plan can be adopted by the City, the determination that an
area constitutes a blighted area depends upon the presence of several physical ,
environmental , and social factors . Blight is indeed attributable to a multiplicity of
conditions which , in combination , tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration
of an area . The definition of a blighted area is premised upon the definition articulated
in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows :
"Blighted area " means an area that, in its present condition and use and,
by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors,
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality,
retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare :
a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;
C. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or
usefulness;
d Unsanitary or unsafe conditions,
e Deterioration of site or other improvements;
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or
utilities;
g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title
nonmarketable;
h . The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire
and other causes;
i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work
in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration,
defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate
facilities;
j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property;
k. 5 The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high
levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization
or vacancy of sites, building, or other improvements; or
L If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the
tenant or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion
of such property in an urban renewal area, "blighted area " also
means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by
reason of the presence of any one of the factors specified in
paragraphs (a) to (k. 5) of this subsection (2), substantially impairs
or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the
provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 8
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 . 2 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) ) :
(a) "Blighted area " shall have the same meaning as set forth in
section 31 -25-103 (2); except that, for the purposes of this section only,
"blighted area " means an area that, in its present condition and use and,
by reason of the presence of at least five of the factors specified in section
31 -25- 103 (2) (a) to (2) (1), substantially impairs or arrests the sound
growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing
accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
Source : Colorado Revised Statute 31 -25- 103 (2) .
Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination
of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Urban Renewal Law . First, the
absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself,
preclude a finding of blight . The definition of " blighted area " contained in the Urban
Renewal Law is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so
dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of
deterioration . " Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P. 2d 907, 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981 ) .
Second , the presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination
that an area constitutes a blighted area . A determination of blight is based upon an area
"taken as a whole, " and not on a building- by- building basis . Interstate Trust Building Co.
v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 473 P. 2d 978, 981 (Colo . 1970) .
Third , a governing body' s "determination as to whether an area is blighted . . . . is a
legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted . " Tracy, 635
P. 2d at 909. A court' s role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to
independently verify if the conclusion is based upon factual evidence determined by the
City Council at the time of a public hearing to be consistent with the statutory definition .
Based on the evidence presented at a public hearing, and in the Midtown Existing
Conditions Survey, dated April 2011, the City Council , by Resolution made a
finding that the Plan Area was " blighted " as defined by the Urban Renewal Law, by the
existence of the following seven factors :
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN 9
a . Slum , deteriorated , or deteriorating structures
b . Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout
C . Faulty lot layout in relation to size , adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
d . Unsanitary or unsafe conditions
e . Deterioration of site or other improvements
f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
k . 5 . Health , safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal
services or substantial underutilization or vacancy of buildings, sites, or
improvements
The City Council also found that these factors, taken together, substantially impair the
sound growth of the City, constitute an economic and social liability, and negatively
affect the public heath , safety and welfare of the community . Based on evidence of the
" blighted " factors, the Plan Area is appropriate for authorized activities of the Authority
pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law .
3 . Plan Objectives
The overall objective of this Plan is to remediate unfavorable existing conditions and
prevent further deterioration by implementation of the relevant provisions contained in
the following documents :
■ City Plan (The City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan)
■ City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
■ Fort Collins Infill Infrastructure Report
■ City of Fort Collins Master Transportation Plan
■ Mason Corridor Economic Study
■ Midtown Redevelopment Study
To do this, this Plan is intended to stimulate private sector development in and around
the Plan Area with a combination of private investment, Authority financing, and public
investment . The Plan will assist progress toward the following additional objectives :
■ To facilitate redevelopment and new development by private enterprise through
cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan , design , and build
needed improvements .
■ To address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound
growth of the City .
■ To implement the Comprehensive Plan and its related elements .
■ To redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and
complementary to unique circumstances in the area .
■ To effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
10
■ To improve pedestrian , bicycle, vehicular and transit- related circulation and
safety .
■ To ultimately contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities .
■ To encourage the voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, improvements and
conditions .
■ To facilitate the enforcement of the laws and regulations applicable to the Plan
Area .
■ To watch for market and /or project opportunities to eliminate blight, and when
such opportunities exist, to take action within the financial , legal and political
limits of the Authority to acquire land , demolish and remove structures, provide
relocation benefits, and pursue redevelopment, improvement and rehabilitation
projects .
4 . Authorized Urban Renewal Activities
To support progress toward the objectives, the Authority may undertake any of the
following renewal activities, as deemed appropriate for the elimination or prevention of
blight factors within the Plan Area , pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law :
Public Improvements and Facilities
The Authority may cause, finance or facilitate the design , installation , construction and
reconstruction of public improvements in the Plan Area . In order to promote the
effective utilization of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the Plan Area , the
Authority may, among other things, enter into financial or other agreements with the
City of Fort Collins to provide the City with financial or other support in order to
encourage or cause the City to invest funds for the improvement of storm drainage,
street conditions and other infrastructure deficiencies in the Plan Area .
Cooperative Agreements
For the purposes of planning and implementing this Plan , the Authority may enter into
one or more cooperative agreements with the City or other public entities . Such
agreement may include provisions regarding project financing and implementation ;
design , location , construction of public improvements ; and any other matters required
to implement this Plan . Potential entities include but not limited to : Xcel Energy,
Qwest, Comcast, Poudre Valley Fire Authority, Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association
and Fort Collins - Loveland Water District .
Purchase of Property
In the event that the Authority finds it necessary to purchase any real property for an
urban renewal project to remedy blight factors pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law and
this Plan , the Authority may do so by any legal means available , including the exercise of
the power of eminent domain , pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law . If the power of
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
11
eminent domain is to be exercised for the purpose of transfer of property to another
private person or entity, the Authority' s decision whether to acquire the property
through eminent domain shall be guided by the following criteria , with the
understanding that these guidelines shall not be construed to constrain the Authority' s
legal ability to exercise the power of eminent domain :
■ All requirements of the Urban Renewal Law, including eminent domain
procedures , have been met .
■ Other possible alternatives have been thoroughly considered by the Authority .
■ Good faith negotiations by the Authority and/or the project developer have been
rejected by the property owner .
■ Reasonable efforts have been undertaken to : ( a ) understand and address the
property owner ' s position and his or her desires for the property and for any
existing business on the site, and ( b ) work with the owner to either include the
owner in project planning or purchase the property and relocate the owner in
accordance with the Urban Renewal Law on terms and conditions acceptable to
the owner .
Demolition , Clearance, Environmental Remediation , and Site Prep
The Authority may on a case - by-case basis, elect to demolish or to cooperate with
others to clear buildings, structures, and other improvements . Development activities
consistent with this Plan may require such demolition and clearance to eliminate
unhealthy, unsanitary, and unsafe conditions, eliminate obsolete and other uses
detrimental to the public welfare , and otherwise remove and prevent the spread of
deterioration .
Property Disposition
The Authority may sell , lease , or otherwise transfer real property or any interest in real
property subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions, including architectural and
design controls, time restrictions on development, and building requirements, as it
deems necessary to develop such property .
Redevelopment Agreements
The Authority may enter into redevelopment agreements with property owners or
developers in the Plan Area to facilitate participation and assistance that the Authority
may choose to provide to such owners or developers . These may include provisions
regarding project planning, public improvements, financing, design , and any other
matters allowed pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law .
Relocation Assistance
It is not expected that the activities of the Authority will displace any person , family, or
business . However, to the extent that in the future the Authority may purchase
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
12
property causing displacement of any person , family, or business, it shall develop a
relocation program to assist any such party in finding another location pursuant to the
Urban Renewal Law, and provide relocation benefits consistent with the Urban Renewal
Law . There shall be no displacement of any person or business without there being in
place a relocation program , which program shall become a part of this Plan when
adopted .
Hiring
The Authority may employ consultants, agents, and employees, permanent and
temporary, and it shall determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation .
Legal Authority
The Authority may also exercise all other powers given to it under the Urban Renewal
Law .
Catalyst and Enhancement Projects
Rehabilitation and redevelopment of the properties surrounding the Plan Area that will
continue to foster cleanup, preservation and redevelopment of nearby properties .
Additional public infrastructure, not limited to pedestrian amenities, enhanced
landscaping, public transportation improvements, public utilities, or public art and
architectural features as well as access to services, meeting facilities and shopping
options may also further redevelopment of the Plan Area .
5 . Development Standards and Procedures
All development within the Plan Area shall conform to the Land Use Code and any site
specific zoning regulations or policies which might impact properties, all as in effect and
as may be amended from time to time . While State statute authorizes the Authority to
undertake zoning and planning activities to regulate land use, maximum densities, and
building requirements in the Plan Area , the City will regulate land use and building
requirements through existing municipal codes and ordinances .
6 . Conformance
Urban Renewal Law
This Plan is in conformity with and subject to the applicable statutory requirements of
the Urban Renewal Law .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
13
City Plan
The City' s adopted Comprehensive Plan , known as City Plan, describes desirable land
use and transportation patterns, with goals and policies for those topics along with
community appearance and design , the environment, open lands, housing, the
economy, and growth management .
Briefly summarized , the land use pattern envisioned by these plans for the Plan Area is a
commercial corridor well - integrated with surrounding development . The Plan Area is
envisioned to evolve with improved community design and streetscapes, in an
interconnected framework of streets and blocks . One of the purposes of this Plan is to
implement the vision for the Plan Area as a commercial corridor with mixed - use
residential improvements, as well as create a connection to the Mason Corridor for
improved transit circulation .
This Plan is intended to provide mechanisms to facilitate implementation of City Plan,
and therefore it is in direct conformance with City Plan . The following excerpts from
City Plan highlight the linkage between City Plan and this Urban Renewal Plan . These
are representative excerpts, and not an all - inclusive listing of relevant statements :
Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the
community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and
Neighborhood Principles and Policies.
Policy EH 4. 1 : Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas
Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and
Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter' s Infill and Redevelopment section ,
to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted . The
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas ( depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community
and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital
investment, and public incentives .
Policy EH 4. 2: Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment
Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce
and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment . Emphasize new policies
and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and
predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment .
Policy LIV 5. 1 : Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and
Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map .
The purpose of these areas is to :
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
14
■ Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial
areas .
■ Concentrate higher density housing and mixed - use development in locations
that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and
that can support higher levels of activity .
■ Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to
jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips .
■ Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists .
■ Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and
businesses and , where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop .
Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map are parts of the
city where general agreement exists that redevelopment and infill would be beneficial .
These areas are generally considered a priority for efforts to reduce barriers and
concentrate public investment in infrastructure . However, of the areas identified , the
"community spine" ( see Policy LIV 5 . 2 ) shall be the highest priority location for such
efforts . Areas not shown on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas map are not
excluded from redevelopment and infill activity, but are considered to be lower priority
or where activity is less likely to occur for other reasons .
Policy LIV 5. 2: Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
"community spine " of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor . The
"community spine" shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in
streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to
support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor' s transition to a series of
transit-supportive, mixed - use activity centers over time . Established residential
neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by
improvements to the "community spine " over time, but are not intended to be targeted
for infill or redevelopment .
Policy LIV 5. 3: Policy LIV 5. 3 — Identify Additional Redevelopment and Infill Areas as
Appropriate
Utilize subarea plans to help designate areas for redevelopment and infill that are not
identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map . Within these plans,
support the development of appropriate design standards to protect the character of
neighborhoods and to ensure conformance with City Plan .
Principle LIV 34: General Commercial Districts will include a wide range of community
and regional uses, in various sizes and scales, designed for convenient access by all
modes of travel, efficient circulation, and a comfortable pedestrian environment.
Policy LIV 34. 2: Mix of Uses
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
15
Although many existing General Commercial Districts in the City consist of single - use
commercial centers today, the incorporation of a broader mix of uses is desirable over
time :
■ Principal uses: Retail , restaurants, office, and other commercial services .
■ Supporting uses: Entertainment, high -density residential , day care ( adult and
child ) , and other supporting uses .
Policy LIV 34. 3: Support the Revitalization of Existing Strip Commercial Corridor
Developments
Encourage and support the gradual evolution of existing, auto- oriented strip commercial
areas to a more compact, pedestrian and transit-oriented pattern of development over
time through infill and redevelopment . Establish enhanced walking connections
between destinations .
Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations
and hubs for a high frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban
activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density
housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing.
Policy LIV 35. 4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment
Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts
through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that
include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance , and access to all
transportation modes .
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized
Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote
walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide
high-frequency/high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity
centers and districts in the city.
Policy LIV 43. 3: Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along
Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment . Encourage the densities
and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use .
7 . Project Financing
Specific projects may be financed in whole or in part by the Authority, under the tax
increment financing (TIF ) provisions of CRS § 31 - 25 - 107 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the Urban Renewal Law,
or by any other available source of financing authorized to be undertaken by the
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
16
Authority pursuant to CRS § 31 - 25 - 105 of the Urban Renewal Law . The Authority is
authorized to :
■ Finance urban renewal projects within the Plan Area with revenues from
property tax increments, sales tax increments, interest income , federal loans or
grants, agreements with public, quasi - public or private parties and entities, loans
or advances from any other available source , and any other available sources of
revenue .
■ Issue bonds and incur other obligations contemplated by the Urban Renewal Law
in an amount sufficient to finance all or any part of a project within the Plan
Area .
■ Borrow funds and create indebtedness in any authorized form in carrying out
this Plan .
Any principal and interest on such indebtedness may be paid from property tax
increments, sales tax increments or any other funds, revenues, assets or properties
legally available to the Authority . Such methods may be combined to finance all or part
of the Plan activities .
Tax Increment Financing (TIF ) District Boundaries
If permissible by the Urban Renewal Law, the Authority is authorized to create TIF
districts within the Plan Area that can include , but are not limited to a single parcel or
multiple parcels for a qualified project . Accordingly, the Plan may be amended when
the TIF district is decided upon by the Authority, and incremental property tax and/or
sales tax revenues attributable to the redevelopment in the Plan Area to pay the
indebtedness incurred by the Authority . Reference Figure 2 for an example .
Property Tax Increment
A fund for financing projects may be accrued and used by the Authority under the
property tax allocation financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law . Under this
method , property taxes levied after the effective date of the approval of this Plan upon
taxable property in the Plan Area each year by or for the benefit of any public body shall
be divided for a period not to exceed twenty-five ( 25 ) years after the effective date of
the adoption of the tax allocation provision , as follows :
Base Amount - That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed
each year by or for such public body upon the valuation for assessment of taxable
property in the Plan Area last certified prior to the effective date of approval of the Plan
or, as to an area later added to the Plan Area , the effective date of the modification of
the Plan , shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes
collected by or for said public body .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
17
Increment amount - That portion of said property taxes in excess of such base amount
shall be allocated to and , when collected , paid into a special fund of the Authority to pay
the principal of, the interest on , and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of,
loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by ( whether funded , refunded , assumed
or otherwise ) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, a specific
project . Such increment amount shall also be used to pay for the Authority' s financial
obligations incurred in the implementation of this Plan .
Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Plan
Area exceeds the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Plan Area ,
all of the taxes levied upon taxable property in the Plan Area shall be paid into the funds
of the respective public bodies .
In the event that there is a general reassessment of taxable property valuations in
Larimer County, which are subject to division of valuation for assessment between base
and increment, as provided above, the portions of valuations for assessment to be
allocated as provided above shall be proportionately adjusted in accordance with such
reassessment . Note that at the time of this Plan adoption , such a general reassessment
occurs every two years, in the odd - numbered years .
When such bonds, loans, advances, indebtedness, and financial obligations, including
interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith , have been paid , all
taxes upon the taxable property in the Plan Area shall be paid into the funds of the
respective public bodies .
Sales Tax Increment
The project may also be financed by the Authority under the sales tax allocation
financing provisions of the Urban Renewal Law . The act allows that upon the adoption
or amendment of an URP, sales taxes flowing to the City may be " frozen " at their
current level . The current level is established based on the previous twelve months
prior to the adoption of this Plan . Thereafter, the City can continue to receive this fixed
sales tax revenue . The Authority thereafter may receive all , or an agreed upon portion
of the additional sales taxes ( the increment ) which are generated above the base . The
Authority may use these incremental revenues to finance the issuance of bonds,
reimburse developers for public improvement costs, reimburse the City for public
improvement costs and pay off financial obligations and other debts incurred in the
administration of the URP . This increment is not an additional sales tax, but rather is a
portion of the established tax collected by the City, and the sales tax increment resulting
from redevelopment efforts and activities contemplated in this Plan .
Tax Increment Reimbursement
Tax increment revenues may be used to reimburse the City and/or a developer for costs
incurred for improvements related to a project to pay the debt incurred by the
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
18
Authority with such entities for urban renewal activities and purposes . Tax incremental
revenues may also be used to pay bonded indebtedness, financial obligations and debts
of the Authority related to urban renewal activities under this Plan .
8 . Modifications to the Plan
This Plan may be modified pursuant to requirements and procedures set forth in CRS
§ 31 - 25 - 107 of the Urban Renewal Law governing such modifications or amendments to
the extent such modifications or amendments do not conflict with the agreements .
Nothing herein shall be construed to require the Authority to first obtain the permission
of any party to an Agreement prior to amending or modifying this Plan .
9 . Reasonable Variations
The Authority shall have the ability to approve reasonable variations ( as determined by
the Board ) from the strict application of these Plan provisions, so long as such variations
reasonably accommodate the intent and purpose of this Plan and the Urban Renewal
Law . Plan provisions may be altered by market conditions, redevelopment opportunities
and/or the needs of the community affected by the Plan .
10 . Effective Date of the Plan
This plan shall be effective upon its final approval by the Fort Collins City Council . Except
as otherwise permitted under the Urban Renewal Law, the term of the TIF period is
twenty-five ( 25 ) years from the effective date of the Plan , unless the Authority deems,
to the extent consistent with the terms in the Agreements, that all activities to
accomplish the Project have been completed and all debts incurred to finance such
activities and all expenses of the Authority have been repaid . In that event, the
Authority may declare the Plan fully implemented .
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
19
Appendix A — Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AREA
A tract of land located in Sections 23 , 241 251 261 35 and 36 of Township 7 North , Range
69 West and in Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 North , Range 69 West, all of the Sixth
Principal Meridian , City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained within the
following described area ;
Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly
extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road , the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description ; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along
the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of "Griffin Plaza Subdivision " ;
THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line
of the said plat of "Griffin Plaza Subdivision " ; THENCE easterly and southerly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly
and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the east west centerline of the
said Section 26; THENCE easterly along the said east west centerline and returning to
the said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along
the said easterly right of way to the south line of the said Section 26 ; THENCE westerly
along the said south line and returning to the said easterly right of way of the BNSF
Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the said easterly right of way to the north
line of the said Section 2 ; THENCE easterly along the said north line and returning to the
said easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE continuing southerly along the
said easterly right of way to the north line of the plat of " George T . Sanders Co . P . U . D . " ;
THENCE easterly along the said north line to the westerly right of way of Fossil
Boulevard ; THENCE southerly along the said westerly right of way to the westerly
extension of the southerly right of way of West Fairway Lane ; THENCE easterly along the
said extended line and along the said southerly right of way, its easterly extension and
along the southerly right of way of Fairway Lane to the southerly extension of the east
line of the plat of " Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates" ; THENCE northerly along the said
extended line and along the said east line of the " Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates" ,
along the east line of the plat of " Replat Of A Part OF Lot 7, Lot 8, Lot 9, And A Part Of
Lot 10 Of the Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates" and continuing along the east line of
the said plat of " Replat Of A Part Of Fairway Estates" and its northerly extension to the
southwest corner of that certain tract of land as described in a Warranty Deed Recorded
April 2 , 2002 at Reception No . 2002038320 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the said
Larimer County; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said tract described at
Reception No . 2002038320 to the southwest corner of the plat of " Fort Collins
Supportive Housing Subdivision " ; THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said
plat to the southeast corner of the said " Fort Collins Supportive Housing Subdivision " ;
THENCE northerly along the easterly line of the said plat to the southerly right of way of
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
20
East Harmony Road ; THENCE easterly along the said southerly right of way and its
easterly extension to the easterly right of way of Hogan Drive ; THENCE northerly to the
intersection of the northerly right of way of East Harmony Road with the easterly right
of way of John F . Kennedy Parkway; THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of
way of John F . Kennedy Parkway and along the easterly right of way' s extension through
intersecting side streets through the East Horsetooth Road right of way, to the southerly
line of Tract Nine as shown on the plat of "The Foothills Fashion Mall Expansion " ;
THENCE easterly along the southerly line of the said Tract Nine to the westerly right of
way of Stanford Road ; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way to the
northerly line of the plat of "The Foothills Fashion Mall Foley' s Expansion " ; THENCE
westerly along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract K of the plat of
"Southmoor Village Fifth Filing" ; THENCE southerly along the said easterly line of Tract K
to the southerly line of the said Tract K; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to
the westerly line of the said Tract K; THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to
the northerly line of the said plat of "Southmoor Village Fifth Filing" ; THENCE westerly
along the said northerly line to the easterly line of Tract H of the said plat of
"Southmoor Village Fifth Filing" ; THENCE southerly along the said easterly line to the
southerly line of the said Tract H ; THENCE westerly along the southerly line of the said
Tract H to the southerly right of way of Remington Street as shown on the plat of "A
Replat Of Tracts F, G , And J , And Vacated Service Road , Southmoor Village Fifth Filing" ;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the westerly right of way of
the said Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly right of way and
along the westerly right of way' s extension through intersecting side streets, to the
northerly right of way of Harvard Avenue ; THENCE easterly along the said northerly right
of way to the easterly line of Lot 13 of the plat of " Plat Of Thunderbird Estates Seventh
Filing" ; THENCE northerly along the easterly line of Lot 13 and its northerly extension to
the easterly line of the plat of "Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing" ; THENCE northerly
along the said easterly line to the southerly line of Lot 3 of the said plat of "Thunderbird
Estates Sixth Filing" ; THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the westerly line
of the said Lot 3 ; THENCE northerly along the said westerly line to the southerly right of
way of Drake Road ; THENCE westerly along the said southerly right of way to the
southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 1 of the Plat of "The Resubdivision of Tract
A, South College Heights Fourth Subdivision " ; Thence northerly along the said southerly
extension and along the said easterly line of Lot 1 , to the southerly right of way of
Princeton Avenue ; Thence westerly along the said southerly right of way to the easterly
right of way of South College Avenue ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly right of
way and along the easterly right of way' s extension through intersecting side streets, to
the northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue ; THENCE easterly along the said northerly
right of way to the easterly line of the " Rutgers Building Condominiums" ; THENCE
northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of " Raising Cane ' s" ;
THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of
" Raising Cane' s" ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of
the plat of "A Replat of A Part of Tract 1, Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
21
Block 1 of the St . Vrain Subdivision " ; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to
the westerly right of way of Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly
right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive ; THENCE westerly along
the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat
of " Human Bean At Spring Creek" ; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and
along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of
" Moran ' s Subdivision " to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE
northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of
the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5 ; THENCE westerly along the
said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of "A Replat of Maynard
Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard
Subdivision " ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of
Lot 1 of the said plat of "A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the
West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision " to the northerly line of the said
plat of " A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of
Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision " ; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the
easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ;
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the
southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213
feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker
Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of
way of the north -south alley through Block 1 of the plat of " I . C . Bradley' s Addition To
The City Of Fort Collins" ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to
the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road ; THENCE westerly along the said
southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING .
Excepting there from all of the plat of "Amended Final Plat of Parkway Townhomes
P . U . D . "
All Plats referred to in the above described description are Plats of record with the Clerk
and Recorder of Larimer County .
I hear by state that the above description was prepared by me and is true and correct to
the best of my professional knowledge belief and opinion . The above described tract is
based upon previously recorded plats and deeds and not upon an actual field survey .
Wallace C . Muscott
Colorado P . L . S . 17497
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 20, 2011
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
22
Appendix 6 — Legal Description
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT — PROSPECT SOUTH
A tract of land located in Sections 23 and 24 of Township 7 North , Range 69 West West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian , City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, contained
within the following described area ;
Beginning at the center of South College Avenue with its intersection with the easterly
extension of the southerly right of way of Prospect Road , the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description ; THENCE westerly along the said extended line and along
the said southerly right of way to the west line of the plat of "Griffin Plaza Subdivision " ;
THENCE southerly, westerly and southerly along the said west line to the southerly line
of the said plat of "Griffin Plaza Subdivision " ; THENCE easterly and southerly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of the BNSF Railway; THENCE easterly
and radially to the said right of way to the easterly right of way of the BNSF Railway;
THENCE southerly along the said easterly right of way to the northerly line of the plat of
" Whole Foods Center" ; THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the westerly
line of Tract " E " of the plat of " University Shopping Center" ; THENCE southerly along the
said westerly line to the southerly line of the said Tract " E" ; THENCE easterly along the
said southerly line to the westerly right of way of South College Avenue ; THENCE
easterly to the intersection of the easterly right of way of South College Avenue with the
northerly right of way of Rutgers Avenue ; THENCE easterly along the said northerly
right of way to the easterly line of the " Rutgers Building Condominiums" ; THENCE
northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of the plat of " Raising Cane ' s" ;
THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the said plat of
" Raising Cane' s" ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line to the southerly line of
the plat of "A Replat of A Part of Tract 1 , Replat of Block 2 and Lots 1 to 7 Inclusive of
Block 1 of the St . Wain Subdivision " ; THENCE easterly along the said southerly line to
the westerly right of way of Remington Street; THENCE northerly along the said westerly
right of way to the southerly right of way of Spring Park Drive ; THENCE westerly along
the said southerly right of way to the southerly extension of the easterly line of the plat
of " Human Bean At Spring Creek" ; THENCE northerly along the said extended line and
along the said easterly line and along the easterly lines of Lots 1 through 7 of the plat of
" Moran ' s Subdivision " to the southerly right of way of East Stuart Street; THENCE
northerly to the northerly right of way of East Stuart Street and to the easterly line of
the West 180 feet of Lot 5 of the plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line to the northerly line of the said Lot 5 ; THENCE westerly along the
said northerly line to the easterly line of Lot 2 of the plat of "A Replat of Maynard
Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard
Subdivision " ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and along the easterly line of
Lot 1 of the said plat of "A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the
West 350 Feet of Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision " to the northerly line of the said
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
23
plat of " A Replat of Maynard Subdivision Being a Resubdivision of the West 350 Feet of
Lots 3 & 4 of Maynard Subdivision " , THENCE easterly along the said northerly line to the
easterly line of the west 240 feet of Lot 2 of the said plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ;
THENCE northerly along the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the
southerly line of the northerly 232 feet of the said plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ;
THENCE westerly along the said southerly line to the easterly line of the westerly 213
feet of Lots 14 and 1 of the said plat of " Maynard Subdivision " ; THENCE northerly along
the said easterly line and its northerly extension to the northerly right of way of Parker
Street; THENCE westerly along the said northerly right of way to the easterly right of
way of the north -south alley through Block 1 of the plat of " I . C . Bradley' s Addition To
The City Of Fort Collins" ; THENCE northerly along the said easterly alley right of way to
the southerly right of way of East Prospect Road ; THENCE westerly along the said
southerly right of way to the POINT OF BEGINNING .
All Plats referred to in the above described description are Plats of record with the Clerk
and Recorder of Larimer County .
I hear by state that the above description was prepared by me and is true and correct to
the best of my professional knowledge belief and opinion . The above described tract is
based upon previously recorded plats and deeds and not upon an actual field survey .
Wallace C . Muscott
Colorado P . L . S . 17497
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 20, 2011
MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
24