HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET MOTEL - PDP/FDP - 7-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFFMin*,.
H114nce
April 4, 1994
Mr. Stephen Robi
145 W. swallow R
tort Collins, CO
Lot 1 South
near Mr. Robinson
PlIUW,L Nu. : 3W-ac'a5o
Live Serylresa
;linistrdtion
�1��IfllT -
d
8ob:16
loge Invaotmentµ
Plat.16 19934 1:--9Pt9 P;
The City of Fort C llins owns the above property and in interested
in reviewing the oontraot for purchase you! are preparing. The
p coparty does contain sojue ► atlands and has ;been reviewed by the
City's Natural Resources Department for potsiitial aequisi.tion for
opr-n apace preservation. The daoision of the Natural Resources
w,opartmont .is that the property 1s too small.; (23,524 sq. ft.) to
juiatify preservation of tha wetland as open space. Therefore,
di-i.rclopment of the. land could occur without any challenge from the
Cl,t:y over wetlands mitigation.
P.I.l-use lot me know if you have any further queat:ions. As via
dJ.i;oussed, this is a good opportunity to purchase this property in
CbrOunction with Ihe lot next to it.. I look: forward to receiving•
y--i>r proposal. I
S.inCaraly,
/3Uaanne C. Rdmina er
Financial Policy Pnalyat i
i
I
Kim Kreimeyer Mason Street Motel Page 1
From: Tom Shoemaker
To: Kim Kreimeyer
Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2000 7:45 AM
Subject: Mason Street Motel
Kim --
I looked at the materials you left for the motel. I should have looked at the whole packet and will do so
today or tomorrow. Can you put it in a visible place in your office, or bring it back to my in -box. Even
without seeing the rest of the material, though, I can give comments/guidance.
This site has a long history. It was part of a failed Special Improvement District (SID) that the City took
over (similar to Provincetown). NRD and other departments had the opportunity to purchase the site
several years ago. We opted not to (it wasn't a unanimous decision) because of the relatively high price
for the size, the degraded conditions, and the site context of very intense development.
When we chose not to buy the site, we did say it wasn't a priority for inclusion in our public natural area
system. We did not say (and could not even if we were inclined) that the future development of the site
would be exempt from the City's land use regulations and their requirements for wetlands. Our view was .
that we would not look for protection of all wetlands on site (since that's essentially the entire site), but we
would look for incorporating them somehow in site design and/or off -site mitigation. Our expectation has
been that off -site mitigation would be the most likely and reasonable approach for this site.
Susanne Edminster (now Durkin) overstated the case in her letter of April 4, 1994
This site has come into review a couple of times and has always been problematical. To the best of my
recollection, the last time it came in, we suggested that off -site mitigation was the best approach for the
developer to take, provided that the Corps and the site assessment did not come up with any new
information that dictated otherwise. So, the proposal they are making for mitigation off -site is consistent
with our past guidance and seems reasonable to me.
do question if it is worth saving 1/4 acre on site and might make more sense to do full mitigation off -site.
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at their offer to pay $4.00 square foot for the mitigation. It seems generous,
but we'll take it. It should cover cost of acquisition and enhancement to adequately mitigate the impact.
I'd suggest you recommend a meeting with the developer and consultant with us so we can talk about
mitigation options and give them some direction as to how they should proceed.
Karen, scream if this doesn't match your recollection.
Kim, call if you have questions/concerns.
Thanks. tom
CC: Karen Manci, Tom Shoemaker