Ricker Cunningham - Broomfield

EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 1980

Ricker Cunningham

U.S. 36 West CorridorConditions Survey

City and County of Broomfield, Colorado

Surveyed and Submitted June 2013

Prepared For:

Broomfield Urban Renewal Authority (BURA)Broomfield City Council

Prepared By:

RickerlCunningham8200 South Quebec Street, Suite A3-104Centennial, CO 80112303.458.5800 phone303.458.5420 fax

www.rickercunningham.com

Ricker Curningham



Table of Contents

Section 1.0 Introduction 2

Section 2.0 Definition of Blight 4

Section 3.0 Study Methodology 6

Section 4.0 Survey Area Facts 11

Section 5.0 Summary of Findings ii

Section 6.0 Summary of Factors 20

Figure 1: Survey Area

Figure 2: Traffic Accidents and Incidents of Crime

Figure 3: 100-Year Flood Zone

Figure 5: Facilities Subject to EPA Regulations

Table 1: U.S. 36 West Corridor Conditions Survey, Summary of Findings

Appendix A: Factor Maps

Appendix B: Photo Inventory

Appendix C: Field Inventory

Appendix D: Miscellaneous Survey Area Maps

1

Ricker Cunningham



1.0 Introduction

The following report, the U.S. 36 West Corridor Conditions Survey (the “Survey”) was prepared

for the Broomfield Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) and the Broomfield City Council in June

2013. The purpose of this work was to analyze conditions within a defined Survey Area (also

referred to here as “the Survey Area” or “Area”) located within the City and County of

Broomfield, Colorado, in order to determine whether factors contributing to blight are present

and whether it is, therefore, eligible as an urban renewal plan area under the provisions of the

Colorado Urban Renewal Law.

The Survey Area includes 342 parcels generally bounded by U.S. Highway 287 and Laurel Street

on the east, U.S. Highway 36 and lnterlocken Loop on the north and west, West 120th Avenue on

the south and 10th Avenue on the north (See Figure 1). Properties within the Survey Area are

owned by a variety of entities and individuals, including 51 percent, or 174 parcels, by

Broomfield interests, 36 percent, or 122 parcels, by Denver Metro Area and Colorado interests,

and 13 percent, or 46, by out-of-state interests. All property owners of record were notified

that the Survey was being conducted.

This U.S. 36 West Corridor Conditions Survey represents a necessary step in the determination of

blight and establishment of an urban renewal area with the intent of addressing the problems

outlined herein. It is also an important step in advancing community goals set out in the City’s

comprehensive planning documents specifically related to private property investment and

reinvestment and public improvements.

Establishment of an urban renewal plan area, after a declaration of blight, will allow the City and

County of Broomfield, through its urban renewal authority, to use designated powers to assist in

the mitigation of blighted conditions in the Survey Area and improvement of infrastructure

within and adjacent to its boundaries.

2

Ricker Cunningham

Figure 1: Survey Area

I Broomfield Boundary

,__j Survey Area Boundary N

3

C

0 500 1000 2,000Feet

Ricker Cunningham

2.0 Definition of Blight

A determination of blight is a cumulative conclusion based on the presence of several physical,

environmental, and social factors defined by state law. In reality, blight is often attributable to a

multiplicity of conditions, which, in combination, tend to contribute to the phenomenon of

deterioration of an area. For purposes of this Survey, the definition of a blighted area is based

upon the definition articulated in the Colorado 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 leastfour of thefollowingfactors, 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. In

making the determination as to whether a particular area is blighted pursuant to the provisions

of this part 1, any particular condition found to be present may satisfy as many of the factors

referenced in Section 31-25-1 03 (2) as are applicable to such condition.

(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) Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other

causes;

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in

because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective

design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities;

(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property;

(k.5) 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;

(I) If there is no objection of such 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

4

Ricker Cunningham

any pjjç..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.

Source: Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2).

While the conclusion of whether an area constitutes a legally “blighted area” is a determination

left to municipal legislative bodies, this Survey provides detailed documentation of the

aforementioned physical, environmental and social factors as they exist within the boundaries

defined herein. Note: It is not legally necessary for every factor to be present in an area in order

for it to be considered “blighted”. In addition, a given factor need not be present on each and

every parcel or building to be counted, but must be found somewhere in the area as a whole. In

other words, the presence of one or more well-maintained, non-blighted buildings or parcels

does not necessarily preclude a finding of blight for a larger area in which blighting factors are

present elsewhere1.Rather, an area qualifies as blighted when four or more factors are present

(or five factors, in cases where the use of eminent domain is anticipated). As explained in item

(I) above, this threshold may be reduced to the presence of one blighting factor in cases where

no property owners and tenants in the area object to inclusion in an urban renewal plan area.

The total number of factors found in the subject Survey Area totaled 10 conditions all of which

are described in greater detail herein.

With this understanding, the U.S. 36 West Corridor Conditions Survey presents an overview of

factors within the Survey Area sufficient to make a determination of blight. Section 5.0

(Summary of Findings) provides conclusions regarding the presence of qualifying conditions in

the Survey Area; however, the Broomfield City Council will make a final determination as to

whether the Survey Area constitutes a “blighted area” under Colorado Urban Renewal Law.

While not clearly addressed in Colorado Urban Renewal law, this interpretation has been favored by the courts.

5

RTcker Cunningham

3.0 Study Methodology

RickerlCunningham personnel conducted field investigations in May and June of 2013 for the

purpose of documenting conditions within the categories of blight defined above. Pertinent

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data from the City and County of Broomfield were also

obtained and subsequently analyzed. Finally, discussions with City and County of Broomfield

Staff were conducted and collectively the resufts of these efforts are discussed herein.

The 11 factors listed in the Urban Renewal Law (see Section 2.0 of this report) contain few

specific details or quantitative benchmarks to guide the conditions survey process,

RickerlCunningham has developed a checklist of more specific categories of blighting conditions

within each statutory factor to aid in the identification and characterization of blight factors.

This checklist has been used in nearly 60 urban renewal conditions surveys for dozens of

municipalities across Colorado, and the Southern and Western United States.

(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures

This factor applies to physical condition of structures in the area that either individually or

collectively foster negative perceptions and corresponding decline in values. Sub

categories include deterioration of the following:

• Roof

• Walls fascia board and soffit

• Foundation

• Gutters and downspouts

• Exterior finish

• Windows and doors

• Stairways and fire escapes

• Mechanical equipment

• Loading areas

• Fences, wall s and gates

• Outdoor lighting

• Other non-primary structures

• Many of the conditions listed under (d), (h), (i) and U) which could present life safety

concerns

6

Ricker Cunningham

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout

This factor is present when the design, capacity or condition of existing streets or roads

negatively impacts sound development; discourages redevelopment; or, threatens the

health, safety, and welfare of vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. Sub-categories include

inadequate or presence of:

• Vehicular access

• Internal circulation

• Driveway definitions and curb cuts

• High incidence of traffic accidents

(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness

This factor is present when lot size or configuration inhibits or is likely to inhibit sound

development. Sub-categories include inadequate or unsafe:

• Lot size

• Lot shape or layout

• Vehicular access - parcels with poor or ill-defined access are usually found to have

both category (b) and (c) present

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions

This factor is present when safety hazards and conditions are likely to have adverse effects

on the health or welfare of persons in the area due to problems with either a lack of

infrastructure or infrastructure that is in inadequate. Sub-categories include the presence

of:

• On-site and / or street lighting

• Fire protection equipment

• Cracked or uneven sidewalks

• Hazardous contaminants

• Poor drainage

7

Ricker Cinningham

• Flood hazards

• Steep slopes

• Unscreened mechanical equipment

• Trash, debris and weeds

• Vagrants, vandalism and graffiti

• Pedestrian safety issues

• High incidence of crime and / or traffic accidents

• Many of the conditions listed under (a), (e), (h), (i) and (j)

(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements

This factor is present when there are instances of land and / or structures that have either

been damaged or neglected or the condition of public improvements has declined.

Properties negatively impacted by substandard infrastructure under this factor “e” are

often also impacted by factors “b” and “f”. Sub-categories include the presence or

deterioration of:

• Billboards

• Trash, debris and weeds

• Public improvements

• Signage

• Landscaping

• Many of the conditions listed under (a) and (d)

(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities

This factor represents the combination of two separate factors. To that end, it is said to be

present when the topography is incompatible with development (hilly, sloped) or

properties are either lacking complete or served by aging or deteriorating infrastructure.

As explained above, properties negatively impacted by substandard infrastructure under

this factor “f” are often also impacted by factors “b” and “e”. Sub-categories include the

presence, deteriorating or lack of:

• Slopes or unusual terrain

• Overhead utilities

8

Ricker Cunningham

• Street pavement

• Parking lot surfaces

• Curb and gutter

• Street lighting

• Sidewalks

• Roads

• Water and sewer service


• Storm water quality and drainage improvements

(g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable

This factor is present when there are problems with the marketability of property titles,

including unusual restrictions, unclear ownership and related concerns which impede the

clear transfer of property. Due to the expense of title searches, this blight factor is

typically not examined unless developers or land owners provide documentation of

known problematic title issues. Sub-categories include the presence of:

• Title constraints

• Utility easements

• Parcel line encroachments

(h) Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes

This factor is present when conditions when there threats from fire and other causes.

Sub-categories include the presence or lack of:


• High frequency of crime and / or traffic accidents

• Floodplain and flood hazards


• Many of the conditions listed under (a), (d), (i) and (j)

9

Ricker Cunningham

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building

code violations, dilapidations, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or

faulty or inadequate facilities

This factor is when improvements pose a danger to the extent that habitation and / or

daily use is considered unsafe. Properties negatively impacted by substandard

infrastructure under this factor “i” are often also impacted by factors “d” and “h”. Sub

categories include the presence or lack of:



• Many of the conditions listed under (a)

(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property

This factor is present when threats from chemical or biological contamination exist. Unlike

category (i) above, this factor can be said to exist even when such contamination does not

pose a direct health hazard, so long as it causes other problems (i.e. inhibits

development). Sub-categories include the presence of:


(k.5) 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

This factor is present when properties or their improvements are underutilized; or, there

is a disproportionate amount of public service being provided. For instance, properties

generating frequent calls for police or fire service or code enforcement often require more

than their share of services. Sub-categories include the presence of:

• High frequency of fire calls

• High incidence of crime and / or traffic accidents

10

Ricker Cinningharn

• Site and building underutilization

• Many of the conditions listed under (a), (d), (e), (h), (I) and (j)

4.0 Survey Area Facts

The overall Survey Area consists of 342 parcels of land which collectively consist of

approximately 473 acres. As explained earlier, the Area is generally bounded by U.S. Highway

287 and Laurel Street on the east, U.S. Highway 36 and Interlocken Loop on the north and west,

West 120th Avenue on the south and 10th Avenue on the north. Zoning includes I-i and 1-2,

Planned Unit Development (PUD), LI (B), B-i and B-2, R-1 and R-5 and there are numerous

instances of non-conforming uses. Uses include and are classified as single- and multi-family

residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, mixed-use and vacant land.

5.0 Summary of Findings

The presence of blight that “...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...” [Colorado

Revised Statute 3i-25-103(2)]

It is the conclusion of this Survey that, within the Survey Area described in this report, there are

physical conditions sufficient to meet criteria established in the Act as “blighting factors.’ As

described herein, iO of the possible 11 blight factors are present including: 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; h) existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire

or other causes; I) buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because

of building code violations, dilapidations, deterioration, defective design, physical construction,

or faulty or inadequate facilities; j) environmental contamination of buildings or property; and,

k.5) substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements.

ii

Ricker Cunningham

(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures

The Survey Area hosts a number of residential and non-residential structures, many of

which have met their useful life. This is particularly true in the southeastern portion of the

Area north of West 120th and south of Abbott Avenue. While some structures have been

either rehabilitated or replaced, others remain in various stages of deterioration.

Whereas no interior inspections of buildings were conducted, deterioration was observed

on the exterior of structures. Among the conditions which appear most prevalent are

deteriorating exterior finishes, roofs, damaged fences and poorly maintained primary and

non-primary structures.

Some commercial uses located in the northwestern portion of the Area in the vicinity of

the Flatirons Crossing regional mall, while constructed within the last 12 years, are

beginning to show signs of deterioration and neglect. Instances of deterioration in this

location include peeling paint on the exterior of walls and on building trim, broken

window shutters, and weeds and are most prevalent among structures that have been

vacant for an extended period of time.

The condition of industrial facilities in the Area ranges from well- to poorly-maintained.

Industrial tenants include manufacturing, production, warehousing and shipping

operators. Whereas these types of businesses frequently require outdoor storage space,

as well as generate comparatively high levels of vehicular traffic; there are numerous

examples of damage to parking surfaces, exterior walls and loading areas. While some

instances could be attributed to general wear and tear, others are clearly the result of

neglect and an extended period of decay. Landscaping on properties in the Area is

inconsistent and often unkempt, weeds are visible, and there are frequent instances of

remnant infrastructure not only unscreened, but presenting a danger to pedestrians.

Unscreened materials such as concrete barriers, rebar wire and unused light poles were

found along Industrial Lane, as well as adjacent to the U.S. 36 and East Flatiron Circle park

n-Ride located in the northwestern portion of the Survey Area.

Within the Survey Area, of the 342 parcels with improvements, approximately 20% or 70

were found to be deteriorated or deteriorating.

12

Ricker Cunningham

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate Street layout

Defective or inadequate streets include those that are insufficient to meet the needs of

land uses within an area because of either their capacity or absence, or are deteriorating

or substandard. Given the range and age of uses in the Survey Area, all of these

conditions exist. Within the residential neighborhoods located north and south of Abbott

Avenue, street improvements were observed to be substandard. For example, although

most roads have curbs and gutters and few have a consistent system of sidewalks wide

enough to accommodate a reasonable amount of pedestrian activity. Additionally,

vehicular access is often hampered by a lack of driveway definition and both residents and

businesses frequently rely on city streets to accommodate parking and vehicle storage.

Select commercial properties, primarily those located east and west of U.S. Highway 287,

as well as along Abbott and West 120th Avenues also suffer from ill-defined curb cuts, and

in some instances, sub-optimal layouts for parking. While some of the more major roads

in the Area could support redevelopment as envisioned in the City and County’s

comprehensive planning documents, few interior or minor roadways could.

Unlike residential roadways, curb cuts are largely absent on industrial thoroughfares,

particularly along Industrial Lane where there are numerous instances of gravel rather

than paved drives and are few if any accommodations for non-vehicular movement

(pedestrian or bicycle). With regard to internal circulation, there are several large vacant

industrial tracts that lack both adequate access and accommodations for internal

circulation. While most industrial properties are served by existing city streets, several

located in the business park west of U.S. 287, as well as along Industrial Lane, lack any

access.

Another sub-category considered in the context of this factor is a high frequency of traffic

accidents (usually resulting from inadequacies in roadway design and / or condition).

According to the Broomfield Police Department, while the Survey Area has experienced a

decline in traffic accidents over the last two years, there has been an increase of 17% in

incidents related to traffic, the location of which are reflected in Figure 2. Note: Data

provided by North Metro Fire and Rescue regarding traffic incidents that they responded

to suggests a trend that has neither increased nor decreased, but that is

disproportionately high relative to other locations within the city. According to the City

and County of Broomfield’s Traffic Engineering Department, Midway Boulevard and U.S.

287 and Midway Boulevard and Garden Center was among the top 25 accident locations

in the city in 2012 (based on the comparative frequency of incidents).

13

Ricker Cunningham

Figure 2: Traffic Accidents and Incidents of Crime

o 500 1,000 2,000— — Feet

Traffic Incidents

Crime and Other Incidents—‘Il_I’

! Broomfield Boundary—Ill—P

I I Survey Area Boundary

______

Survey Area Parcels

C,,

0c’I

a)C

-C

IN[

14

Ricker Cunningham

Collectively the conditions described here are considered to contribute to an overall

pattern of deterioration and corresponding increase in threats to properties and

individuals.


Because faulty streets often produce faulty particularly when they impact vehicular

access, many properties within the Survey Area that suffer from conditions associated

with (b) also suffer from (c) for the reasons explained above. In addition, there are parcels

considered to be faulty because of their shape and! or size. Numerous parcels which

could be described as “remnants” because of their size and / or shape were identified, as

were several parcels that due to their size could not be redeveloped without being part of

a larger property assemblage. Among the Area’s parcels with limited utility, most are

located along the U.S. 36 corridor and in select cases have been left without appropriate

access to streets or thoroughfares.

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions

Multiple factors were identified that contribute to unsafe conditions in the Survey Area.

Paramount among them was insufficient improvements to accommodate either vehicular

or non-vehicular movement due to a lack of street lighting and incomplete or inadequate

sidewalks. Other factors include: a lack of fire protection equipment; presence of a flood

zone; high frequency of criminal incidents; and, known hazardous contaminants.

Although no information was provided regarding the presence or absence of fire

protection systems (sprinklers), according to North Metro Fire and Rescue, there has been

(five year trend) a comparatively high number of fires and incidents in the Area for which

they were called to respond. As illustrated in Figure 3, two 100-year flood zones are

present in the Area and impact properties north and south of West 6th Avenue east and

west of U.S. Highway 287, as well as in the neighborhood located north of Abbott Avenue.

Parcels impacted by these floodways also suffer from deficiencies in the existing storm

drainage infrastructure. With regard to criminal activity, there have been numerous

incidents within the Survey Area over the last few years and a 200% increase in those

involving graffiti and degradation of property (see Figure 2). Finally, there are six

properties within the Survey Area and one in close proximity that are currently under

review by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA). These properties are listed under

(j) and their location reflected in Figure 4.

15

Ricker Cunningham

Figure 3: 100-Year Flood Zone

Miles

1] Survey Area Boundarya

0 500 1,000 2,000 Broomfleld Boundary

Feet Survey Area Parcels

• lOOYear Flood Zones N

16

Ricker Cunningham


Properties throughout the Area regardless of use and zoning exhibit signs of decay

including: parking surface deterioration, the presence of trash and weeds, aged and

deteriorating signs, and graffiti that is visible from the roadway. Within public rights-of-

way, deteriorating infrastructure presents not only an inconvenience, but a threat to

individuals and improvements. lit-defined curb cuts, a lack of sidewalks, and inadequate

lighting street lighting contribute to both a perception that the area is unsafe and reality

as evidenced by the number of traffic and crime related incidents.


Public improvements that are either lacking or incomplete have already been mentioned

above including: incomplete streets (lacking pavement, curbs and / or gutters, lighting,

sidewalks and / or parking) and substandard storm drainage systems. Based on

information provided by the City and County of Broomfield Public Works Department,

improvements to the U.S.36 and Wadsworth Boulevard interchange are underway to

address congestion and roadway deficiencies; and, more are planned as part of the Hoyt

Street connection at West Midway Boulevard east of U.S. Highway 287. In addition to

roadways, there are known deficiencies in the existing storm drainage infrastructure and

often if not always associated with the presence of flood zones. Finally, overhead utilities

are present throughout the Area which while permitted, is considered a visual and

functional condition which contributes to blight.

(h) Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes

Factors that threaten site users in the Survey Area that were either observed or identified

from review of available data include those previously mentioned such as: a

disproportionately high incidence of crime and / or traffic accidents, a lack of fire

protection, and the presence of hazardous contaminants. Criminal activity, according to

the City and County of Broomfield Police Department, has increased over the past two

years particularly in the following categories: assaults and sexual assaults (with and

without weapons), burglaries, domestic disturbances and domestic related harassment

cases. The location of these occurrences is illustrated in Figure 2.

17

Ricker Cunningham

In terms of fire protection, as explained under (d), no parcel level data was provided that

either confirmed or denied fire protection devices (sprinklers) in non-residential structures

in the Area; however, according to North Metro Fire and Rescue, there are a

comparatively large number of fires and fire-related incidents, several of which required

hazmat services due to the presence of hazardous materials. Finally, as noted above and

described under (j), there are six properties in the Survey Area that are under review by

the EPA for the presence of potentially dangerous contaminants.

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building

code violations, dilapidations, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or

faulty or inadequate facilities

Because a lack of safety or unhealthy conditions can also be considered to endanger life or

property, the Survey Area suffers from this blight factor for many of the reasons explained

under (d) and (h) above. Daily use of select properties within the Survey Area may also be

unsafe because of incidents of crime and / or traffic, but more likely because of the lack of

protection from fire and the presence of hazardous contaminants.


As noted above, there are six sites located within the Survey Area that have been

identified by the State of Colorado as being the subject of an environmental investigation

by the EPA. These sites are listed below and their location illustrated in Figure 4.

• EFT Holding Inc.

• Aggregate Industries

• Velie Circuits

• Fusion Specialties

• WallTechnology

• Sandoz Inc.

18

Ricker Cunningham

Figure 4: Facilities and Sites Subject to EPA Regulations

N

0 500 1.000 2,000

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), March 2013

= ! Broomfield Boundary•lIIIreI.I.

Survey Area Boundary

______

Survey Area Parcels

‘p EPA Sites

C’)

C’l

C

a

‘a‘V

19

Ricker Cunningham

(k.5) 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

Both conditions described as representing factor k5 — high levels of municipal services and

underutilization - were either observed or identified within the Survey Area. As explained

earlier, there are a high number of traffic and criminal incidents, as well as high call rate

for fire-related incidents, requiring the assistance of both the City and County of

Broomfield and North Metro Fire and Rescue. The latter entity also reported a high

number of medical-related incidents, false alarms and general service calls. Collectively

these conditions and circumstances require a disproportionate level of municipal service.

Regarding the second condition — underutilization — there is a significant inventory of

vacant land and structures (commercial and industrial). The impact of vacancy and

underutilization is multiplicative as it often leads to neglect and disrepair and fosters

negative perceptions of market conditions that ultimately lead to declines in value. When

vacancies occur within physically obsolete properties, the rate of decline is expedited.

6.0 Summary of Factors

Table 1 summarizes the findings across all surveyed parcels. As shown, 10 of the 11 total

possible factors were found, to some extent, within the Survey Area. Additionally, all 10 factors

(as discussed earlier) were present to a degree that appeared likely to have a significantly

negative impact on the public’s safety and welfare and impede the ability for sound growth.

20

Ricker Cunningham

Table 1U.S. 36 West Corridor Conditions SurveySummary of Findings

Blight Qualifying Present Total

Factor Survey Area

(a) X

(b) X

(c) X

(d) X

(e) X

(f) X

(g)

(h) X

(I) X

(j) X

(k5) X

Total Factors 10

Source: RickerlCunningham.

21

Ricker Cunningham

Appendix A: Survey Conditions (Factors) by Location

22

.

Ricker Cunningham

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout

_____

Factor (b) Not Present Factor (b) Present

IN

IN

I,..0 500 1,000 2,000

= ! Broomfield Boundary • ,I D

_____

Survey Area Boundary N

23

Ricker Cunningham


Factor (c) Not Present Factor (c) Present

M

-

0 500 1,000 2,000

c,IC

_

I>,ICIC

=! Broomfield Boundary‘.lII,.Ir


24

Unsanitary or unsafe conditions

Factor (d) Not Present Factor (d) Present

(d)

Miles

•I0

I;I iBroomfield Boundary I

• Survey Area Boundary N

25

Ricker Cunningham


Factor (e) Not Present Factor (e) Present

iiIIb

! Broomfield Boundary

1JSurvey Area Boundary

004

04

C

0 500 1,000 2,000

N0

26

Ricker Cunningham


C.)

0

C.)C.4

C

0 500 1,000 2,000— — Feet

! Broomfield Boundary‘—‘Il_F

0

Factor (f) Not Present Factor (1) Present j Survey Area Boundary N

27

Ricker Cunningham

(g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable

500 1,000 2,000Feet

11 Factor (g) Not Present Factor (g) Present

LI4— C—

• —,

I,,,I 0• CIz! Broomfield Boundary

.II,i.ra,

I J Survey Area Boundary NI‘—‘I—

28

(h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fireor other causes

Factor (h) Not Present Factor (h) PresentBroomfield Boundary!..I

• Survey Area Boundary

C

C

C

29

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in

Factor (i) Present

Factor (i) Not Present

Miles

I;I i

a a Survey Area Boundary IBroomfield Boundary Na a

30


Factor U) Present

Factor (j) Not Present

Mu sc)0

0

0)

J Survey Area Boundary

Broomfield Boundary N

31

Ricker Cunningham

(k5) 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

— C

0 500 1,000 2,000 I ,

___________

IC!Feet i oIC= • Broomfield Boundary

aFactor (k5) Not Present Factor (k5) Present j Survey Area Boundary N I

I

32

Total Factors

—._.

• Broomfield Boundary—a—

• Survey Area Boundary•,—a—II

Total Factors

3and less [ ] 5 7 and more

__

4

__

Mile

CC’1

C

C

Na-

33

,,-

Ricker Cunningham

Appendix B: Photo Inventory (Examples from the Survey Area)

34

w U,

Jr

Picker Cunningham

36

Ricker Cunningham

r

I

- _] r., A

37

Racker Cunningham

38

CD CD 0) -o 0 CD a) D CD 0 0 x CD ‘a D a.

n 0) CD CD -o CD CD D n CD 0 -I,

0) n 0 D a 0 0 CD a B 0 CD 0 -h 0 n n C CD n CD

•0n

to—

0a

C

a m ‘Cro

e.

geH

JD

s‘.

‘C

——

—I

—

“ )

—ii rI

I”

—-

!‘ 00 [

—

——

H H p-

‘DU

)

CD I- CD CD -o CD CD D CU 0 0 x CD ‘4 0 CD CD CD 0 CD V.

CD CD 0 -h CD C, 0 0 0 D 0 CD B 0 CD 0 -I,

0 C,

C CD CD V.

C, j14

0

-I CD (-I

DC -p DC 0 CD DC -f CD 0 >< CD U,

C-,

DC -p CD ci, CD 0 (IC CD C-,

(IC 0 —C,

DC rt

n 0 D 0 -p 0 0 rt

CD C 3 0 CD 0 •C1

0 0 0 C CD 0 CD

.n.

n41

3

m 0 m 0 I, 0 z i-I. 0

4.

-I :3-

CD I—’

-t

0) 0) CD 0) Oi

:3 :3-

CT,

0 CD Lu a C,

0) CD CD CD CD :3 C,

CD 0 -I.

rt

:3-

0) C, 0 :3 a rt 0 :3 D 0 -t :3-

CD :3 C 3 0 CD 0 —I,

0 C,

‘-C C CD :3 ‘-C CD

CT. jt4

Ricker Cunningham

Appendix C: Field Inventory (cont’d)

U.S. 36 WestCorridor Survey

AreaField Survey ..DthI1?.th,C I. UrnUu.I1bpg,.p6y h.D.,.g.,tUf. tS.UighSM

31U.,.flIt,, $ft./06,., hdq,flPthIk g.D.frev.f Urn..I P.p yIrnFIrn LU,rn.fr-U.6dw j.E,rnirnrnrn..bIay tine

t.rnrnt C.ndIUrnrn,1116. OUrn, tit..-Wrnk Und.r.,mIIa.Urn,

28 1

26 1

26

26 1

26 I

26 I 126 1 126 1 126 I

27 I

271 1 I

27 I

27 1

27 1 127 1

27 I

27 I

27

____________ ____________

I

____________ ____________

- -____________

_____________ _____________ ____________

27 I I26 I I26 1 I2: i 1 12 I I I2 i I I2 i I I2 i I I28 1 1 I2! I I I28 I I I

2! 1 1 I 129 1 I I I292 1 1293 1 1 12! I I 129 1 I I

2! I 1 1 129 1 I I2! I 1 1 129 1 1 III 1 I I31 1 130 1 131 1 1 I

31 1 I I31 I I

31 1 1 131 1 1 131 1 1 131 1 1 131 1 I 131 1 I

31 1 1

313 1 1 131 1 1 1 131 I 1 131 I I 131 1 1 131 1 I I I

31 1 1 I I32 1 1 I I32 I I I32 1 I I I323 I I 1 1 1

32 I I I 1 1

32 I 1 1 1

The “1 that appears in the boxes indicates the presence of that condition, not the number of occurrences.

43

Ricker Cunningham

Appendix C: Field Inventory (cont’d)

U.S. 36 WestCorridor Survey

AreaField Survey •.D.d,th,g 3. U,,*.nITop,g,.pky b.D.,,vflLJf

d.U,.,.Ib,y,. SIQ0IJ,, .,b..d.q,atep..Ni, .D.f.ed,.IU,..s4 P,,p.,tyf,,,,,FI,,,, I.U,flf.. U&,flIdW 1.En4ra,,,,,.,,I R.qUim,,,.,,t,,3Il.ay une c.F.ItyL.ts U,,,f.C,,dW,.,, b,,p,,,..,,.,.t I,,,pm,e,,,.,,t 33m,fr.4. 0Th., tCL0.W.* Ca%.mtha&,, U,,d.,.ut1.flb,,,

32 132 1

32 13

33 1 I33

33 1

33 I I31

33

33

33

33

33 134 1 1341 I

34 1 I I I

The “1’ that appears in the boxes indicates the presence of that condition, not the number of occurrences.

44

Ricker Cunningham

Appendix D: Miscellaneous Survey Area Maps

45

Ricker Cunnngham

Survey Area: Total Assessed Value

JI.I*I.Broomfield Boundary

c: Survey Area Boundary

0 0..5 0.5

0 500 1,000 2,000Feet

CD

C

N cc

46

Ricker Cunningham

Survey Area: Land Value

Broomfied Boundary

Survey Area Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000Feet

C,,

0C’4

D

47

Ricker Cunningham

Survey Area: Improvements Value

0 500 1,000 2,000

CC.

-)

Broomfield Boundary

z: Survey Area Boundary N

48

Ricker Cunningham

Survey Area: Property Utilization

0 500 1,000 2,000

C’)

ice

— -)

I

Broomfield Boundary


49

Documents

Ricker Cunningham - Broomfield