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
U.S. 36 West CorridorConditions Survey
City and County of Broomfield, Colorado
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
U.S. 36 West CorridorConditions Survey
City and County of Broomfield, Colorado
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
• Fire protection equipment
• 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:
• Hazardous contaminants
• High frequency of crime and / or traffic accidents
• Floodplain and flood hazards
• Fire protection equipment
• 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:
• Hazardous contaminants
• Fire protection equipment
• 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:
• Hazardous contaminants
(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.
(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
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
(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements
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.
(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
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.
(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property
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
(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
Factor (c) Not Present Factor (c) Present
M
-
0 500 1,000 2,000
c,IC
_
I>,ICIC
=! Broomfield Boundary‘.lII,.Ir
Survey Area Boundary N
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
(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements
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
(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities
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
(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property
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
Survey Area Boundary N
49