Sei sulla pagina 1di 36

Downtown Steamboat Springs

Conditions Survey

City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado

January 2014




















Prepared for:

Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority
City of Steamboat Springs City Council

Prepared by:

RickerCunningham
8200 South Quebec Street, Suite A3-104
Centennial, CO 80112

303.458.5800 phone
303.458.5420 fax

www.rickercunningham.com



C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Downtown Steamboat Springs
Conditions Survey

City of Steamboat Springs, 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 11
Section 6.0 Summary of Factors 19

Figures: Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
Figure 1 Survey Area
Figure 2 Flood Zone

Tables: Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
Table 1 Summary of Property Ownership
Table 2 Historical Criminal and Traffic Incidents
Table 3 Summary of Findings

Appendices: Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
Appendix A Photo Inventory
Appendix B Miscellaneous Survey Area Maps


1


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Downtown Steamboat Springs
Conditions Survey

City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado

1.0 Introduction

The following report, the Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey was prepared
for the Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority (the Authority) and the Steamboat
Springs City Council in between October 2013 and January 2014. The purpose of this
work was to analyze conditions within a defined area (referred to here as the Survey
Area or the Area) located within the city of Steamboat Springs, Colorado and Routt
County, Colorado, in order to determine whether factors contributing to blight are
present and whether the Area may, therefore, be considered eligible as an urban
renewal area under the provisions of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law.

The Survey Area includes parcels within downtown Steamboat Springs including public
rights-of-way adjacent to, and within, the boundaries described as follows and
presented in Figure 1 on the following page. Generally, the Area includes parcels
located north of and adjacent to 13
th
Street on the north, east of and adjacent to Oak
Street on the east, south of and adjacent to 3
rd
Street on the south, publically-held
property west of Howelsen Parkway on the west along with parcels located adjacent to
Agate Street. All reasonable attempts were made to notify property owners of record
that the Survey was being conducted. This Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions
Survey represents a necessary step in the determination of blight and establishment of
an urban renewal area with the intent of addressing the conditions outlined herein. As
such, it is also an important step in advancing community goals set out in the Citys
comprehensive planning documents specifically related to infill development,
redevelopment and downtown revitalization.

Establishment of an urban renewal area, after a declaration of blight, will allow the City
of Steamboat Springs, through its redevelopment authority, to use designated powers
to assist in the mitigation of blighting conditions and improvement of infrastructure
within its boundaries.
2


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Figure 1: Survey Area
3


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

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. Indeed, 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 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 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;
(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;
(l) If there is no objection of such property owner or owners and the tenant
or tenants of such owner or owners, if an, to the inclusion of such
4


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

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 (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 a 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 structure to be
counted, but rather, only needs to be present 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
1

. 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 (l) above, this threshold may be reduced to the
presence of one blighting factor in cases where no owners of property or other business
interest within its boundaries objects to inclusion in an urban renewal area.
Whereas, as stated above, it is not necessary for a given factor to be present on each
and every parcel or structure, the Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
presents an overview of factors within the Area sufficient to make a determination of
blight. For the purpose of understanding the general location of conditions and factors,
the Survey Area has been divided into 6 super blocks as illustrated in Figure 1. For this
reason, the Summary of Findings (Table 2) provides conclusions regarding the analysis
and presence of qualifying conditions by super block rather than by parcel. Note:
While this report makes certain findings related to the presence of specific statutory
factors, the Steamboat Springs City Council will make the final determination as to

1
While not clearly addressed in Colorado Urban Renewal law, this interpretation has been favored by the
courts.
5


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

whether the Survey Area constitutes a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban
Renewal Law.

3.0 Study Methodology

RickerCunningham personnel conducted field investigations during the Spring and then
later in the Fall and Winter of 2013 for the purpose of documenting conditions within
the categories of blight listed above and described in greater detail below. Pertinent
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data from the Routt County Assessor and City of
Steamboat Springs were also obtained and subsequently analyzed. Finally, discussions
with City of Steamboat Springs Staff and Authority representatives were conducted and
collectively the results of these efforts are discussed herein.

Whereas 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, RickerCunningham has developed a checklist of more specific categories of
blighting conditions within each statutory factor to aid in their identification and
characterization. This checklist has been used in nearly 75 urban renewal conditions
surveys for more than 35 communities in Colorado and the Southern and Western
United States.

(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures

This factor is said to be present when the physical condition of structures in the
area present specific life-safety concerns. 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
6


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Outdoor lighting
Other non-primary structures
Many of the conditions listed under (d), (h), (i) and (j)

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout

This factor is said to be present when the layout (or non-existence) of streets or
roads creates problems for health, safety, welfare or sound development. 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 said to be 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 said to be 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
7


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Hazardous contaminants
Poor drainage
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 related to factors (a) and (d) and said to be present when land
and/or structures have been either damaged or neglected. 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 formerly separate factors. To that
end, it is said to be present when the topography is incompatible with
development (hilly, sloped, etc.) or properties are lacking complete infrastructure.
Sub-categories include the presence, deteriorating or lack of:

Slopes or unusual terrain
Overhead utilities
Street pavement
Parking lot surfaces
Curb and gutter
8


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

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 said to be present when there are problems with the marketability of
property titles, including unusual restrictions, unclear ownership, etc. 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 said to be present when site and / or building maintenance or use
issues exist that may threaten site users. This factor also includes potential
threats from fire or 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


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

(i) Buildings and properties 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 said to be present when primary improvements, specifically those
described in the context of factors (a) and (d) above, as well as property, poses a
danger to the extent that habitation and/or daily use is considered unsafe. Sub-
categories include the presence or lack of:

Hazardous contaminants
Fire protection equipment
Many of the conditions listed under (a) and (j)

(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property

This factor is said to be present when there exist threats from chemical or
biological contamination. 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

(k5) 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 said to be 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
Site and building underutilization
10


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

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

4.0 Survey Area Facts

The Survey Area includes approximately 103.8 acres of land generally defined to include
210 legal parcels and adjacent rights-of-way. Parcels are zoned Residential Old Town,
commercial Old Town, Yampa Street commercial and Multi-Family Residential Three,
High Density. As illustrated in Table 1 on the following page, 175, or approximately 83%
of the parcels are held by residents of Colorado and of these, more than 86% are owned
by Steamboat Springs residents. In terms of land area, in-state owners hold
approximately 92% of the Survey Area. Ownerships with the most parcels include: the
City of Steamboat Springs; Routt County; River Walk Yampa Development; and Yampa
Valley Electric Association. Improvements in the area include a mix of commercial and
institutional uses, motels, utility facilities, parking facilities (structured and surface),
public spaces and facilities, single family and multi-family residential units, and vacant
land. Some of the single family units are occupied for both personal and commercial
purposes. Properties within the Area changed owners during the period 1920 to 2012,
with the most significant turnover during 2007, when there were 21 separate real estate
transactions. While there is evidence of recent redevelopment activity, there is also a
significant inventory of older commercial and non-commercial structures with varying
levels of maintenance.

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 31-25-103(2)]

It is the conclusion of this Survey that, within the Area described in this report, there
are adverse physical conditions sufficient to meet criteria established in the Statute as
"blighting factors." As described herein, there are nine (9) of 11 blight factors 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; and, k5) existence

11


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

No. of
Parcels
Acres Per Parcel
Improvement
Values
Land Values
Total Assessed
Value
In State 175 95.2 16,275,250 $ 21,863,560 $ 38,138,810 $
ASPEN 1 0.15 187,760 $ 152,250 $ 340,010 $
AURORA 8 14.12 185,520 $ 6,641,000 $ 6,826,520 $
BRECKENRIDGE 1 0.31 513,130 $ 224,750 $ 737,880 $
CENTENNIAL 1 0.16 65,580 $ 92,800 $ 158,380 $
EVERGREEN 1 0.16 26,910 $ 16,640 $ 43,550 $
FORT COLLINS 2 0.62 152,030 $ 81,200 $ 233,230 $
GRAND JUNCTION 2 0.53 278,520 $ 445,150 $ 723,670 $
GREELEY 1 0.08 131,710 $ 81,200 $ 212,910 $
HAYDEN 1 0.16 4,900 $ 25,470 $ 30,370 $
LAKEWOOD 2 1.3 389,000 $ 499,300 $ 888,300 $
LOVELAND 1 0.46 - $ - $ - $
SILVERTHORNE 1 0.14 3,790 $ 39,000 $ 42,790 $
STEAMBOAT PLAZA 1 0.16 253,380 $ 162,400 $ 415,780 $
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS 151 76.46 13,965,790 $ 13,232,750 $ 27,198,540 $
VAIL 1 0.39 117,230 $ 169,650 $ 286,880 $
Out of State 23 5.93 8,046,050 $ 3,290,790 $ 11,336,840 $
ALBUQUERQUE 1 0.11 194,800 $ 111,650 $ 306,450 $
ANNAPOLIS 1 0.26 - $ 263,900 $ 263,900 $
AUKE BAY 1 0.24 167,880 $ 243,600 $ 411,480 $
CARLSBAD 1 2.2 429,270 $ 717,750 $ 1,147,020 $
CLANCY 1 0.17 95,020 $ 109,960 $ 204,980 $
CLARKSTON 1 0.16 73,820 $ 162,400 $ 236,220 $
DALLAS 1 0.16 18,470 $ 16,640 $ 35,110 $
DEKALB 1 0 - $ 69,600 $ 69,600 $
EATON 1 0.18 195,250 $ 74,100 $ 269,350 $
ELKHORN 2 0.25 - $ 228,380 $ 228,380 $
HOUSTON 2 0.36 167,610 $ 278,400 $ 446,010 $
MOAB 1 0.08 206,800 $ 81,200 $ 288,000 $
OVERLAND PARK 1 0 5,453,400 $ - $ 5,453,400 $
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE 1 0.1 19,530 $ 14,330 $ 33,860 $
RICHMOND 1 0.12 57,820 $ 121,800 $ 179,620 $
SAN RAMON 4 1.36 719,240 $ 633,360 $ 1,352,600 $
SANTA BARBARA 1 0.1 169,900 $ 94,140 $ 264,040 $
TULSA 1 0.08 77,240 $ 69,580 $ 146,820 $
Unknown 12 2.71 - $ - $ - $
12 2.71 - $ - $ - $
Grand Total 210 103.84 24,321,300 $ 25,154,350 $ 49,475,650 $
Source: Routt County Assessor and Ri cker|Cunni ngham.
Table 1
Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
Summary of Property Ownership





12


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or
substantial physical underutilization or vacancy.

(a) Slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures

No interior inspections were conducted as part of this Survey, but close external
observations indicate that there are structures present within the Area, and
specifically within the Areas Super Blocks that suffer from various levels of
deterioration and / or damage. Among these, several structures, both residential
and commercial, have peeling paint, broken windows and crumbling foundations.
The majority of fencing that surrounds properties in the Area is weathered and in
disrepair. The condition of roofs that were visible from rights-of-way ranged from
intact to in need of repair. The surface of unscreened mechanical equipment
located outside of select commercial buildings appears eroded.

Super Blocks with deteriorating structures or structures in disrepair include:
Super Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4.

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;

While the roadway infrastructure in the Area appears to generally accommodate
local traffic, portions are aged, incomplete and considered substandard. Several
sections of roads are lacking curbs and gutters, and even more offer sidewalks on
one side, but not on the other. Driveways located where curbs and gutters are
inconsistent offer little definition, particularly those that are unpaved. Alleyways
located behind commercial structures on Lincoln Avenue are a combination of
unpaved and paved, but with significant potholes. While a parking survey was not
completed as part of this effort, commercial properties in certain locations appear
underserved. Parking lots, both public and private, like the alleys are a
combination of unpaved and paved, but in disrepair and often without striping or
definition. In select cases, parking lots included uneven surfaces which could be a
hazard to vehicles, pedestrian and bicycles.

Super Blocks with parcels suffering from the impacts of a defective or inadequate
street layout include: Super Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, with the highest numbers
concentrated along Yampa Street.


13


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

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

Parcels considered inadequate in either shape or size are often a byproduct of an
earlier property subdivision and not uncommon in urbanized areas of
communities. In the Survey Area, Super Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4 maintain sites that
qualify under this factor. An inadequate parcel size is one that could not
accommodate a new development or redevelopment allowable under its current
zoning. A parcel with limited usefulness due to its shape is one that, when
developed, offers limited access or visibility, or leaves substantial portions under-
utilized.

In the Area, while some residential lots could be considered comparatively small
and / or irregular, these are less concerning than commercial lots suffering from
the same condition. Commercial properties that lack access and / or visibility are
at a significant competitive disadvantage for development or redevelopment.
Those that are too small are often unviable (or lacking any reasonable value)
without being part of a larger property assemblage.

As noted in Factor (b) above, commercial properties located in select segments
are either underserved for parking or served by parking that is inadequate. Alleys
serving the rear of commercial lots located along Lincoln Avenue are in poor
condition and would have difficulty accommodating emergency vehicles.

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions

A number of unsafe or unsanitary conditions were observed impacting properties
(to varying degrees) in the Area, including: insufficient lighting for non-vehicular
movement; poor drainage and the presence of a flood zone; steep grades;
unscreened trash; and high incidences of crime and traffic. With regard to the
Areas pedestrian environment, outdoor lighting, particularly along Yampa and
Oak Streets and the residential portion of Super Block 6, is inconsistent, making
properties vulnerable to unlawful activity as evidenced by various instances of
graffiti and vandalism. Further, among the sidewalks that are present, portions
are heaving and cracking creating hazards for pedestrians. The City of Steamboat
Springs, with Mainstreet Steamboat Springs, completed a sidewalk survey
between 3
rd
and 13
th
Streets and Oak and Yampa Streets, which confirmed
observations made by Ricker|Cunningham in the context of this Survey. City
Council made completing sidewalks in the city and Survey Area a priority with its
passage of Resolution No. 2006-18 in 2006, which effectively adopted the Citys
14


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Sidewalks Master Plan and made the integration of sidewalks a priority in its
Mobility and Circulation Plan.

Based on discussions with representatives of the City Public Works Department, a
drainage study and floodplain master plan for Spring, Butcherknife and Soda
Creeks was prepared by J3 Engineering Consultants in 2009 and its
recommendations continue to be implemented. As of the date of this Survey,
channel improvements at Oak and 9
th
Streets, Lincoln Avenue and 11
th
Street, and
along 12
th
Street had been completed. Proposed inlets at 5
th
and Yampa Streets
have not yet been completed, nor connections north and south of Lincoln Avenue
and 5
th
Street. A 2013 Citywide Storm Water Master Plan for the same area
identified the necessity for maintenance to storm water improvements at Lincoln
Avenue and Yampa Street along 12
th
Street. Additionally, it recommended
maintenance and replacement of storm water improvements on Oak at 7
th
Street
and near the alley on 7
th
Street between Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street, and on
Yampa Street at 6
th
Street. Finally, immediate maintenance of existing
improvements was recommended along Yampa Street between 6
th
and 7
th

Streets. Contributing to drainage impacts is the presence of 100- and 500-year
flood zones. Based on a review of FEMA records and as reflected in Figure 2, both
flood hazard zones traverse properties throughout the Area including those
throughout Super Block 6, in Super Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4 near 12
th
and 8
th
Streets,
and Super Block 5 near 3
rd
Street.

While located in the heart of a mountain community, the Areas terrain is fairly
level except between Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street on 12
th
Street, along the
northern and western edges of Super Block 6 in the vicinity of municipal
improvements, and along the southern and eastern edges of Super Block 5 near
the Citys recreation center. Having observed parcels throughout the Survey Area
during the fall and winter months, adverse weather conditions had an impact on
the mobility of vehicles and pedestrians in these terrain-impacted locations.

Two additional factors considered to contribute to an unsafe environment are the
presence of a high frequency of criminal and / or traffic incidents. Information
provided by the Steamboat Springs Police Department and summarized in Table 2
suggests that the highest frequency of criminal incidents in the Area have
historically occurred in Super Block 3 (Lincoln Avenue) and Super Block 2 (Yampa
Street). In terms of traffic-related incidents, Super Block 3 incurred the most,
however, figures for Super Block 6 (Yampa Street) and Super Block 4 (Oak Street)
were similar.

15


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Figure 2: Flood Zone


16


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Table 2
Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
Historical Criminal and Traffic Incidents


Steamboat Springs Police Department Zone Definitions:
Howelsen Complex: 245 855 Howelsen Parkway to Oak Street
Oak Zone: Oak Street from 3
rd
to 12
th
Streets
Lincoln Zone: Lincoln Avenue from 3
rd
to 12
th
Streets and 100 blocks of 3
rd
and 12
th
Street
Yampa Zone: Yampa Street from 3
rd
to 12
th
Streets and 00 blocks of 3
rd
to 12
th
Street

(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements

Parcels in the Area include a mix of well- to poorly-maintained residential and
non-residential properties, institutional uses and public spaces. Commercial
signage is somewhat inconsistent in terms of both age and quality, as is
landscaping. While there is a greater frequency of instances of site deterioration
along Yampa Street (Super Block 2) and portions of Oak Street (Super Block 4),
conditions vary significantly from parcel to parcel and among uses.

(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities

Slope and topography impacts were addressed under the discussion related to
conditions associated with the presence of Factor (d) above. With regard to
inadequate public improvements, conditions which contribute to impacts
associated with deficiencies in infrastructure and utilities include: the presence of
overhead utilities; parking surface deterioration (addressed above under Factor
b); a lack of infrastructure to support safe non-vehicular movement including
curbs and gutters, street lighting, and sidewalks (addressed above under Factor
d); presence of fire protection equipment (no information was available with
regard to non-sprinklered commercial structures); and, water, sewer, storm water
and drainage improvements (addressed above under Factor d) that are either
degraded or lacking the capacity to support redevelopment.
Cri mi nal
Inci dents
Traffi c
Inci dents
Cri mi nal
Inci dents
Traffi c
Inci dents
Cri mi nal
Inci dents
Traffi c
Inci dents
Cri mi nal
Inci dents
Traffi c
Inci dents
Cri mi nal
Inci dents
Traffi c
Inci dents
Howel sen Compl ex
40 7 9 2 9 3 17 2 16 0
Li ncol n Zone
140 133 139 83 99 98 114 114 131 127
Oak Zone
25 22 37 19 23 9 26 20 21 15
Yampa Zone
38 25 42 13 51 19 54 23 59 22
Total
243 187 227 117 182 129 211 159 227 164
Source: Steamboat Spri ngs Pol i ce Department and Ri cker|Cunni ngham.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
17


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

No information was provided that suggested the Areas water, sewer or storm
water infrastructure was insufficient to support redevelopment. Rather, needed
and planned public improvements are largely associated with maintenance and, in
some instances, replacement of aged and deteriorating infrastructure.

While all, if not most of the roadways located in and adjacent to the Survey Area
are paved, alley surfaces are a mix of paving and dirt and many are cracked and /
or suffering from potholes and weeds. As explained above, curbs and gutters,
sidewalks and lighting are inconsistent throughout the Survey Area, particularly
along the Areas side streets.

While the Area is served by telephone and electric utilities, these are conveyed by
overhead utility poles, which are generally considered a functional and aesthetic
detriment to site development.

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

As explained above, no information was provided with regard to the location of
properties with adequate fire protection equipment, therefore the presence of
this condition can neither be confirmed or denied. However, an additional
condition considered in the context of this factor includes the frequency of
criminal incidents and presence of flood zones. As presented earlier in Table 2
based on information provided by the City of Steamboat Springs Police
Department, a historical review of criminal incidents in the Area appear largely
concentrated in Super Block 3 along Lincoln Avenue, however there are
occurrences throughout, with the fewest reported in Super Block 6 in the vicinity
of Howelsen Parkway.

As explained earlier, FEMA-issued flood maps were examined indicating that a
significant number of parcels in Super Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are impacted by
100-year (1 percent annual) and 500-year flood hazard zones. Location within a
flood hazard zone represents an endangerment to property and, to a lesser
extent, life from this other cause.


18


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

(i) Buildings and properties 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

As explained under Factor (a) above, the Areas inventory of residential and non-
residential properties are in various stages of disrepair, with some well-
maintained and others deteriorating and neglected. Conditions identified from
the rights-of-way or locations available to the public were largely faade and roof
damage, inadequate fencing to protect pedestrians from unprotected trash and
outdoor storage, and over-grown landscaping.

(k5) Existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal
services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy

According to the City of Steamboat Springs Police Department, several properties
within the Areas Super Blocks require a disproportionate share of municipal
resources. Police calls in the Survey Area remained fairly constant over the five-
year period between 2008 and 2012 for the following incidents: assault; burglary;
property damage; disorderly conduct; drug violations; DUIs; motor vehicle theft;
sex assault; and theft and injury to vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Whereas
the state statute defines this factor as including either high levels of municipal
services or underutilization or vacancy, Ricker|Cunningham investigated both
conditions. In addition to a high call level for criminal and traffic incidents, there
are also numerous examples of vacancy in both sites and spaces within residential
and commercial buildings.

6.0 Summary of Factors

Table 3 summarizes the findings across all surveyed parcels. As explained earlier in this
report, 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 structure to be counted, but rather, only needs to be present
somewhere in the area as a whole. As shown, 9 (nine) of the 11 total possible factors
were found, to some extent, within the Survey Area. Additionally, all 9 (nine) factors (as
discussed earlier) were present to a degree that appeared likely to have a significantly
negative impact on the publics safety and welfare and impede the ability for sound
growth and development.


19


C o m m u n i t y S t r a t e g i s t s

Table 3
Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey
Summary of Findings
Blight Qualifying
Factor
Present Total
Survey Area
(a) X
(b) X
(c) X
(d) X
(e) X
(f) X
(g)
(h) X
(i) X
(j)
(k5) X
Total Factors 9
Source: RickerCunningham.
20


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






1




2





3






4






5





6



7



8



9


Appendix B: Miscellaneous Survey Area Maps



Survey Area: Total Assessed Value

1


Survey Area: Land Value

2


Survey Area: Improvements Value

3


Survey Area: Property Utilization

4