downtown steamboat springs blight study

8/11/2019 Downtown Steamboat Springs Blight Study

1/36

Downtown Steamboat SpringsConditions Survey

City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado

January 2014

Prepared for:

Steamboat Springs Redevelopment AuthorityCity of Steamboat Springs City Council

Prepared by:

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

303.458.5800 phone303.458.5420 fax

www.rickercunningham.com
http://www.rickercunningham.com/http://www.rickercunningham.com/http://www.rickercunningham.com/


2/36

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



Table of Contents

Section 1.0 Introduction 2Section 2.0 Definition of Blight 4Section 3.0 Study Methodology 6Section 4.0 Survey Area Facts 11Section 5.0 Summary of Findings 11Section 6.0 Summary of Factors 19

Figures: Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey

Figure 1 Survey AreaFigure 2 Flood Zone

Tables: Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey

Table 1 Summary of Property OwnershipTable 2 Historical Criminal and Traffic IncidentsTable 3 Summary of Findings

Appendices: Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey

Appendix A Photo InventoryAppendix B Miscellaneous Survey Area Maps

1


3/36




1.0 Introduction

The following report, the Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey was preparedfor the Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority (the Authority) and the SteamboatSprings City Council in between October 2013 and January 2014. The purpose of thiswork was to analyze conditions within a defined area (referred to here as the SurveyArea or the Area) located within the city of Steamboat Springs, Colorado and RouttCounty, Colorado, in order to determine whether factors contributing to blight arepresent and whether the Area may, therefore, be considered eligible as an urbanrenewal area under the provisions of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law.

The Survey Area includes parcels within downtown Steamboat Springs including publicrights-of-way adjacent to, and within, the boundaries described as follows andpresented in Figure 1 on the following page. Generally, the Area includes parcelslocated north of and adjacent to 13 th Street on the north, east of and adjacent to OakStreet 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 toAgate Street. All reasonable attempts were made to notify property owners of recordthat the Survey was being conducted. This Downtown Steamboat Springs ConditionsSurvey represents a necessary step in the determination of blight and establishment ofan urban renewal area with the intent of addressing the conditions outlined herein. Assuch, it is also an important step in advancing community goals set out in the Cityscomprehensive 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 Cityof Steamboat Springs, through its redevelopment authority, to use designated powersto assist in the mitigation of blighting conditions and improvement of infrastructurewithin its boundaries.

2


4/36


Figure 1: Survey Area

3


5/36


2.0 Definition of Blight

A determination of blight is a cumulative conclusion based on the presence of severalphysical, environmental, and social factors defined by state law. Indeed, blight is oftenattributable to a multiplicity of conditions, which, in combination, tend to contribute tothe phenomenon of deterioration of an area. For purposes of this Survey, the definitionof a blighted area is based upon the definition articulated in the Colorado UrbanRenewal Law, as follows:

Blighted area means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason ofthe presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests thesound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, orconstitutes 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 othercauses;

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work inbecause 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 ofsites, buildings, or other improvements;

(l) If there is no objection of such property owner or owners and the tenantor tenants of such owner or owners, if an, to the inclusion of such

4


6/36


property in an urban renewal area, blighted area also means an areathat, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence ofany one of the factors specified in paragraphs (a) to (k.5) of thissubsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of themunicipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, orconstitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the publichealth, 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 theinclusion of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean thatthe owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with lawsgoverning condemnation.

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

While the conclusion of whether an area constitutes a legally blighted area is adetermination left to municipal legislative bodies, this Survey provides a detaileddocumentation of the aforementioned physical, environmental and social factors asthey exist within the boundaries defined herein. Note: It is not legally necessary forevery factor to be present in an area in order for it to be considered blighted. Inaddition, a given factor need not be present on each and every parcel or structure to becounted, but rather, only needs to be present somewhere in the area as a whole. Inother words, the presence of one or more well-maintained, non-blighted buildings orparcels does not necessarily preclude a finding of blight for a larger area in which

blighting factors are present1

. Rather, an area qualifies as blighted when four or morefactors are present (or five factors, in cases where the use of eminent domain isanticipated). As explained in item (l) above, this threshold may be reduced to thepresence of one blighting factor in cases where no owners of property or other businessinterest 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 eachand every parcel or structure, the Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions Survey presents an overview of factors within the Area sufficient to make a determination ofblight. 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 thisreason, the Summary of Findings (Table 2) provides conclusions regarding the analysisand presence of qualifying conditions by super block rather than by parcel. Note:While this report makes certain findings related to the presence of specific statutoryfactors, 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 thecourts.

5


7/36


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

3.0 Study Methodology

Ricker Cunningham personnel conducted field investigations during the Spring and thenlater in the Fall and Winter of 2013 for the purpose of documenting conditions withinthe categories of blight listed above and described in greater detail below. PertinentGeographic Information Systems (GIS) data from the Routt County Assessor and City ofSteamboat Springs were also obtained and subsequently analyzed. Finally, discussionswith City of Steamboat Springs Staff and Authority representatives were conducted andcollectively 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 surveyprocess, Ricker Cunningham has developed a checklist of more specific categories ofblighting conditions within each statutory factor to aid in their identification andcharacterization. This checklist has been used in nearly 75 urban renewal conditionssurveys for more than 35 communities in Colorado and the Southern and WesternUnited States.

(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures

This factor is said to be present when the physical condition of structures in thearea present specific life-safety concerns. Sub-categories include deterioration ofthe 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


8/36


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 orroads 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 likelyto 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 tohave adverse effects on the health or welfare of persons in the area due toproblems with either a lack of infrastructure or infrastructure that is ininadequate. Sub-categories include the presence of:

On-site and / or street lighting Fire protection equipment Cracked or uneven sidewalks

7


9/36


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 landand/or structures have been either damaged or neglected. Sub-categories includethe 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 thatend, it is said to be present when the topography is incompatible withdevelopment (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


10/36


11/36


(i) Buildings and properties that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or workin because of building code violations, dilapidations, deterioration, defectivedesign, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities

This factor is said to be present when primary improvements, specifically thosedescribed in the context of factors (a) and (d) above, as well as property, poses adanger 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 orbiological contamination. Unlike category (i) above, this factor can be said to existeven when such contamination does not pose a direct health hazard, so long as itcauses other problems (i.e. inhibits development). Sub-categories include thepresence of:

Hazardous contaminants

(k5) Existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipalservices or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, orother improvements

This factor is said to be present when properties or their improvements areunderutilized; or, there is a disproportionate amount of public service beingprovided. For instance, properties generating frequent calls for police or fireservice 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


12/36


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 include210 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 ownedby Steamboat Springs residents. In terms of land area, in-state owners holdapproximately 92% of the Survey Area. Ownerships with the most parcels include: theCity of Steamboat Springs; Routt County; River Walk Yampa Development; and Yampa

Valley Electric Association. Improvements in the area include a mix of commercial andinstitutional uses, motels, utility facilities, parking facilities (structured and surface),public spaces and facilities, single family and multi-family residential units, and vacantland. Some of the single family units are occupied for both personal and commercialpurposes. 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 estatetransactions. While there is evidence of recent redevelopment activity, there is also asignificant inventory of older commercial and non-commercial structures with varyinglevels of maintenance.

5.0 Summary of Findings

The presence of blight that substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of themunicipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes aneconomic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, orwelfare... [Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2)]

It is the conclusion of this Survey that, within the Area described in this report, thereare 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 ofdefective 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 orother improvements; f) unusual topography or inadequate public improvements orutilities; 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


13/36


No. ofParcels

Acres Per ParcelImprovement

ValuesLand Values

Total AssessedValue

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 Ricker | Cunningham.

Table 1Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions SurveySummary of Property Ownership

12


14/36


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

(a) Slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures

No interior inspections were conducted as part of this Survey, but close externalobservations indicate that there are structures present within the Area, andspecifically within the Areas Super Blocks that suffer from various levels ofdeterioration and / or damage. Among these, several structures, both residentialand commercial, have peeling paint, broken windows and crumbling foundations.The majority of fencing that surrounds properties in the Area is weathered and indisrepair. The condition of roofs that were visible from rights-of-way ranged fromintact to in need of repair. The surface of unscreened mechanical equipmentlocated 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. Severalsections of roads are lacking curbs and gutters, and even more offer sidewalks onone side, but not on the other. Driveways located where curbs and gutters areinconsistent offer little definition, particularly those that are unpaved. Alleywayslocated behind commercial structures on Lincoln Avenue are a combination ofunpaved and paved, but with significant potholes. While a parking survey was notcompleted as part of this effort, commercial properties in certain locations appearunderserved. Parking lots, both public and private, like the alleys are acombination of unpaved and paved, but in disrepair and often without striping ordefinition. In select cases, parking lots included uneven surfaces which could be ahazard to vehicles, pedestrian and bicycles.

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

13


15/36


16/36


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

Based on discussions with representatives of the City Public Works Department, adrainage study and floodplain master plan for Spring, Butcherknife and SodaCreeks was prepared by J3 Engineering Consultants in 2009 and itsrecommendations 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, andalong 12 th Street had been completed. Proposed inlets at 5 th and Yampa Streetshave not yet been completed, nor connections north and south of Lincoln Avenueand 5 th Street. A 2013 Citywide Storm Water Master Plan for the same areaidentified the necessity for maintenance to storm water improvements at LincolnAvenue and Yampa Street along 12 th Street. Additionally, it recommended

maintenance and replacement of storm water improvements on Oak at 7th

Streetand near the alley on 7 th Street between Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street, and onYampa Street at 6 th Street. Finally, immediate maintenance of existingimprovements was recommended along Yampa Street between 6 th and 7 th Streets. Contributing to drainage impacts is the presence of 100- and 500-yearflood zones. Based on a review of FEMA records and as reflected in Figure 2 , bothflood hazard zones traverse properties throughout the Area including thosethroughout 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 fairlylevel except between Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street on 12 th Street, along thenorthern and western edges of Super Block 6 in the vicinity of municipalimprovements, and along the southern and eastern edges of Super Block 5 nearthe Citys recreation center. Having observed parcels throughout the Survey Areaduring the fall and winter months, adverse weather conditions had an impact onthe mobility of vehicles and pedestrians in these terrain-impacted locations.

Two additional factors considered to contribute to an unsafe environment are thepresence of a high frequency of criminal and / or traffic incidents. Informationprovided by the Steamboat Springs Police Department and summarized in Table 2

suggests that the highest frequency of criminal incidents in the Area havehistorically occurred in Super Block 3 (Lincoln Avenue) and Super Block 2 (YampaStreet). 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


17/36


Figure 2: Flood Zone

16


18/36


Table 2Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions SurveyHistorical Criminal and Traffic Incidents

Steamboat Springs Police Department Zone Definitions:

Howelsen Complex: 245 855 Howelsen Parkway to Oak StreetOak Zone: Oak Street from 3 rd to 12 th StreetsLincoln Zone: Lincoln Avenue from 3 rd to 12 th Streets and 100 blocks of 3 rd and 12 th StreetYampa 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 andnon-residential properties, institutional uses and public spaces. Commercialsignage is somewhat inconsistent in terms of both age and quality, as is

landscaping. While there is a greater frequency of instances of site deteriorationalong 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 toconditions associated with the presence of Factor (d) above. With regard toinadequate public improvements, conditions which contribute to impactsassociated with deficiencies in infrastructure and utilities include: the presence ofoverhead utilities; parking surface deterioration (addressed above under Factorb); a lack of infrastructure to support safe non-vehicular movement includingcurbs and gutters, street lighting, and sidewalks (addressed above under Factord); presence of fire protection equipment (no information was available withregard to non-sprinklered commercial structures); and, water, sewer, storm waterand drainage improvements (addressed above under Factor d) that are eitherdegraded or lacking the capacity to support redevelopment.

CriminalIncidents

TrafficIncidents

CriminalIncidents

TrafficIncidents

CriminalIncidents

TrafficIncidents

CriminalIncidents

TrafficIncidents

CriminalIncidents

TrafficIncidents

Howelsen Complex 40 7 9 2 9 3 17 2 16 0

Lincoln 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 Springs Poli ce Department and Ricker | Cunningham.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

17


19/36


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

While all, if not most of the roadways located in and adjacent to the Survey Areaare 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, particularlyalong the Areas side streets.

While the Area is served by telephone and electric utilities, these are conveyed byoverhead utility poles, which are generally considered a functional and aestheticdetriment 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 ofproperties with adequate fire protection equipment, therefore the presence ofthis condition can neither be confirmed or denied. However, an additionalcondition considered in the context of this factor includes the frequency ofcriminal incidents and presence of flood zones. As presented earlier in Table 2

based on information provided by the City of Steamboat Springs PoliceDepartment, a historical review of criminal incidents in the Area appear largelyconcentrated in Super Block 3 along Lincoln Avenue, however there areoccurrences throughout, with the fewest reported in Super Block 6 in the vicinityof Howelsen Parkway.

As explained earlier, FEMA-issued flood maps were examined indicating that asignificant number of parcels in Super Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are impacted by100-year (1 percent annual) and 500-year flood hazard zones. Location within aflood hazard zone represents an endangerment to property and, to a lesserextent, life from this other cause.

18


20/36


21/36


Table 3Downtown Steamboat Springs Conditions SurveySummary of Findings

Blight QualifyingFactor

Present TotalSurvey Area

(a) X(b) X(c) X(d) X(e) X(f) X(g)

(h) X(i) X(j)

(k5) XTotal Factors 9

Source: Ricker Cunningham.

20


22/36

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


23/36

1


24/36


25/36

3


26/36

4


27/36


28/36


29/36

7


30/36

8


31/36

9


32/36

Appendix B: Miscellaneous Survey Area Maps


33/36

Survey Area: Total Assessed Value

1


34/36

Survey Area: Land Value

2


35/36

Survey Area: Improvements Value

3


36/36

downtown steamboat springs blight study

Documents