HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1999AGENDA
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION
Tuesday, August 17,1999
7:00 p.m.
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Economic
Development and Revitalization Commission on August 17,1999, at 7:00 p.m., Lobby
Conference Room, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. Call The Meeting to Order
2. Roll Call of Members
3. Consideration of Absences
4. Approval of Minutes - June 15,1999
5. Public Forum (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on
the agenda.)
6. UnTnished Business
A) Discussion of Economic Development Strategic Plan
- Discussion and determination of priorities for remainder of 1999
B) Discussion of Possible Zoning Code Revisions
- Status Report
7. New Business
8. Adjournment - to September 21,1999
C:\Barbara\ECODEVOW GENDAS\99081 Zwpd
MINUTES OF WHEAT RIDGE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
JUNE 15, 1999
7:00 P.M.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The Wheat Ridge Economic Development and Revitalization Commission meeting was
called to order by Vice Chair MATTHEWS at 7:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
EDARC Commissioners present: John Hall
Elwyn Kiplinger
Janet Leo
Richard Matthews
Mazgy Platter
Jerry Roach (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
Also attending were: Martin Omer, Economic Development
SpecialisUAssociate Planner
Alan White, Director of Planning and Development
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
EDARC Commissioners absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Norman Burkpile (excused)
Rae Jean Behm (excused)
Sandra Collins (excused)
It was moved by Commissioner KIPLINGER and seconded by Commissioner LEO to
approve the minutes of the May 18, 1999 EDARC meeting. The motion carried 3-0 with
Commissioners BURKPILE, BEHM, COLLINS and ROACH absent and Commissioners
HALL and MATTHEWS abstaining.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one appeared to speak.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Economic Development Strategic Plan
Martin Omer presented the draft Economic Development Strategic Plan. There was
extensive discussion concerning the draft plan. Mr. Orner advised the Commission that he
would incorporate suggestions'made at this meeting into the plan and bring it back to the
Commission. Once approved by EDARC, the plan will be forwarded to City Council for
approval.
B. Proposed Zoning Code Revisions
Martin Orner invited discussion on proposed changes to the zoning ordinance in regazd to
nonprofit uses (or uses which don't produce tax revenue for the city) as a use-by-right being
located in commercial and industrial zone districts. These uses, under proposed changes,
would be subject to review under the special use or conditional use process. He referred to
the matrix he developed which sets forth uses allowed in the various zone districts as well as
information he prepared outlining the difference between conditional and special uses. He
reported that the matter of non-profits being located in commercial and industrial areas was
introduced as a concem by another entity at the last Jefferson Economic Commission Land
Inventory meeting. He suggested that afrer JEC has had opportunity to evaluate these uses,
they could perhaps offer some assistance to EDARC in changing our city's zoning
ordinance.
Following a thorough discussion of vazious aspects of Yhe proposed changes, the
Commission reached a decision to direct staff to conduct a more in-depth analysis of
existing uses such as mini warehouses, RV storage, car/truck sales, equipment sales and
rental as well as churches and schools. The Commission wanted to know the actual
percentage of uses that are in existence on commercial and industrial land in order to be
more informed before moving forwazd with any changes. Martin Omer will also contact the
JEC to see what their investigation into these types of situations has revealed. After all the
information is compiled, staff will bring this matter back to EDARC for further discussion.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner KIPLINGER and seconded by Commissioner PLATTER to
adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
DAVID MATTHEWS, Vice Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
C9Barbara\EC0DEV0\MINUTGS\9906I i.wpd
EDARC Minutes Page
June15,1999
O O O
O
O O O
O
O
'
~
Q
W
c
t
) m
M
(
7
O
V
OJ
) W
C
M
-
~
Of 0~
M N c
M
c~
7
(
7
W V
a?
o
o ~ t--
0
co
W M~
r
I;r
M
r
N
W
m
~
f`') r N
h
O N~
I~
t0
M
M 49 a-
1~41
Ey
I U)
63 fA ffl
69
69 V3
H3
0 0 0 0
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
F o 0 0 0 0
ZU) N(M U) LL~ 03 O aD (p tn h CO N 1- M
W Q co (h 1- co W~ V O tn O c0 O W uo O O
U W 1~ N 6) (O ^Lf) In ~ h O ~ M W OJ
~ V(O C7 !n M N N N N N (D N (h
~
w U
a Z
n co r cD v rn o m in i-_ ro co m v 00 m
tn 00 N (O lqd. I-- = N W W (0 M M
W0) lfl (l) h c0 V f~ CO O W O tn M O) 0)
N V N M i-, N OJ N W (3) ln (3) 7 OJ M
w N N CO Efl M fA fA N N ER c`7 (O
~ F ({f f!d Efl ffl ffl Vd EA fA EA 63 fA
~ cn 69
o 0 0
0
\
0 0 0
\
0
F W
c0 I-
M
~ M co
0 0 0
N W
0
0 0 0
V lf~
0
O
0
1-
W Q
f- O V
N
. Oo C]
M
N OJ W
M
N N c0
M
(O
ULU
M N M
M
V4 N
N
~ N~
~
~ M~
N
M
W
H
a?
Z
W
M(O tn
L
)
7
(D V' fD
(O
(D tn N
M
1n N ch
O
M
U
.
O V
C
ch O m
O
C7
M OJ (O
(O N N
00
W th p]
ln (O O
M
Vm I~
O Wq:
q:
N
O ~ N
V
1n O
M
(O O N
~
O~~
M
(O
Z
^
N
V
Efl
M
fA fA
N
N fA
7
V
69 Vd 09
fA
U> V)
VT
63
V3
EA Efl
V3
a- n
(
~
0
F
W
CD
~ m
O
~
~
~
M
0
i
m
~
~
W
1~
~
~ W ~
(
D
~ N W
(
D
M
a
m
I~ C~ tn
N
T+- N
M V M
N
Lf) N o]
(O
M
W }
w
Ln ~ co
o
r oi v
"
cc co ~
~
co o
m
w
=
(n
V
~ M
N
t`')
V V V
M
~ V l!J
M
N
j
~
a
~
~
Efi 603 fA
~
N3 fA EA
~
~
ffl
H3
EA
W
W
W
W
}
W
WW
Q
Q
¢
F- ~
a
W co 00
Q
J
a
a
~of V
d
W
D
J(7
O W W
H>
0
Q
ZmQ
I_
Z
<
o
n.
p
U
=
F-
~
2
U)
D
2
~
v
0
LL
.
-
Q
N
Q(n
M
OZO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LLI W Q ~c~7 O~i M M~ O V
U~ M N M M M M
~
w U
a?
~ro~ o oI- n Ln
m m ~mm ~
~ t") N I~ O N^ i~
~ ~ ~G3 V3 ~ V3~63 ~
\ \ \
~ w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N~ tn tA ~ O W(O ~f1 I- (O N hP7
W Q OJ M f~ N ~ l17 ~ O ln O (O O~~ O O
U W t~ N m 6 ~ tn lfi ~ 1, O ^ M N W
V c0 M l[1 M N N N N N f0 N M
w
It
W U
a?
~ m r~ co v rn o r) V) r m CD co v m oo
ln OJ N (O , V' t. tfJ N m OJ - (O M P7
oJ (7) Lf1 M f- (O V I~ - cD O- N OLn M W (3)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' '
~ V N M 1~ ~ N W N O) m LA ~ V N C7
co N N (O fA fh fA EA N 613 N 69 (h (O
EA EA 69 64 K3 69 EA EA 63 Efl fR
,
\
o 0 0
0
\ \ \0
0 0
\
0
\
\
\
\
\ \ \
0 0 0
\
0
\
w
~
Z fn
fD t~
fl]
~ M 00
0
0
0
N CO
0
C LL7
O
0
W Q
O~
m
oJ
N N
V
(h
N- N N
M
N N c0
M
c0
~
Uw
1n
O
M
(D
M
N
N
117
7 N f~
"
06
W N(O
f-
N M
~ ~ N
N
~ N~
r
~ M ~
M
N
~
W
U
W
a Z
H
Z
(h fD lf7
V'
(D d' (D
CO
(D LO N
M
lfJ N f`')
O
M
ovLn
o
chwco
m
rnchm
vrnr
("J O m
c7
(D N N
tn cD O
M
O W V
7
N
R
O ~ N
V
U) I~ O
t7
(O O OJ
in
O V W
t7
(D
n
N
7
EA r
M
EA Efl
N
N EA
V
V
~ F
EH Efl Efl
V3
Efl Ef~
V3
13
Efl
Efl EA
V3
U)
64
~
W
V
~ T
~
m tn -It
N
W W tfJ
V oJ OJ
O
(O h(O
01
O
O~ OJ
oJ
, I~
m O] h
(D
l[) N OJ
(D
M
Q c7
t- C) u)
N
, o~
~
M7M
N
~NO7
(D
M
W W
W
ud ~cfl
o
~oiv
cDCDU)
om
mo
00
m
Z
~
(n
V M M
N
M V R
(h
R V V
c7
V 7~
M
N
00
Efl 63 69
ffl EA EA
V3 613 (A
Efl V3 63
tn
~
r m
f9
Efl
64
EA
Efl
m
~
KWW
Of
~Q
Q
a
t-g
a
wmm
¢
,
<
=j
'
J
0
~
W
~
W W
,
~
C1
W
~
F
-
'
O
d
Q
z m
F-
' z
~
0
) a
~ C
0
E- > 0
=
F
~
~
v
~
ti~
Q~
N
-~QV)
0
0 Z0
0 0 0
Z (n .r- M O~i
U~ °n°~i~
~ U
wZ
a_
0 0 0 0 ~o
c`) M ~ ~ ~
~ ~ v c rn
N
m r o o ~ rn r~
C) m O~ t~ tn M N
~ t`7 ~ N fl: O N(O ~
~ r M (A EA t`7
a-- ~ Efl fA V) V> f!3 (p
F W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N m m O N CD ~fJ 1- (O N M
W Q W C') I~ N m U7 V O lf) r O (D 00) ~'J O O
V(D M lA 6 L7 { 1- O ~ C7 W OJ
U r
w m - N N N N N (O N th
wU
a?
~r)r~ co vrno ro V)~m (D mv m co
l!) O7 N CD V 1~ ~ N m oJ (O M
N m tn M I~ (O V h (O O 0] Ov M o mj
LC) 'It ~ .N N tND M EA ~ M ~ r~ N E9-N ~ cJ M
~ V3 Et? V3 ER 6q 69 EA H3 ff3 V3 E9 CO
Cl) ~
W
0 0 0
o 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 '
0
o
F
~
N ~
N
~
r
.
W Q
O V
q
N
t`')
N OJ OJ
c`7
N (D
M
C
0
U W
M
~ N
~ N ~
~
N
~
(
7 ~
1 ~
7
7
N
'
V f`)
M
N
~
w U
~
az
Z
W
M tD N
t
O
-I7
C7 '7 (D
(D
(D tn N
M
l!J N fh
O
C7
n
V
O
M 0] (D
0]
O) M CJ
~
7 QJ
M O m
t')
CJ N N
LLri (p p
M
O q C'
'V
N
^
O.-{
-~T
0~0
'
m a m
LI)
C)
It m
M
CD
Z
~ Efl 69
(fl
f~ E9
f`
)
N
N
~
~
F
(fj
E!A
V~
V3 69
6
U)
~
~
~
W,^
V
0 ~
~ m
~ O O m q ~ m m 40 m V' W q O (O 1~ C7 . n O
I~ M q I- tD LL'J N CJ (D th
Q(") QJ L'i N M V M N lf! N oJ (D M
W W W l17 I- (D O I- W'V ~ cD CO L'J q - (D O W oJ
= Z fn V n C') N C+J V 7 ch d' C V 7 V tn M N
Q Efl ER 69 ~ -fH EA E9 64 EA (fY fA ffl 69 ~ L7
' m V3 f~ EH yj
~ C ~ ry
W
of ~ W L f
Y
Q= 7 ~ Hm x
~ W m m Q
W D O W W 0 Q
Qw Q ~ N IL Q:D Z ~Z) W K UOu -r F--
->u.~ Q~-~ N ~Qrn ch 0 Z0
v ~
Ju[,v 1'6-22, 1999
THE DENVER BUSMESS JO[1RNAL
Opinion
`Smart growth' is a doable concept
■ Third of three parts
N ow we come to the thorniest of
all issues - local control ver-
sus state oversight of land-use.
During the last four decades,
the subject of regional cooperating has
been broached many times in Colorado.
Seldom have these discussions bome
~uit because there is too much incentive
:or cities to compete for growth, regard-
less of its regional fallout. That is wti}S we
should urge local govemments, in concert
with the Colorado Legislature, to enact
something approaching the "Responsible
Growth Act," defeated in the General
Assembly. The Act would have required
each municipality and county of at least
2,500 people to prepaze a comprehensive
plan identifying urban service azeas tar-
geted for growth within 20 years.
It would require communities to coor-
dinate their plans with Ihose of their
neighbors and to set up a process to
resolve disputes. Creating a process to
resolve disputes is the crucial element of
any proposal. While cities aze quick to
shaze their plans with one another, when
it comes to competition for tax revenue
they more typically go their separate
ways.
Here aze some other thoughts about
how effective legislation may work:
■ Require a process between commu-
nities to shaze sales and commercial
property tax on any ground that abuts
neighbaring communities' planning
areas. This preserves the existing tax
base of communities while aiding adja-
cent communities who will be forced to
deal with the challenges posed by their
neighbor§ developments.
■ Require local zoning that accommo-
dates housing needs for planned employ-
ment in the community. LeYs put an end
to down-zoning residential ground as a
strategy to push lowerpaid workers into
VIEWPOINT
TOht. CLARK
someone else's city, while the host city
reaps the benefits of an enhanced com-
mercial tax base.
■ Eliminate the property tax on resi-
dential properry. Replace it with an
increase in the state income tax on indi-
viduals. This sounds like heresy, but the
Gallagher Amendment has reduced the
assessment rations on residential proper-
ties to such a low, that no setf-respecting
city wants anything to do with "working
housing." An income-tax replacement for
property taxes, based on population, pro-
vides a greater revenue opportunity aad
inczntives for cities to accommodate new
workers than to push them out of town.
■ Make it easier to create urban coun-
ties. Recently, Broomfield succeeded in
becoming a new county. To do so required
a statewide vote and hundreds of thou-
sands of dollazs from its supporters.
While its municipal neighbors decry its
aggressive growth plans, to Broomfield's
credit, it will grow no larger. Counties
have prescribed laud azeas. They canno[
annex additional ground and leapfrog into
their neighbor's growth areas like cities
can. Once the boundary is fixed, counties
must seek permission from their neigh-
bors to annex additional land (a la Den-
ver's election in Adams County for a new
airport). Aurora and Westminster also are
exp'.oring the idea.
What can we do to bring quality devel-
opment ro our region? We can start by
looking at some things that already aze
being done - examples of what some
consider smart growth.
■ A "new urbanist" neighborhood is
under construction at the corner of Pike
Street and Colorado 287 in Longmont.
biarketed under the name Prospect, this
80-acre community of 320 lots was
desiped by Andres Duany, designer of
Seaside, Florida. Because developers Kiki
Wallace and Dale Bruns were trailblazers,
they had to fight for variances to Lona-
mont codes, suffering long delays before
breaking ground. Even after the 1996
groundbreaking, progress was slow
because of the exactihide of the develop-
ers and their disagreements with builders.
The project isn't perfect. Because it's at
the edge of town, with no public trans-
portation presently connected to it, some
would argue that iYs merely a more vanil-
la subdivision. It has that elusive quality
called "place:'
■ Denver provides some excellent
examples of mixed-use, from the stylish-
looking Mazket Street pazking gazage that
houses the Tommy Tsunami restaurant on
its ground floor, to the Colorado Center
on South Colorado Boulevatd, which
includes offices, a multiplex movie the-
ater with stadium seats and the Dave and
Buster's "entertainmenY" emporium.
■ If a high-rise office building is con-
structed behind the Denver Pavilions
shopping and entertainment complex; two
entire blocks of the 16th Street Mall will,
in effect, function as a huge mixed-use
project. All over Lower powntown, ware-
houses have been turned into loRs with
retail stores and restaurants below. This is
a welcome turnabout from the 1970s,
when office buildings with private plazas
were in vogue. These fortress-like private
areas succeeded mainly in creating dead
spots in the street. The trend today is to
open our collective arms ro the street and
embrace the beauty of city life.
Tom Clark rs president of the JeJjerson
Economic Council.
- ~ •
THF DerrvER BusINEss JouiurnL
Jucv 2-8, 1999
Opinion
Can we save the Front Range?
■ First of three parts
he Front Range, once renowned for its beauty,
has fallen victim to rampant suburban sprawl.
Who among us hasn't observed the bitter truth
through the windows of our automobilesl
Shall we continue to watch the decline of our region,
like onlookers at an accident? Or shall we summon the
resolve to plan our growth, however late in the game?
These aze the key questions we face as we confront
official forecasts of 700,000 more residents in the Den-
ver area within 20 years and 1.5 million more residents
statewide. And unless you think we can somehow stop
centuries of westward migration, the prospects of slow-
ing growth are dim.
Those who believe good planning is necessary ought
to start shouting For land-use reform. Colorado is
among the five most urbanized states, with over 80 per-
cent of iu population living in urban areas. We can not
sustain our quality of life with more low-density subdi-
visions. Nor can we continue to pit one community
against another for reYail stores while we disregard
common interesu.
What is so striking about our current situation is that,
despite the astonishing technological changes of recent
years, we continue to behave as if we aze stuck in the
1950s. Consider.
■ Rush hour is expanding, yet, we have the abitity to
work at our home computers and e-mai] the finished
product to our employers. The Department of Com-
merce estimates that more than 30 percent of our work-
ers are prime candidates for working at home at least
one day a week. Permitting these Folks to telework just
one day a week would reduce auto traffic by 6 percent
almost three times the number of people who presently
use mass transiN
■ The smoke-belching factory is largely a Ihing of
the past, yet we too often built iu latter-day counter-
part, the industrial or business park, on "the other side
of the tracks." Does anyone really believe we need
these sterile and distant places, devoid of retail stores
and inhabitants, to keep the economy running? Why
❑ot integrate offices with homes and stores, thus saving
countless car trips while creating livelier places that
VIEWPOINT
people enjoy? Placing housing in business parks may
be the easiest thing a developer can do. Without resi-
dential neighbors to object, building housing in these
parks can go fonvazd much more quickly.
■ We have the capacity to buy almost anything we
want over the Intemet, yet we clutter our world with
caz-dependent, big-box stores that offer little or no ser-
vices to the customer. With their huge parking lots,
these places are unattractive and waste land. While the
big boxes offer greater choice For consumers, increas-
ing competition destines many to fail. When they do,
how will they be reused?
■ Only since the end of World War II, when the
huilders adopted mass production techniques leamed
from the.war effort, have they learned to chew up large
tracts and blanket them with homes that all look the
same. Aow rare it is for homebuilders to reflect in their
work some aspect of a region, its raw materials and its
history, so as to attract the interest of a person walking
or dciving by. Newer homes here could as easily be set
in California or Nevada or ldaho or Iowa. As a result,
we suffer visually from a lack of place.
■ An average new car today costs 525,000. Throw
in the costs of insurance, maintenance and fuel and
you're looking at a monthly expense second only to
your mortgage payment. Wouldn't it be more efficient
in the long run for communities to invest in transit-
oriented or master developments that encompass
shopping, eritertainment, off`ices, apartments and municipal functions? Just think of the potential for
generating revenue while creating human gathering
p(aces, eliminating driving trips and enhancing the
identity of a town.
Tom Clark is president of the Jeffersan Economic
Council.
wn
c
'
~
c
d
C
' 4
C
O
~
~
V r
j
•
h
~
y•n
j:n ~
~
,
'
~
o
E~
no
o>
vy
E
3°~ ~
`
`
~
o~
a
C7
o
~
a mp 3
„
,
i_~._y m
.
°
o
•~o N
n
U~`.~s a
mwp
~
~ ~ C T
.j 6 d C~. N
fn O
.
V
'
C~ _
P~
6 O
0 C V
V~
~ N 7
m
9 O ~ C
"'~~t6
G
N
G
~
y
3"eu¢~:aE:
'
`
y
•
oa~
` y
~
y
m L ~ 9
°
u e.= =i u
°
f
o
_
E>°,
n
3=
o
O
7~
ma
~
Ey~uo
C~ T
"
(
V`
~-d
~y
ya
s
~ L ~
N
L
EE
r
V d T O
~
`o
fi °
'
` v <
pt oo
w
.
-
~ c°-'a r.v.
~
a
m~
T
~
° a
m
~'L
U s E o
~
v
3 tl ~°`o ~
~
~ 6d
C O~R=~~
ct
~ m
y oC ~~P
O
~
wcc
o
E
~`°a
~
+
`
=t 6
/~I ~ Cu'O
4 d a O
C 9Q HN W
m- m
z y e ai ~
E
e
=
o
PL
m..
c
.
gm2
~
~
o.
9
i--1
O
~
~ O ..a
o° m
Lyr~
~ ~ 9 0= E
.2t.z.,
`oYn-3o
~
V
U O a J
T
~ O
~Uc>>N
O-
cw
'3EC° c°~~°.
"
.
`
m=c m i•
°
~
`°o`
o
.
.
~
°
~on
..:Eo...
=
~
~
a. ~ c3ye-'o
j
myn_°: '^a,C
0
~
oo E
~w o
E
~
ma ea.y >,a ~
av "_5
i-yv ~
c e`~
~ a ~
L' nEaq ~
o
U
c
T
E
.
y
~
m = y°~
~
=
= d
T
~
e_ m E-
o C° T N 3~ .
3 mV
=o °
~
a; `
~A O
~_w
oo~°~
o
y c
~+v C7 0°'- °
m u Et;
mv~ Va`o°3=
SooE°cV
GOOd jObS
hold key,
Jeffco told
GROWTH from Page 78 -
"The fact that in the year 2020
the metro region will have 1 miI-
tion more peopfe and hundreds of
t6ausands of new jobs is not the is-
sue," he said. "The question is
where these jobs go."
"Jefferson County,for better or
worse, is a bedroom community,
where everyone commutes to
work If yau dan'C put more jobs
put here, congestion will get
worse," said Jeff Romine, regionat
economist for the Denver Regional
Council oF Governments.
-"Some think it will onfy take"
Widemng the roads to fia the prob-
lem, but it's where you put [he
jobs;' Rowne said. "Look at the
(Denver) Tech Center. We put all
those jobs out there and now Iaok
at I-25. Of coune there is grid-
~ack•
And it's not onfy where the jo6s
are but what kinds of jobs, he said.
rimary jobs - like those in
-'Ligh•tech industries - drive the
economy. Seco¢dary jobs include
$'etail employment, but donY neces-
sarily do a county Iike Jefferson
aiuch good, Romine said.
~ Currently, he said, people leave
3Le county to go to work at the
Tech Center and Denver because of
a lack of primary jobs near their
' More growth, more jobs
. Jefferson Counry's population is ezpeMed ro grcw to more than 573,000
people by 2020. but studies suggests the numher of available jobs wili
grow with it.
■Jetterson County 3Denver metro area
-;-23548 " . . .
197067.~ 1244,364 Population
' . 544.500 ._d ..Employment 371.753
~ ` 1,628,210
19B0
t3T950 .
s
d38.a3a . . . .
7990 184 &50, I.&59.0a8
° . .
530.500
200 Z324000
0 ~ t t 398 004 ' ~ ^ .
568.600
2010 07251 0P 2.792.000
i 660 UOD ~ .
579.200 - 4`
2020 r3r2020W
CoupTy n .0 370~# 0.371 0.421 0.437 0.493 0.443
Denvef .~p,q3g ~ 0.563 ~0.567.~ 0.602 0.595 0.579
Metro Area
me o~, wri c~
homes.
But counties like Jefferson often
spend too muc6 timeattracting
shopping mafls, which provide a
hefty sales-tax base but only sec-
ondary jobs.
Cities and counties must start
working together on a regional
plan, Romine said, so good, prunary jo6s can be distributed where
peopie live.
"Growth is here to stay, and we
need to do bet[er planning;" WesD
cott added. "We can't keep goin¢
with blinders an." .
F R E D E R I C K R0~
~
~
I
;
6ROKER INSIGHT
)oHNJ. °PACKE' LObVREY JR.
Entitlements: A Manmade
Resource Driving Up
Land Prices
The grand sweep of the pltins east of the
Front Range may suggest unlimited low-
pdced land forcommercial and residen0al
development. Historirally, agricullu2l water
was the key to land value in these semi-arid
high plains. Fortodays
urban development
needs,waters"'- j
imporoncehasbeen
displaced by a
. rtianmade resou2e--
en6tlemenfs: the rights
; ro Cevelop larid
vertirally..::;:<; i
~
Theincreasinglytighter i
"supply' of enbtlements has the greatest effect
on residenfial developmenL It isconstraining
landsupptyforhousingatthesametime '
economic expansion is producing strong
~
demand for new housing. While business
demandisprodudngmodestupwardpressure
'
oncommercialsfles,residentiallandprices `
are rising muchfaster. . - ~
Lastyear27,658housingpertnitswereissued ~
in the Denver metro area, contlnuing a steady
upwardtrendfrom1989'sbotlomof5,762. ~
The 1999 total may be a bit lower, but at most
wouldsignalahatteningoftheupwardtrend i
andrwtadecline.Tghterentltlementpolicies ~
andhigherlandpriceswillmakenewhousing i
increasingly expensive,which will in tum,
.
drive up housing wsLs throughoutthe area.
The myriad govemment en6fies that dole out
development entltlements seem to be of iwo
minds about economic expansan. They
crompete vigorousty to attract new "corporate
ciGZens°thatwill bring more jobs tortlheir
woridorces, and fheywekome ihe taxes from
high•value offices and plams that lighten
existing residenis' fax burdens.
AtGtudes towartl residenGal devebpment
some6mes approach hostility-as'rf Iocal
govemments want newjo6s but not new
people. Jobs are neatty, conNained in high-
- (Cartlinued on Poge 4)
Entitlements
(Cnrztinued frmn Pa,Br 11
density oKices and planis, but new housing
consumes land, and providing services to acres
of new residences dilutes ihe tax windfall from
new commercial developmeni.
Nobody wants to see commercial or residential
development erode the excepfional quality of life
enjoyed in Colorado. But if each community
buiids new workplaces and no new bedrooms,
something has to give. The problem is not likely
to go away, unless iPs replaced by something
worse, such as an economic reversal. We've
been there, and those problems are farworse
ihan ihe pro6lems of prosperAy.
~
t
~
t
Y
y~FNUEl- ~~S~ti~SS ~ ~~~a f
Metro income moves un ~
By MICNAEi, GppHqM l'"
Specia! to the Burineu,/ourna(
WhY iS metro Denver's economy boo
ing even as population growth slows? P
of the reason is workers across the me
azea are taking home mote money. L
more money.
The metro area experienced a hefty
percent increase in total personal inco
from 1995-1997, according to a repo
compiled by qmerican City Business Jo
nals, pazent company of I'he Denver Bus
ness Journal. Personal income includes pa
and bonuses but not capital gains from th
sale of stocks.
But Denver's got plenty of competitio
from other high_tech centers. T7~e Sh.an
increase ranked just ] 1 th nationally,
behind such cities as Austin, Las Uegas,
and Raleigh-Durham w~ch came in first,
second, aod thu~, respectively.
Denver meh~o's residents eamed a total of
$69.8 billion in 1997, ranking No.16
narionally. Population centers New york
City, Los Angeles, and Chicago came in
first through third T'he national total of
personal income in 1997 was $6,77 ~fliion.
On average, Denver metro area residents
earned $30,099 in 1997, m~g ~em ~e
ninth wealthiest urban dwellers in the
nation. Tye average acquaintances in palm
Beach, San Francisco-Oakiand_San Jose,
and New York City were the wealthiest in
the United States.
Greater Denver realized an 11.4 nercent
increase in per capita personal income from
1995-1997, nrilting 1]I nationally, behind
m- first through third placers San Francisco-
art Oakland-San Jose, Seattle, and Austin.
ho According to the report, personal
ots income figures such as these could become
even more import~t population to
16 mazketers in deciding what cities to target
me for hot new producu.
rt Richard Wobbekind of the University
ur- of Colorado initially was surprised at
9_ these high figures. He attributed the
y growth to Denver's high-technology econ-
e omY, and growth in population and wage
and income rates. A few high-tech cities
n like Seattle and Portland ranked higher
g than Denver.
Wobbekind says this is possibly due to
the smaller component capital gains play in
our economy than theus.
He used the exarnple of stock profiu
reaped by Microsoft as an eXamp~e qddi-
aonally, high-growth such as Col-
orado Springs, Fort Collins, and
Lazimer/Weld aze not usually accounted for 4
when meko area statistics are compi]ad, f
Only the azea from Boulder to Castle Rock ~
usually is taken into consideration. '
Wobbekind speculated other ciries may
experience most opthis high growth w1thin
the limiu of their metro azeas. These cities ;
also had a larger base from wluch to groH;
with Seattle reporting about $30 billion `
more in personal income than Denver in
1997, as 9ust one examDle.