Home            
Register      

Mile High Greyhound Park Redevelopment

PROJECT Project Title: Mile High Greyhound Park Redevelopment
NominationDate: 1/31/2012 9:46 AM
Local Government: City of Commerce City
Cooperating Government: Commerce City Urban Renewal Authority
Summary:
The City of Commerce City’s Urban Renewal Authority (URA) raced towards the future Aug. 3, 2011 with the purchase of the 65-acre Mile High Greyhound Park for future infill redevelopment, consistent with MetroVision’s stated density, urban center and alternative transit facility goals. Located in the heart of Commerce City, the Mile High Greyhound Park was a destination for thousands of metro Denverites for more than 40 years, with three restaurants, two bars and calls of “Here comes Rusty” echoing during its heyday. When greyhound racing ended in 2008, the property went up for sale and became desolate, affecting the viability of adjacent developments and reinforcing the divide between two neighborhoods. While the city’s 2009 comprehensive plan identified the property as one of the city’s five redevelopment areas and as a planned regional center less than two miles from future transit-oriented development, the property remained vacant. In announcing the purchase, the URA embarked a comprehensive, multi-lingual community outreach and engagement process to help redefine this key area of Commerce City, resulting in more than 700 unique comments on resident development desires that are being used in the city’s visioning effort for this mixed-use infill project.
Problem:
Given the 65-acre Mile High Greyhound Park’s historical significance and its location in the heart of historic Commerce City, seeking the public’s input on what should become of the property was the first critical step after the URA announced it made a $3.3 million investment in the city’s future. Not only will the findings from the community outreach process guide the planning efforts for this mixed-use site, it will form the basis of a plan the city will eventually submit to DRCOG for designation of the location as a MetroVision planned urban center. Public input will ensure the parcel’s plan can achieve the goals of MetroVision, contributing to increased density by redeveloping a 65-acre infill parcel, creating a vibrant urban center with jobs and open spaces, and improve multi-modal connections through the property and adjacent to future TOD. In short, the city is committed to working with the private sector to ensure sustainable, smart growth that will redefine Commerce City for years to come in a way that is consistent with the MetroVision plan.
Description:
BACKGROUND A series of public meetings was conducted in the fall of 2011 to gather the community’s input on the redevelopment of the former Mile High Greyhound Park (MHGP) at 6200 Dahlia St. Since opening its doors to racing in 1949, the dog track has been a big part Commerce City’s history, and it remained a community landmark until racing ended in 2008. The process of gathering public comments took place throughout the fall of 2011 and included six public meetings and eight meetings targeting specific segments of the community, including Hispanic residents. MEETING PLANNING PROCESS In coordination with the city’s Community Development Director, Communications Director and Planning Division representatives, staff recommended conducting a series of public meetings to maximize attendance. In the interest of sustaining the public interest created with the Aug. 3 purchase announcement, the first meeting was scheduled for early September. To encourage the greatest amount of input possible, the decision was made to host six meetings – two each in the months of September, October and November – at various locations on various days and at various times. In addition to these six meetings, eight targeted outreach meetings were conducted with specific segments of the community. With the target audience for the public meetings being Commerce City residents, the city employed grassroots marketing and publicity tactics to promote the meeting series. These efforts included direct mail postcards distributed to 15,700 Commerce City address in August and October, a media release distributed to more than 50 local outlets and advertisements placed in numerous local publications including: • City News (city newsletter distributed to 20,000 households) • Commerce City Sentinel • Brighton Blade • Gateway News • Neighborhood News • YourHub (print and electronic issues) All advertisements reflected the look and feel of the direct mail postcards to help attract the public’s attention. Additional promotional activities included running stories in the city’s electronic newsletter publications – the Economic Development Department’s C3 ED Commerce Connection, Quality Community Update distributed bi-weekly to residents and News and Views, the city’s e-newsletter for employees. A special page on the city’s website enabled everyone to get information on the meeting series and download information by visiting www.c3gov.com/ura. Each of the six general public meetings followed the same format of open house, presentation and small group discussion. With the ultimate goal of gathering the public’s input, the city determined this hybrid format would be most conducive to creating an environment in which everyone could feel comfortable participating and offering ideas. Those more inclined to one-on-one interactions could ask questions and offer ideas during the open house portion, while those more comfortable with group dynamics could provide their input during the small group discussions. MEETING SPECIFICS While meetings were conducted at three different community sites, making it easier for all citizens to participate, the majority of the meetings took place at the Parks & Recreation Center to accommodate those most affected by the redevelopment process - residents living adjacent to the former dog track property. PUBLIC MEETING FORMAT After signing in and picking up a comment form and agenda, attendees were allowed to settle in by visiting the information boards positioned at the five stations around the room. These information stations included: • Welcome • About the Mile High Greyhound Park • How Does This Site Fit into Our Vision of the Future? • What is a Mixed-Use Development? • Connecting Our Community City representatives and third-party facilitators were on hand to answer any questions and field any comments people had while looking at the display boards, and informational handouts were available to help address any questions people had about the property, the URA and its decision to purchase the property, and the public input process. After giving people a few minutes to become more familiar with the property and the redevelopment process, the city gave a brief presentation to reiterate details presented on the information boards. Through this presentation the city was able to stress key messages including: • No decision has been made on how this property will be redeveloped, so the city values the public’s input. • No operational funds were used for the purchase of the property and no tax dollars will be used in the redevelopment. • The benefits of the URA stepping forward to purchase the dog track at this time. • The overall process involved with redeveloping the property. The final, and perhaps most important, component of each public meeting was the facilitated small group discussion. Conducting these discussions at the end of the meeting gave people time to first gather and process information during the open house and presentation sessions. Combining what they already knew about the community with information they might have learned at the meeting offered the best chance for an educated, engaged and spirited discussion. Each of the small group discussions was conducted using the “write it, say it, slap it” method of facilitation. With this method, each participant was given the chance to write on a sticky note an idea for a type of development they would like to see incorporated, say it out loud to the group and affix it to a specific location on the aerial site map of the property. Attendees were encouraged to refer to general types of developments (such as family, sit-down restaurants and sporting goods retail) as opposed to specific-named businesses. This was intended to avoid setting the expectation that a particular business would be moving to Commerce City as part of the dog track redevelopment. Many of the suggestions offered in this process provided the opportunity for facilitators to engage the groups in discussions relative to the benefits, opportunities, challenges and applicability of the ideas offered. As different comments were made, notes were jotted down on flip charts to supplement the aerial map sticky notes. Along with ideas for specific types of developments, each of the small group facilitators asked participants to weigh in on the proposed location of the Boys & Girls Club and offer suggestions on other types of infrastructure improvements or site enhancements they thought would be needed in conjunction with the redevelopment. These suggestions included everything from drainage improvements and landscaping enhancements to major reconfigurations of the Highway 2 and 64th Avenue intersection to improve site access. All told, the 13 facilitated small group discussions generated more than 300 ideas for the city to consider in redeveloping the MHGP. PUBLIC INPUT While most community input came during the small group discussions, there were several different ways people could comment on the redevelopment plan. From comment forms distributed during the meetings to a dedicated telephone hotline, online solicitation, targeted outreach and small group discussion, the city collected more than 750 ideas during the outreach process. In addition, two proposals submitted by local residents included an action sports complex development while another was a community and cultural arts complex for consideration. A quantitative analysis of the small group discussion feedback is included in Appendix C as an attachment. The synopsis of comments from the small group discussions and the targeted outreach meetings together provide an overview of comments received during the 14 community meetings. It should be noted these charts merely reflect a tally of the suggestions offered and are not weighted in terms of importance. As such, this input is not to be considered statistically valid, but rather provides a general idea of recurring development types suggested. The 16 categories of development types on these charts were chosen as general descriptions to capture all comments offered during the small group discussions. Categories more broad in nature tend to garner more comments. For example, while several types of development fall under the category of parks & recreation/sports such as a bowling alley, soccer field and putt-putt golf, the types of development falling under the category of medical facilities is much more restrictive. Nearly each of the 13 small group discussions raised the need for a hospital or trauma center, but the fact that it might only appear once on the chart is not meant to diminish its importance to the community. When asked specifically about the types of development desired, most of the feedback offered during the public meeting small group discussions and through comments expressed at the targeted outreach meetings suggest a preference for recreational or sporting uses. The next two highest categories of suggestions include arts and entertainment uses and retail uses, with public meeting participants and those at the supplemental outreach meetings reversed in their rankings of these two categories. Beyond the suggestions offered for specific types of development to include on the property, small group discussion participants brought forth ideas specific to the Boys & Girls Club and suggestions related to site improvements and infrastructure advancements that might be necessary to make the redevelopment project successful. With respect to the Boys & Girls Club, most favor the proposed location in the southeast corner of the property, citing two reasons: its proximity to schools and the Parks and Recreation Center, and positioning away from Highway 2. Everyone agreed that better access to this southeast corner would be needed from Holly Street and 62nd Avenue. The only dissenting opinions to this location came from one person who preferred the club be located adjacent to the bus stop along Holly Street between 56th and 60th avenues and another who expressed possible safety considerations with the intersection of 62nd Avenue and Holly Street that might warrant moving the club more toward the center of the dog track property. Beyond discussions of the Boys & Girls Club some of the common qualitative themes and ideas that emerged from the small group discussions include: • Incorporate some type of open space/community town center. • Include facilities/developments that can serve as an extension of Parks & Recreation by offering classes and activities that can’t be supported by the existing building. • The suggestion of including a hospital/urgent care trauma unit came up in virtually every meeting. • Most small groups expressed the desire to have some type of continuing education/trade school on the site where people can learn computer skills, take general education classes or learn a trade. • The retention pond on the east side of the property needs to be addressed (ideally removed and incorporated as part of open space throughout development). • Fairly significant roadway improvements need to be made in and around the property including improving access from both directions of Highway 2 and extending local roads (such as Parkway Avenue) through the property to connect the development with surrounding parcels. • Transit considerations should be factored in, such as working with RTD to move the proposed FasTracks rails station closer to this property, upgrading bus service, providing shuttle service from the FasTracks station to this property, creating some type of transit hub, etc. • There is a desire to minimize the amount of surface asphalt parking with the new development by encouraging mass transit and/or incorporating a centralized parking structure to serve the bulk of the development. • Focus higher density developments on the west side of the property and transition to lower density retail and residential uses on the east side with open space/town square type concept in the middle. • Keep the current track/grass infield area intact and use for a soccer field, football field and community activity area that could tie in well with Boys & Girls Club; would also serve to preserve the historical aspect of the dog track that many want to retain. • Grass infield area could also be reused as a venue for concerts and other community gatherings, particularly if combined with some type of cultural arts facility. • The incorporation of walking paths, gathering areas with benches, landscaping and other types of open spaces throughout the development is very important to the community. • There is an overall desire for this development to attract people from other communities (and keep Commerce City residents from leaving town) by offering an experience they can’t get in the immediate area. In other words, don’t create another development like Stapleton’s Northfield, but offer something that distinguishes the community. OUTCOMES In addition to the 178 people who signed in for the public meetings approximately 290 people attended the targeted outreach meetings for a total of more than 460 people reached during the fall of 2011. This turnout can be attributed in part to the direct mail postcards, the local advertising and the nearly 20 media clips from print, electronic and web-based publications. In the end, meeting participants and other citizens offered the city more than 750 suggestions on redeveloping the MHGP property; everything from the type of retail outlets they would like to see to the best ways to integrate the property with the surrounding neighborhood. These suggestions are congruent with MetroVision’s stated goals, suggesting that the community is eager to see smart, sustainable redevelopment that offers employment and housing opportunities in urbanized centers. There is also a strong desire for increased transit and alternatives to traditional modes of transportation. The city and URA anticipate that as site planning continues, the principles of MetroVision will be incorporated into the strategic vision for the redevelopment.
Modification Details:
There are a wide variety of public engagement and information models employed in planning activities. In Commerce City, the diverse demographics, public perceptions of government decision-making, and traditional lack of engagement factored into how the city approached a community outreach/education program for the redevelopment of the Mile High Greyhound Park. According to the2010 U.S. Census, nearly half of the city’s population is Hispanic and 75 percent of that population is Spanish-dominant or bilingual. In historic Commerce City, where the MHGP is located, the number of Hispanic residents is over 65 percent. To ensure this community had a voice in the redevelopment process, the city created a specific Hispanic Outreach plan, implemented concurrently with the large-scale public meetings. These activities included: • Small group presentations • Delivering translated handouts to various community agencies • Meeting with local church leaders and their congregations • Distributing translated handouts and comment forms to Adams District 14 students to share with their parents As part of the Hispanic Outreach Plan, advertisements were also placed in the following publications that target Spanish-speaking residents: • El Comercio de Colorado • El Semanario • El Hispano The targeted meetings saw more than 290 people in attendance and garnered the return of 111 printed comment forms on what should be redeveloped. The input received from the targeted outreach saw similar preferences for development but a slightly different order for desires. The URA also had to overcome the public’s perceptions of decision-making on the project – i.e. development decisions had already been made and asking citizens for input was merely a formality. To reduce this concern, the meeting format was structured so the role of city representatives was minimized to a brief presentation and question/answer session. Small group dialogue and facilitation was conducted by a third party consultant to elicit honest feedback and all documentation was done by the consultant and provided in its entirety to increase transparency. Finally, engaging city residents on planning processes has historically been a challenge. The URA sought to provide multiple opportunities for citizens to provide feedback by providing varied meeting times, locations and avenues. Facilitated discussions employed the “write it, say it, slap it” method which further engaged the 178 people that attended the meetings. During small group discussions, each participant was given the opportunity to write down their ideas for desired developments and affix them to a specific location on the aerial map. As comments were made, notes were jotted down on flip charts to supplement the sticky notes. All told, the 13 facilitated discussions generated more than 300 ideas for the city to consider in redeveloping the MHGP.

Back to Finalist List