Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02 Adopting the Chamonix Master Plan RESOLUTION N0.2 Series 2009 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CHAMONIX MASTER PLAN, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND A FIRE STATION ON THE "CHAMONIX PARCEL" AND "WENDY'S PARCEL" AND TO AMEND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-3, AMENDMENT PROCESS, VAIL LAND USE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE CHAMONIX MASTER PLAN AREA LOCATED AT 2398 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD AND 2310 CHAMONIX ROAD/PARCELS A AND B, RE-SUBDIVISION OF TRACT D, VAIL DAS SCHONE FILING 1. WHEREAS, The Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, The members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, In 2002, the Town of Vail purchased the "Chamonix Parcel" for the purpose of constructing employee housing and a new fire station; and WHEREAS, In 2007, the Town of Vail purchased the "VVendy's Parcel" for the purpose of constructing a new fire station; and WHEREAS, On January 8, 2008, the Town Council established the "Chamonix Advisory Committee" for the purpose of developing master plan options; and WHEREAS, The "Chamonix Advisory Committee" held numerous public meetings over eight months; and WHEREAS, The "Chamonix Advisory Committee" developed three master plan options; and WHEREAS, On August 5, 2008, the Council instructed staff to fully develop the "Neighborhood Block" option for the development of deed restricted, for-sale employee housing and a West Vail Fire Station; and WHEREAS, On December 22, 2008 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission gave a recommendation of approval with a modification (4-1-0, Proper opposed); and WHEREAS, The Town Council finds that the adoption of the Chamonix Master Ptan and Land Use Plan Amendments are in keeping with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, The Town Council finds that the adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan is in the best interest of the Town as it promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE Tf)WN CIF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: No. 2, Serles 2009, Ems! 1 ~ 4 _ ~..m _ SW..~. _ ~ , _ Section 1. Chamonix Master Plan Adoption Adoption of the "Chamonix Master Plan dated January 6. 2009. orepared for the Town of Vail by Stan Clawson Associates, inc" copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 2. Vail Land Use Plan Amendment A. The Council hereby approves the Vail Land Use Plan amendments, as illustrated by text additions stated in bold italics and deletions in stfike# and the following maps and figures attached to this resolution as exhibits: 1. Amended Map A -Vail Land Use Plan 2. Tract 431- Chamonix Parcel The 3.6 acre Chamonix Parcel has been identified for the location of a future high density, for-sale, deed-restricted employee housing development consisting of approximately 58 dwelling units (16 to 17 dwelling units per acre). o€ a ~tr~e-statier~-a~ t" _ ~aedit~deHSity resi~fe~`.ial -s, A Land Use Plan depicting t#~e-iesatiep-e# the #e uses has been prepared as the result of a comprehensive public planning process and is included as Appendix F of this document. Tract 44 -West Vail Fire Station The 1.25 acre West Vail Fire Station Parcel has been identified for the location of a new fire station in West Vail. A Land Use Plan depicting the location of the new fire station on the parcel has been prepared and is included as Appendix G of this document. CMP -Chamonix Master Plan Area Included In this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan (CMP) land use category may include deed restricted employes housing, private recreation facilities, private parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as a fire station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of residents. Section 3. Effective Date This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Reaolutfon No. 2, Seriea 2008, Pays 2 of 4 i INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6`h day of January, 2009. ld~ chard D. Clevelan ~ or, Town o~Vail Y ~ ATTESV~ N OF V .~D.c_.. ~ ~ ~ - . lei onaldson, Town clerk ~ SEAL •~;'••....••Op OCORP Resolution No. 2, Series 2009, Page 3 of 4 INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2009. chard D. Clevelari ~a or Town o~Vail Y ATTES ~1~1.OF L,9 lei onaldson, down Glerk ~ SEAL • ~,~C ....POp OR Resolution No. 2, Series 2009, Page 3 of 4 T Map A CHAMONIX DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY: LAND USE Chamonix Parcel: Parcel B, re-subdivision of Tract D. Vail Das Schone Filing 1; 2310 Chamonix Road Former Wendy's Parcel: Parcel A, reaubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1; 2399 North Frontage Road West ~ .'.`r-. a+2 ~ ~-,~2+ss 2+~~/ ~ r nls¢ x13a~ r ~ } , E .r„K~i~,. r. ~y~ 1 _ a ; 2289 1bA X a S 84 ~j Xk Eiv. ? ~3, 2249 . ' ~ S ~ T tie ~ ~ J I ~ ~ - N y ~ L N .43- - u S f"0 ,a . `r,. ~ . EXISTING LAND USE a o, E `~l y ~ , ~ low Density Resndenlial t'y; °Z 2t+! ' - ~ Medum Density Residential ' -Community Commercial '.:-r 7M~~ y. sr 2445 43 'F ]:UB 2338 f1 N• P _ ' 2 M ~ I1P9 6A i' I ( ~ 11 R ~ ~ , le '249 2.1.55 ~ ~ 21?? p ; ~ P r , c ~ air S n'1 c L , A 24,.' x, ~ D U , _ ¦ " PROPOSED LAND USE S ~ , ` ~ ~ 'T ` ? r,~.~., Chamonix Master Plan E z4+4 ; . Medium Density ResitleMlal a ~ ~ - CommunRy Commercial ® I I ' `i l.i~. •aaee~W.ewOw +4 WG Te.'W.nae.eea.,'.-.e x,...i .~:I'~4`.WVUU Uft .I'r. ~roNU. Tb Taw, A x~/ bn b ~N 4.tosx, d9w c4wnM.IM~ riw,~ ,I,av~ NaM Ine..., .,t~ i. l~f Resolution No. 2, Series 2009, Page 4 of 4 Chamonix Master Plan s~ } 'ems ~ , r f _ / m . *y F Y ` r ( ' ~ V y 1 i Ry`[' i w~ " 6 January 2009 Adopted by Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009 Prepared For the Town of Vail by s= ~ _ . : ~ . h Drexel, Barrell & Co. r _ ; ~I®~i . Chamonix Master Plan i i Acknowledgements The Chamonix Area Master Plan Amendment is the result of over a year of work on the part of many individuals. Without the effort of the Vail Town Council, the Chamonix ~ Advisory Committee, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Vail Local Housing Authority, and Town of Vail Staff the Chamonix Area Master Plan would not have been ~ completed. Vail Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Dick Cleveland, Mayor Bill Pierce, Chair Andy Daly, Mayor Pro-Tem Rollie Kjesbo, Co-Chair Kevin Foley Michael Kurz Mark Gordon Sarah Robinson-Paladino Farrow Hitt Scott Proper Kim Newbury Susie Tjossem Margaret Rogers David Viele Chamonix Advisory Committee Vail Local Housing Authority Bob Armour Mark Ristow, Chair Jack Bergey Sally Jackle Andy Daly Steve Lindstrom Rollie Kjesbo Ethan Moore Ethan Moore Kim Newbury Mark Ristow Margaret Rogers David Viele Town of Vail Staff Consultants Stan Zemler, Town Manager Stan Clawson Associates, Inc. George Ruther, Community Dev. Director Studio B Architects Mark Miller, Vail Fire Chief Drexel, Barrel) 8. Co. Craig Davis, Vail Fire Department Economic & Planning Systems Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator Scott Hunn, Former Project Planner k i I i Chamonix Master Plan Table of Contents 1. Project Scope 1 ~ 2. Process 3 A. Overview I B. Advisory Committee C. Town Council Hearing D. Refinement of Schemes s E. Sustainability 3. Final Recommendations 6 i A. Advisory Committee B. Final Town Council Approval 4. Preferred Option 7 5. Procedural Requirements 9 6. Non-Preferred Options 9 7. Recommended Actions 12 8. Appendix 12 r I I Chamonix Master Plan 1. PROJECT SCOPE The proposed design schemes for the Chamonix Master Plan Area were directed by the stated goals and objectives developed early in the community participation process. The consultant team of Stan Clawson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrel) & Co. identified a variety of opportunities and constraints from the unique physical characteristics of the ~ ~ ~f ~ ~.r. Chamonix site. The inclusion of a fire station and student y V .~?v : ,~^f ~ dormitory further complicated _ ~ ~f the layout and programmatic ~ ,r~ c . t~ ~ .,i' ~ i , elements of the site design. ~ .4 ; 1, The Master Plan Area is 4 ` r generally south facing and ~ ~ .K ~ ~ ' ~ ~ sloped and occupies a highly _ 4 ~ visible location off of the west - ~ . ~ ~ S~~ ~ ~ Vail exit (Exit No. 173) from I- ~ - ` ~ ~ 70. Highway commercial and strip mall commercial development characterizes the uses off of the frontage road and Chamonix Road, with residential neighborhoods characterizing the use patterns off of Chamonix Lane. The Chamonix Master Plan Area is located near to bus stops on both the West Vail Red and Green Loop transit lines. Commercial and employment opportunities are located in the commercial areas within walking distance of the site. The Town Council identified eleven development goals to direct the master planning process. These goals were: • The site is to be used for development of a fire station and employee housing. • Housing for student fire department employees should be considered in the design of the fire station. • An ambulance substation could be an ancillary use on the site. • Energy-efficient and sustainable design and construction techniques are important. Certification by a particular program (LEED, Green Globes) is to be investigated, although not mandatory. • 100 percent of housing developed should be deed-restricted, for-sale employee Chamonix Master Plan housing, with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. • The site should be optimized to provide the greatest amount of employee II housing. • Re-zoning the site to Housing (H) District is preferred to allow flexibility in design and development. j Additional traffic onto Chamonix Lane should be limited. • One-story of development along Chamonix Lane is acceptable. • All financing and phasing options will be considered. • New pedestrian circulation and access routes should be provided around the site, along Chamonix Road and/or Lane, to ensure connectivity of the surrounding neighborhood to other areas within West Vail. Existing pedestrian paths through the site are to be limited. The charge made by the Vail Town Council to "optimize the site" required that the planning concepts developed by the design team be evaluated in the context of adjacent uses. The ultimate goal was to provide a plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area that balanced the concepts of density, neighborhood impact, and traffic and parking concerns with aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that would address the community need for additional affordable housing in a contextually appropriate way. The target group for the Chamonix development was families. The target group income was determined to fall within 60-120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) range for Eagle County, with a possible inclusion of incomes up to 140% of AMI. In current dollars, this equated to a household income range of $47,000 to $94,000, with a possible excursion to $110,000. An important component to the site plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area was the inclusion of a new fire station. Members of the Town Council recommended the fire station be segregated from the residential use of the Chamonix development for safety i and noise reasons. Dedicated access for emergency equipment was requested, as was the incorporation of a community room for public gathering. A student dormitory, to help alleviate the cramped conditions experienced by fire department recruits, was also requested. Finally, provisions for possible Ambulance District participation were to be considered. I 2 I Chamonix Master Plan 2. PROCESS A. History of Chamonix Master Plan Area The Town of Vail acquired the 3.6-acre "Chamonix Parcel" in October, 2002, for the purpose of constructing a fire station, employee housing and land banking. To achieve the Town's goals the Town of Vail adopted the Chamonix Master Plan in 2005. The Master Plan outlined development areas for a fire station, employee housing and open space. In 2007, the Town of Vail was able to acquire the adjacent former Wendy's Site. It was determined the former Wendy's Site was a more optimal location, from an emergency services perspective, for a future West Vail Fire Station. Based upon the acquisition of the new property, the Town of Vail determined it could better utilize the two parcels if a new, comprehensive master plan process was completed. A Request for Proposals to hire a new consultant team was issued in September, 2007. The Team of Stan Clawson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrell i~ Co. were retained by the Town of Vail to develop this new Chamonix Master Plan. B. Overview During a period of six months, the consulting team developed three schemes. The three schemes, titled Neighborhood Block, Neighborhood Cluster, and Village Neighborhood, explored varying densities and internal character. Development of the three schemes benefited from informal and formal meetings with stakeholders and Town staff and from responses to a survey distributed to potential residents. Members of the consultant team also attended the Fire Chief Magazine "Station Style Design Conference" in Phoenix to broaden their understanding of current fire station design trends. Revisions to the three schemes were periodically presented to the Advisory Committee for additional input and direction, and these refinements were subsequently presented to the Town Council. Information from the Town department heads was considered in the site planning and design guidelines for the development of the employee housing and fire station at the Chamonix Master Plan Area. Information from other sources was balanced with the input gained from the Focus Groups. 3 Chamonix Master Plan ~ ~ ~ . , 1 1 1.. 1 Y / 111 1 1 C. Advisory CommitFee On 16 January 2008 a "Kick-Off" meeting was held for the purpose of introducing the Chamonix Site Master Plan project to the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, which was selected by Town of Vail staff as well as citizens, consisted of representative from the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Housing Authority, the Vail Fire Department, Community Development, and two Citizens at Large. Duties of the Advisory Committee consisted of reviewing previous master planning efforts produced for the Chamonix site, engaging in discussions on new opportunities and changed conditions to be considered during the new master planning effort, and issuing recommendations to the consultant team on the parameters that would guide the process and the creation of alternative development scenarios. D. Town Council Hearing The Town Council received an update on the work to date on 20 May 2008. The consultant team presented three schemes which ranged in total unit counts from 50 to 70 units. Optimizing the density of the site, the Council's charge at the outset of the master planning effort, was not construed to mean that the maximum number of units possible for the site should be sought. Rather, the consultant team sought a balance between number of units and resident population, with special consideration given to the quality of the experience of living in and around the 4 Chamonix Master Plan development. The Town Council instructed the design team to seek a middle path on density, considering internal views and character of the surrounding neighborhoods. There was also a discussion of unit sizes, with the Council inclining toward larger units of two, there and possibly four bedrooms. E. Refinement of Schemes Based on the Council's comments and the request accommodate more family- oriented units, the schemes were refined to concentrate on the creation of two and three bedroom units. Units ranged in size from 768 sq. ft for 1-bedroom units, 1,292 sq. ft. for 2-bedroom flats, 1,333 sq. ft. for 2 bedroom lofts, 1,460 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units to 1,632 sq. ft. for 3 bedroom duplex units. Because family housing was the stated focus of the development, one bedroom units were incorporated sparingly and generally used as "infill." There was attention to the possibility of providing 4- bedroom units. While these were not included in the final unit mix, some units were designed with expansion potential, where a fourth bedroom could be finished later. F. Sustainabilify i Various construction methods and site design techniques were discussed for the site which conformed to "green" ~ practices. Both traditional on-site building methods as well as the use of offsite, factory built construction were considered for the ultimate construction of the housing L E E D structures. Based on discussions with the Advisory Committee, offsite, factory built construction became the preferred method due to the energy efficiencies as well as lower construction costs inherent with this construction method. Site design standards which focused on solar orientation, limits to site disturbance, brown-field development, open space preservation, access to transit, and on-site storm water retention were integrated into the three schemes as providing the basis for certifiably sustainable construction practices. Certification of the project using athird-party certification program, such as the United States Green Building Council LEED certification process, was considered and was included in the cost estimates. The Advisory Committee determined that third- party certification would create potential advantages in the future marketing of the development, would leverage the green techniques used in the development to 5 j~ is t Chamonix Master Plan encourage or require other private developments to seek the same standards, and foster community pride. As a part of the third party certification process, on-site storm water detention, which would minimize impacts from impermeable surfaces at the Chamonix site to the municipal storm water system, was incorporated in to the design. 3. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. Advisory Committee On 17 July 2008, the final Advisory Committee meeting was held. The consultants presented the final versions of the three schemes and, after discussing the schemes, the Advisory Committee members in attendance voted on their preferred scheme for recommendation to the Town Council. The "Village Neighborhood" scheme, which was the most dense scheme that featured an underground parking garage, received six of the ten votes cast, the "Neighborhood Block" plan received four of the ten votes cast, and the "Neighborhood Cluster" received none of the votes cast. While the Village Neighborhood became the elected preference of the Advisory Committee, a subsequent discussion after the vote tended to suggest that there was significant concern regarding the additional cost and maintenance of the sub-grade parking garage. This concern was noted and included in the report to Town Council. B. Final Council Approval On 5 August 2008, a final presentation of the three schemes was made to the Town Council. Following an update on the Advisory Committee recommendations the council voted six to one for the Neighborhood Block scheme as the preferred option. Reasons given for the preference for the Neighborhood Block scheme ranged from the middle density character of the scheme, the inclusion of open space, the mix of units, and the flexibility of unit layout. Council members voiced support for the third party certification of the project as well as for factory, off-site construction. 6 Chamonix Master Plan 4. PREFERRED OPTION Neighborhood Block I 1~ ~ ~ ~ r r j l ~ rT } t / ~ 1 f ~`i L~-.__-- A. Overview The Neighborhood Block scheme contains 58 units. The following unit mix was proposed: • No 1-bedroom units; • twenty, 2-bedroom flats; • sixteen, 2 bedroom lofts; • eight, 3-bedroom units; and • fourteen, 3 bedroom duplexes. This unit mix provided for 81,696 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 16 dwelling units per acre. Amain access street, which gained access to the site from Chamonix Road, bisected the site, with 3-bedroom duplexes on the north side and multi-family units on the south side. An alley offers secondary access to the multi-family units. The main Chamonix Master Plan street passed through the development to the fire station site. While access to the fire station was intended to be limited, this configuration allowed for dual points of access to the site, thus alleviating internal traffic congestion. The landscape plan located potential community gathering spots throughout the scheme. Semi-private, stepped courtyards were located between the duplex units. Turf areas were limited to large open spaces on the east and west ends of the development. The open space on the east end could be utilized for such uses as a dog park. Landscaping on the east end was kept away from the street to preserve sightlines at the Chamonix Road/Chamonix Lane intersection. The open space on the west end would provide a viewing area into the fire station operations. For safety reasons, the viewing area was segregated from the fire station by a series of low, landscaped walls. The landscape palette utilized native trees and shrubs. Aspens were situated along the northern edge of the site and gradually "spilled" through the spaces created by the structures. In these stands of aspen, a native understory of grasses (Thurber's fescue, wheatgrass and blue-wild rye) was punctuated by fortis such as columbine, common lupine, golden banner, and strawberry. Along the southern portion of the site, where retention ponds were intended to hold and treat storm water runoff, more water-oriented plants took over. Blue spruce was planted densely to act as a screen to the commercial uses to the south and I-70 beyond. Shrub thickets of willow and birch filled in among the spruce. B. Fire Station The fire station design shown in the Neighborhood Block scheme was the consensus alternative of Fire District staff and the ~ ~ Advisory Committee. The building ` r ~ foundation itself provided retention of h _ t ~ _ - - _ the steep slopes to the north of the site, Y ~ ~ ~ t and thereby offered the most cost- i~ _ ~ ~ effective site design. ~ _ ~ . 8 Chamonix Master Plan i l 5. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS, { Following extensive analysis of both the Chamonix Parcel and the Wendy's Site, staff determined the Official Land Use Map for the Town of Vail should be amended to reflect the new designation of Chamonix Master Plan Area. The designation of Chamonix Master Plan Area is harmonious with the residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood and achieves the development goals listed above. Both properties were rezoned to reflect the development goals of the Chamonix Master Plan Area. The 3.6-acre parcel commonly known as the Chamonix Parcel was rezoned from Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) zone district to Housing (H) zone district (Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2008)and the 1.25-acre former Wendy's Site was rezoned from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) zone district to General Use (GU) zone district (Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008) on November 18, 2008. Ultimately, the fire station itself will require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in the General Use (GU) zone district as it is a conditional use rather than a permitted use in all zone districts. The master plan is intended to be used as the development guide for the Chamonix Master Plan Area. The plan identifies the location for the fire station and the employee housing. The plan locates the highest density employee housing to the south of the lower density employee housing. This layout ensures the greatest compatibility with the adjacent neighbors. Locating the fire station on the southern edge of the property also locates this more commercial type use farthest from residential development. E 6. NON-PREFERRED OPTIONS A. Neighborhood Cluster Overview The Neighborhood Cluster scheme contained 50 units. Unit mix consisted of: • four, 1-bedroom units; • eight, 2-bedroom flats; • sixteen, 2-bedroom lofts; • fourteen, 3-bedroom units; and • eight, 3-bedroom duplexes. 9 t a gp~ P Chamonix Master Plan i ~ : ' . ~ ~ ' ~~.1 - i r T r ~ i r . , ~ ~~„L-- . ~ ~ ~ ,f ~ ~ 3 Etr The unit mix provided for 68,232 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 14 dwelling units per acre. Amain access street, which gained access to the site from Chamonix Road, passed through the site to the fire station, again offering dual points of access. Access to the fire station was limited for safety reasons. Multi-family units were situated off the north and south side of the access road. Drives extend to the north off the main street to duplex units. The landscape plan, similar to the Neighborhood Block scheme, located community gathering spots throughout the design. These community spots utilized terraced courtyards which were located off of internal pedestrian circulation routes. As with the Neighborhood Block scheme, turf areas were provided on the east and west ends of the development, connected by a pedestrian trail. The turf area on the eastern portion could be utilized for an amenity such as a dog park, while the western turf area offered a segregated vantage point of the fire station operations. ~o Chamonix Master Plan B. Village Neighborhood Overview i ry. _ . ,f r f+ r ~ , -ate,. } "a--... i 1 ! 11 _,.,a !a The Village Neighborhood scheme contained 70 units. This scheme offered a combination of lower density duplex and multifamily units and amulti-story, multi- family structure. Unit mix consisted of: • nine, 1 bedroom units; • thirty-two, 2 bedroom flats; • no 2 bedroom lofts; • sixteen, 3 bedrooms; and • ten, 3 bedroom duplexes. The unit mix provided for 87,936 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 19 dwelling units per acre, the highest density of the three schemes. The main access to the site is via Chamonix Road. The entry road offered a traditional neighborhood lane, with duplex units to the north and multi-family units to the south. The lane terminated in the plaza located in the center courtyard of the multi-story, multi-family structure. The plaza was of a more urban character, with paving that allowed for pedestrian 11 I Chamonix Master Plan and occasional vehicular access as needed. A raised landscaped platform in the center offered a green gathering spot for residents. A parking structure was located below the plaza and provided parking for the residents of the multi-storied structure. The parking structure was accessed via a dedicated entrance off of the frontage road. As in the previous schemes, open space was provided on the eastern and western ends of the site, with similar possibilities for programming. 7. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A. Amend the Vail Land Use Plan. • Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation on December 22, 2008 • Vail Town Council adoption, on first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2009, scheduled for January 6, 2009 i B. Rezone the "Chamonix Parcel" to Housing (H) District. i • Occurred on November 18, 2008 (Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008) C. Rezone the "Wendy's Site" to General Use (GU) District. • Occurred on November 18, 2008 (Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2007) D. Complete the final Chamonix Affordable Housing Development Cost and Revenue Analysis by Economic & Planning Systems. • Draft complete on December 9, 2008 E. Complete a site and unit mix specific market study to determine demand for the development, based on the pre-determined area median income target. • Initiated Phase II of contract with Economic & Planning Systems on December 16, 2008. Anticipated completion by February 15, 2009. 8. APPENDIX A. Neighborhood Block Site Plan B. Chamonix Affordable Housing Development Cost and Revenue Analysis C. Vicinity Map 12 ~ Chamonix Master Plan 1 ~ ~ L ~ ~ A / \ ~ ~ _ r ~ A = m _ ~ \ ' t'' 1 ~i I _ I I~~:~~f. ._~-t.-. ` ~ I ~ ~ - _ 1. ' ~ t ~ - r ~ i ~ ~ 1 _ ~ P Q N ~ _ ~ - , I _ _ _ 1 « ~ ~ . ~ ~~~i ~ ~ ~~gaQQQ~ ~~Z ~ I .VYJ', 3 ~:~4' ~ _ ' ~ ~ H 3 ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ a ~ _ N as 0 ~ ~ I (-L A 13 i Chamonix Master Plan Appendix B CHAMONIX AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS Prepared for: Town of Vail Prepared by: Economic 8~ Planning Systems, Inc. December 9, 2008 14 if j Chamornx Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS j PAGE I. Introduction 2 Project Background 2 Scope of EPS Analysis 2 II. Comparative Analysis 3 Comparative Projects 3 III. Feasibilit Anal sis 10 Y Y ~ Project Costs 10 Project Revenues 11 Cost Scenerios 13 IV. Findings 0 Cost Considerations 0 Unit Subsidy 1 Buyer Lending Issues 2 Additional Considerations 2 15 Chamonix Master Plan LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 Total Project Costs 11 j Table 2 Affordability Calculation 12 i °x Table 3 Subsidy at Optimal AMI Levels 14 "9 Table 4 AMI Levels for Stick Build 8~ Standard Subsid 15 y ~ Table 5 AMI Levels for Modular 8~ Standard Subsidy 16 Table 6 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Stick Built Construction . 17 Table 7 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Modular Construction... 18 Table 8 Summary of Findings 1 I' 16 j Chamonix Master Plan I. INTRODUCTION The proposed Chamonix affordable housing project site is located on Chamonix Lane in close proximity to the West Vail interchange. The Town purchased the site several years ago for the purpose of constructing housing. The former Wendy's site was purchased more recently for the purpose of constructing a fire station. Collectively, the two sites total 5.5 acres and are slated for housing and the fire station. Surrounding land uses in the area consist of highway oriented commercial development. Further north from the highway along Chamonix Lane, the land use pattern is composed of both single family and multi family residential uses. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Town of Vail recently retained Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. to complete a site plan and cost estimation for an affordable housing project on the Chamonix site. As part of the work, Clauson identified three possible development programs with varying levels of density and building types. Clauson's work also estimated costs associated with construction, engineering, and landscaping of the scenarios for both stick built and modular construction. In addition, the report considered additional costs and fees associated with achieving LEED certification. The analysis was completed in the fall of 2008. From this work, the Town Council identified scheme 1, Neighborhood Block, as the favored development program. Included in this program are 58 total units with an overall density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The project cost estimated by Stan Clauson ranges from $16.7 to $23.3 million depending upon the building construction method. As part of the evaluation of the project, the Town seeks to develop a full understanding of any and all costs in addition to land costs that may occur throughout the course of the project's implementation. SCOPE OF EPS ANALYSIS Economic 8~ Planning Systems (EPS) was retained by the Town of Vail to conduct a feasibility study of the project, building on the work done by Stan Clauson Associates. First, EPS researched comparable projects within Summit County, the Roaring Fork Valley, and Eagle County to identify prominent factors influencing the overall economics of a number of projects. Second, EPS modeled potential Chamonix project revenue based on targeted AMI levels. Project revenue was then compared to estimated costs, including additional cost factors identified by EPS, to determine the AMI requirements needed to provide sufficient revenue to make the project feasible. 2 E G j Q j x j t Chamonix Master Plan t t i 3 II. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS EPS compiled comparative cost information for seven projects in the Roaring Fork Valley, Summit County, and Eagle County based on interviews with project representatives. This section discusses the individual projects and then summarizes the relevant findings. COMPARATIVE PROJECTS i SUMMIT COUNTY Vic's Landing The Vic's Landing project is located in the Town of Breckenridge across from the Breckenridge Golf Course on Tiger Road. The project was spurred by an annexation request by the developer, Tom Silengo, and the corresponding request for water taps. As part of the annexation, the Town's inclusionary housing requirement was triggered. The Town required the developer to construct 24 affordable units in exchange for entitlements for 12 market rate units. Town contribution to the project viability was limited to fee waivers and the entitlement of the 12 market units. The project is evenly split between one- and two-bedroom units with target AMI levels of 80 and 100 percent. The 24-unit project consists of six four-plexes. One-bedroom units are ~ priced at $185,000 and target income levels at 80 percent of AMI. Two-bedroom units target both 80 and 100 percent of AMI and are priced at $229,500 and $285,000 per unit. Among other standards, the deed restriction limits annual appreciation to three percent or the increase in local AMI, dependant upon whichever measure is higher. In addition, I resales of the units are subject to income testing on the part of the buyer with a 10 percent income level tolerance. s S Closings began in April of 2008. The one-bedroom units in the project are sold out. Approximately half of the two bedroom units are sold. It should be noted that the two bedroom units were completed later and thus have been impacted to a greater degree by current credit restrictions. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) approval of the project was not originally sought, although an effort on the part of the developer is currently being made to receive approval. The approval is expected to broaden market demand as buyer financing will become more available. 3 i i d i Chamonix Masfier Plan Valley Brook Valley Brook is a project in the final planning stages also located in the Town of Breckenridge on northeast corner of Airport Road and Valley Brook Street. The proposed project is being developed on a fee basis by Mercy Housing Colorado as a result of a Town issued RFQ in November 2007. As currently proposed, the project includes 42 units targeting income levels at 80 and 100 percent of AMI. The project is composed of two- and three-bedroom units in two-story townhomes. Approximately 52 percent of the units are targeted for AMI of 80 percent or less and 48 percent of the units are targeted for AMI of 100 percent or less. Units at 80 percent range in price from $133,000 to $160,000 per unit. Prices at 100 percent range from $200,000 to $250,000. Similar to Vic's Landing, the deed restriction limits annual appreciation to three percent or the percent by which AMI increases. Hard costs are currently estimated at $184 per square foot with total a total square foot cost of $230 per square foot for hard and soft costs as well as site work. The cost excludes land and off-site costs. Construction prices have increased approximately 10 percent from the time of that the project was initially bid. However, both the developer and representatives from the Town expect to benefit from a downward renegotiation of costs. The developer is charging cone-time fee equivalent to approximately four percent of total costs, although a 10 percent fee is typically used by the developer. The project is being developed with a high level of subsidy with contributions from town, state, and federal sources. In total, it is estimated that grant funding will account for $4.7 million of the project's budget, or approximately 38 percent of total costs, which does not include costs of land (which was contributed to the project by the Town). The subsidy figure does include fee waivers by the Town. In addition, the Town may also contribute an additional subsidy in grant funding. At this time, the subsidy per unit is estimated at $117,000 per unit. Roaring Fork Valley Rodeo Place The Town of Snowmass has recently completed the first homes in Rodeo Place, a 27-unit affordable housing development located near the Rodeo Grounds. The project is located within the Town of Snowmass, approximately half the distance between the base area and Highway 82, and is highly visible to traffic along Brush Creek Drive. The project consists of 20 single family homes, two duplexes, and one triplex. Phase I accounts for 15 of the 27 total units. The Town finished and closed six units in the fall of 4 Chamonix Master Plan 2008 and plans to have the balance of Phase I completed by the spring of 2009. The ~ homes are modular. Town staff noted that there have been problems coordinating the site work and the manufacturer resulting in project delays and cost increases. Nevertheless, the Town staff is pleased with the overall process and the quality of the architectural design. The Town did not established AMI targets for the prospective residents but relied on surveys of interested households to derive home prices. Approximately 50 to 60 households with at least one full-time employee based in Snowmass expressed interest in j the project. Most of these households have maintained interest in the project since the surveys were first distributed in mid 2007. The deed restriction, which limits appreciation to three percent per year (among other terms), has caused some prospective purchasers to drop out of the process. However, because housing options are limited (particularly in Snowmass), most households have maintained their participation throughout the development process and the pool of buyers has remained sufficiently large to provide adequate demand. Based on the response to surveys, homes were designed to fall into a price range spanning from $300,000 to $550,000 per unit (which translates to an AMI of approximately 140 to more than 250 percent). The small single family homes and duplexes are priced at $300,000, for 1,400 square feet of finished living area plus 700 square feet of basement floor area ($214 per square foot, finished). Medium sized single family homes are priced from $425,000 to $450,000 for 1,800 square feet, plus 900 square feet of basement area ($229 per finished square foot). The largest are priced at $550,000 for 2,150 square feet j plus 950 of basement floor area ($256 per square foot, finished). Basements were not an optional feature, as the Town mandated that they be included in each home. The requirement not only ensures adequate storage, but also creates additional bedroom area to be used for sublets and/or roommates, increasing the number of employees that can be housed locally. The construction costs range from $210 to $225 per square foot and covers only vertical costs. The Town absorbed costs for all on-site infrastructure improvements as well as soft costs related to the site engineering and architectural design. While staff did not have specific costs for these services, they estimate a 25 percent increase for these costs resulting in a total cost of $262 to $281 per square foot. The Town had acquired the land previously and contributed the cost of the land as a form of subsidy. Subsidies range from $33,000 to $80,000 per unit based on an average construction cost of $271 per square foot. The smaller units generate $300,000 of revenue while construction costs total $380,000 (1,400 271), resulting in a net subsidy of $80,000. The medium sized units ~ required a subsidy of $50,000 and the largest units were subsidized by $33,000. The average among all three unit types is $54,000. 5 a i Chamonix Master Plan Burlingame Ranch Burlingame Ranch is a 21.5 acre affordable housing development in the Town of Aspen located off Highway 82 to the north of the Bar/X Ranch. The project is entirely dedicated to affordable housing and planned to be developed over three phases and will include a total of 236 units. To date, 91 units have been constructed on the site. Income targets for the project range widely, although the majority of the units accommodate income levels that range from approximately 80 to 140 percent of AMI. (Note that the Aspen Housing Office sets its own median income and corresponding AMI levels. The targets shown here are approximate.) 3 The first phase of development includes 15 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, 39 ~ three bedroom units, and 7single-family lots. Most of the units are townhomes. In addition to the identified income limits, residents are also required to earn a minimum of 75 percent of their yearly income within Pitkin County. The units are deed restricted to three percent annual appreciation or the percent by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. All 91 units included in the first phase have been sold. An extensive audit of Phase I costs in Burlingame Ranch was completed as a result of a brochure that was published in 2005 misstating the total cost of the project to the public. The average sales price per unit (including lots) for the project was approximately $230,000. Hard costs for the project averaged $170 per square foot with an average total cost of $202 per square foot of hard and soft costs (which exclude land, off-site, and mitigation costs). Including land and all other costs, such an off-site infrastructure, mitigation, and community benefits, the total project cost $236 per square foot. The project's audit indicates a per unit subsidy of $331,567, or approximately 59 percent of the project's costs. This contrasts with an anticipated subsidy of $184,455 per unit. The increase is largely attributable to programmatic changes made by Council as well as shifting AMI targets to lower levels. The project costs increased by $1 1.7 million, resulting in relatively high per unit subsidies. Iron Bridge Iron Bridge is an affordable housing development located in Garfield County between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The affordable component of the project is part of the larger 300 home development by Iron Bridge Homes, LLC. The inclusion of affordable units in the development was a requirement of Garfield County's inclusionary housing ordinance triggered by the developer's request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) density increase. A total of 30 deed restricted affordable single family units were required. County representatives expect 24 to be completed on site and another six to be addressed via fees-in-lieu. 6 Chamonix Master Plan 7 e { Chamonix Master Plan The affordable units are all comprised of 3-bedroom 2-bath units with an average size of 1,430 square feet. The units are targeted to families earning 80 percent or less of AMI and working in Garfield County. The units are priced at $230,000 as a result of calculation of AMI based on a 6-person family. Garfield County has since amended their ordinance to limit the amount of people able to be included in the AMI calculation and maintain lower price points. The units are deed restricted to three percent annual appreciation or the percent by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases (among other requirements). Sales within the affordable component have been slow, as the developer has closed on only four units However, the balance of the project is under contract and the remaining 20 units are awaiting their certificate of occupancy which has been delayed as a result of the involvement of Lehman Brothers in the construction loan. As a result, the completion of the units and release has been delayed several months. No County or other public subsidy was used in the construction of the units. Developer representatives report that their approach was to sell the units at the cost of vertical construction and shift costs related to land, infrastructure, and soft costs to the market rate portion of the development. Vertical construction costs are estimated range from $160 to $175 per ~ square foot. The project is not currently FHA approved, although the developer and County are investigating the measures necessary to become approved. EAGLE COUNTY Stratton Flats Stratton Flats is a 47-acre housing development located in the Town of Gypsum south of Hwy 6 on the northwest side of the Eagle County Regional Airport. The developer for the project is Meritage Development Group. At build-out the 339 unit project will include 152 single family homes, 118 townhomes, and 69 condominiums of which 226 will include deed restrictions. At this time, a total of seven units have been permitted on the 47.3 acre site. The affordable units target income levels at 140 percent of AMI and are evenly divided between Town of Gypsum and Eagle County deed restrictions. The Gypsum restriction limits income to 140 percent of AMI and requires that buyers earn 85 percent of their income in Eagle County. The Eagle County deed restriction limits income to 140 percent of AMI and includes a cap on annual appreciation based on the increase to the local AMI. Units with the less restrictive Town of Gypsum deed restriction are priced at approximately $320,000 to $350,000 for townhomes and between $180,000 and $245,000 for condominiums. Units with the Eagle County restriction are priced at $350,000 for single family units, $300,000 to $330,000 units for townhomes, and between $180,000 and 8 Chamonix Master Plan $245,000 for condominiums. Market rate units range from $400,000 to $430,000 for single- family homes and between $340,000 and $380,000 for townhomes. To date, the developer has written 8 contracts for units in the project. The developer reported that approximately 80 people had pursued loans without success. As a result, the developer has pursued and recently received FHA approval, which allows for 97 percent Loan-to- Value buyer financing. The project was completed using modular construction at a total cost of $200 per square foot. From the time of initially ordering the modular units through the current point in the construction process, the developer reported a cost increase of eight percent. Within the Gypsum deed restricted units, there is a per unit subsidy of approximately $23,000 which was provided in the form of fee waivers by the Town. Eagle County units required higher subsidies of approximately $23,000 of waived Town of Gypsum fees plus $40,000 per unit which was provided through a $4.5 million equity investment in the project by Eagle County in the form of a subordinated position. Eagle Ranch Village Eagle Ranch Village is a land development project by East-West Partners located in the Town of Eagle off Grand Avenue on Sylvan Lake Road. The project includes approximately 60 units which were constructed as part of the Town's inclusionary housing ordinance and were constructed approximately five to six years ago. The affordable units within the project are housed in four-plexes within the Sylvan Square development, which is part of a larger development that includes single-family houses, entitled lots, and additional multifamily housing. a The affordable units sold for approximately $300,000 per unit as compared to market rate units within the project that sold for approximately $350,000 per unit. Hard costs within the project were approximately $180 per square foot for vertical construction only. Soft costs accounted for approximately 20 percent of hard costs resulting in a total cost to approximately $216 per foot. The developer of the affordable units reported that no profit margin was received on the affordable units. No income restrictions exist on the units. The deed restriction requires that residents must live and work in Eagle County and limits annual appreciation to three percent or CPI, although this provision is waived if the seller cannot find a buyer. The Eagle County Housing Authority has the first right of purchase from the owner. The affordable units were provided a development subsidy through a land donation by East-West Partners as well as a 0.2 percent transfer fee on the market rate units. The fee is allocated by a community housing committee to individual units. Including land and the transfer fee, the total subsidy in Sylvan Square was approximately $50,000 per unit. 9 Chamonix Master Plan III. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS EPS conducted a financial analysis to provide a full indication of the costs the Town of ~ Vail will incur in the development of the Chamonix site. EPS analyzed potential revenues from varying AMI levels and projected the per unit subsidies needed to finance the project. I I Project Costs Town Council has indicated a preference for Scheme 1 of the Stan Clausen proposals which includes 36 two-bedroom and 22 three-bedroom units for a total of 58 units. EPS compiled the cost information provided by the consultant with line items for a developer's fee and contingency consideration. With these factors added to the original estimate, the total construction cost for the "stick built" Option A is $29,523,540. The cost for the modular built Option B is $21,844,116, as shown on the following page in Table 1. I I 10 Chamonix Master Plan Table 1 Total Project Costs Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Neighborhood Block Sources & Uses Option A Option B Total Square Feet 81,696 81,696 Program 1 Bedroom 0 0 2 Bedroom 36 36 3 Bedroom 22 22 Subtotal 58 58 COStS Cost Factor Engineering $848,328 $848,328 Engineering Services 7.o°i° 59,383 59,383 Construction 23,283,360 16,747,680 Landscaping 748,552 748,552 LEED Certification 135.420 135.420 Subtotal $25,075,043 $18,539,383 Cost per Square Foot $307 $227 Contingency Engineering Contingency 15.o°i° $127,249 $127,249 Construction Contingency' 1o.o°i° 2,328,336 1,674,768 Landscaping Contingency 15.0% 112.283, 112.283 Subtotal $2,567,868 57,914,300 Fees LEED Certification Fee o.5°i° 125,375 92,697 Developer Fee' 7.o°i° $1.755,253 $1.297.755 Subtotal $1,880,628 $1,390,452 Total Costs $29,523,540 $21,844,116 ' EPS additions to Stan Clauson estimate Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates M:\1884!-VII Climmk MovB° 91bFrwM gnlyal8~°,4y18881-AMI Egle CMy.W,CUY Project Revenues EPS estimated appropriate sales prices based upon an Average Median Income (AMI) of $75,000 for a household of three in Eagle County, as shown in Table 2. Target home prices range from approximately $228,000 at 80 percent of AMI to $407,300 at 140 percent AMI. 11 ` i c a a i x ~ oo rno~fn o ~o olo ~ M ~ GH EA f14 ~ /L~ ~ V \ 00 ~00~ O ~ \°\°IO M 0 0 ~ ~ ~ N 000 } ~ ~ ~ ~ Chi ~ ~ ~ ~Nli M ° ti a b9 69 C7 ch M p W } 000000 CND C~MONO O c~0~~1O N ~ ~ N ER O 01 } ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " !NA ~ 0 1~ 6FT ffl M M W M4 ~ aN0 aN0 m 6N9 ~ K 0OD o ~ ER d9 N M M M W ~ Ojf ~ N ~~0~ M }~~I~ ~ ti ti EA ~ f~R C0A o aO0 fiJ 69 N M N M {A N ti ~ 0~0_ 0~0 C~D_ d~~4 ~ ~ t0A } ~ ~ M ~ c~D Efl ~ W M ° d) Ef3 N M N h fA W .y Q ~ MM ~~~M tOD }~~I'OQ., d ~ C0D fl9 ~ O con N 3 fig 69 fNR fNA C ~ ~ ° ~ C ~ r o ~ o ~n c € w ~ M ~ o H v? ~ O w V E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'y _ 3 ~ d c ~ O w d C, y ~ f0 ~ rn a £ 7~ V X d a+ 0= °0 9 V ~ O) C ~ H ~ ~ i=. m cv t ra C SEE ~a~g~ ~OE~,~~ W~ O x w E °o g a >.ca 10 ~~Ha~Q N ~ C ~ ~ a-°i ~ ~ iii rri > ~ c c c c x E v mm ~ o~ y ~ m m o m~ Q V m x N M Q~ J J m Q J J ~ J~ ~ D S 2 Z ~ F~ to x F Chamonix Master Plan COST SCENERIOS The total amount of revenue available to the project was determined by the number of units within the project dedicated to each income level. Total income was then compared to the total project cost to determine the net difference. This amount provides the basis of the estimate of subsidy per unit for the proposed Chamonix project in three scenarios. For this analysis, the costs are based on the San Clawson report. Stick built construction is assumed to cost $285 per square foot and modular is assumed to cost $205 per square foot. The field research indicates that these may be overly conservative at this time and that a lower cost figure may be reasonable. In the analysis that follows, the original cost figures have been maintained. It is recommended that the feasibility analysis be rerun with lower figures after the Town has had the opportunity to review them. The first scenario examined an optimal level of affordability with half of the units targeting households at 80 percent of AMI and half at 100 percent AMI. The second scenario determines the price points necessary to reach a per unit subsidy consistent with the comparative projects in the region. The third scenario examines the per unit prices needed for the project to break even. In the tables that follow, Scenario A refers to stick built construction costs and Scenario B is based on modular costs. 13 Chamonix Master Plan Or i iMAL AMI TARGET An optimal AMI level of 80 and 100 percent of AMI was used in this analysis. At these levels a stick built project requires a per unit subsidy of approximately $251,000 per unit, as shown in Table 3. Modular construction at these incomes requires a per unit subsidy of $118,000. Table 3 Subsidy at Optimal AMI Levels Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis ) I ~ Neighborhood Block q Revenue Sources Option A Option B 2 Bedroom °u of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. so°~° 4,111,200 4,111,200 90%AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 0 II 100%AMI - 2 Bdrm. so°i° 5,185,800 5,185,800 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 0 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. ~ 0 0 Subtotal goo°i° 9,297,000 9,297,000 3 Bedroom 80%AMI - 3 Bdrm. so°i° 2,512,400 2,512,400 90%AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 0 100%AMI - 3 Bdrm. 5o°i° 3,169,100 3,169,100 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. a°i° 0 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 0 14 ° - ° 0 AMI 3 Bdrm. Q./s 0 0 - - Subtotal too°i° 5,681,500 5,681,500 Total Revenue $14,978,500 $14,978,500 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($178.04) ($84.04) Unit ($250,777) ($118,373) Total ($14,545,040) ($6,865,616) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clawson Associates X11PoH)-NYLMWxHd~Yp 9YFWYIy A1Y~tb`°Y71lBB)-N.YEgsC. 14 Chamonix Master Plan TYPICAL SUBSIDY Based on the research of regional projects, a representative per unit subsidy for stick built construction in a project with only affordable units is approximately $120,000 per unit. A typical subsidy for modular construction is approximately $30,000 per unit. To reach a typical stick built subsidy, the program required units to be evenly split between 130 and 140 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 4. At these income levels, the project could be feasible with a per unit subsidy of approximately $117,000. Table 4 AMI Levels for Stick Build ~ Standard Subsidy Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option A 2 Bedroom °u of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 90%AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 5o°i° 6,796,800 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 7.331.400 Subtotal 5o°i° 14,128,200 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°~° 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°~° 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°~° 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50°~° 4,153,600 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. ~Q% 4.480.300 Subtotal So% 8,633,900 Total Revenue 522,762,100 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($82.76) Unit ($116,577) Total ($6,761,440) Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems, Stan Clawson Associates M:\18881-VS9 cirM'et19OW1°9b FaWYty 9881-MIIEgM Caury,89~Rwarw 15 f E Chamonix Master Plan Modular construction affords a greater flexibility in the program required to reach typical subsidies. When 50 percent of units are priced for 120 percent AMI and the remaining units are divided between 110 and 130 percent AMI, a per unit subsidy of approximately $33,000 is needed, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 AMI Levels for Modular 8r Standard Subsidy Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option B 2 Bedroom % of Total 80%AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 ~ 90%AMI - 2 Bdrm. o^~ 0 I 100% AMI - 2 Bdml. o% 0 ~ 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. sa % 3,496,900 ~ 120% AMI - 2 Bdrrn. 50% 6,258,600 i 130% AMI - 2 Bdnn. 20% 2,643,200 140% AMI - 2 Bdrrn. Q,[4, 0 Subtotal t oo% $12,398,700 3 Bedroom 80%AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 90%AMI - 3 Bdrm. o % 0 100% AM I - 3 Bdrm. o % 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 30% 2,225,300 120% AMI - 3 Bdnn. 50% 3,824,700 130% AMI - 3 Bdnn. zo% 1,510,400 140% AMI - 3 Bdrrrt. o~/ 0 Subtotal goo°r $7,560,400 Total Revenue $19,959,100 Project Proflt/Loss ' Square Feet ($23.07) Unft ($32,500) Totai ($1,885,016) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clawson Assoaates ~,mnv.~.w.nos. r..waw.nW~,.s,-N. E.y.c. _ 16 i Chamonix Master Plan I MINIMAL SUBSIDY j The following two tables test hypothetical scenarios in which the Town pays the least amount of subsidy. For stick built construction, the project requires a subsidy of $102,000 per units even if 100 percent of the units are sold at 140 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Stick Built Construction Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources Option A 2 Bedroom °i of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°io 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. goo°i° 14.662.800 Subtotal o°i° 14,662,800 3 Bedroom 80%AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°i° 0 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. goo°i° 8,960.600 Subtotal o°i° 8,980,800 Total Revenue $23,623,400 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($72.22) Unit ($101,727) Total ($5,900,140) Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems, Stan Clawson Associates N~1ee~-vrcMw.NOeiro sr Fe~IEUr .~ron.an~egr cwy~s~wven,r 17 i - Chamonix Master Plan The Town could hypothetically achieve feasibility with minimal subsides using modular construction costs, as shown in Table 7. The sales modular constructed units are cost neutral when 40 percent and 50 percent of units are targeted for incomes of 130 and 140 percent of AMI, respectively. At these sales prices a small number of units can be devoted to 120 percent of AMI. Table 7 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Modular Construction Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis f I ~ Neighborhood Block f Revenue Sources Option B 2 Bedroom °i of Total 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. o°i° 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. fo% 1,390,800 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. so°i° 6,796,800 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 40% 5.702.200 Subtotal so°io $13,889,800 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°~° 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. o°io 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 10% 695,400 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 5o°i° 4,153,600 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. ao°i° 3.665.700 Subtotal so°i° $8,514,700 Total Revenue $22,404,500 Project ProfiULoss Square Feet $6.86 Unit $9,662 Total $560,384 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clawson Associates N11 BBB)-W CMVYx XaWp 8b Fa~DYy M,l~M`DYy18B8]-M11 Eyle Cavq,lptams 18 Chamonix Master Plan IV. FINDINGS The following analysis summarizes the most prominent issues encountered in the development of the selected affordable housing projects. Issues are organized by cost considerations, subsidy levels, and buyer lending. Cost Considerations Construction costs for the projects under consideration in this report ranged from $200 to $281 per square foot, as shown on the following page in Table 8, which summarizes the costs, revenues, and subsidies for the projects evaluated. The construction cost data shown in the table is exclusive of land, off site mitigation, and other considerations. The figures generally include hard costs, soft costs, and on-site infrastructure. Results indicate frequent instances of construction costs around $200 to $230 per square foot. Developers experienced cost escalations ranging from 8 to 20 percent from the time an initial bid was received to construction. However, project representatives repeatedly indicated that downward pressure in materials costs has fallen 20 percent from 2007 to 2008. Contractors in the planning stages are tending to renegotiate prices in light of weakening demand for construction materials worldwide. 0 Chamonix Master Plan Table 8 Summary of Findings Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Construction Cost Project Planned Built Target AMI Cost Subsidy s Escalation Price Range (sa. ft.l (oer unit) Summk Countv Vic's Landing 24 24 80% to 100% fee waivers $185,000 - $285,000 Mercy Housing 42 80% 8 100% $230 $117,000 10% $133,000 - $250,000 Roaring Fork Valley Rodeo Ground 27 9 140% - 250% $281 $300,000 - $550,000 Burlingame Ranch 91 91 80% to 140% z $202 $332,000 12% avg. $230,000 Iron Bridge 24 24 80% s $202 ° $0 $230,000 Eagle Countv Stratton Flats' 226 7 140% $200 $23,000 - $40,000 8% $180,000 - $350,000 Eagle Ranch Village 60 60 live/work in Cty. $216' $50,000 20% $300,000 ' Modular units z Majority of units in this renge, AMI level based on survey ' Based on six person household ° Total cost derived by allocating 20% of hard costs to soft costs s Budingame Ranch and Mercy Fbusing figure do not include waived fees Source: Economic 8 %anning Systems Unit Subsidy Subsidies take many forms in affordable housing development. The research shows a clustering of per unit subsidies in the $20,000 to $50,000 range as well as a cluster on the upper end that spans from $120,000 to $330,000. In all cases, these subsidy levels are on top of land costs. In each of the case studies provided, land was provided at no cost to the affordable units, which is a minimum threshold for pursuing an affordable housing project at this time. Generally, the projects requiring lower subsidies benefit from market rate units that defray the land, soft costs, developer fees, on-site infrastructure, and off-site mitigation. For example, Iron Bridge, Stratton Flats, Vic's Landing, and Eagle Ranch Village all received indirect subsidy through the ability of the developer to build market rate units on-site. In addition, the projects also received fee waivers to help offset the costs of affordable units. The $23,000 to $40,000 subsidy at Stratton Flats includes both fee waivers as well as the benefit of a $4.5 million equity contribution from Eagle County. The $50,000 per unit subsidy at Eagle Ranch Village includes both fee waivers proceeds from a RETA and the value of a land contribution from the master developer. Another way to reduce subsidies is to increase sales prices and target higher AMI levels. The Snowmass project reflects relatively unique approach as virtually all of the units are priced at the upper end of the affordable spectrum, reaching approximate AMI levels near (or above) 140 percent. The Town was able to reduce the subsidy to $54,000 per unit based on sales prices for some units that exceeded $500,000. The project with the lowest required subsidy, Stratton Flats, 1• t j Chamonix Masfier Plan reflects a combination of benefits, including on-site market rate units, modest deed restriction terms, as well as higher AMI targets. In projects without supporting market rate units and conventional AMI targets that reach households earning as little as 80 percent of AMI, higher subsidies are required to cover project costs. The proposed Valley Brook project anticipates a per unit subsidy of approximately $117,000. Burlingame Ranch requires $332,000 per unit. Moving forward, the Town of Vail should recognize that land subsidy alone will be insufficient for the project unless construction costs drop and/or AMI targets are set high. The Town should carefully consider higher AMI levels and should set them only after completing additional market analysis, as identified below. Generally, the Town should anticipate committing additional levels of subsidy to the project based on the research of comparative projects. Buyer Lending Issues Project developers repeatedly indicated that underwriting standards for residential borrowers represent the greatest current risk to affordable housing development. Preliminary research shows that mortgage terms require down payments of 10 to 15 percent. Many developers cited the need to secure Federal Housing Administration approval, thus providing 97 percent loan-to-value financing. Project representatives indicated that FHA approval was contingent upon review of the deed covenants and in the case of the modular development (Stratton Flats) approval of building plans, including the unit foundation. Construction loans appear to be less of an issue than individual homebuyer loans. Representatives from the Valley Brook project indicated a willing market for construction loans. In addition, downward pressure on construction costs has also eased restrictions to borrowing. Additional Considerations Based on discussions with developers with active affordable housing projects in the region, there are a number of critical issues that warrant consideration, in addition to the issues of costs, revenues, and feasibility. These include: ¦ Competffive Market Position -The Town should understand the market position of the site relative to other projects within the county. Prospective home purchasers have options and can be expected to evaluate several other opportunities before selecting a home at this location. Documenting the market context and determining the competitive advantages provided by this site will shed light on the profiles of buyers likely to purchase here. The analysis will enable the Town to price its units based on the market and improve receptivity among the segment(s) most likely to consider it. 2• i t M ( Chamonix Master Plan ¦ Product Alignment -Once the market position and price banding has been established, the Town should revisit the products designed for the site. Aligning the products with the buyer profiles is a critical step to creating a marketable project. It should be noted that most developers attempt to provide as broad a range of products as possible, thus generating interest from across the spectrum of prospective buyers. This approach is recommended for the Chamonix site as well; however, the Town should identify the most profitable and saleable product and ensure that the development program is concentrated around this unit type. ¦ Market Depth by AMI Level - In addition to evaluating the market supply, as noted in the first two bullets, the Town should consider an analysis of market demand. Using recent survey data, the Town could understand the depth of potential demand for units by income level. The data can be cross-tabulated by a range of factors to better understand depth of demand by type of resident. ¦ Financing Risk Mitigation -The current credit markets are substantially different from the recent past. Accordingly, developers must take action to ensure that financing is as available under the most flexible terms possible for future buyers. At this time, developers are seeking FHA approval to achieve this. The Town should understand the requirements of FHA and ensure that it is addressed from the start of 3• s Chamonix Master Plan Appendix C Chamonix and Wendy's Parcels ?A'., ts, a ~1; g -~~g7rr~`Jj w ~ rf~~f• rA~T• z7~ jd-"~ _:'Zi~7 / •'4"F... i'.~ ~ J,i'''~y s ~ i ~ fe f r. C Wf = +yg~' - ~ X38 al„',J ~ .t - a ~ ~ Subject Pt~:~pert'y . s,.'' ~ ~ .x'4$5 ~ tAi ~ ~ ti .~t% '~I ~ f ~ t~ ti „ 9 j, Bad ~ ~ ~f'~ S4 , ~ . ill ~~Y r tia last MOtl Setl::wrr..~: 'pCy n ~N an a.a .a re"""a~a':7ACYf~~1 ~ ,.,x 4•