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•