HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-20 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session (2)VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
6:00 P.M., MAY 20, 2014
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot
be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider
an item.
1.
ITEM/TOPIC: 2014 Youth Recognition Awards (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Ludwig Kurz
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the award is to recognize and reinforce
outstanding achievement by youth of the Upper Eagle Valley, both for their
individual achievements and as role models for their peers. The Vail Town
Council created this award to acknowledge and reward students from our
community schools. In addition to being recognized by a member of the
town council at their respective awards evening, the recipients are given a
$1000 scholarship.
This year’s recipients are: Eva Hutchinson – Battle Mountain High School
and Anthony “Clay” Kirwood – Vail Mountain School.
2. ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation (10 min.)
3.
ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Easement Vacation at 2754 Snowberry Drive - Tom Kassmel (5 min. )
4.
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report
1) Eagle Air Alliance Request (5 min. )
5.
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Council update regarding the outcome of the April 24
neighborhood planning meeting for Booth Creek Park. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Todd Oppenheimer
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Town council is requested to provide
staff with direction on the following items:
1. Overall approach to the design of the park.
2. Preliminary list of park elements to include in the design.
3. Continuation of the park design process.
BACKGROUND: This update is provided in order to identify the specific
feedback received from the neighborhood so that final decisions can be
made about improvements to the park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends incorporating the recent
neighborhood suggestions into the park improvements such as: 1) single
tennis court, 2) half court basketball, 3) artist inspired natural playground, 3)
restrooms, 4) picnic shelter, 5) informal amphitheater space, etc. Additional 5/20/2014
items to be included will be reviewed as well as a list of items that were not
supported as park improvements.
6.
ITEM/TOPIC: A presentation of the Draft Market Analysis - Chamonix For-
Sale Housing Study. The presentation will include a summary of the
purpose of the study, an overview of the current master plan for the site, a
locational analysis, area demographic and economic information, a rental
market overview, a summary of current market conditions and demand
estimates, a competitive analysis, and information on mortgage availability.
The presentation will conclude with a series of conclusions and
recommendations for the Town Council's consideration based upon the
information contained within the study. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Director, Community Development and
Melanie Rees, Principal, Rees Consulting, Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to the presentation and
provide initial feedback and comment in preparation for the completion of the
final document.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail acquired the Chamonix Parcel with the
expressed intent of developing deed restricted housing on the site. To that
end, a master plan for the development of the site has been completed and
adopted by the Town Council and previous market studies have been
prepared.
In January of 2014, the Vail Town Council instructed staff to coordinate the
completion of an update market study for the Chamonix Parcel. The updated
study is to be used to guide future decision making with regard to the
potential for development on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As this is a worksession to present the draft
Market Analysis, staff does not have a recommendation at this time.
7.
ITEM/TOPIC: Request for additional antenna system nodes from Crown
Castle International (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Ron Braden, Gannon Sutter, Tanya Friese, Crown Castle
International
BACKGROUND: The Town is currently under contract with Crown Castle
International to upgrade the fiber optic based cellular distributed antenna
system (DAS). There is a request from Crown Castle to now add six more
nodes in order to accommodate coverage for three carriers, AT&T, Sprint
and Verizon. The result of this request should be improved signals in certain
areas of Vail.
8. ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, an
ordinance repealing and reenacting the approved development plan for
Phase III of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to
Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an
increase in gross residential floor area to facilitate additions to existing
dwelling units, located at 100 East Meadow Units 501 and 502 (Vail Village
Inn, Phase III) /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC130046) (10 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence
5/20/2014
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall
approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 11, Series of
2014, upon second reading.
BACKGROUND: On March 24, 2014, the Planning and Environmental
Commission reviewed the proposal to add approximately 792 square feet of
GRFA to Units 501 and 502 of Vail Village Inn, Phase III. The Commission
offered comments on the proposal with regard to the need to evaluate the
proposal pursuant to the criteria, the new roof elements and the need to tie
the south roof element to the balcony below. The Commission, at the
applicant’s request, tabled the item to April 14, 2014. On April 14, 2014, the
Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the
request for a recommendation on a major amendment to add GRFA to Units
501 and 502. The Commission forwarded a recommend of approval, with
conditions, to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to SDD No.6,
Vail Village Inn, to increase the allowable GRFA for Phase III, with a vote of
7-0-0. This recommendation was based upon the review of the criteria
outlined in the April 14, 2014 memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental
Commission recommends the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No.
11, Series of 2014, upon second reading.
9. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (Estimated 8:00 p.m.)
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: 2014 Youth Recognition Awards
PRESENTER(S): Ludwig Kurz
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the award is to recognize and reinforce outstanding
achievement by youth of the Upper Eagle Valley, both for their individual achievements and as
role models for their peers. The Vail Town Council created this award to acknowledge and
reward students from our community schools. In addition to being recognized by a member of
the town council at their respective awards evening, the recipients are given a $1000
scholarship.
This year’s recipients are: Eva Hutchinson – Battle Mountain High School and Anthony “Clay”
Kirwood – Vail Mountain School.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vail Youth Recognition Awards
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Easement Vacation at 2754 Snowberry Drive - Tom Kassmel
ATTACHMENTS:
Easement Vacation at 2754 Snowberry Drive
5/20/2014
To: Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: 5/14/14
Subject: Easement Vacation at 2754 Snowberry Drive
I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
Snowberry Drive in West Vail currently has a typical 50’ wide road Right of Way (ROW)
plus an additional existing 15’ wide Roadway, Parking and Utility Easement adjacent
and parallel to the road ROW along both the north and south sides of the road,
effectively providing an 80’ road ROW.
This wide ROW and easement has added an additional burden to many of the steep
lots remaining along Snowberry Drive, making these lots difficult to develop. One such
lot is at 2754 Snowberry Drive. This lot is somewhat unique as it is the last residential
lot at the east end of the existing Snowberry Drive paved cul-de-sac and it is also
adjacent to the existing ERWSD gravel access road which goes to the water tank
above. The ROW in this area actually continues further east along this gravel access
road for some distance, however the public paved road was never built any further nor
is there any current plans to do so, due to the extremely steep slopes in this area.
The owner of the lot is requesting to vacate the existing Roadway, Parking and Utility
Easement along this lot line in order to accommodate the development of this lot (see
attached request letter and exhibits). Currently the Town has no use for this easement
as it is well above the existing public paved road. Nor do we necessarily see a need for
it in the future even if the Town were to extend the public paved road further to the east
some day.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is staffs’ understanding that the lot owner is also currently working with the applicable
utility companies in order to vacate this easement. Staff therefore recommends that the
Town Council agrees to vacate this portion of the Roadway, Parking and Utility
Easement with the condition that all other applicable utility agencies also agree to
vacate the easement.
5/20/2014
53 red barn
edwards, CO 81632 !
(970) 306-6612
seth@intentionarchitecture.com !
intentionarchitecture.com
INTENTION ARCHITECTURE
May 14, 2014 !
Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81656 !
RE: Easement Vacation for 2754 Snowberry Drive/Lot 15, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision !
Dear Vail Town Concil,
Please accept this letter as a request to formally vacate the roadway, parking and utility easement located at the
front property line of 2754 Snowberry Drive. The owner, Michael Dantas, is proposing to construct a duplex on
an existing platted lot located in the Intermountain neighborhood. This lot is the last residential lot on this block
along Snowberry Drive right-of-way. While the home fronts on the road right-of-way, the roadway that should
serve this lot was never completed. Currently there is a steep dirt access road within the Town’s right-of-way that
provides access to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District water tank located to the immediate east of this
property. The current Roadway, Parking, and Utility Easement is recorded as Reception #121108.
We are requesting the easement vacation for the following reasons:
1.The front property line, and subsequent easements and building setbacks were located with the assumption
that Snowberry Drive would be constructed several hundred feet further to the east. Currently the easement
is located far away from the edge of the road and serves no practical purpose;
2.We have verified, with utility company records and physical locates, that no utilities currently exist in the
property, nor do any of the utilities have any designs to use said easement. We are currently in the process
of obtaining written confirmation of this;
3.No residential properties exist to the immediate east of the property - this property is owned by Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District;
4.We are not aware of any plans to extend Snowberry Drive beyond its current terminus;
5.Vacating the easement will not compromise the abilities of the utilities to provide service to this home;
6.Due to the nature of the extremely steep hillside, access and parking is unreasonably challenging; vacating
the easement puts substantially less financial burden on the applicant;
7.We do not believe this easement vacation compromises the adjacent neighbors negatively in any way, nor
does it grant any special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
zone district.
Please see the attached drawing. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
!
Seth Bossung
5/20/2014
intention architecture
SNOWBERRY DUPLEX
Easement Vacation Request - April 25, 2014
Location of subject property - 2754 Snowberry drive
Property owned by Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District
Planned location of cul-de-sac
Actual location of cul-de-sac (end of
Snowberry Drive) (see survey)
Roadway, Parking and Utility Easement - Reception No. 121108
5/20/2014
intention architecture
SNOWBERRY DUPLEX
Easement Vacation Request - April 25, 2014
AERIAL VIEW OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
Location of subject property - 2754 Snowberry drive - steep
slope up from road.
Property owned by Eagle
River Water and Sanitation
District
ERWSD Access Road
(gravel)
Location of easement
End of Snowberry Drive
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
PROPERTY LINE AND EASEMENT WERE
DRAWN BASED ON ROAD EXTENDING
FURTHER: IT WAS BUILT QUITE
DIFFERENTLY
ROAD ENDS HERE: NO RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES BEYOND
PORTION OF EASEMENT WE ARE
REQUESTING VACATION: VERY STEEP
SLOPE GREATLY COMPLICATES ACCESS:
WE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE GARAGES AS
CLOSE TO PROPERTY LINE AS POSSIBLE.
LAND OWNED BY EAGLE RIVER WATER
AND SANITATION DISTRICT - ONLY FOREST
SERVICE PROPERTY BEYOND
STEEP GRAVEL ROAD TO ACCESS WATER
TANKS - NOT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report
1) Eagle Air Alliance Request
ATTACHMENTS:
Eagle Air Alliance Request
5/20/2014
EGE Air Alliance
2014 First-Quarter Executive Summary
Overview
The Eagle Air Alliance is a public/private partnership consisting of organizations ranging
from municipal stakeholders to resort lodging properties to small business supporters,
each of whom recognizes the importance of air service to our economy. The mission of
the Alliance is to help create a vibrant flight program at the Eagle County Regional
Airport.
Fundraising
Business community fundraising efforts are ongoing, with a goal of 100-plus private
business contributors (up from approximately 20 in 2012 and 65 in 2013).
Municipal support from Gypsum, Avon and Vail increased (as did Beaver Creek Resort
Company) from prior years. Eagle County also increased their financial support to the
Alliance in 2014.
Summer Flight Schedule
Houston – 3x week non-stop flights June 26-August 18
Dallas – 1 daily non-stop flight June 11 – Sept 30
Dallas – 1 additional Saturday non-stop flight June 14-Aug 16
Marketing
A comprehensive marketing campaign is in place to promote summer service to EGE,
primarily aimed at supporting the Houston service. This includes baggage tags for guests
flying Houston & Newark in the winter, summer flight banners at EGE during the winter
months, direct mailing to Eagle County second homeowners, outdoor billboards in
Houston, United.com web banners, United Mileage Plus auction packages and additional
marketing support from Vail Resorts, Vail Local Marketing District, Beaver Creek and
Eagle County Airport.
Long-Term Funding
The Alliance has spent much time researching a long-term funding mechanism, including
a community phone survey to gauge public awareness and possible support of the air
program. The Alliance is currently exploring several possibilities that could provide
sustained revenues that can be used to attract additional flights to the Eagle County
Regional Airport.
Next Steps
The EGE Air Alliance would like to request a meeting with staff and town council
representatives from Vail to discuss matters related to long-term funding solutions and
possible implementation efforts.
Please contact Board Chair Michael Brown at (970) 390-2759, or Vail Valley Partnership
Executive Director Chris Romer at (970) 477-4016, to arrange a meeting and
presentation.
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Council update regarding the outcome of the April 24 neighborhood
planning meeting for Booth Creek Park.
PRESENTER(S): Todd Oppenheimer
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Town council is requested to provide staff with
direction on the following items:
1. Overall approach to the design of the park.
2. Preliminary list of park elements to include in the design.
3. Continuation of the park design process.
BACKGROUND: This update is provided in order to identify the specific feedback received
from the neighborhood so that final decisions can be made about improvements to the park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends incorporating the recent
neighborhood suggestions into the park improvements such as: 1) single tennis court, 2) half
court basketball, 3) artist inspired natural playground, 3) restrooms, 4) picnic shelter, 5)
informal amphitheater space, etc. Additional items to be included will be reviewed as well as a
list of items that were not supported as park improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo to the Town Council
Letter to Booth Creek Park Neighborhood
5/20/2014
To: Vail Town Council
From: Department of Public Works
Date: May 20, 2014
Subject: Booth Creek Park Neighborhood Input
Background:
The first neighborhood planning meeting for Booth Creek Park was held on April 24, 2014 at the
Vail Mountain School. Approximately 35 people from the neighborhood were in attendance.
Staff presented the 5 Park Options which had been previously reviewed by the Council on April
1, 2014. These Options include the following:
Option 1 – Upgrade Existing Park
Option 2 – Traditional Park
Option 3 – Sport Courts
Option 4 – Pickleball
Option 6 – Nature Walk
Following the presentation, the public was asked to comment on their likes and dislikes in
regards to the various options and to provide specific feedback regarding what features are
desirable for inclusion in the park. There was considerable discussion and positive interaction
between those in attendance. Without question the neighborhood is very pleased to be involved
in the planning process for the redevelopment of Booth Creek Park. In addition to the
comments received at the neighborhood planning meeting several people sent emails in
response to the 5 Park Options posted on the Town website. All the comments received were
compiled and reiterated to the public in the attached letter dated April 25, 2014.
Summary of Neighborhood Input:
The following narrative is a summary of the comments as they are organized in the attached
letter. These comments, along with the direction from the Council, will form the basis for the
next iteration of park designs.
Park Options:
People were not asked to choose one option over another but were instead asked to
state what they liked and disliked about all the options. Comments regarding the 5 Park
Options do not indicate a strong leader. Option 5, Skate Park was not displayed. The
comment on Option 5 is probably directed toward Option 6, Nature Walk. There are 3
comments regarding the individual options, of the 7 received, which mention open
space, quiet and natural, and blending into the environment.
Tennis, Pickleball and other Sport Courts:
More people are in favor of tennis at the park than are opposed. A single tennis court
versus a double court does not seem to be out of the question. According to the Vail
Recreation District staff there is no shortage of tennis facilities in town. There are
available tennis courts at Ford Park and Golden Peak every afternoon. The request to
include tennis at Booth Creek Park is for the convenience of a free, walk-to tennis court
in the neighborhood rather than based on demand.
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 2
There appears to be demand for pickleball courts. Pickleball has been around since the
1960’s but has recently become more popular due to the low impact nature of the game.
Opposition to pickleball mainly involves a noise issue. Interstate 70 noise in the Booth
Creek Park neighborhood was not modeled in the last noise study because the sound
berms were already under construction. Similar sites experience I-70 noise levels
between 65 and 67 dBA when modeled under peak traffic conditions. Noise levels will
be lower when traffic conditions are below peak levels. The noise generated by
pickleball has been studied. There are on-going law suites relative to pickleball noise in
the state of Arizona between property owners and property managers. One study lists
the average noise of pickleball being played at 60 dBA while tennis averages 58 dBA.
With no appreciable difference in the level of noise the opposition relates to the pitch of
the sound. Tennis involves striking a soft, air-filled ball with a strung racket at high
speed. The resulting sound is somewhat low pitched and hollow. Pickleball involves
striking a hard plastic ball with a hard wood, graphite or aluminum paddle at a somewhat
lower speed. The resulting higher pitched ping seems to be the sound that some people
find obtrusive. Pickleball is also a social sport with a considerable amount of cheering
and a little “trash talking” being part of the game. One community in Arizona has created
a list of acceptable and unacceptable pickleball paddles to help alleviate some of the
noise concern.
Comments regarding courts also included some desire for a rebound wall, basketball,
horseshoes and bocce ball. Noise was again a concern regarding a rebound wall. This
noise can be easily mitigated by orientating a wall away from the residential areas.
Playground:
The inclusion of a playground in Booth Creek Park seems to be a given. Only one
negative comment regarding spending money on a playground was received. The
majority of the discussion focused on natural materials, climbing, types of equipment,
and the inclusion of art. Additional comments received were in reference to a need for
park elements intended for youth who may not be interested in traditional playground
equipment. There was some interest in a fitness/exercise course in addition to a
playground element. These types of equipment are increasing in popularity and are not
currently represented in the town’s park system.
Picnic Shelter and Restrooms:
Most people were in favor of including a picnic shelter and a 2-stall restroom facility in
the park design. This is consistent with all other neighborhood parks which include a
playground area. The location of the restroom in proximity to the playground and away
from the residential properties is an important consideration.
Parking:
There was one comment received that suggests a neighborhood park should not include
parking. Experience and observations suggests people frequently drive to parks outside
of their neighborhood and require parking. The number of spaces required depends on
the features and activities included in the park. The previously identified National
Recreation and Park Association parking standard will be used to guide the
recommended number of spaces. The number of spaces will probably be somewhere
between 8 and 12 spaces wit the final decision being established by the PEC. Vehicular
access to Booth Creek Park will need to be established from Manns Ranch Road.
CDOT will not allow access from the North Frontage Road since there is opportunity for
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 3
access from a local street. There is some opposition to on-site parking in the vicinity of
adjacent residential properties. Suggestions were made for on-street parallel parking
spaces similar to Bighorn Park and to investigate on-site parking closer to the
intersection of Bald Mountain Road. Initial studies indicate that on-site parking may be
possible where the existing playground is located. Town of Vail Development Standards
allow for public parking within the right-of-way. Planning and Architectural Standards for
the Vail Thirteenth Filing subdivision require all parking areas to be screened from view
from neighboring properties.
Pedestrian Paths:
A looped, paved pathway for kids on bikes, scooters and rollerblades is desirable in the
park. A combination of hard surface and soft surface paths with some nature
interpretation signs was suggested. There was some interest in an interpretive nature
trail through the Booth Creek riparian area. The Vail Mountain School staff expressed
interest in involving the students in a possible interpretive trail as a science project. The
feasibility of a bridge crossing Booth Creek has not been determined and will need to be
examined in detail if that concept is to be advanced.
Other suggestions:
Other suggestions from the neighborhood include park elements such as a beach along
Booth Creek, a sledding hill, mini skate park, horseshoes, tetherball, and “hit away”
poles for practicing softball batting swing. One suggestion that was omitted from the
April 25 letter was from the VMS staff and included a small lecture/amphitheater area
that could be used as an outdoor class room or small performance space. Some of
these suggestions are probably not appropriate for this park while others are easy to
incorporate into an overall park design and can be explored as further options are
developed.
Conclusions:
There are two possible philosophical approaches the Council could take in selecting the design
for Booth Creek Park. The first is a direct response to the neighborhood input as the primary
users of the facility. In this approach the town-wide park system and community demand is
considered to a lesser degree than those of the neighborhood. This approach acknowledges
Booth Creek Park as a public space dedicated to the town by the developer and intended to
serve the needs of the neighborhood. The second approach is a park system-wide approach
looking to fill demand for recreation activities that are currently under provided in the community.
In this approach the neighborhood desires are considered however the larger needs of the
community are equally important.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council select the approach that favors the neighborhood in the design of
Booth Creek Park. The property was dedicated to the town for the benefit of the neighborhood
and the small, 3 acre site does not lend itself to fulfilling community park needs.
Staff recommends the Council consider the following lists for elements to include and to discard
in subsequent options for the development of the park. On the 3 acre Booth Creek Park site
additional prioritization of included park elements may be required to avoid over-development
and possibly exceeding budget allocations.
Elements to Include:
Single tennis court.
Half court basketball/multiuse court with a rebound wall.
Artist inspired, natural playground.
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 4
2-stall, 3 season public restroom.
Picnic shelter.
Small informal amphitheater space.
Paved pedestrian path, looped through the park.
Soft surface interpretative nature trail through Tract B.
Limited number of fitness course equipment.
Other small elements such as horseshoes, tether ball etc.
On-street parallel parking.
Elements to Discard:
Pickleball courts.
Bridge crossing Booth Creek.
Modifications to Booth Creek streambanks.
On-site parking.
Skate park.
Request to Council:
Staff request the Council consider the neighborhood comments received to date and accept,
modify or deny the staff recommendation for the approach and included elements for Booth
Creek Park. Council is also requested to direct staff to develop additional park design options,
facilitate additional neighborhood meetings, and begin the submittal process for the town
development approval process.
5/20/2014
April 25, 2014
Dear Booth Creek Park Neighbors,
We’re off to a great start in planning the remodel of Booth Creek Park! Thank you for your
participation either by attending our kick off meeting or by forwarding your comments and
suggestions in advance. As your landscape architect, I’m excited to be working with you to
arrive at a design for the park that will make us all proud.
We came away from the meeting with pages of notes on your ideas and comments. Obviously,
with only 3 acres of space in the park, and because of considerable amounts of existing
vegetation and the restrictive zoning along the creek, we will need to prioritize the features to be
included in the park’s design. Following is a compilation of the notes made at the meeting and
emails I received and posted. I’ve organized the comments into general categories to help us all
digest them.
Park Options:
• Option 2 with nature walk (with bridge if possible) seems awesome.
• Something along the lines of proposal #5 – open space. Perhaps without the bridge and
leaving the creek in it’s wild state.
• Something along the lines of proposal #1 with a two court (tennis) facility in the southern
quadrant, with one of them being a multi-use court and a turf field in the northern
quadrant.
• Like option #3 but would like shelter with roof and picnic tables.
• I like all the options but would love to keep tennis.
• Go for quiet and natural and best place in town to learn to bike and skate, etc.
• As far as the design goes, please consider something that blends into the
environment9something more along the lines of Donovan Park9Red Sandstone Park
uses unnatural colors and this is not something I prefer to see in our neighborhood.
Sports:
• Include courts (tennis, bocce, possibly horseshoes as well).
• Pickleball lines can be painted in yellow on the tennis court which will save space and
budget.
• I would really like to see both courts replaced, with a wall to practice hitting on.
• 9would like to ask if it would be at all possible to include hard true tennis courts rather
than asphalt courts.
• 9my two cents is that it’s a waste of space and maintenance to have tennis/pickleball in
such a small park.
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 2
• I love the idea of a tennis court or two – free courts are not an option anywhere else are
they?
• Pickleball noted as “wildly popular” and “growing rapidly.” This is a neighborhood park
and that kind of traffic and demand does not belong here.
• Pickleball if there is a shortage, better than concrete tennis court.
• No “thumping” rebound boards.
• Wall ball desired.
• Would demand allow one tennis court and/or one pickleball court?
• Concerns regarding noise pollution of pickleball court.
• Basketball court desired.
• A Basketball court would be fun for the older kids/adults.
• Pull (obtain) sound studies (to compare with pickleball noise levels).
Playground:
• Big spiral slide desired.
• Wooden play structures.
• Push merry-go-round.
• Rainbow slide.
• Climbing wall.
• Art in playground.
• Big rock (natural boulder) for kids to climb on.
• I opine that since we have other playground features (sandstone, pirateship, etc.) that
we don’t need to spend too heavy on that aspect, just my two cents.
• Rock features for kids to climb on near the playground9
Restrooms and Shelter:
• 9a picnic table/shelter and restroom/drinking fountain must be located near playground
– all preferred in the SW quadrant.
• It would be great to have a grassy/BBQ area with bathroom for picnics and
neighborhood gatherings.
• Love the inclusion of picnic table and shelter, I think that’s smart.
• Bathrooms NEAR play facility (kids).
• Bathroom near playground.
• 2 sided (male/female) restroom.
• Shelter with roof and covered picnic tables (in addition to option #3).
• 2 stall restroom, drinking fountain, picnic shelter (not sure if a grill gets used, but if it’s in
the budget, add it!
Parking:
• As many parking spaces off street as possible.
• Revisit on-street parking.
• 8 parking spots (save space).
• What are the plans for parking?
• We would prefer on-street parking (like at Bighorn Park) vs. the pull in parking spaces in
the NW quadrant. Finding another solution that would put parking in the southern part of
the park, or even across the street south of Bald Mountain Road, would be preferable.
Paths and Walkways:
• Definitely the nature walk and include: 1) path includes signage identifying varieties of
plants and flowers, 2) second bridge to the north.
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 3
• 9and if we had space for a paved track around the park for roller blading, scooters,
bikes, etc9that would be nice too.
• Combine natural and hard surface trails.
• Soft surface paths.
• Path around park for kids/bikes.
• Bike friendly.
More Ideas:
• Definitely wading pool/beach similar to that of Gore Creek Promenade (preferably near
the new north bridge or the playground, so as to keep an eye on the kids.
• Include a grade for sledding hill near the parking lot.
• 500 square foot mini-skate park. A feature for beginners to help kids get started. Below
link is larger than what I envision but shows what can be done.
http://alloveralbany.com/images/Plans%20for%20Chatam%20skatepark.jpg
• Horseshoes are always fun9tetherball (doesn’t take up much room).
• I've noticed certain types of facilities seem to be utilized and enjoyed while others sit idle
and don't seem to be of interest to park goers. In particular, I've noticed that parks with
outdoor fitness equipment seem to routinely be utilized by park goers of all ages. I've
seen a recent shift from kids only equipment, such as swings and slides, to equipment
appropriate for all ages. These types of facilities seem to be a big attraction. I've taken
the liberty of including links that may give you some idea of what's available.
http://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/668929/134887859/stock-photo-
tel-aviv-nov-israeli-people-in-a-public-fitness-park-on-november-in-tel-aviv-beach-
134887859.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkwr7Cpq5eo&noredirect=1
http://www.tgogc.com/
• I love the idea of horseshoes9
• What about the inclusion of tetherball “hit away” type fixed poles? 9softball swing
practice apparatus and they could be unobtrusive, peripheral features (low cost/high
concept). You tube video attached http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-TAJowYPP4.
Whew! That is a lot of information. The next step will occur on May 20, 2014 at the evening
Town Council session. I will present the information contained in this letter along with a couple
more options for discussion, comment and direction from the Council. The Council will be
inviting public comment during this evening session. Please attend if you are available to take
part in this discussion. You may also contact the Council in advance of the meeting by emailing
towncouncil@vailgov.com.
Thanks again for being involved in the design of your neighborhood park. I look forward to
additional conversations with you throughout our planning process.
Sincerely,
Todd Oppenheimer
Landscape Architect/Capital Project Manager
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: A presentation of the Draft Market Analysis - Chamonix For-Sale Housing
Study. The presentation will include a summary of the purpose of the study, an overview of
the current master plan for the site, a locational analysis, area demographic and economic
information, a rental market overview, a summary of current market conditions and demand
estimates, a competitive analysis, and information on mortgage availability. The presentation
will conclude with a series of conclusions and recommendations for the Town Council's
consideration based upon the information contained within the study.
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Director, Community Development and Melanie Rees,
Principal, Rees Consulting, Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to the presentation and provide initial feedback
and comment in preparation for the completion of the final document.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail acquired the Chamonix Parcel with the expressed intent
of developing deed restricted housing on the site. To that end, a master plan for the
development of the site has been completed and adopted by the Town Council and previous
market studies have been prepared.
In January of 2014, the Vail Town Council instructed staff to coordinate the completion of an
update market study for the Chamonix Parcel. The updated study is to be used to guide future
decision making with regard to the potential for development on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As this is a worksession to present the draft Market Analysis,
staff does not have a recommendation at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Chamonix Housing Market Study
5/20/2014
Prepared by:
Rees Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 3845
Crested Butte, CO 81224
970-349-9845
reesconsultinginc.com
Market Analysis
Chamonix For-Sale Employee Housing
Draft 4-30-14
5/20/2014
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 1
Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................... 1
Methodology and Sources ...................................................................................................... 1
Area Covered ......................................................................................................................... 2
1. Master Plan Summary ..................................................................................................... 3
Number, Type and Size of Units ............................................................................................. 3
Income Targeting and Prices .................................................................................................. 4
Amenities ............................................................................................................................... 4
Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 5
Access and Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 5
Potential Market Impediments ................................................................................................ 5
II. Location Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6
Street Address/Street Boundaries .......................................................................................... 6
Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................................ 6
Proximity to Services .............................................................................................................. 9
Shopping and Dining ........................................................................................................... 9
Public Transit ...................................................................................................................... 9
Bike and Pedestrian Access ............................................................................................... 9
Parks .................................................................................................................................. 9
Schools ..............................................................................................................................10
Marketability of the Site .........................................................................................................10
III. Demographic and Economic Framework ........................................................................12
Market Area Demographics ...................................................................................................12
Demographic Trends .............................................................................................................14
The Economy ........................................................................................................................16
IV. Rental Market Overview .................................................................................................19
Apartment Inventory ..............................................................................................................19
Occupancy Levels .................................................................................................................20
Rents .....................................................................................................................................21
Condominium/Townhome Rentals .........................................................................................22
V. Ownership Market Conditions ............................................................................................24
County-Wide Ownership Market Trends ................................................................................24
Price Variation by Area ..........................................................................................................26
Availability of Market Housing ................................................................................................27
5/20/2014
Sales of Deed Restricted Units ..............................................................................................29
Availability of Deed Restricted Housing .................................................................................30
Lot Sales ...............................................................................................................................31
Foreclosures..........................................................................................................................31
VI. Competitive Analysis ......................................................................................................32
Vail Deed Restricted Inventory ..............................................................................................32
Amenities/Design Features ....................................................................................................37
VII. Demand Estimates .........................................................................................................39
Market Segmentation ............................................................................................................39
Market Size ...........................................................................................................................42
Demand Estimate ..................................................................................................................43
Lottery/Buyer Applicants ........................................................................................................44
VIII. Mortgage Availability ......................................................................................................45
Loan Products .......................................................................................................................45
Deed Restriction Limitations ..................................................................................................45
Lending on Condominiums ....................................................................................................46
Leased Land..........................................................................................................................46
ARM’s....................................................................................................................................46
The Impacts of Interest Rates on Affordability .......................................................................47
Down Payment Assistance ....................................................................................................47
Borrower Profile .....................................................................................................................47
IX. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................48
Competition ...........................................................................................................................49
Family Orientation .................................................................................................................50
Income Targets and Pricing ...................................................................................................50
Unit Size, Type and Bedroom Mix .........................................................................................51
Mortgage Availability .............................................................................................................52
Marketing ..............................................................................................................................53
Amenities/Design Features ....................................................................................................53
Phasing .................................................................................................................................53
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 1
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The Town of Vail contracted with Rees Consulting, Inc. to analyze the market for Chamonix, a proposed
employee housing development. As envisioned, Chamonix will provide 58 units of deed restricted
ownership housing, ranging from two-bedroom flats to three-bedroom duplexes serving households
with incomes from 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to 120% or possibly 140% AMI.
The 3.6-acre Chamonix site just north of the west Vail I-70 interchange was acquired by the Town in
2005. The original master plan for Chamonix was first adopted that same year. The current master
plan, adopted in 2009, examined three development scenarios and involved citizen input and
stakeholder focus groups. A guiding policy of the master plan calls for a family-oriented neighborhood.
Two previous studies have been done analyzing the market, similar developments in other communities
and financial feasibility/gap.
Organization of the Report
This report has nine main sections as follows:
I. Master Plan Summary
II. Location Analysis
III. Demographic and Economic Framework
IV. Rental Market Overview
V. Ownership Market Conditions
VI. Competitive Analysis
VII. Demand Estimates
VIII. Mortgage Availability
IX. Conclusions and Recommendations
The appendix contains supplemental tables with data supporting statements made herein.
Methodology and Sources
This study incorporates information from numerous sources including:
Interviews of staff managing deed restricted units in Vail, Avon and Eagle County’s down valley
communities, the school district, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, four realtors, an
apartment manager and three mortgage lenders;
Eagle County Assessor records;
The Vail Board of Realtors MLS;
A rent and vacancy survey conducted by Polar Star Properties;
For-rent notices on craigslist.org and in the Vail Daily:
Current data on jobs, employment and the unemployment rate;
The 2000 and 2010 Census;
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 2
Population and employment projections from the Demography Section of the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs; and
Findings from the 2007 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment survey.
Area Covered
While Vail is the focus of this study, information is also provided on other areas within Eagle County as
needed to analyze housing market supply and demand. Eagle County’s economy and population are
very inter-connected with I-70, public transit, and well established commuting patterns. Depending
upon topic and information availability, the areas covered in this report include:
Vail, which includes only the area within municipal boundaries when referencing Census data
but extends to the zip code boundary for jobs and the developed zone for MLS data.
The Up Valley Area, which includes the towns of Vail and Avon and the unincorporated
community of Eagle-Vail, but does not include Beaver Creek, Arrowhead or other development
to the west.
Eagle County, which is all encompassing with Vail and the Up Valley area included. Occasionally
information is also provided by town within the county, such as when historical data is provided
on the sale of deed restricted homes.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 3
1. Master Plan Summary
A Master Plan was finalized in early 2009 for a 3.6-acre parcel owned by the Town of Vail known as the
Chamonix site. According to this plan, 100% of the housing to be developed on the site should be deed
restricted, for-sale employee housing. The vision for the site going into the master planning process
called for a mix of units serving families with incomes between 60% and 120% of the Area Median
Income (AMI), possibly ranging as high as 140% AMI.
After considering three development scenarios, the Neighborhood Block scheme was selected which
provides for a mix of residential units with a density in the middle of the range considered and open
space. It also included a new fire station on adjacent land known as the Wendy’s site. This station has
since been constructed.
Number, Type and Size of Units
The Neighborhood Block scheme contains 58 units, ranging from almost 1,300 square feet in size to over
1,600 square feet.
Proposed Units by Size
Unit Type # of Units Square Feet
2 BR Flats 20 1,292
2 BR Lofts 16 1,333
3 BR Lofts or TH’s 8 1,460
3 BR Duplexes 14 1,632
No one-bedroom units are planned. This unit mix provides 81,696 sq. ft. of housing with a density of 16
dwelling units per acre. A main access street, which gained access to the site from Chamonix Road,
bisects the site with the 14 three-bedroom duplexes on the north side and the 44 multi-family units on
the south side. An alley offers secondary access to the multi-family units.
The duplexes will be situated with southern exposure. The multi-family units will have varying north,
south, east and west exposure, providing options based on views, sun exposure, highway noise and
other preferences.
Units on the north side of the buildings will view residential uses up the hill and the hillside, but
will be more protected from I-70 noise than other units;
Units facing south will have greater sun exposure in the winter and provide views of the
mountains, but will be most prone to highway noise; and
Units facing west and east will have limited mountain views and varying degrees of sun
exposure during the day, and moderate exposure to noise from the Interstate.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 4
Income Targeting and Prices
Prices for the proposed homes have not yet been determined pending the outcome of this market study
and a subsequent analysis of the development’s financial feasibility. Based on 2014 AMI’s the proposed
units should serve households with annual incomes from approximately $40,000 to $120,000.
2014 Area Median Income - Eagle County
AMI 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons
140% $85,260 $97,440 $109,620 $121,660
120% $73,080 $83,520 $93,960 $104,280
100% $60,900 $69,600 $78,300 $86,900
80% $44,750 $51,150 $57,550 $63,900
60% $36,540 $41,760 $46,980 $52,140
Source: Colorado Housing and Finance Authority
For the proposed homes to be affordable for all households with these income categories, prices would
need to range from about $135,000 to $450,000.
Maximum Affordable Prices
AMI 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons
140% $316,100 $361,300 $406,500 $451,100
120% $271,000 $309,700 $348,400 $386,700
100% $225,800 $258,100 $290,300 $322,200
80% $165,900 $189,700 $213,400 $236,900
60% $135,500 $154,800 $174,200 $193,300
Source: Rees Consulting calculation
To calculate affordable prices for these targeted households, the following assumptions were used:
The monthly payment equals 30% of gross household income;
20% of the monthly mortgage payment covers taxes, insurance and HOA fees;
Down payments average 5% of the purchase price; and
The interest rate is 5.5% for 30-years. As rates rise, a prediction economists seem to agree upon,
the amount that households in the targeted income range can afford will decrease.
Amenities
As planned, Chamonix will offer the following amenities and design features:
Garages, probably for two cars, with the duplexes;
Parking for multi-family homes on site, probably in common garages under the buildings;
Semi-private stepped courtyards between the duplexes;
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 5
Common area between the two rows of multi-family units large enough for a play area, grill and
tables, flower/vegetable beds, etc.
Open space at the east end of the parcel which could potentially be used for a dog park;
Open space at the steeply sloping west end that might provide for viewing for fire station
activities separated by a series of low landscaped walls; and
Extensive landscaping, including aspen groves and native vegetation along the southern edge of
the parcel to buffer homes from neighboring commercial uses.
Site Plan
The parcel is about 3.6-acres. Zoning is Housing (H); the proposed use is allowed. The parcel is vacant,
with native grasses, a few bushes and, on the southwest side of the parcel, scattered trees. The parcel
has a moderate downhill slope from north to south, with a steep slope in the northwest corner of the
parcel, which is not planned for development. Views of the mountains occur across I-70 to the south,
southwest and southeast of the parcel. Chamonix Lane borders the property to the north. Chamonix
Road runs along the east and southeast side of the property and the West Vail Fire Station borders the
property on the southwest.
Access and Infrastructure
Access to the site will from Chamonix Lane (to the north) and Chamonix Road (to the east). The access
off of Chamonix Road will loop through the West Vail Fire Station to the North Frontage Road, allowing
for dual points of access and reducing internal traffic congestion.
Power, water and sewer lines are in place on Chamonix Lane. Utilities connections will be provided
concurrent with construction; significant utilities/infrastructure improvements are not needed prior to
developing the site.
Potential Market Impediments
Although decisions have not been finalized on many aspects of the Chamonix development, this study
examines the marketability of the proposed project taking into consideration:
Deed restrictions that allow only employees earning at least 75% of their income in Eagle County
to purchase units and limit resale prices to no more than 3% per year; income limits would not
be imposed;
Developing the 44 multi-family units and possibly the duplex units as condominiums; and
An underlying long-term land lease held by the Town of Vail.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 6
II. Location Analysis
Street Address/Street Boundaries
The project is located in west Vail just north of North Frontage Road. It is in a highly visible location on
the north side of I-70, a major east-west interstate highway through Colorado, just off of exit 173.
Project Location Map
Surrounding Land Use
Highway commercial and strip mall commercial development characterizes the uses off of the North
Frontage Road and Chamonix Road, with residential neighborhoods characterizing the use patterns off
of Chamonix Lane.
To the south and east of the parcel, off of Chamonix Road, includes two gas stations, a bank and
associated commercial uses, a Holiday Inn hotel, café and local market and a brew pub.
Bordering the southwest corner of the parcel is the West Vail Fire Station, with access off of the
North Frontage Road.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 7
Primarily single family and duplex units are accessed off of Chamonix Lane to the north of the
parcel.
Vicinity Map
A residential area is located to the north of the parcel accessed via Chamonix Lane. The units are
primarily single family homes and duplexes although there are some interspersed townhomes and
condominiums. The units were mostly built in the late 1960’s and the ‘70’s. Most are modest by Vail
standards, and there are few signs of redevelopment/remodeling. Homes appear to be occupied by a
mix of residents and second-home owners. The duplexes planned as part of the Chamonix development
were placed along Chamonix Lane to ensure the greatest compatibility with adjacent neighbors in terms
of unit type, size and style.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 8
The Chamonix parcel, looking to the east
from the northwest corner. Chamonix Road
borders the east side of the parcel and the
truck on the south side is in the West Vail
Fire Station parking lot. Some residential
uses can be seen on the north side of the
parcel, off of Chamonix Lane.
Standing on Chamonix Lane to the north,
looking east. This shows mountain views
and the Holiday Inn hotel.
Standing on Chamonix Lane to the
north, looking southeast. This shows
the mountain views, back of the bank
(grey building) and back of the
café/market (green-blue roof).
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 9
Standing on Chamonix Lane to the
north, looking south. This shows the
mountain views, I-70 bridge, and two
gas stations adjacent to the parcel on
the south.
Proximity to Services
Shopping and Dining
Safeway is within 3-tenths of a mile of the site on North Frontage Road – about a six-minute walk along
the relatively flat bike and pedestrian trail. This is also reachable via personal vehicle or bus.
Other neighboring amenities include gas stations, bank, hotel, bar/restaurant, local market and, near
the Safeway, a barber, UPS store, dental office, child care center, liquor store, coffee shop, Sports
Authority, and 7-Eleven. Restaurants include a pizza place, sub shop, café, sushi restaurant and quick
serve options, including Subway, McDonalds and Qdoba.
Public Transit
The site is located within ¼-mile of several bus stops on both the West Vail Red and Green Loop transit
lines, including stops off of the North Frontage Road, Chamonix Lane and the South Frontage Road.
These lines provide service every 40-minutes in the summer (May 27 through mid-December), once per
hour in the spring (April 15 through May 26) and in 30-minute intervals during peak hours in the winter
(December 10 through April 14). Buses run between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. each day, with service offered
until about 2 a.m. in the winter. Routes traverse the length of the North and South Frontage Roads,
from West Vail to Vail Village.
Bike and Pedestrian Access
A bike and pedestrian path runs along North Frontage Road to the south of the parcel. This access also
travels under I-70 to access the South Frontage Road and associated amenities.
Parks
The Chamonix Master Plan calls for some community gathering spots and semi-private courtyards
between the duplex units. Larger open areas are provided on the east and west ends of the
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 10
development. The open space on the east end could be utilized for such uses as a dog park. Otherwise,
Town of Vail parks, numerous mountain trails and open spaces are accessed from the property via the
bike and pedestrian trails, bus service, and personal vehicles.
Schools
Children living at Chamonix would attend the following Eagle County public schools:
Red Sandstone Elementary is located at 551 North Frontage Road, 2.3 miles east of the
Chamonix site (about a 5 minute drive).
Homestake Peak School, located at 750 Eagle Road in Eagle-Vail, 5.2 miles west of the site, is
where middle school children would attend. It offers kindergarten through eighth grade.
Battle Mountain High School, located at 0151 Miller Ranch Road in Edwards, is 11 miles, or
about 15 minutes if roads are dry, west of the Chamonix site.
School bus service is available with the closest stop a short distance from the site at Chamonix and
North Frontage Road. Two different routes serve this stop. The route serving Red Sandstone
Elementary, which continues on to Battle Mountain, has 9 students assigned for this stop. Morning pick
up is at 7:33. Afternoon drop off is 4:25. For Homestake Peak, pick up is at 7:47 AM and drop off is also
at 4:25 PM. Three students from this stop are now assigned to this route. Most of the District’s bus
routes are running full; a significant increase in students at the Chamonix site would need to be
discussed with the District to make sure adequate capacity exists to serve them.
Marketability of the Site
The site is marketable in many aspects though has attributes that may not appeal to some, especially
families with children and others seeking quiet, safe surroundings.
It is located between a residential and commercial area, with easy access to groceries and other
necessary goods and services. With a bike/pedestrian path running near the property and nearby bus
stops serviced by two public transit routes, it is very convenient. Proximity to a transit stop is a big plus
– a car is not required to reach most job sites, shopping, skiing and Vail’s other amenities.
Views of the mountains to the south, southwest and southeast are desirable, as well as the southern sun
exposure for units facing that direction. Noise from I-70 and Frontage Road bus/truck traffic presents
some concerns. The proximity of the West Vail Fire Station also adds some noise concerns, but
conversely provides quick emergency response times.
Trees will be planted along the south border, helping to mitigate the sight and sounds of traffic.
Nonetheless, the use of advanced soundproofing in units to protect against such noise should help the
marketability of units. Trees will also be planted around the open spaces surrounding the duplex units
and a few scattered throughout the development.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 11
The site is highly visible; it can be seen from I-70 and both frontage roads and is conveniently located
just off of Exit 173. It will not be difficult to provide directions to potential residents when they make
inquiries.
Impediments to marketability of the site include:
The proximity to I-70 and its noise. While there are few other options within Vail, many down
valley housing options would be quieter.
Proximity to adjacent commercial uses. While convenient, these commercial uses generate
traffic and bring in persons who are not residents of the community.
Limited public open space in the area. It is a densely developed area with much of the land
consumed by buildings and parking lots, private residential lots and steep hillsides. There are no
nearby parks within walking distance.
Distance to public schools. All children living in the area would have to bus to school, other than
elementary school students who are old enough to bike to Red Sandstone. This is a distinct
disadvantage compared to deed restricted housing options located in Edwards and further
down valley.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 12
III. Demographic and Economic Framework
This section of the market study consists of three parts:
Market Area Demographics, which provides information on population, housing units,
households and household composition and size of renter households.
Demographic Trends, which presents information from the 2000 and 2010 Censuses to identify
trends and gain insights as to how current demographic characteristics will likely be changing in
the future.
Economic Conditions, which covers jobs, wages and the distribution of jobs in Eagle County.
Since most buyers of deed restricted homes are first time buyers, the focus is on the demographics of
renter households.
Market Area Demographics
As of 2010, Eagle County had a population of around 52,000 persons residing in 19,236
households/housing units. Of these, 2,604 households or 13.5% of the total were within the town of
Vail. About one-third of the county’s households resided in the larger up valley area.
2010 Population and Housing Occupancy
Vail Up Valley Eagle
County
Population 5,305 15,257 52,197
Housing units 7,230 13,064 31,312
Households 2,604 6,294 19,236
Housing occupancy rate 36.0% 48.2% 61.4%
Source: 2010 US Census
Eagle County is projected to have a relatively strong rate of growth during upcoming years, averaging 2%
per year through 2015 then 2.9% per year through 2020. The State Demography Section projects that
the county will have a population of 66,382 in 2020, a gain of over 14,000 residents, or about 700
persons per year. These growth estimates may be somewhat overstated; however. State Demography
estimates for 2012 indicate the Eagle County has declined slightly since the Census, from 52,197 to
51,944.
While most residential units in Eagle County were occupied as primary residences in 2010
(approximately 61%), only 36% of units in Vail were occupied by residents; second homes/vacation
accommodations comprised the majority. In the up valley area, the housing occupancy rate was only
48% in 2010. The homes that are not occupied by members of the workforce typically create demand
for workforce housing through cleaning, repair, snow removal, landscaping and similar jobs involved in
the operation and maintenance of the units.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 13
Proportionately more renters live up valley while more owners live down valley. While up valley is home
to about one-third of Eagle County’s total households, nearly 45% of total renter households reside
there. Relatively fewer households can afford to buy homes in the Vail area; the option other than
commuting to buy down valley is to rent up valley.
Over one-half of the households in Vail and nearly 50% of those in the up valley area rent. Demographic
characteristics vary by area. There are clear differences between up-valley and down-valley
communities. Vail has proportionately more renters than owners, more singles and roommate
households than families, and smaller renter households than down valley.
Of the 3,336 renter households living up valley in 2010:
Roommate households were the most common (37%).
Nearly 30% had only one member living alone.
Families were in the minority. About 19% were families with children and 15% were families
(both couples and singles) without children.
2010 Renter Households by Type: Up Valley Area
Source: 2010 US Census
In Vail, proportionately fewer renter households have children (only 8%) and more consist of singles
living alone (36%) or with roommates (45%).
Family, no
children
15%
(479 total)
Family, with
children
19%
(800 total)
Living alone
29%
(899 total)
Roommates
37%
(1,152 total)
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 14
The average size of renter households within the up valley area is about 2.45 persons per unit. In Vail is
it considerably smaller at 2.04 persons per renter occupied unit. The largest segment of the renter
market is comprised of one- and two-person households, which combined total 61%.
2010 Renter Households by Size: Up Valley Area
Source: 2010 US Census
Demographic Trends
Between 2000 and 2010, most of the population growth in Eagle County occurred down valley. While
growth in Vail was slower, the rate of growth was particularly low elsewhere within the up valley area.
The population increased by 25% in the county but only 17% in Vail and just under 6% in the up valley
area. Growth in households followed a similar pattern.
Total housing units, however, increased at about the same rate in the county and the up valley area
(41%) and at a slower pace in Vail (34%), where land availability is very limited. The number of housing
units grew faster than the resident population and households due to construction of second/seasonal
homes.
Change in Population, Housing Units and Households: 2000 - 2010
Vail Up Valley Eagle County
Population
2000 4,531 15,326 41,659
2010 5,305 16,234 52,197
% change 17.1% 5.9% 25.3%
Total Housing Units
2000 5,389 11,527 22,111
2010 7,230 16,286 31,312
% change 34.2% 41.3% 41.6%
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census
1-person
29%
(899 total)
2-person
32%
(1,014 total)
3-person
18%
(571 total)
4-person
12%
(382 total)
5+ person
9%
(264 total)
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 15
The housing occupancy rate declined by about 7 percentage points in the county, 4 points in Vail and 9
points in the up valley area, indicating a significant rise in second homes. Even though growth in the
number of households did not keep pace with growth in second/seasonal homes, the number of units
occupied by local residents increased. The up valley area gained 680 households (owners and renters
combined) between 2000 and 2010, for an average increase of 68 households per year.
The increase in households within the up valley area was due primarily to growth in the number of
renter households (a gain of 419 renter households between 2000 and 2010, or an average of nearly 42
households per year). Renters now comprise the majority of households living in Vail (51.5%). The
number of renter households in Eagle County as a whole increased by nearly 1,400 households, or an
average gain of 140 households each year.
There were some significant changes in the composition of renter households, which varied by area:
Roommate households declined as a percentage of households in all areas, from 34% to 27% in
Eagle County, from 44% to 38% within the up valley area and from 49% to 45% in Vail.
Renters living alone increased, especially in Vail, from 33% to 36%.
The percentage of family households, with and without children, stayed about the same in Vail
but increased in the county as a whole; growth in families largely occurred down valley.
Change in Composition of Renter Households: 2000 – 2010
Vail Up Valley Eagle County
2000 1,032 2,917 5,499
Family, no children 12% 11% 17%
Family, with children 7% 19% 25%
Living alone 33% 25% 25%
Non-family, roommates 49% 44% 34%
100% 100% 100%
2010 1,340 3,336 6,893
Family, no children 11% 15% 18%
Family, with children 8% 18% 29%
Living alone 36% 29% 26%
Non-family, roommates 45% 38% 27%
100% 100% 100%
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census
Changes in renter household size also varied by region:
Renter households decreased in size in both the town of Vail and the up valley area while size
increased slightly in the county.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 16
Renter households in all areas predominately have one or two-persons (56% to 73%), followed
by 3-person households (16% to 18%).
A much larger percentage of households have three or more members in both the county (26%)
and the up valley area (22%) than in Vail (10%).
The population and labor force in the Vail area is aging, as is the trend in other Colorado mountain
resort communities. The age of renter households increased between 2000 and 2010.
The largest increase occurred in households 35 to 44 years of age.
The percentage of households under 35 declined in all areas; although these younger
households comprise a larger percentage of households in Vail and the up valley area than in
the county as a whole.
Only households with a householder under 25 years of age decreased in number as well as
percentage in all areas (-21 in Vail, -150 in Eagle County and -153 in the up valley area).
The Economy
The economy in Eagle County is slowly recovering. Eagle County currently had about 37,820 jobs on
average in 2013. This is down from the peak of about 40,500 jobs in 2008, but up from a low of 35,660
in 2010. The loss of 2,680 jobs reported by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs is much lower than
a local estimate of nearly 6,000 jobs, a difference likely attributed in part to construction jobs, which are
hard to track. Since 2010, total employment has increased by approximately 2,160 jobs, which equates
to an average rate of growth of about 2% per year.
Change in Jobs: Eagle County, 2005 – 2013
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), State Demography Section
36,529
38,319
40,163 40,499
37,230
35,662 36,030 36,817
37,821
30,000
32,000
34,000
36,000
38,000
40,000
42,000
44,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
To
t
a
l
J
o
b
s
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 17
The unemployment rate in Eagle County has been declining. Unemployment reached a high of 9.6% in
2010 and declined to an average annual rate of 6.6% in 2013, slightly lower than the state average of
6.8%. This is still much higher than pre-recession rates, which varied between 2.9% and 3.9% from 2005
and 2008, although during the 2013/14 ski season the rate hovered just above 5%.
Average Yearly Labor Force and Employment: Eagle County 2005 - 2013
Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate
2013 29,391 27,454 1,937 6.6%
2012 29,793 27,388 2,405 8.1%
2011 29,293 26,689 2,604 8.9%
2010 29,674 26,836 2,838 9.6%
2009 30,624 28,235 2,389 7.8%
2008 31,837 30,705 1,132 3.6%
2007 31,161 30,267 894 2.9%
2006 30,206 29,191 1,015 3.4%
2005 28,670 27,555 1,115 3.9%
Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
It appears that the decline in the unemployment rate has been due in part to the continued out
mitigation of the labor force. The total number of Eagle County’s residents who were employed in the
2013/14 ski season was slightly lower than in the 2012/13 season.
Employment and Unemployment by Month:
Eagle County July 2012 – June 2013
Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
9.1%
8.0%7.7%7.5%7.9%8.4%
6.6%
6.0%6.0%5.8%6.4%
9.7%
7.8%
6.3%5.9%6.0%
6.6%
7.3%
5.4%5.1%5.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Un
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
d
L
a
b
o
r
F
o
r
c
e
Employment Unemployment Rate (%)
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 18
Unemployment rates in Eagle County vary by season. Unemployment is lowest during the winter
months (December through March) and highest during the shoulder seasons, in May and November.
For those who qualify, filing for unemployment is a common way to make it through the shoulder
seasons.
Eagle County jobs paid an average annual wage of about $39,187 in 2012. About 40% of jobs in Eagle
County are in the lowest wage sectors of accommodations and food, arts and retail trade, averaging
between about $28,700 and $34,000 per year.
Vail is no longer the economic center of Eagle County in terms of jobs. Based on the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (does not include sole proprietors and employees exempt from unemployment
insurance), approximately 26% of the county’s employees work in the Vail zip code area. Just over 15%
of establishments (businesses, government, non profits, etc.) are located in Vail, an indication that
employers tend to be larger in Vail than elsewhere in the county. Wages in Vail are slightly higher than
in Eagle County as a whole.
Employees and Employers by Area
Average Jobs Eagle County Vail Percent Vail
2012 28,179 7,401 26.3%
2013: 1st-3rd Qtr. 28,910 7,569 26.2%
# of Establishments
2012 3,191 493 15.4%
2013: 1st-3rd Qtr. 3,199 483 15.1%
Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 19
IV. Rental Market Overview
To assess the extent to which limited rental availability and rising rents could impact the demand for
ownership housing, rental market conditions in the Vail area are summarized, including number of units,
vacancy rates, apartment and condominium rents, and trends in rental rates.
Apartment Inventory
This analysis focuses on two major apartment complexes in Vail, two in the Dowd Junction area and
three in Avon. Combined, these properties have a total of 1,046 units. These units house approximately
30% of the renter households residing in the area. All but one of these properties, River Run, has some
type of occupancy and/or income restriction.
General Description of Competing Properties
Buffalo
Ridge
Buffalo
Ridge II
EagleBend Kayak
Crossing
Middle
Creek
River Run Timber
Ridge
Management Polar Star
Properties
Corum Polar Star
Properties
Polar Star
Properties
Coughlin &
Company
Texas Capital
Partners LLC
Corum
Location Avon Avon Avon Dowd
Junction
Vail Dowd Junction Vail
# of floors 4 4 3 3 3 – 8 3 - 4 3
Unit Type flats flats flats flats flats Flats/lofts/TH flats
Year Built 2003 2003 1990 2000 2003-04 1985 1981
General excellent excellent good good excellent good poor
Total Units 68 176 294 50 142 117 199
Restrictions Local LIHTC/Mkt Local Local LIHTC/Mkt Mkt Local
50% AMI 40 6
60% AMI 92 91
80% AMI 68
120% AMI 294 50
None 44 45 117 199
The only apartment projects within Vail through Avon that were not examined as part of this analysis
are:
Riverview Apartments, a 72-unit rent subsidized Section 8 complex in Eagle-Vail serving very low
income households;
Three seasonal employee projects owned by Vail Resorts: First Chair, Vail, a 124-bed project
completed in 2011; River Edge, Avon, a 103-unit project built in 1997; and The Tarnes, Avon, a
136-unit project built in 2000;
18 rental units located at Vail Commons above retail space; and
36 units in two projects (Buzzard Park and Creekside) owned by the Town of Vail and rented to
Town employees.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 20
Property Location Map
Occupancy Levels
Rental occupancy levels were very high in March. The overall rate among the county’s major non-
seasonal apartment complexes was over 97%. Timber Ridge, water damage and long term wear/tear
limited the ability to rent some units, had the highest vacancy rate and skewed the overall average.
Excluding Timber Ridge, the overall average occupancy rate was nearly 99%.
Apartment vacancy rates remained low through 2009, shot upward in 2010, started to decline in 2011
and dropped to their lowest point in three years by the first quarter of 2013. More specifically:
Vacancy rates remained low through 2009, long after the recession caused rental markets to
soften throughout much of the country. This was due to the strong influence that construction
has on jobs and the economy in the Vail Valley; construction projects initiated before the
recession were not completed until 2009.
In 2010, vacancies shot upward from a combination of job losses and Vail Resorts terminating
their master leases on many units. Their need to import seasonal employees dropped when
high unemployment freed up many local workers to fill seasonal ski resort positions. Vail
Resorts had extremely high vacancies in the seasonal worker properties they owned, as was the
case at other Colorado ski resorts.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 21
Vacancy rates vary by season. Rates are consistently lower in the first quarter of each year and tend to
be lowest in the third quarter. April and May generally have the highest turnover.
The following table shows that properties in Avon and Edwards have similar occupancy levels as those
within Vail. This means that, as occupancy levels continue to rise in general with the economy’s
recovery, moving down valley will not be a viable alternative to the decreasing availability and rising
rents in the Vail area.
Occupancy Levels by Property, March 2013
Location # Units Occupancy
Rate
Buffalo Ridge Avon 68 100%
Buffalo Ridge II Avon 176 100%
EagleBend Avon 294 99%
Eagle Villas Eagle 120 93%
Kayak Crossing Avon 50 98%
Lake Creek Edwards 270 99%
Middle Creek Vail 142 100%
Timber Ridge Vail 198 87%
River Run Avon 117 100%
Total/Average 1435 97.3%
Source: Polar Star Properties Market Summary, 3/17/14
Rents
The rents shown on the following table are market rates or rents for units with income restrictions in
the same range at 80% to 120% AMI which, according to property managers, are set based on market
conditions rather than income caps. In other words, the maximum allowed rents for 80% and 120% are
not charged; rents reflect the market. The rents for Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units with
restrictions at 50% and 60% AMI have been excluded from this analysis.
Rents by Unit Type and Property
Buffalo
Ridge
Buffalo Ridge II Eagle
Bend
Kayak
Crossing
Middle
Creek
River
Run
Timber
Ridge
Average
Income
Restriction
80%
AMI
50% - Mkt 120% AMI 120%
AMI
60%-Mkt Mkt None
Studios $735 mkt $735
1 BR $930 $925 mkt $804 $1,703 $1,091
2 BR/1 BA $1,220 $1095 mkt $1,045 $1,140 $1,075 $1,115
2 BR/2 BA $1,910 $1,910
3 BR $1,455 $1,324 $1,450 $1,985 $2,210 $1,685
4+ BR $1,650 $1,650
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 22
Historically rents have generally been higher in Vail than down valley. Current rents among these
properties, however, only partially reflect this. For example, rents for three-bedroom units at Middle
Creek in Vail average about $575 higher than at Buffalo Ridge, EagleBend and Kayak Crossing further
down valley.
Alternatively, River Run, a condominium project in the Dowd Junction area that functions as an
apartment property (all units owned and managed by one company) without any type of occupancy or
income restriction, recently raised rents by around $540 per month, exceeding rents in Vail. The extent
to which these rent increases may negatively impact occupancy levels or marketability can be evaluated
by mid-summer when units vacated in April/May should be leased.
Condominium/Townhome Rentals
During the last week in April, a total of 61 units were listed for rent in the Up Valley area (Vail through
Avon), 40 on craigslist and 24 in the Vail Daily, with only three duplicates. Of these, most were
condominiums although a few were listed as apartments, townhomes, duplexes and lock offs. Rents for
these units ranged from $700 for a studio to $3,200 for a three bedroom duplex. The overall average
rent for these units was $1,918.
Condominium and Townhomes For-Rent Listings
Unit Type Average Rent
1 Bdrm $1,285
2 Bdrm $1,859
3 Bdrm $2,550
Trends in Rents
Rents are rising after several post-recession years when rates dropped and discounts were widespread.
The overall average rent for apartments increased 3% between July 2012 and 2013, and the per-square-
foot average grew by 15%, indicating relatively higher increases for smaller units.
Change in Average Apartment Rents
July 2012 – July 2013
July
2012
July
2013
March
2014
Avg. Rent/Unit $1,159 $1,162 $1,264
Avg, Rent/SF $1.17 $1.35 $1.46
Source: Polar Star Properties
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 23
Rates for units listed for rent in the Vail Daily and on craigslist.org were higher in April 2014 than in
July/August 2013.
Condo/Townhome Rent Increases
Unit Type Average Rent
July/Aug 2013
Average Rent
April 2014
Percent Change
1 Bdrm $1,104 $1,285 16.4%
2 Bdrm $1,762 $1,859 5.5%
3 Bdrm $2,106 $2,550 21.1%
Source: Vail Daily and craigslist
The decreased availability of rental units combined with rising rents will cause some renters who want
to live in Vail to consider buying, especially households that have been residing in the area for some
time. Employees moving into the area will be more likely than longer term residents to live with
multiple roommates, allowing them to share the cost of higher rents with others and crowd into and
occupy available units.
Market rents have increased to levels where mortgage payments could be competitive, depending upon
how units at Chamonix are priced. To be affordable for households with incomes ranging from 60% AMI
to 140% AMI, monthly payments would need to range from about $900 to $3,000, with resulting in an
overall average below $2,000 per month. Rents now average about $1,860 for two-bedroom
condos/townhomes and $2,550 for three bedrooms.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 24
V. Ownership Market Conditions
This section provides an overview of the ownership market in Eagle County for both market rate and
deed restricted housing. This section evaluates current conditions and past trends including the number
of sales, sales prices, and inventory of units listed for sale. Variations in market conditions by location
within the valley is also analyzed to determine how values vary and if down valley housing is competitive
given commuting costs.
The focus is on deed restricted homes and market units priced less than $500,000 given that units at this
price point would be most competitive with homes at Chamonix. Because Chamonix is proposed to
target households with incomes in the 60% to 140% AMI range, this equates to a price range of
$135,000 to $450,000, or a midpoint around $300,000.
County-Wide Ownership Market Trends
The ownership market in Eagle County has improved since 2009, although the recovery has not been
robust or consistent across the board. Dollar volume jumped quickly in 2010 due to high-end sales then
declined due to sales of bank owned properties and lower-end bargains. The number of sales, however,
has steadily increased since 2009. In 2013, the overall dollar volume decreased slightly from 2012 yet
the number of sales continued to increase.
Source: Land Title Guarantee
Just over 1,400 residential units sold in Eagle County in 2013. This figure includes the sale of 45 deed
restricted units. The inventory of bargains and bank owned homes largely disappeared as buyers
became motivated by several factors:
Evidence that prices had hit bottom and were starting to rebound;
Economic recovery; and
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,400,000,000
$1,600,000,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Trends -Transactions and Dollar Volume
Dollar Volume Number of Transactions
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 25
Widespread predictions that mortgage interest rates will rise.
Of total sales in 2013, over half were for prices at or below $500,000.
The free market overall remains priced higher than deed restricted units in most of the county. The
average 2013 sales price of $887,330 is nearly three times the $300,000 midpoint of the price range
targeted by Chamonix.
Residential Sales by Price Range, 2013
Number of Sales Percent of Sales Average Price
<$500,000 724 51.7% $306,338
$500,001 - $1,000,000 374 26.7% $696,944
$1,000,001 - $1,500,000 108 7.7% $1,237,384
$1,500,001- $2,000,000 74 5.3% $1,734,328
>$2 million 121 8.6% N/A
Total/Average 1,401 100.0% $887,330
Source: Land Title Guarantee
While non-local buyers, often paying cash, were some of the first buyers to take advantage of lower,
post-recession prices, over half of the sales in Eagle County in 2013 were to local buyers. Sales to locals
drove the high number of sales in 2013 of units priced under $500,000.
All Sales by Unit Type, 2013
Origin of Buyer Number of
Units Sold
Percent of Units
Sold
Local 943 53%
Front Range 267 15%
Out of State - US 532 30%
International 24 1%
Total 1,766 100%
Source: Land Title Guarantee Note: 365 vacant lots and non-
residential sales included in these figures.
The number of sales were about evenly divided in 2013 between up valley (Vail through Avon) and
mid/down valley communities. Just over one-third of sales were within Vail.
Sales by Area, 2013
Number of Sales Percent of Sales
Vail 598 34%
Up Valley Area 842 48%
Down Valley 924 52%
Source: Land Title Guarantee
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 26
Sales were about evenly split between single family homes and multi-family units. The similarity in
average price between the two categories is not typical in most market areas and can be attributed to
the sale of high-end, multi-family second/vacation homes.
Residential Sales by Unit Type, 2013
Number of
Units Sold
Percent of Units
Sold
Average Price
Single Family 707 50.5% $970,764
Multi Family 694 49.5% $802,332
Total/Average 1,401 100.0% $887,330
Source: Land Title Guarantee
Price Variation by Area
Prices vary widely within Vail, due to the location, age, size and quality of units within various areas of
the town. The Chamonix parcel is within the Buffer Creek, Vail Das Shone, Vail Heights, Vail Ridge area,
where the median price in 2013 was $480,000. The average price per square foot was $475 for single
family homes and $349 for multi-family units.
County wide, variation in price is location dependent but is also influenced by age and size of units. The
median price of 2013 sales in Gypsum, Edwards and Avon was lower or equal to the mid point of
$300,000 under consideration for Chamonix.
2013 Sales by Area and Price
Number
of Sales
Median
Price
Avg. PPSF
SF
Avg. PPSF
MF
Bighorn, East Vail 85 $471,000 $475 $405
Vail Village 67 $1,650,000 $1,485 $1,581
Lionsridge, Sandstone, The Ridge, The Valley 40 $395,000 $506 $1,041
Buffer Creek, Vail Das Shone, Vail Heights, Vail Ridge 11 $480,000 $475 $349
Intermountain, Matterhorn, Vail Village West 45 $527,000 $394 $372
Minturn, Redcliff 43 $305,000 $271 $257
Eagle-Vail 80 $427,500 $247 $226
Avon 121 $278,000 $244 $326
Edwards 87 $300,000 $229 $258
Homestead, South 40 56 $422,500 $242 $225
Eagle 229 $341,000 $173 $160
Gypsum 229 $228,500 $133 $97
Source: Land Title Guarantee Note: 365 vacant lots and non-residential sales included in these figures.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 27
Availability of Market Housing
The availability of housing listed for sale in Eagle County at prices under $500,000 is very limited. A total
of 78 units as of early April were for sale at this price point in the major communities. This equates to a
1.3-month inventory based on 724 sales in this price range in 2013. While the inventory of homes listed
for sale may increase in the summer months it was very tight as of early April.
Nearly half of the 78 units were condominiums, most of which were located in Vail. While the down
valley inventory of homes in this price range has been much larger in recent years, only 21 units were
for sale in Eagle and 16 units in Gypsum.
To buy a free market single family home for less than $500,000 generally requires living in Eagle and
Gypsum. Single family homes at this price point are no longer available in Edwards. Of the 15 units in
Edwards, 13 were condominiums and the other two were duplex units.
Market Units Listed for Sale at <$500,000, by Type and Location
Condo Townhome Duplex Single
Family
Total
Listings
Vail 23 2 1 26
Edwards 13 2 15
Eagle 1 7 4 9 21
Gypsum 2 13 16
36 11 7 24 78
Source: Vail Board of Realtors MLS
Note: A list of units for sale by area is in the appendix to this report.
Opportunities to buy a free market homes for less than $300,000 were very limited throughout the
county – 12 in total, half of which were condominiums in Vail built in the 1960’s or early ‘70’s.
Choice improves in the $300,000 to $400,000 range where 30 units were listed for sale. For this price, a
buyer could choose among condominiums in in Vail or Edwards, small single family homes or larger
townhomes in Eagle, or two- to four-bedroom single family homes in Gypsum.
In the $400,000 to $500,000 price range, choices in Vail range from a lodge unit to a 1,500 square foot
duplex. The average age of these 14 units is 42 years, with most built in the early 1970’s. Of the five
units in Edwards, four were larger, relatively newer condominiums (compared to Vail) and one
townhome. In Eagle, a total of 7 duplexes and single family homes were for sale, averaging 2,500 square
feet. In Gypsum, 10 single family homes were for sale at about the same average size as in Eagle though
the range was much larger, from 1,816 to 4,130 square feet.
The variation in price per square foot is indicative of the difference in home values in the county. At
$527 per square foot the price of homes listed for sale in Vail under $500,000 is nearly three times the
average price in Gypsum. The average price per square foot drops sharply between Vail and Edwards
(-45%) but then declines more gradually between Edwards and Eagle (-30%). The difference in the
average price per square foot between Eagle and Gypsum was only $19.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 28
Market Units Listed for Sale at <$500,000, by Price Range and Location
Vail Edwards Eagle Gypsum Total
$100,000 - $149,999 1 1
$150,000 - $199,999 1 1
$200,000 - $249,999 1 1 1 3
$250,000 - $299,999 6 1 7
$300,000 - $349,999 3 5 11 2 21
$350,000 - $399,999 2 4 1 2 9
$400,000 - $449,000 7 2 4 3 16
$450,000 - $500,000 7 3 3 7 20
Total Listings 26 15 21 16 78
Avg. Price/Sq Ft $527 $308 $212 $193
Source: Vail Board of Realtors MLS, 4-8-2014
A total of 26 residential units were listed for sale in Vail in early April and priced under $500,000.
The four units for sale most comparable to the proposed Chamonix units in terms of location and
suitability for occupancy by year-round residents were listed for an average price of $458,750, averaged
1,298 square feet in size and were built between 1969 and 1972.
Comparable Market For-Sale Listing in Vail
Price Project/Area Bdrms Baths Sq Ft Price/SF Yr Built Type
$432,500 Chamonix Ln 2 2 1103 $392 1972 TH
$432,500 Chamonix Ln 2 2 1110 $390 1972 TH
$475,000 Chamonix Ln 3 2 1480 $321 1969 Condo
$495,000 East Vail 2 3 1500 $330 1967 Duplex
Source: Vail Board of Realtors MLS, 4-8-2014
Of the comparable properties:
Two are townhomes on Chamonix Lane that are within different phases of the same property.
Each townhome is listed at $432,500. One unit had just been listed in early April. The other had
been on the market for about one month and received much interest – 6 or 7 showings within a
few weeks. Most were from professionals who had lived in Vail some time (not new to the area)
and were in their late 20’s to early 40’s. Some were singles and others were couples, but none
had children. The units both have homemade storage sheds and small yards, but no garages.
One is a condominium listed for sale at $475,000 on Chamonix Lane that was originally a three-
bedroom unit, but later converted into a two-bedroom unit on the upper floor with a lock-off
studio and kitchen downstairs that can be rented separately. The two units combined total
1,480 square feet. It was built in 1969. It has a storage closet off of the patio, but no garage.
The property had three offers within a couple of days of being listed – one from a Denver
resident looking to buy a second home and two from developers looking for a unit to deed
restrict in order to satisfy the Town’s housing requirements.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 29
The other unit listed for sale that is somewhat comparable to the proposed Chamonix homes is
a duplex unit in east Vail with an EHU restriction (occupancy by an employee working 30+ hours
in Eagle County). This 1,500 square foot, two-bedroom unit built in 1967 is listed at $495,000. It
has been on the market for about one year. Interest has been moderate with 6 to 8 showings to
qualified buyers. These potential buyers have all been single or couples without children. They
have been considering homes as far down valley as Edwards, although some have also looked in
Eagle.
Sales of Deed Restricted Units
County Assessor records indicate 144 deed restricted housing units sold from 2010 through March 2014,
for an average of nearly 35 units per year or 2.8 units per month. In 2010 and 2011, the inventory of
deed restricted units listed for sale was large due to a combination of factors: employees left the valley
due to lack of work, opted to purchase free market homes when prices dropped, or delayed purchasing
due to economic uncertainty and tough mortgage lending standards. By 2013, however, the deed
restricted market had rebounded with 45 sales in a single year. In 2013, a record was set at the largest
deed restricted development in the county, Miller Ranch. By the end of the year, the inventory of units
listed for sale had been largely absorbed; none were listed for sale through Eagle County’s Valley Home
Store.
The trend in deed restricted sales in Vail differed from that in the rest of the county. The number of
sales peaked in 2010 then declined to only one sale in 2013. This was due to decreased availability of
units for sale rather than demand, however. When owners of deed restricted units moved out of Vail
during the recession, units became available for others to buy. Also two new units were added in 2010,
the Arosa duplex. Availability did not last for long, however, as there were sufficient lottery applicants
to purchase all homes that became available. Buyers during this period were always able to obtain
maximum allowed resale prices, an indication that demand continued to outweigh supply.
Sales of Deed Restricted Homes, 2010 – March 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Jan-Mar
Total Percent of
Total
Vail 11 5 4 1 2 23 16.0%
Avon 1 1 0.7%
Edwards 25 14 21 30 2 92 63.9%
Eagle 2 4 5 5 1 17 11.8%
Gypsum 7 7 4.9%
Basalt 1 2 1 4 2.8%
Total 39 24 30 45 6 144 100.0%
Source: County Assessor data. Note: units with covenants only requiring preference be given to employees not
included.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 30
Unlike with the free market, prices of deed restricted housing do not vary much by community. The
homes at Miller Ranch in Edwards have generally been higher on both a per-unit and per-square-foot
basis than units in Vail. While the development includes single family homes, it also includes duplex and
condominium units. Deed restricted prices have been consistently lower in Eagle but the price
differential is not nearly as great as in the free market.
Prices of Deed Restricted Sales by Area, 2010 – 2013
Avg. Price/Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013
Eagle $172,500 $145,000 $153,700 $202,300
Edwards $247,904 $238,700 $237,319 $253,220
Gypsum $157,100
Vail $238,718 $199,060 $197,400 $164,300
Avg. Price/SF
Eagle $189 $144 $130 $177
Edwards $226 $197 $200 $219
Gypsum $141
Vail $195 $167 $200 $177
Source: County Assessor data
While sales of deed restricted homes in Vail have historically been able to command the maximum
appreciation allowed, this has not always been the case down valley. Following the recession, the
inventory grew and it was clearly a buyers’ market. In 2011, deed restricted homes sold for 10% to 20%
below allowed maximum resale price. The trend is reversing, however. In 2012, resale prices were
generally 5% to 10% below the allowed maximum, and by 2013 the reduction averaged around 5%. So
far in 2014, some sellers have been able to obtain full appreciation while others have had to reduce
prices up to 7% reduction. Sellers of smaller units are better able to stay firm on price whereas larger,
more expensive homes are taking the biggest price hits. The down valley deed restricted market is
definitively switching from being a buyer’s to a seller’s market.
The 2010 average sale price for deed restricted homes in Vail may best represent the prices of the
town’s entire deed restricted inventory since there have been few sales since then and only one in 2013.
Availability of Deed Restricted Housing
Very few deed restricted homes are available for purchase. As of late April, four units at Miller Ranch
and one at Eagle Ranch were listed for sale through the Valley Home Store. The Town of Vail had
received notification that two units (one at Red Sandstone and one at Vail Heights) were being listed for
sale. These seven units combined equal a 1.9-month inventory based on 45 sales in 2013.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 31
Deed Restricted Units Listed for Sale
Unit Type Development Town Bdrms Price
Condo* Vail Heights Vail 1 $212,544
Condo Red Sandstone Vail 2 $236,248
Condo Miller Ranch Edwards 2 $183,000
Condo Miller Ranch Edwards 3 $248,000
Townhome Eagle Ranch Eagle 3 $354,900
Single Family Miller Ranch Edwards 3 $390,000
Single Family Miller Ranch Edwards 3 $354,000
*Town of Vail employees have priority.
Note: Table does not include units that may be listed by realtors.
Lot Sales
In 2013, a total of 176 vacant residential parcels sold for an average of $264,750, up from 103 sales in
2012 and 100 sales in 2011.
Foreclosures
Short sales and sales of bank owned homes obtained through foreclosure should not have significant
impact on the market in the near future. The number of foreclosures has dropped off sharply. In 2011,
463 foreclosures were filed in/near the county’s major towns (not including the portion of Eagle County
within the Roaring Fork valley). In 2013, the number had dropped to 178 or about 36% of the total two
years before.
Foreclosures Filed by Town, 2011 and 2013 Compared
2011 2013
Avon 103 43
Eagle 109 36
Edwards 64 34
Gypsum 152 51
Vail 35 14
Total 463 178
Source: Eagle County Public Trustee
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 32
VI. Competitive Analysis
This section will focus on deed restricted units throughout the county. This analysis, in combination with
the pricing and availability of free market housing both in Vail and down valley are used to determine
the prices that the proposed units can command (see Conclusions and Recommendations).
This analysis first focuses on the inventory of deed restricted ownership units in Vail then provides
information on the nearly 650 other deed restricted units elsewhere in Eagle County. The marketability
of amenities and design features is then examined.
Vail Deed Restricted Inventory
A total of 137 deed restricted condominium, townhome and duplex units are located within the town of
Vail. This inventory does not include apartments. The largest project is Vail Commons, with 53 units.
All of the inventory is deed restricted for occupancy by employees who work in Eagle County 30 or more
hours per week.
Most units (about 60%) also have resale price caps that limit appreciation in order to maintain
permanent affordability. The other 40% are Employee Housing Units (EHU’s) units, which are scattered
in various developments in Vail. These 56 units have occupancy restriction (they can only be owned by
or rented to a household with an employee who works 30 or more hours in Eagle County). These units
have no initial or resale price restrictions, nor are they tracked by the Town of Vail.
Inventory of Deed Restricted Units in Vail
Shading denotes focus of analysis.
Location # Units
Arosa Duplex 2
North Trail Townhomes 6
ERWSD Pitkin Creek & Trailridge 2
Red Sandstone 18
Vail Commons 53
Employee Housing Units (EHU) 56
Total 137
Not all of these units are owner occupied, including 9 units at Red Sandstone – 7 are owned by the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District and renter occupied and 2 are owned by Mountain Valley
Development Services.
This analysis will focus on the 79 units shaded in the table above since they are the most comparable to
the proposed Chamonix units in terms of deed restrictions and method by which they are sold to
qualified buyers.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 33
Arosa Duplex
A LEED Silver Certified duplex completed in 2010 and located at the start of Arosa Drive in West Vail, this
development is comprised of two units, each with three-bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms and
attached two-car garages. These units are two floors and are approximately 1,500 square feet of living
area plus garages. Since this project is fairly new, applicants for these units are considered in the
Demand Analysis section of this report.
Units are located at the west end of North Frontage Road,
where it turns north and becomes Arosa Drive. The City
Market center and associated services are less than one mile
east on North Frontage Road from the development. A
transit stop is located about two-tenths of a mile from the
duplex.
The duplex is nestled on a small, relatively flat site at the end
of a gulley. Residential uses are across the street and north
of the site. The duplex gets good sun exposure, with one
unit having south, east and west facing exposure and the
other having north, east and west exposure. Views to the
south look upon I-70 and the mountains; hills/mountains are seen in the other directions. Noise from I-
70 is very apparent.
The Arosa units sold in 2010 for $402,300 and $410,300, or $254 per square foot.
North Trail Town Homes
This six-unit complex completed in 2001 is located at the intersection of Arosa Drive and Garmisch Drive.
This development is comprised of:
4 two-bedroom, two-bath townhomes located in a four-plex, all with attached one-car garages.
These units are two floors and start at approximately 1,230 square feet.
2 three-bedroom, two-bath townhomes located in a duplex, with attached one-car garages.
These units are two floors and start at approximately 1,440 square feet.
This complex has little exposure to I-70 noise. It also has the best park access of all comparables, being
located adjacent to Ellefson Park, providing usable outdoor recreation space for the residents. It is
located in quiet residential neighborhood along Garmish
Drive, which dead ends just east of the development.
Duplex units face north/south and the 4-plex faces
east/west with views of hills and mountains in all
directions.
The nearest transit stop is about four-tenths of a mile
from the development. The nearest large grocery store
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 34
(Safeway) is less than one mile, along with restaurant, fuel, convenience store, mail, lodging and
shopping services.
One of the six units in North Trail townhomes has sold since 2010 for a price of $223,800 or $198 per
square foot.
Red Sandstone Creek
This 18-unit complex completed in 1999 is located on Red Sandstone Road across from the Potato Patch
Club in Vail. This development is comprised of two buildings with dispersed unit types of:
2 one-bedroom, one-bath townhomes, with attached one-car garages. These units are two
floors and approximately 850 square feet.
10 two-bedroom, one-bath townhomes, with attached one-car garages. These units are two
floors and approximately 1,040 square feet.
2 two-bedroom, two-bath condominiums, with attached one-car garages. These units are one
floor and approximately 1,160 square feet.
4 three-bedroom, two-bath condominiums, with attached one-car garages. These units are
three floors and approximately 1,430 square feet.
Even though some units are townhome style
(two story) all are part of a single condominium
project. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District either owns and rents out or has first
right of refusal on 11 units.
These units have had roof problems with some
owners taking out second mortgages for repair.
They have little to no noise exposure from I-70.
Red Sandstone is located about three-tenths of
a mile north of the North Frontage Road,
nestled among the hills. A creek runs along the
west side of the units. Brookstone
Condominiums are on the other side of the creek, which appear to be a mix of local and second
homeowner occupied units. The units are separated on the east side from the primarily residential and
recreation-access Red Sandstone Road by a berm.
Units face east/west, with good sun exposure. Views of mountains are available to the south, whereas
north and west views are of the surrounding hills and east views include the river valley, Brookstone
Condominiums and hills.
Public transportation is available via the Sandstone Purple transit line and stops about two-tenths of a
mile from the site. A pedestrian bridge is available within one mile of the units, which crosses over I-70
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 35
into the Vail town center. The nearest grocery and other resident services are located within the City
Market shopping center, about 1.6 miles from the development along the North Frontage Road.
The development itself has limited shared outdoor space. Hiking is available on the hillsides near the
development.
From 2010 through March 2014, turnover was high at Red Sandstone when 12 of the 18 units sold. This
equates to an average annual turnover rate of nearly 16%. The prices for these units were as follows:
Price Range Price Range Average Price Average PPSF
1 BR $168,000 - $177,900 $172,950 $167
2 BR $174,200 - $213,500 $200,217 $193
3 BR $235,000 - $249,000 $239,975 $197
Source: County Assessor records
Vail Commons
A complex with 53 for-sale and 18 rental units completed in 1997. The for-sale units are comprised of:
24 two-bedroom condominiums located in three buildings, including either one-and-a-half baths
or two-baths, each with a large exterior storage closet and a shared garage under every building.
These units are one floor and approximately 992 square feet.
13 two-bedroom, two-bath townhomes located in two buildings, no covered parking. These
units are two floors and approximately 1,018 square feet.
6 three-bedroom, two-bath townhomes located in two buildings, all with one-car attached
garages. These units are two floors, were built with an unfinished basement and are
approximately 1,800 square feet.
10 three-bedroom, two-bath townhomes located in three buildings, all with two-car attached
garages. These units are two floors, were built with an unfinished basement and are
approximately 1,850 square feet.
Units are located between the North Frontage
Road and Chamonix Lane, just east of the City
Market in Vail. Groceries and other services
(restaurants, postal, hardware, shopping, vision
care, etc.) are within easy walking distance of the
complex and a day care center is located within
the development. Transit stops are located within
¼ mile of the development. Units primarily face
either north/south or east/west. Units located
adjacent to the frontage road receive the most
highway noise, although I-70 noise is present
throughout the development. Views of
mountains are available in all directions, with
units located along the perimeter of the development having the best access to views.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 36
Open space within the development is of limited
usability, primarily providing interior pedestrian
pathways and property drainage. Hiking is available
on the hillsides to the immediate north of the
development.
Of the 53 ownership units at Vail Commons, eight
sold between 2010 and March 2004, a far lower
turnover rate of 3.5% per year than at Red
Sandstone. The prices for these eight units were as
follows:
Price Range Price Range Average Price Average PPSF
2 BR $155,400 - $176,700 $166,814 $172
3 BR $250,300 $250,300 $132
Other Deed Restricted Ownership Units in Eagle County
There are nearly 650 deed restricted condos, townhomes, duplexes and single-family homes down
valley from Vail in Eagle County (apartments and units in the Roaring Fork Valley not included). Deed
restrictions vary widely from those with employment, income and resale limitations to ones only
requiring that preference be given to Eagle County employees for a defined time when listed for sale.
Down Valley Deed Restricted Ownership Housing
Project Location # Deed/Covenant
Restricted Units
Brett Ranch Edwards 156
Multiple Sites* Avon 64
Eagle Ranch Eagle 43
Miller Ranch Edwards 282
Red Draw Condos Edwards 16
Riverwalk Edwards 59
Stratton Flats Gypsum 26
Total 646
*Larger projects include the Sheridan, Chapel Square, Wildwood Townhomes
and Grandview.
With 282 units, Miller Ranch in Edwards is by far the largest deed restricted development in
Eagle County. Completed in 2006, it offers 69 single family homes, 64 duplexes, 49 townhomes
and 100 condominiums. Features that make this development particularly attractive include
walking distance to schools, ample parks/green space and neighborhood design. Deed
restrictions limit price appreciation and occupancy to county residents who are employed, earn
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 37
at least 75% of their income within the county and are qualified for the Valley Home Store’s
Master Buyers List.
Red Draw Condominiums is a 16-unit development in Edwards next to the St. Claire of Assisi
Church has both local employment occupancy and resale price restrictions. The two-
bedroom/two-bathroom units initially sold for $263,600.
Riverwalk Condominiums in downtown Edwards has restrictions that limit sale to Riverwalk then
Eagle County employees for 90 days before anyone can purchase.
Brett Ranch in Edwards has covenants that impose a 1% transfer fee on sales to households that
do not include Eagle County employees or that own another residential property.
Stratton Flats in Gypsum is a single family home development offering three and four bedroom
homes with two-car garages starting around $240,000. Of the total of 339 units at build out, six
were built under deed restrictions that limit price and occupancy. A modified deed restriction
limiting occupancy to Eagle County employees has been applied to about 20 units. These units
have sold for market prices with a small incentive (1% - 1.5%) for closing costs.
The deed restricted housing inventory in Avon includes 64 units scattered through the
community in nine developments (apartment project excluded). Most units have occupancy
restrictions (employment 30+ hours per week in Eagle County and incomes no greater than
120% AMI) and limits on capital improvements and resale prices. Of the 64 units, 13 are still
owned by their developers and rented to employees. There is little turnover among the units.
Amenities/Design Features
Interviews of staff involved in managing/selling deed restricted housing as well as realtors revealed
consistent opinions about the features most desired by local homebuyers. They are:
1. Storage – Mountain residents have lots of gear and recreational equipment. Plus outdoor
furniture and grills must often be moved into storage in the winter so as not to impede snow
removal. In-unit spaces, exterior storage lockers and extra space in garages have all worked well.
2. Garages/Parking – Parking is very tight throughout most of Vail. While residents often take a
bus, walk or bike to work, they have cars for other errands and travel. With a harsh winter
climate, garages are highly desired for parking as well as storage. It does not appear that there
are strong preferences for private attached garages over common garages with storage lockers
and or detached private garages. Parking for guests is crucial but access should be limited so
that day skiers do not park at Chamonix due to its proximity to a bus stop.
3. Outdoor Space – Common outdoor areas should be functional, large enough and designed so
that it can be used for more than open/green space. It should be sunny. Grills, tables, seating,
space for a garden, a play area for children, and a play area for dogs would all be appealing.
Small private fenced outdoor areas for children and/or dogs is highly desired by many.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 38
4. Access to Sunlight and Views – Vail is known for having limited access to the sun in the winter.
More sunlight has been cited by buyers of down valley housing as a reason for not considering
Vail. Fortunately for the Chamonix site, access to one will provide access to the other – south
facing units get the most sun and the best views are to the south. North facing walkways, front
doors and garages entrances can be problematic. Positioning all units so that each has a south
facing wall would be ideal.
5. An Extra Bedroom – While many of the owners now living in Vail’s deed restricted housing and
many of the potential buyers are single they want the opportunity to rent to a roommate even if
only seasonally. Also, residents of resort communities tend to have a lot of company during
peak winter and summer periods. Most want one more bedroom than they absolutely need.
6. Energy Efficient Heating System – Utilities can be very expensive in Vail. Heating systems are
typically used nine months per year and occasionally even in the summer months. New, energy
efficient systems, especially in floor heat, would be very appealing when compared to the
systems in the older residential units in Vail and would keep heating bills comparatively low.
7. Convenient Access to Bus Stop – Sidewalks and internal walkways should be designed so as to
make it easy to travel, wearing ski boots, from units to the bus stop.
8. Mud Room – Since Vail’s residents have many boots, coats, hats and gear, a “mud”
room/entryway is far more functional and appealing than a coat closet. Designs that provide an
air lock/doorway between the entry and main living area would also improve energy efficiency.
9. A Second Bathroom – Whether for use by a roommate, family member or guest, most buyers
seek two bathrooms.
Other design features that should be a given but that have been overlooked in the past include:
Outdoor spigots – the lack of them has been a problem at Miller Ranch;
Roofs that last given snow loads without features that create ice dams and cause leaking; and
Snow shed/snow storage.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 39
VII. Demand Estimates
This section quantifies the size of the market and the capture rates for the proposed units taking into
consideration the number of households residing within the market area by income and household size,
in migration of households from outside the market area, and projected growth in households.
Market Segmentation
To estimate the potential size of the market for the proposed Chamonix homes, the profile of buyers is
analyzed to segment those who qualify and are most likely to qualify.
From Where
The potential market for deed restricted homes in Vail primarily consists of persons who already live in
or near Vail. Very little movement up valley of families from Eagle and Gypsum should be expected
although interest would likely be higher among some now living in Edwards.
Results from a 2007 household survey in Eagle County showed there is not strong interest in moving
from mid valley and down valley communities to Vail. Of the residents who indicated Vail was their first
choice in which to live, 65% already lived within the community, 4% lived in the unincorporated area
adjacent to Vail, 6% lived in Eagle-Vail, 4% in Minturn and 4% in Avon. Only 8% lived in Edwards and 3%
in the Eagle area.
Preference to Live in Vail
Where Now Live Want to Live
in Vail
Edwards 8%
Eagle/Brush Creek 3%
Gypsum/Gypsum Creek 3%
Vail-Incorporated 65%
Avon 4%
Basalt/El Jebel/Frying Pan 1%
Minturn/Redcliffe 4%
Eagle-Vail 6%
Other 1%
Vail-Unincorporated 4%
Wolcott/Bellyache Ridge 1%
100%
Source: 2007 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Respondents to the 2007 survey were also asked whether they wanted to buy or rent a different
residence and which community they preferred. Results showed that:
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 40
Edwards was the number one choice of where residents looking to buy most want to live
followed by the Eagle/Brush Creek area; and
Vail was third overall with nearly 15% of those surveyed indicating it was their first choice.
There has been a fundamental shift in location preferences. According to the 1999 Eagle County
Housing Needs Assessment survey, Vail had the highest ranking of where Eagle County’s residents most
wanted to live (22%) followed by the Edwards area at 20% and Eagle at 12%.
The mix of applicants for the Arosa duplex lottery supports the 2007 survey findings. Of the 11
applicants, nine were living in Vail or Eagle-Vail at the time of application and two were living in
Edwards, indicating that housing in Vail will primarily attract persons who already live in or near Vail.
Arosa Duplex Lottery Applicants
Household Type Where they lived @ application
Priority Purchasers
Couple with child Vail Commons
Couple with child Eagle-Vail Townhouse
Couple with 2 children East Vail
Couple with child Eagle-Vail Townhouse
Couple with child West Vail
Single with 2 children Edwards
Non-Priority Purchasers
Couple no children Red Sandstone
Couple no children Vail Commons
Single Vail Commons
Couple no children West Vail
Single with 1 child Edwards
There is less correlation between job location and where residents most want to live than might be
presumed. According to the 2007 survey, about 40% of employees working in Vail indicated their first
choice of location to live is Vail.
Length of Residency
Most buyers of deed restricted properties are long-time residents. Very few buyers will be new to the
area. Although not tracked, the typical applicant for Vail’s lotteries has lived in Vail for about 10 years.
Of the 31 buyers of Miller Ranch homes in 2013, only one was moving in from outside of the county.
The 2007 Housing Needs Assessment survey found that only 2% of homeowners in the county had lived
there for less than one year. Most (69%) had lived in the county for 10 or more years.
First Time or Move-Up/Move-Down
The majority of Chamonix purchasers will be first-time homebuyers, probably 75% or more
based on historical sales.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 41
Some will be moving within the deed restricted system, either moving up as families grow or, as
has been increasingly the case, buying two residences to replace one in the event of divorce.
There have been a few cases where buyers have sold free market homes down valley and
purchased deed restricted housing in Edwards. The extent to which this is likely to happen at
Chamonix is hard to judge, but the possibility may increase as the free market appreciates over
time.
Household Composition
Compared with Eagle County households overall, residents who indicated Vail was their first choice of
where to live in the 2007 survey were more likely to live alone or with roommates than were residents
who preferred to live down valley. Approximately 37% of the county’s households overall compared
with 25% of those who wanted to live in Vail included at least one child.
OVERALL Vail – 1st
Choice
Couple with child(ren) 27% 20%
Couple, no child(ren) 27% 25%
Adult living alone 23% 31%
Unrelated roommates 10% 17%
Single parent with child(ren) 8% 4%
Family members and unrelated roommates 3% 2%
Immediate and extended family members 2% 1%
Other 1%
100% 100%
Source: 2007 Housing Needs Assessment Survey
Of the 79 fully deed restricted ownership units in Vail, 37 (or 47%) are now occupied by singles without
children. Families own about 42% of the units. The rest are owned by the Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District or Mountain Valley Developmental Services and are rented. A couple lives in the only
one bedroom unit that is owner occupied.
Three of the 24 three-bedroom units are owned by a single individual without children; 16 are occupied
by households with at least one child (typically one). Of the 53 two-bedroom units, 34 were purchased
by singles.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 42
Household Composition – Owners of Vail Deed Restricted Units
Single Single w/
Child(ren)
Couple Couple w/
Child(ren)
Other Total
Units
Vail Commons
2 BR 25 2 10 37
3 BR 3 3 1 8 1 16
Red Sandstone
1 BR 1 1 2
2 BR 6 1 5 12
3 BR 1 1 2 4
North Trail Townhomes
2 BR 3 1 4
3 BR 2 2
Arosa Duplex
3 BR 2 2
Total 37 7 14 12 9 79
Percent of Total 46.8% 8.9% 17.7% 15.2% 11.4% 100%
There are distinct differences between buyers interested in Edwards and those who prefer to live in
Eagle or Gypsum. Edwards attracts singles as well as families, appeals to those who work mid valley or
who commute in both directions, works well for residents who like to ski often, is attractive to
households that prefer greater diversity in the community and are interested in higher density
multifamily housing.
Market Size
Approximately 3,100 renters reside in the area that includes Vail, Eagle-Vail and Avon. This area should
be considered the primary market area for the proposed Chamonix development since:
Past surveys have shown in interest in living in Vail is highest among existing residents; and
Lottery applicants and buyers of deed restricted housing in Vail lived in or near Vail at the time
of application.
Of these 3,100 renter households, roughly 1,600 households have incomes within the ranges specified
by the Chamonix Master Plan (60% AMI to 140% AMI). How the proposed units are ultimately priced
will impact the extent to which they are actually affordable for the wide range of targeted households.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 43
Market Area Renter Households by Income and Size, 2013
Income Range 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5+-Person Total
60% AMI
140% AMI
$36,540
$85,260
$41,760
$97,440
$46,980
$109,620
$52,140
$121,660
$56,340
$131,460
N/A
$0-10,000 211 69 6 16 0 302
$10,000-20,000 189 23 115 9 10 346
$20,000-30,000 32 157 68 99 13 369
$30,000-40,000 83 46 107 22 148 406
$40,000-50,000 123 174 43 32 2 374
$50,000-60,000 132 171 94 21 11 429
$60,000-75,000 97 126 37 54 67 381
$75,000-100,000 15 166 37 97 9 324
$100,000-125,000 16 30 36 9 7 98
$125,000-150,000 4 2 9 9 0 24
$150,000-200,000 11 32 10 0 0 53
$200,000+ 6 1 1 0 0 8
Total 919 997 563 368 267 3,114
Within Targeted
Income Ranges 450 637 247 181 94
1,609
% by Household Size 28.0% 39.6% 15.4% 11.2% 5.8% 100.0%
Source: Ribbon Demographics data and Rees Consulting calculations
Demand Estimate
There is total potential demand for approximately 1,850 ownership units in Vail generated by
households with incomes in the ranges targeted by the Chamonix Master Plan. The proposed 58 units
would need to capture 3.1% of this demand, which is a low capture rate.
Demand and Capture Rate Calculation
# Households
Market Area Renter Households 3,100
In Targeted Income Ranges 1,600
Growth within 2 Years (2% per year) 65
Total Up Valley Market 1,665
In Migration (from down valley or out of county) 10%
Total Demand 1,850
Capture Rate (58 units proposed) 3.1%
This estimate of potential demand includes households that may not want to buy or may not be able to
buy because they cannot qualify for a mortgage; however, with a conservative capture rate of only 3.1%,
it appears that demand is more than adequate for the proposed units.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 44
While four of the 11 applicants for the Arosa lottery were seeking to move up from existing deed
restricted housing within Vail (Vail Commons and Red Sandstone), the vacated units will need to be sold;
therefore, demand from existing owners has not been considered in this calculation.
Lottery/Buyer Applicants
Information on lottery/homebuyer applicants is provided for additional insight into demand.
The Valley Home Store maintains a Master Buyers List with approximately 100 applicants
currently who are pre-qualified under both Eagle County’s Guidelines and for a mortgage. Of
these applicants, roughly 20% include a member who works full time in Vail. At least some of
the applicants on the list are potential buyers for Chamonix.
The Town of Vail has had an average of 8.4 applicants over the past five years for its annual
lottery (between 13 and three applicants each year). This lottery has been for resales; a
separate lottery was held for the Arosa duplex units. No other new units were completed
during this period. Lottery fatigue and perceptions that there was nothing available may have
resulted in fewer households participating in the lottery than were interested in purchasing
housing.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 45
VIII. Mortgage Availability
Obtaining home mortgages has been more difficult since the recession due to the imposition of stricter
lending standards. Further, mortgage availability is complicated by deed restrictions, leased land and
condominium ownership. Through interviews of mortgage lenders, this section of the report examines
how mortgage availability, deed restrictions/complications and interest rates affect the ability for
households to purchase and afford homes.
Loan Products
Mortgage lenders provide a full array of loan products for deed restricted housing in Eagle County,
including:
Conventional mortgages sold on the secondary market most often under Fannie Mae guidelines;
Portfolio loans held by the originating lenders and underwritten based on in-house criteria.
These are most often 5- or 7-year adjustable rate mortgages (ARM’s), but at least one lender
can offer 30-year fixed rates; and
Government insured or guaranteed loans for 15- or 30-year fixed rate mortgages – USDA for
which no down payment is required and FHA that requires about 3.5% down. None of the
lenders interviewed are now processing VA loans for deed restricted housing due at least in part
to their understanding that VA requires deed restrictions to have income caps, which is typically
not the case in Vail or Eagle County.
Not all lenders provide all these loan products. Some provide only portfolio loans on deed restricted
homes, while others also offer conventional and possibly government loans.
Deed Restriction Limitations
Deed restrictions must be approved by lenders. There are generally two approaches:
In house approvals by larger lenders with the restrictions submitted for each individual loan
application. This is the way it has typically been done in Eagle County. The requirements vary
somewhat by lender.
Project approval by Fannie Mae and/or FHA that would then allow any lender to originate
conventional/secondary market mortgages for units within the development. The application
process can be time consuming. Fannie Mae requires an application fee, and the approval is in
effect for only two years.
Lenders often apply their own unique limitations or “overlays” on top of Fannie Mae/USDA/FHA criteria.
While underwriting guidelines vary, the following requirements are typical:
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 46
The deed restriction must terminate at foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure. Fannie Mae no
longer imposes this requirement, but lenders in Eagle County have not yet dealt with
restrictions that survive foreclosure;
The appraisal has to include three comparables with similar deed restrictions;
The lender is not required to send notices of foreclosure to third parties, including the Town or
other entities that might have an interest in preservation of the deed restriction;
Right of first refusal will only be granted to the entity that applied the deed restriction and the
time period for acting on the right cannot exceed 90 days;
Resale controls must have a fixed period of time; and
The deed restriction must be in a public record identifiable through a routine title search.
Lending on Condominiums
Mortgage lending on condominiums is more complex and time consuming than for townhomes,
duplexes and single-family homes for which the underlying land is subdivided. Several requirements are
typically imposed that limit loans for condominiums, including having too many renter-occupied units in
the complex, too many units owned by one party (as is the case at Red Sandstone where the Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District owns seven units) and mixed/commercial uses on site. At least one local
lender will not provide any long-term, fixed rate loans on condos at this point in time. A limit on the
number of loans that can be made by a mortgage company on any one project is also common to limit
their exposure (usually calculated as a percentage of total units in the development).
The interest rate for mortgages on condominiums may also be higher or require more points. The
condominium approval process can be intertwined with deed restriction approval procedures. Since FHA
no longer allows “spot” loans within condominium projects, FHA approval of the entire project is
required. In Eagle County Few projects (maybe only one) have current FHA approvals in place.
None of the deed restricted housing in Vail is FHA approved or has a Fannie Mae master project
approval.
Leased Land
Mortgage lenders typically accept land leases provided that the term extends beyond the term of the
loan by a specified number of years. While leases complicate the mortgage application since
underwriters must review and approve the lease with every application, they do not significantly limit
the types of loans available.
ARM’s
While most borrowers prefer loans where their payment is fixed for typically 15 or 30 years, most of the
buyers of deed restricted units in Vail have obtained 5 or 7 year ARM’s amortized over 30 years with a
five point maximum lifetime increase in the interest rate. The initial interest rate on ARM’s has been
very low in recent years – below 3%, and the annual adjustments have not been to the maximums
allowed since fixed rates have been held low by Federal Reserve polices for a relatively long time. In
other words, ARMS have provided the lowest, most affordable payments possible and have been stable
in recent years.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 47
Interest rates are going to rise, however. Fixed rates have increased one percentage point since last
year. Mortgage lenders generally feel that rates will remain mostly stable through this year but will
increase starting next year as the Federal Reserve backs down from its economic stimulus efforts.
The Impacts of Interest Rates on Affordability
Interest rates have a profound impact on housing affordability. For every 1/4 point difference that rates
rise between 4.5% (about the current average for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage) and 5.5%, a buyer’s
borrowing capacity decreases by nearly 3%. A one point increase in the rate, as occurred in 2013, would
drop the affordable purchase price for a household with an income of around 80% AMI by $20,000 to
$25,000.
According to a recent quote, the interest rate on ARMs is about 3% for 5 years and 3.5% for 7 years. The
monthly payment for a $250,000 ARM at 3.5% with a 5 point lifetime cap could increase 73% during a
period of rising interest rates, from less than $1,100 to nearly $1,900 in five to seven years.
Interest Rate Comparison for Adjustable Rate Mortgages
Starting Rate Maximum Rate
Loan Amount $250,000 $250,000
Interest rate 3.25% 8.25%
Monthly Payment (principal & interest) $1,088 $1,878
Down Payment Assistance
Eagle County’s down payment program was adjusted in recent years to limit the amount provided to no
more than 3.5% of the purchase price. The program has not been utilized much since this change,
however. The availability of funds is currently good. The program is ideal for use with FHA mortgages;
however, the fact that few deed restricted projects are approved by FHA is likely reducing its utilization.
Borrower Profile
Most of the applicants for mortgages on deed restricted units are first time buyers. They tend to be
young singles or families, though there seems to be an increase in middle aged borrowers. Many have
credit issues. One lender indicated about 70% can eventually qualify while 30% cannot. Since the
recession, credit problems have become more frequent. Very few have a 20% down payment and thus
must obtain a government loan or pay for private mortgage insurance. At Miller Ranch, which is the
largest of the deed restricted properties and has had the highest number of sales, between 30% and
50% of buyers have obtained USDA mortgages, which allow loans up to 102% of price or appraised value
in order to cover the program’s up-front costs.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 48
IX. Conclusions and Recommendations
Market conditions appear to be prime now for proceeding with the development of Chamonix. The
availability of housing affordable for households with incomes between 60% and 140% AMI to purchase
is small while potential demand appears to be more than sufficient for the absorption of 53 additional
homes. Specifically:
The economy is recovering with growth in jobs and significant reductions in unemployment.
Projections call for continuation of this trend and population growth of 2% to 2.9% per year
through 2020.
The housing market is rebounding. The number and choice of free market homes for sale down
valley has decreased and prices are starting to rise. Bargains have disappeared and the number
of foreclosures and bank sales has dropped sharply.
The deed restricted units currently in Vail have performed well. All units that have been listed
for sale have sold, commanding the maximum allowable price appreciation.
The inventory of deed restricted units available for sale down valley has largely disappeared.
There are five listings currently, all of which have been placed on the market this year. All units
listed for sale in 2013 were sold or removed from the market by the end of 2013.
Rental availability is becoming increasingly limited and rents are rising; current average market
rents are within the range that it would cost to purchase a Chamonix home at the targeted
incomes.
Demand for deed restricted ownership opportunities is increasing with a record number of sales
at Miller Ranch last year, an increase in lottery applicants (both Town of Vail and the Valley
Home Store), and approximately 100 pre-qualified applicants on the County’s Master Buyers
List. Knowledge that the housing market has bottomed out and that prices are starting to rise,
combined with concerns about interest rate increases, are spurring residents to buy.
Potential demand from households that are most likely to buy at Chamonix (i.e., households
that now rent in or near Vail, have incomes in the 60% to 140% AMI range, and have from one
to five members) appears be to be adequate for the proposed units with a low required capture
rate of less than 4%.
To be responsive to demand and competition with limited but nonetheless attractive choices, some
modifications to the existing development plan are recommended. These include some revisions to
Master Plan concepts (unit mix and size) and additional recommendations for pricing, amenities/design
features, marketing and mortgage options to enhance marketability of the proposed homes.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 49
Competition
From within Vail
Competition from within Vail is very limited. Of the units listed for sale under $500,000, only three
condominium units and one townhome could be considered comparable to the proposed Chamonix
units in terms of their suitability for year-round workforce households. While they offer a choice for
households that might consider Chamonix, they are 42 to 48 years old and have no garages,
outdated/inefficient heating systems, and HOA dues that are likely higher than will be charged at
Chamonix. The one with an EHU restriction in place has been on the market for about one year.
Interest in the unrestricted units has been higher, in part due to developers wanting to buy units to
satisfy their employee housing requirements. Their price range from $432,500 to $495,000 sets an
upper limit for Chamonix.
Only two units in Vail with full deed restrictions as envisioned for Chamonix are listed for sale or soon
will be, with maximum allowable prices of $212,544 and $236,248. The competition that Chamonix will
create for current owners who desire to sell their deed restricted homes should be a concern only if the
new units are priced lower than existing units.
From Down Valley
A total of 78 units down valley from Vail were listed for sale through the MLS in early April at prices less
than $500,000. Prices per square foot were far lower than in Vail and decreased the farther down valley
the units were located (527 in Vail, $308 in Edwards, $212 in Eagle and $193 in Gypsum). The free
market is not generating significant competition in Edwards – only a few condominiums and townhomes
were in this price range. A couple of small single family homes were listed for sale in Eagle for less than
$400,000, but Gypsum is the only community were buyers can choose among new single family homes
in the $300,000 to $500,000 range. The competition generated by homes in Gypsum and, to a smaller
degree, Eagle for families with children should decline as the market continues its recovery. Regardless,
the distance and the difference between Vail and Gypsum is so great, that attempting to set prices for
Chamonix based on prices in Gypsum is not necessary – direct competition with these units will be
limited.
The deed restricted homes down valley, particularly in Edwards, provide attractive alternatives to
purchasing at Chamonix. The neighborhoods like Miller Ranch, Eagle Ranch and Stratton Flats are
attractive, well designed, near schools and parks and convenient to many jobs. They offer single family
homes, which Chamonix will not provide. Yet availability is now low and no new deed restricted
developments are currently planned. Five deed restricted homes were listed for sale in Edwards and
Eagle through the Valley Home Store as of late April, with list prices that ranged from $183,000 for a
condominium to $390,000 for a single family home at Miller Ranch.
Miller Ranch will pose the greatest competition since it has so many units (282), has K-12 schools within
a short walk, is a much shorter commute for employees working in the Vail area than Eagle or Gypsum,
offers a variety of unit types (15 different models ranging from condominiums to single family), offers a
wide range of pricing and is in Edwards, which appeals to singles as well as families. While the Chamonix
site is suitable for housing, the proximity to commercial uses and the lack of schools and parks within
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 50
walking distance make it less desirable for families with children. The pricing and value of homes at
Miller Ranch should be considered when designing and setting prices for Chamonix.
Family Orientation
Approximately 20% to 30% of the buyers at Chamonix will have children. Expectations that Chamonix
will primarily target families is counter to experience among other properties, demographic trends and
resident preferences. Specifically:
25% of the county’s households that prefer to live in Vail include at least one child.
24% of the deed restricted units in Vail are occupied by households with at least one child.
32% of the renter households with incomes in the targeted income range have three or more
members, but this figure includes roommate households; 28% live alone and 40% are two-
person households.
These statistics reflect what all of the key informants interviewed as part of this study relayed -
households with school age children have housing options down valley that better meet their family’s
needs and preferences. Few families have moved back to Vail when three-bedroom homes have
become available; the large majority of applicants for those homes lived in or near Vail. Chamonix will
be ideal for couples, however, who plan to have children. Over time, the number of households with
children living at Chamonix will probably increase.
Income Targets and Pricing
The Master Plan target of 60% AMI to 140% AMI is a wide range to serve in one 58-unit development.
Prices that are affordable for 60% AMI households would be much lower than what a household earning
140% AMI could afford and would likely pay for a larger/higher quality home. In 2014 figures, the
income range would extend from less than $40,000 to over $120,000. Serving this entire range will
necessitate a wage range of prices, from about $135,000 to just over $450,000.
At the upper end, pricing units at the 140% AMI level is not recommended for several reasons:
Single family homes are available in Edwards at Miller Ranch for less ($350,000 - $390,000).
Historically, deed restricted housing in Vail has been priced at similar or lower levels than at
Miller Ranch.
The market is providing housing in this price range in Vail. While only four units were listed in
early April for less than $500,000 that are well suited for ownership by year round residents,
buyers generally expect deed restricted units to be priced below the free market.
There are relatively few renter households residing within the Vail/up-valley area that have
incomes at and above 140% AMI. The income distribution shows a drop in households between
100% and 120% depending upon household size. Of the relatively few with incomes above
$140% AMI, most are two-person households and many of them are likely roommate
households.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 51
While some households may want to move up from existing deed restricted homes in Vail, the
incomes of these households are not known and the step up would large in terms of price. For
example, the last two-bedroom unit at Vail Commons to sell was priced just over $250,000. To
purchase a three-bedroom home priced around $450,000 for 140% AMI households would
result in a significant increase in the monthly payment. Unless research on existing residents of
Vail’s deed restricted homes documents move up desire and capacity, Chamonix pricing should
not extend to the 140% AMI level.
At the lower end, developing units for households with incomes as low as 60% AMI (roughly $135,000 to
$175,000) will require substantial subsidies. It will also likely be more challenging for households at this
income level to obtain mortgages. There are a significant number of renters with incomes in the 60% to
80% AMI range, but there are more with incomes between 80% and 100% AMI.
It is therefore recommended that prices at Chamonix:
Be primarily affordable for households in the 80% to 120% range. If sufficient subsidies are
available, providing some units for 60% AMI households should be considered, but pricing as
high as 140% AMI is not advised at this time.
Be set lower than at maximum affordable levels. For example, to serve households with incomes
at 80% AMI, prices should be set at 75% AMI, or even lower during periods of rising interest
rates.
Possibly be structured using income tiers. In other words, identical units could sell for different
amounts. This pricing technique is common for deed restricted units where the restrictions
impose income limits. This has not been the way that Vail’s deed restrictions have been
structured in the past.
Be set with the expectation that interest rates will rise.
Unit Size, Type and Bedroom Mix
To serve a variety of households with incomes in the 80% AMI to 120% AMI variety in unit type and size
is recommended. Specifically:
The size range should be expanded. As proposed, units would range in size from 1,292 for two-
bedroom flats to 1,632 square feet for three bedroom duplexes. These sizes are relatively large.
o Two-bedroom flats could be as small as 800 to 900 square feet and still be very livable
provided that garage/storage space is provided.
o Townhomes could range from 1,200 to 1,400, perhaps smaller depending upon price.
o Duplexes units would be attractive as currently envisioned (1,632 SF) but could be
marketable at 1,300 to 1,400 square feet.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 52
Consideration should be given to reducing the number of condominiums and offering
townhomes. Each unit could have a south facing wall, private garages might be feasible,
mortgage availability/pricing would improve, the development would lend itself more readily to
phasing, and it would allow for private outdoor space.
Provide variety within unit types, perhaps two or three models, so as to allow for a wider range
of pricing, provide more choice for buyers and enhance marketability.
The bedroom mix could be adjusted to offer slightly fewer three-bedroom units. Existing deed
restricted properties already disproportionately accommodates families with about 30% of units
(not counting EHU’s) having three bedrooms. As now proposed, 38% of the Chamonix units will
have three bedrooms.
Mortgage Availability
Mortgage availability for the proposed Chamonix units will be complicated by:
Deed restrictions limiting purchase to eligible households;
Building at least some of the units as condominiums; and
Developing the project on land leased from the Town of Vail.
With interest rates on the rise, the availability of 30-year, fixed rate mortgages will become more
important to the marketability of deed restricted housing. Although most of Vail’s buyers have been
willing to obtain ARMs in the past, more borrowers prefer a 30-year fixed rate and, with rate increases,
will insist upon it. Furthermore, limitations on mortgage availability will negatively impact Chamonix’s
competiveness relative to Miller Ranch, where about half of the buyers in recent years have obtained
USDA loans with the lowest fixed rates available and no down payment.
To increase the type of mortgages available and the lowest/most competitive interest rates for
borrowers:
Consider redesign of the proposed flats and lofts so that all or at least some of the units are
townhomes rather than condominiums.
Work with local lenders to obtain approval of the deed restrictions and land leases so that both
conventional, government (USDA, FHA and VA) and portfolio loan products are available.
Explore obtaining Fannie Mae and FHA direct approval of the project.
Divide the development into multiple HOA’s so that the duplex units and townhome units, if
built, are not subject to the same limitations and rates as condominium units.
Provide a lender referral packet to applicants that describes the various loan projects each
lender offers and compares fixed to adjustable rate alternatives.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 53
Marketing
Vail’s once a year lottery system has worked adequately for resales and project-specific lotteries have
generated sufficient buyers in the past. Chamonix will be the largest deed restricted development built
to date in Vail, however. Given this, the following steps are recommended to enhance sales:
Provide a more flexible sale system than a single project lottery.
Pre-sell to allow for interior finish choices.
Work with the Valley Home Store to access their Master Buyers List.
Amenities/Design Features
To enhance the livability and competitiveness of the Chamonix homes, the following should be
provided:
Garages, space for parking at least two cars per unit and adequate guest parking;
Additional storage suitable for bikes, skis and other recreational gear;
Small fenced outdoor areas for small children and dogs;
Functional common outdoor areas;
Access to sunlight and views (each unit should ideally have some south facing exposure);
A mud room;
Adequate sound proofing from I-70 noise;
A landscaped buffer between the site and the adjacent commercial uses;
Energy efficiency; and
Convenient pedestrian access to the bus stop.
It is important to make the outdoor areas at Chamonix functional for more than open/green space. The
semi-private areas between the duplexes should be fenced. The green areas on either ends of the
parcel should be developed for use, perhaps a dog park and a playground. The areas between the row
of duplexes and multifamily units to the south should be usable yet not too noisy.
Phasing
If the recommendations provided herein are followed with variety in unit type, size, pricing and
mortgage availability in combination with well-designed units, desirable amenities and a flexible
marketing system, phasing will likely not be necessary. Applications and presales could be used to test
the validity of this conclusion, with adjustments made if it appears that the length of time for the units
to sell will exceed the Town’s ability to retain ownership of units after their completion. Construction
phasing would be inconvenient and disruptive to initial buyers, would be more costly in the long run and
would be difficult for condominium units.
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 54
Appendix
Change in Renter Households: 2000 - 2010
Vail Up Valley Eagle County
2000 # renter-households 1,032 2,917 5,499
% renter-households 47.7% 48.0% 36.3%
2010 # renter-households 1,340 3,336 6,893
% renter-households 51.5% 49.3% 35.8%
% Change in renter households 29.8% 14.4% 25.4%
# Change in renter households 308 419 1,394
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census
Renter Household Composition by Area, 2010
Vail Up Valley Eagle
County
# Renter Households 1,340 3,336 6,893
% Renter-Occupied 51.5% 49.7% 35.8%
Renter Households by Type
Family, no children 11% 15% 18%
Family, with children 8% 19% 29%
Living alone 36% 29% 26%
Non-family, roommates 45% 37% 27%
100% 100% 100%
Source: 2010 US Census
Renter Household Size by Area, 2010
Persons per Unit Vail Up Valley Eagle
County
1-person 36% 29% 26%
2-person 37% 32% 30%
3-person 16% 18% 18%
4-person 8% 12% 14%
5+ person 2% 8% 13%
Average size 2.04 2.45 2.68
Source: 2010 US Census
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 55
Change in Age of Renter Households: 2000 – 2010
Vail Up Valley Eagle County
2000 (total renter households) 1,032 2,917 5,499
15 to 24 years 21% 22% 17%
25 to 34 years 46% 44% 40%
35 to 44 years 16% 18% 22%
45 to 54 years 10% 11% 14%
55 to 64 years 5% 4% 4%
65 years and over 2% 1% 3%
2010 (total renter households) 1,340 3,336 6,893
15 to 24 years 15% 14% 11%
25 to 34 years 42% 42% 36%
35 to 44 years 19% 21% 24%
45 to 54 years 12% 13% 16%
55 to 64 years 7% 7% 9%
65 years and over 4% 3% 4%
100% 100% 100%
Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census
For-Sale Listings in Vail, At or Under $500,000
April 2, 2013
Price Project/Area Bdrms Baths Sq Ft Price/SF Yr Built Type
$248,500 East Vail 2 1 797 $312 1965 Condo
$267,500 1 1 705 $379 1971 Condo
$275,000 short term rental 1 1 835 $329 1973 Condo
$279,000 Sandstone 1 1 530 $526 1974 Condo
$289,000 1 1 576 $502 1973 Condo
$299,000 1 1 576 $519 1973 Condo
$299,900 East Vail 2 1 865 $347 1965 Condo
$300,000 1 1 728 $412 1980 Condo
$309,900 Vail Racquet Club 1 1 576 $538 1973 Condo
$318,000 2 1 901 $353 1970 Condo
$350,000 2 1 882 $397 1970 Condo
$390,000 2 2 990 $394 1980 Condo
$415,000 Vail Racquet Club 2 2 864 $480 1979 Condo
$415,000 Vail Racquet Club 2 2 864 $480 1975 Condo
$420,000 Vail Racquet Club 2 2 864 $486 1979 Condo
$429,000 Vail Racquet Club 2 2 864 $497 1976 Condo
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 56
$432,500 Chamonix Ln 2 2 1103 $392 1972 TH
$432,500 Chamonix Ln 2 2 1110 $390 1972 TH
$435,000 3 3 1792 $243 1972 Condo
$475,000 Chamonix Ln 3 2 1480 1969 Condo
$489,000 Lionshead 1 1 506 $966 1972 Condo
$495,000 East Vail 2 3 1500 $330 1967 Duplex
$495,000 Lionshead 0 1 308 $1,607 1971 Condo
$495,000 East Vail 2 2 1223 $405 1973 Condo
$499,000 Lions Sq. Lodge 0 1 660 $756 1971 Condo
$499,000 Lions Sq. Lodge 0 1 660 $756 1971 Condo
$499,000 Lions Sq. Lodge 0 1 660 $756 1971 Condo
Source: Vail Area Realtors MLS
MLS Listings -
VRB.net 4/8/2014
Price Bdrms SF Type Price/SF
Edwards $210,500 2 924 Condo $227.81
$309,000 3 1393 Condo $221.82
$310,000 3 1259 Condo $246.23
$315,000 2 1415 Condo $222.61
$325,000 2 849 Condo $382.80
$329,000 3 1415 Condo $232.51
$379,000 2 1229 Condo $308.38
$397,900 2 1884 TH $211.20
$399,000 2 1333 Condo $299.32
$399,500 1 756 Condo $528.44
$430,000 1 1293 Condo $332.56
$438,000 2 1089 Condo $402.20
$488,000 1 1078 Condo $452.69
$490,000 3 2163 TH $226.54
$495,000 2 1505 Condo $328.90
$308.27
Eagle $189,900 2 908 Condo $209.14
$299,000 2 1334 TH $224.14
$312,500 2 1016 Duplex $307.58
$324,000 3 1809 TH $179.10
$325,000 3 1798 SF $180.76
$325,000 2 938 SF $346.48
$329,000 2 968 SF $339.88
$335,000 3 1765 TH $189.80
$335,000 3 1717 TH $195.11
5/20/2014
Draft 4-3-14
Rees Consulting, Inc. 57
$341,000 3 1739 TH $196.09
$345,000 3 1717 TH $200.93
$349,000 3 1784 TH $195.63
$349,000 3 1702 Duplex $205.05
$375,000 3 2004 SF $187.13
$400,000 6 2582 SF $154.92
$407,000 3 2092 Duplex $194.55
$445,000 4 2756 SF $161.47
$447,000 3 1892 SF $236.26
$469,500 5 2905 SF $161.62
$497,500 3 2453 SF $202.81
$499,995 3 2822 Duplex $177.18
$211.70
Gypsum $149,900 3 1152 SF/mod $130.12
$245,000 4 1647 SF $148.76
$319,900 2 1213 SF $263.73
$349,900 3 2029 SF $172.45
$387,000 4 2992 Duplex $129.34
$395,000 4 2014 SF $196.13
$418,000 3 2006 SF $208.37
$449,000 3 2006 SF $223.83
$449,000 4 1996 SF $224.95
$450,000 4 2003 Duplex $224.66
$465,000 3 1816 SF $256.06
$477,000 3 2103 SF $226.82
$479,900 6 3705 SF $129.53
$485,000 5 4130 SF $117.43
$489,000 4 2948 SF $165.88
$489,000 3 1860 SF $262.90
$192.56
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Request for additional antenna system nodes from Crown Castle International
PRESENTER(S): Ron Braden, Gannon Sutter, Tanya Friese, Crown Castle International
BACKGROUND: The Town is currently under contract with Crown Castle International to
upgrade the fiber optic based cellular distributed antenna system (DAS). There is a request
from Crown Castle to now add six more nodes in order to accommodate coverage for three
carriers, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. The result of this request should be improved signals in
certain areas of Vail.
ATTACHMENTS:
Crown Castle Int'l. Request for additional antenna system nodes
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, an ordinance repealing
and reenacting the approved development plan for Phase III of Special Development District
No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for an increase in gross residential floor area to facilitate additions to existing
dwelling units, located at 100 East Meadow Units 501 and 502 (Vail Village Inn, Phase III) /Lot
O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130046)
PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, upon second reading.
BACKGROUND: On March 24, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed
the proposal to add approximately 792 square feet of GRFA to Units 501 and 502 of Vail
Village Inn, Phase III. The Commission offered comments on the proposal with regard to the
need to evaluate the proposal pursuant to the criteria, the new roof elements and the need to
tie the south roof element to the balcony below. The Commission, at the applicant’s request,
tabled the item to April 14, 2014. On April 14, 2014, the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the request for a recommendation on a major
amendment to add GRFA to Units 501 and 502. The Commission forwarded a recommend of
approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to SDD No.6, Vail
Village Inn, to increase the allowable GRFA for Phase III, with a vote of 7-0-0. This
recommendation was based upon the review of the criteria outlined in the April 14, 2014
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and
testimony presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends
the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, upon second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Council Memo with Attachments
5/20/2014
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 20, 2014
SUBJECT: Second reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting the approved development plan for Phase III of Special Development
District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in gross residential floor
area to facilitate additions to existing dwelling units, located at 100 East Meadow
Units 501 and 502 (Vail Village Inn, Phase III) /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing
1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130046)
Applicant: Deltec Bank and Trust, represented by Eggers Architect
Planner: Jonathan Spence
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Deltec Bank and Trust, represented by Eggers Architect, is requesting a
second reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting the approved development plan for Phase III of Special Development District
No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail
Town Code to allow for an increase in gross residential floor area to facilitate additions
to existing dwelling units, located at 100 East Meadow Units 501 and 502 (Vail Village
Inn Phase 3) /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC130046)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance
No. 11, Series of 2014, upon second reading.
III. BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the
proposal to add approximately 792 square feet of GRFA to Units 501 and 502 of Vail
Village Inn, Phase III. The Commission offered comments on the proposal with regard
to the need to evaluate the proposal pursuant to the criteria, the new roof elements and
the need to tie the south roof element to the balcony below. The Commission, at the
applicant’s request, tabled the item to April 14, 2014.
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 2
On April 14, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing
on the request for a recommendation on a major amendment to add GRFA to Units 501
and 502. The Commission forwarded a recommend of approval, with conditions, to the
Vail Town Council for a major amendment to SDD No.6, Vail Village Inn, to increase the
allowable GRFA for Phase III, with a vote of 7-0-0.
This recommendation was based upon the review of the criteria outlined in the April 14,
2014 memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence
and testimony presented.
The Vail Town Code provides different review criteria, process and expectations
depending on the scope of the proposed project. Because the proposed additions to
each unit exceed 250 square feet (Unit 501 exceeds 250 square feet by 27 square feet,
Unit 502 by 265 square feet), this project is required to be processed as a Major
Amendment to a Special Development District and demonstrate compliance with the
following standard:
Public Benefit: The proposed deviations provide benefits to the town must
outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations.
As outlined in Section VII of the attached April 14, 2014 Planning and Environmental
Commission Staff Report, staff believes that the scope of the project, particularly its
proposed increase in square footage, does not necessitate considerable benefit as the
adverse effects of the proposed deviations are negligible. Staff considers that the
benefit proposed, including upgraded roofing materials over the majority of the structure
and replacement of outdated street lights to be commensurate with the deviations
requested. It is important to note that if this project were to reduce the proposed
additions to less than 250 square feet per unit, no demonstration of benefit would be
required.
At the May 6, 2014 Town Council meeting Councilor Moffet requested additional
information concerning parking requirements for residential units in the vicinity of SDD
No. 6. Staff has provided a matrix presenting this information included as Attachment B.
On May 6, 2014, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014
upon first reading by a vote of 4-1-0 (Moffet opposed).
IV. DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
Should Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 be approved, the development statistics in
Phase III will change as follows:
Development Standard Approved/ Existing Proposed Change
Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA)
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 3
Unit 501
Unit 502
Total Phase III
SDD #6
2,467 sq. ft.
1,399 sq. ft.
46,067 sq. ft.
2,744 sq. ft.
1,914 sq. ft.
46,859 sq. ft.
+277 sq. ft.
+515 sq. ft.
+792 sq. ft. (1.7%↑)
Parking 108 spaces
1.4 spaces per unit
108 spaces
1.4 spaces per unit
No change
Dwelling Units (DUs) 11 Dwelling Units 11 Dwelling Units No change
Height 5 stories (74.3’ per
SDD)
5 stories (74.3’ per
SDD)
No change (new roof
elements @ 67.6’)
Site Coverage 55% (per SDD) 38% No change
Landscaping 30% (per SDD) 57% No change
V. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014,
upon second reading, the Community Development Department recommends the
Council passes the following motion:
“The Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 11, Series Of 2014, an
ordinance repealing and reenacting the approved development plan for
Phase III of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant
to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow
for an increase in gross residential floor area to facilitate additions to
existing dwelling units, located at 100 East Meadow Units 501 and 502
(Vail Village Inn Phase 3) /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and
setting forth details in regard thereto.”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, the
Community Development Department recommends the Council applies the following
condition:
1. This SDD major amendment approval is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review
application, including compliance with Sec. 14-10-5 Building Materials
and Design, Vail Town Code
2. The applicant shall mitigate the employee generation impact created by
the addition of 792 square feet of GRFA in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code. The
applicant shall make the required fee in lieu payment to the Town of
Vail prior to the issuance of any building permit.
3. The applicant shall receive and submit in conjunction with the building
permit, all applicable Colorado Department of Transportation approvals
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Page 4
for all impacts to the South Frontage Road East, including construction
staging, if necessary.
4. The applicant shall amend the recorded condominium map to reflect the
increase in floor area and space designation, prior to requesting any
certificate of occupancy inspection.
5. The applicant shall replace the three (3) existing street lights located
along the Frontage Road with Town of Vail street lights per Public
Work’s specification. The location of the streetlights is depicted in the
Streetlight Exhibit, included as Attachment C to the May 6, 2014
PEC130046 Town Council Memo. The number of new fixtures shall be
determined by the Director of Public Works and will not exceed three.
The new street lights shall be installed prior to requesting any
certificate of occupancy inspection.
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014, the
Community Development Department recommends the Council makes the following
findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in the April 14, 2014
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the
evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds:
1. That the special development district amendment complies with the
standards listed Article 12-9A, Special Development District, or that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved.
2. That the special development district amendment is consistent with the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives
of the town; and
3. That the special development district amendment is compatible with
and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding
areas; and
4. That the special development district amendment promotes the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the
coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established
character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.”
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014
B. Residential Parking Requirements per Vail Town Code
5/20/2014
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 1
ORDINANCE NO. 11
Series of 2014
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 22, SERIES
2008, WHICH ADOPTED THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE III
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 12-9A-10, AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW
FOR AN INCREASE IN GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA TO FACILITAT E
ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED AT 100 EAST ME ADOW
UNITS 501 AND 502 (VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE III) /LOT O, BLOCK 5D, VAIL
VILLAGE FILING 1, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the
"Town"), is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Colorado and the Vail Town Charter; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have
been duly elected and qualified; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, amended the approved
development plan for Phase III of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn;
and
WHEREAS, amendments to a Special Development District are permitted
pursuant to the parameters set forth for such in Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail
held a public hearing on April 14, 2014 to consider the proposed amendment in
accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code and forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 7-0-
0; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendment to
Special Development District No. 6, complies with the review criteria outlined in Section
12-9A-8, Vail Town Code, and that the applicant has demonstrated that any adverse
effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying
zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided; and
WHERAS, the Town Council finds that the special development district
amendment does comply with the standards listed Article 12-9A, Special Development
District, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the special development district
amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the
5/20/2014
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 2
Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town;
and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the special development district
amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the
surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the special development district
amendment does promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town
and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner
that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a
resort and residential community of the highest quality; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that temporary approval of this
amendment will have no negative effect on parking since the existing penthouse
dwelling unit can not yet be occupied; and
WHEREAS, the approval of this special development district amendment, and
the development standards in regard thereto, shall not establish precedence or
entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail.
WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have
been sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public
health, safety, and welfare to amend the development plan for Phase III of Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance
The purpose of this ordinance is to repeal and reenact Ordinance No 22, Series of 2008
to amend the approved development plan for Phase III of Special Development District
No. 6 to increase the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). This amendment
increases the allowable GRFA in Phase III from 46,067 square feet to 46,859 square feet,
an increase of 792 square feet.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, is hereby amended as follows (all additions are
illustrated with bold italics, deletions are illustrated with strikethrough, and text not
affected has been omitted):
5/20/2014
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 3
Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report
The approval procedures described in Article 12-9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been
fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning and
Environmental Commission for a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan
for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn Phase III.
Section 3. Special Development District No. 6
The Special Development District and the major amendment to the Approved
Development Plan for Phase III are established to assure comprehensive development
and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of
the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the
goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development
District No. 6 is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Vail Town
Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and has been established
since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be
satisfied through the imposition of standard Public Accommodation zone district
requirements.
Section 4. Development Standards – Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, Phase III
The amended development plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village
Inn, Phase III, shall include the following plans and materials prepared by Eggers
Architects, Inc., dated April 4, 2014 and stamped approved by the Town of Vail,
dated April 30, 2014 (as may be further amended by the Town of Vail Design
Review Board):
A. A1.3 Roof Plan, Proposed
B. A2.1 South Elevation, Proposed
C. A2.2 East Elevation, Proposed
D. A2.3 North Elevation, Proposed
E. A2.4 West Elevation, Proposed
The amended Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village
Inn, Phase III, shall include the following plans and materials prepared by Blue Line
Architects, dated September 24, 2008:
A. A1.3 Parking Map
B. A2.1 Level 95.0 Existing
C. A2.2 Level 95.0 Proposed
D. A2.3 Level 105.0 Existing
E. A2.4 Level 105.0 Proposed
F. A2.5 Level 114.4 Existing
5/20/2014
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 4
G. A3.1 Exterior Elevations
H. A3.2 Exterior Elevations
I. A5.1 Vicinity Map
Section 5. Condition of Approval for Special Development District No. 6, Phase
III.
Conditions applied by the Planning and Environmental Commission in
conjunction with the April 14, 2014 recommendation of approval with conditions:
1. This SDD major amendment approval is contingent upon the
applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated
design review application, including compliance with Sec. 14-10-5
Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code
2. The applicant shall mitigate the employee generation impact
created by the addition of 792 square feet of GRFA in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail
Town Code. The applicant shall make the required fee in lieu
payment to the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of any building
permit.
3. The applicant shall receive and submit in conjunction with the
building permit, all applicable Colorado Department of
Transportation approvals for all impacts to the South Frontage
Road East, including construction staging, if necessary.
4. The applicant shall amend the recorded condominium map to
reflect the increase in floor area and space designation, prior to
requesting any certificate of occupancy inspection.
5. The applicant shall replace the three (3) existing street lights located
along the Frontage Road with Town of Vail street lights per Public
Work’s specification. The location of the streetlights is depicted in
the Streetlight Exhibit, included as Attachment C to the May 6, 2014
PEC130046 Town Council Memo. The number of new fixtures shall
be determined by the Director of Public Works and will not exceed
three. The new street lights shall be installed prior to requesting any
certificate of occupancy inspection.
Section 6. Applicability
The changes contained in this ordinance shall only apply to the approved development
plan for Phase III of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. Those
changes were contained within the documents associated with the Planning and
5/20/2014
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 5
Environmental Commission Major SDD Amendment, PEC13-0046. No other provisions
or requirements of the governing ordinance for any other phase of Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, are amended, altered, or eliminated by this
ordinance.
Section 7.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance; and the Vail Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 8.
The amendment of any provision of the Town Code of Vail as provided in this ordinance
shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other
action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The
amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 9.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith
are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof,
theretofore repealed.
Section 10.
The Vail Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof. The Council’s finding, determination and declaration is based upon
the review of the criteria prescribed by the Town Code of Vail and the evidence and
testimony presented in consideration of this ordinance.
5/20/2014
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2014 6
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 6th day of May, 2014 and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 20th day of May, 2014, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
_______________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDER PUBLISHED in
full this 20th day of May, 2014.
_______________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
5/20/2014
Town of Vail Residential Parking Requirements
The Town of Vail has divided the parking requirements into two distinct categories: Those properties located within the boundaries of
Vail’s “commercial core area” (as defined on the Town of Vail Core Area Parking Maps I and II; and those properties located outside of
those boundaries. These boundaries are illustrated on the maps below:
Within the Core Areas
Please See Other Side
Unit Type Parking Requirement Unit Example Parking Requirement
Dwelling Unit 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit Unit 3C, Residences at Solaris, 2,909 sq. ft., 4
bdrm
1.4 spaces
Accommodation
Unit
.7 spaces per accommodation
unit
The Sebastian (hotel room) .7 spaces
5/20/2014
Outside of Mapped Core Areas
Unit Type Parking Requirement Unit Example Parking Requirement
Multiple-Family
Dwellings
If a dwelling unit's gross
residential floor area is 500
square feet or less: 1.5 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross
residential floor area is more
than 500 square feet, but less
than 2,000 square feet: 2
spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross
residential floor area is 2,000
square feet or more: 2.5 spaces
Park Meadows Unit 5C, 312 sq. ft.1 bdrm.
Simba Run Unit 1200; 1,292 sq. ft. 2 bdrm.
770 Potato Patch, Unit #5, 2,440 sq. ft. 3 bdrm.
1.5 spaces
2 spaces
2.5 spaces
Accommodation
Unit
0.4 space per accommodation
unit, plus 0.1 space per each
100 square feet of gross
residential floor area, with a
maximum of 1.0 space per unit
Holiday Inn (hotel room) ≤1 space
5/20/2014
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (Estimated 8:00 p.m.)
5/20/2014