Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-05-14 PEC
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VA10 May 14, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Brian Stockmar, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez (arrive 1:05 PM), Ludwig Kurz, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo Absent: None 2. Site Visits 2.1. 175 Forest Road - Venerable Residence 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for the review of variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural 30 min. Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (6) above ground level to project more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0015) Applicant:Ed & Amy Venerable, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Matt Panfil 1. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an I mprovement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Panfil introduced the request to the PEC and provided the board with background information. Panfil discussed the demo/rebuild provisions of the code. Commissioner Perez requested clarifications if additional variances are required. Kyle Webb, representing the applicant had no presentation. Commissioner Gillette asked about the height of a wall shown on the plans. Kyle responded to the commissioner's questions. Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarifications concerning the setbacks. Panfil provided information related to inquiries from neighbors. Gillette asked if a supporting post under the parking deck might be appropriate. Stockmar and Kjesbo concurred. Public Comment: No members of the public spoke. Commissioner Comments: Lockman- Supports the request as a result of the topography. Hopkins- Agrees with Mr. Lockman Perez - Concurs with other commissioners. Kurz- Agrees with staff and supports the proposal. Gillette -I n favor of application and feels it meets the criteria. Recommends that the DRB consider a supporting column under the deck. Kjesbo-Agrees with staff and Gillett's recommendation concerning the supporting column. Stockmar supports the application and the forthcoming motion. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.2. A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14- 5 min. 10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the May 29, 2018 meeting. ApplicantArosa Partners LLC, represented by Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lightfield Brian Gillette moved to table to May 29, 2018. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.3. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements 5 min. by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the May 29, 2018 meeting. Applicant flolly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Ludwig Kurz moved to table to May 29, 2018. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. April 23, 2018 PEC Results 5. 1 nformational Update 5.1. Eagle River Valley Housing Needs & Solutions Update Kim Williams, representing the Eagle County Housing Department, presented the results from the recent housing demands analysis. Commissioner Gillette inquired about the relationship between job creation and housing units. Tori Franks with Eagle County Housing Department discussed the how units relate to employment numbers. Gillette -Why is overcrowding a problem? Franks spoke to true overcrowding where it has impacted quality of life and how it is a percentage of total overcrowding. Gillette asked for further clarification about the "Catch Up" slide. Franks provided additional information. Gillette asked how many units were created in recent years. Williams responded, less than 200 units. Perez asked for clarification on what is considered affordable in Eagle County. Franks responded that there are a number of different definitions for different programs/situations. Perez spoke to the problem in the housing community of interchanging the terms workforce housing and affordable housing. George Ruther spoke to deed restrictions in the valley and their acceptance by the community. Williams discussed findings from a recent survey regarding various strategies to increase the amount of workforce housing in the Eagle River Valley. Neubecker asked for a description of the difference between inclusionary housing and residential linkage. Ruther stated that the residential linkage assumes the creation of jobs based on residential development. Gillette stated that this question and survey should be oriented more to people providing and building housing, not residing in the housing. Gillette pointed to the need to ask the right questions to the right individuals/groups. Le. ask developers about fee waivers and density bonuses, not residents. Perez asked how Middle Creek was received by the community. Ruther responded that it depended on what angle you were looking at it from.... neighbors, future users, employers etc. Stockmar-Asked how we educate our full and part time residents about the issue. Ruther-Spoke to the recent NIMBY Jamboree. Stated that when the issue is personalized more people become interested in the issue. Williams returned to the slide presentation and discussed the existing tools and their support. Stockmar inquired about interjurisdictional cooperation. Williams spoke to alignment and discussions that are occurring and related successes. Lockman asked how policy considerations are brought to fruition. Spoke to the challenges facing renters. Ruther spoke to the upcoming meeting between the Town Council and the VLHA. Spoke to past "No's" such as "The Town of Vail never sells land" or "The Town of Vail does not spend money outside of town boundaries" Perez asked about rental properties, whether owned by the Town of the VLHA. Ruther spoke to the issue and that if the VLHA owned units that additional bonding opportunities might exist. Lockman spoke to the divergence of quality and quantity. Spoke to the need for rental properties to improve. Ruther spoke to the direct and indirect results of some regulations. Gillette spoke to looking at the existing housing stock vs new units. Spoke to buying deed restrictions on existing units. Ruther spoke to the Vail Indeed program. Stockmar spoke to his concern about the aging population and the aging of the housing stock. 6. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily May 11, 2018 TOWN of DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (5) above ground level to project more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0015) ATTACHM ENTS: File Name PEC18-0015 175 Forest Rd Variance Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A - Vicinity Ma .pdf Attachment B - _ Applicants _Responses _to Variance_ Review Criteria.pdf Attachment C - Plan Set.pdf Attachment_D - Title.pdf Description Staff Memo to PEC Attachment A- Vicinity Map Attachment B - Resonses to Variance Criteria Attachment C - Plan Set Attachment D - Title TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 14, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for the review of variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (5) above ground level to project more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0015) Applicant: Edward & Amy Venerable, represented by KH Webb Architects, PC Planner: Matt Panfil I. SUMMARY The applicants, Edward and Amy Venerable, represented by KH Webb Architects, PC, are requesting the review of variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Edward and Amy Venerable, represented by KH Webb Architects, PC, are requesting the review of variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a parking deck, intended for use as a vehicle parking space, that would result in a three foot (3') setback. The applicants are proposing a demo/rebuild of the eastern, secondary, duplex unit (175 Forest Road). The variances are proposed as part of the reconstruction of the existing dwelling unit, which is proposed for demolition. In order to rebuild the unit, the applicants' design must take into consideration that the subject property slopes steeply downhill moving from the south property line (front) to the north property line (rear). In such cases, Section 12-21-12-K, Vail Town Code, states, "there shall be no required front setbacks for garages, except as may be required by the design review board." The applicants intend to take advantage of the above referenced provision and propose a garage that is setback approximately six feet (6) from the southern (front) property line. The proposed garage will be able to accommodate two (2) vehicles. However, Section 12-10-10, Parking Requirements Schedules, Vail Town Code, requires two-family dwelling units outside the Town's "commercial core areas" and between 2,000 — 4,000 square feet to provide a minimum of three (3) parking spaces. As there is insufficient room for a third parking space between the garage door and the edge of the pavement of Forest Road, the applicants are proposing to construct a deck to the east of the proposed garage that would be wide and deep enough to accommodate the third required parking space. Rather than requesting a variance from the parking requirements schedule to allow for two (2) parking spaces where three (3) parking spaces are required, the applicants have requested the above referenced variances. Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, allows a deck more than five feet (5') above ground level to project up to five feet (5') into the required setback. The proposal would result in a three foot (3') setback between the eastern property line and the parking deck where a minimum often feet (10') is required. The proposed parking deck similarly encroaches into the required front setback. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicants' response to variance criteria (Attachment B), plan set (Attachment C), and a linked Title Report (Attachment D) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The subject property was annexed from Eagle County as part of the original Town of Vail in 1966. A two-family dwelling was constructed on the subject property in 1983. The subject unit was constructed with the existing two -car garage approximately six feet (6) from the southern (front) property line. The adjacent duplex unit to the west (185 Forest Road) was rebuilt in 2008. The subject unit has remained relatively unchanged since its original construction. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Town of Vail Page 2 Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 2, Definitions (in part) 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: DEMO/REBUILD: The destruction, demolition, or removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the gross residential floor area of an existing dwelling unit or structure. The determination of the fifty percent (50%) shall be calculated upon "gross residential floor area" as defined in this section. Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). 12-6D-11: PARKING.- Off ARKING: Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. Chapter 10, Off Street Parking and Loading (in part) 12-10-10: PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULES.- Off CHEDULES: Off street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedules.- B. chedules: B. Schedule B applies to all properties outside Vail's "commercial core areas" (as defined on the town of Vail core area parking maps I and 11, incorporated by reference and available for inspection in the office of the town clerk).- Town lerk): Town of Vail Page 3 Use Parkinq Requirements Single-family and two-family If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is dwellings 2, 000 square feet or more, but less than 4, 000 square feet: 3 spaces Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, 'Amendment'; of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve Town of Vail Page 4 compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following W-MOTIM a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations (in part) 12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES.- K. LOPES: K. Setbacks, as they apply to this chapter, as required by sections 12-6A-6, 12- 68-6, 12-6C-6 and 12-6D-6 of this title, are amended as follows: There shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the design review board. Garages located in the front setback, as provided for in Town of Vail Page 5 this section, shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review and approval by the design review board. Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code Chapter 10, Design Review Standards (in part) 14-10-4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES, STEPS, BAY WINDOWS, ETC..- C. TC.: C. Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet (5) above ground level may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one-half (%) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one-fourth (%) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: View Corridor: 175 Forest Road Vail Village Filing 1, Block 7, Lot 26 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Low Density Residential Steep Slope > 40% None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard Required Site Area 15,000 SF of 20,255 SF No Change Buildable Area (12,775 SF Buildable Area) Front (South) — 20' Front: 22' Front: 20' Front: -2' Side (East) — 15' Side: 15' Side: 15' Side: No Change Setbacks Rear (North) — 15' Rear: =66' Rear: =61' Rear: -5' Garage — TBD Garage: 6' Garage: 8' Garage: +2' Deck (East) — 10' Deck: 10.5' Deck: 3' Deck: -7.5' Building Height Flat Roof — 30' 33' 33' No Change Sloping Roof — 33' Density (DUs) Max. 2 2 2 No Change Density Max. 7,183 SF 6,064 SF 7,074 SF +1,010 SF (GRFA) (Sec. 2,873 SF) (Sec. 1,812 SF) (Sec. 2,870 SF) (Sec. +1,058 SF) Site Coverage Max. 20% 18.7% 19.9% +1.2% (4,051 SF) (3,795 SF) (4,030 SF) (+235 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% 73.1% 73.2% -0.1% (12,153 SF) (14,800 SF) (14,831 SF) (-31 SF) Parking 3 parking spaces 2 3 +1 Town of Vail Page 6 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) South: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) East: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) West: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The southeast portion of the subject property is significantly affected by slopes in excess of forty percent (40%). The existing or potential use or structure most affected by the proposed variances is the new single-family residence adjacent to the east (165 Forest Road). If the topography in the area of the proposed parking deck were not so steep, the applicant would not require the requested variances as they would be able to construct an at -grade driveway/parking space. Based on the topography of the site and the site design of the property to the east, staff finds no significant impact between a parking deck raised to a maximum six (6') from ground level and a ground level parking space that would not require any variances. While there may be a slight visual impact to the property to the east, staff finds that this would be best mitigated through the Town's design review process. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The proposed variances will facilitate the applicants' ability to comply with Section 12-10-10-B, Vail Town Code, which requires three (3) parking spaces for two-family dwelling units with between 2,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Due to the excessive slope at the southern portion of the site, the topography essentially dictates that the applicants utilize the zero setback for garages on steep slopes provision established in Section 12-21-12-K. However, utilizing said provision minimizes driveway area, and thus eliminates the Town of Vail Page 7 applicants' ability to provide the required third parking space in the driveway. As indicated in Review Criteria, if the topography of the site did not require a raised parking deck, the applicants could, by right, provide an at -grade third parking space east of the proposed garage. Without the requested variances, the applicants will require a variance from Section 12-10-10-B. Furthermore, if the applicants were to be required to adjust their site plan in order to create sufficient driveway area for a parking space, the result would be an increase in site disturbance, potential loss of trees and landscaping, and possible need for a site coverage variance. Finally, the development of a new unit associated with the requested variances corrects an existing nonconformity in which there is GRFA located within the minimum required twenty foot (20') front setback. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The applicant is not requesting the variances in order to provide parking spaces beyond the minimum required by code, but rather to meet the minimum code requirement. As the proposed number of parking spaces is consistent with the permitted density for the subject property, the addition of one (1) parking space will not negatively impact transportation and traffic facilities. As the proposed new unit replaces an existing unit, staff also finds that there will be no significant effect on light and air, distribution of population, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (5) above ground level to project more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Town of Vail Page 8 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (5') above ground level to project more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. "Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variances, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 14, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of these variances will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. These variances are warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship Town of Vail Page 9 inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's responses to Variance Review Criteria, dated April 18, 2018 C. Plan Set, prepared by KH Webb Architects, PC, dated April 23, 2018 D. Title Report, dated October 6, 2017 Town of Vail Page 10 sp ti k / 4 •�. OF } *IP' ti 7F -- 4.18.18 Venerable Residence Lot 26, Block 7, Parcels A/B Vail Village I" Filing 175/185 Forest Road Vail, Colorado Lot Size: .465 acres / 20,255 sq. ft. Based on Survey by EVS, dated 1.30.07 Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zoning Setbacks: 20' Front (+/- 14' encroachments exist for B Garage) 15' Sides/ 15' Rear Height: 33' Sloped Roofs, 30' Flat Roofs Site Coverage: 4,051 sf (20% of total site area) Allowed 40% for Unit B: 1,620 sf allowed 1,270 sf Existing, 350 sf remaining Landscaping: 12,153 sq. ft. required (60% of total site area) Currently: 13,250 sf/65% Parking: 6 spaces required if built out to maximum size Existing GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area): Total Allowable: 7,183 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) 60/40 Split: Unit A 4,309 sf / Unit B 2,874 sf Basement Calcs: Unit A Currently 58% Underground Unit B Currently 70% Underground Existing (GRFA) Square Footage Including Basement Deduct Unit A: 4,204 sq. ft. (5,222 sf Actual) Unit B: 1,883 sq. ft. (2,515 sf Actual) Garage Space Credits: 1,200 sq. ft. (600 per unit) Unit A: 598 sf Actual Unit B: 421 sf Actual) ESSENTIAL DATA: Front Setback: 20' required; 14' existing; Increase to 12' for Garage Encroachment —VARIANCE REQUESTED Side Setback: 15' required; 15' existing; 3' proposed for Required Parking Space — VARIANCE REQUESTED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: Pursuant to paragraph 12-6H-6 Setbacks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Applicant addresses the matters set forth in the application as follows: I. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: The proposed variance requests are unusual as the existing structure and the proposed structure are substantially similar. Other properties on Forest Road are in similar configurations and like uses due to the steep downhill lot configuration. The net result of the proposed renovation is a substantially upgraded property that will not change or alter the nature or fabric of the neighboring properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege: The relief requested will only replace the existing structure with a substantially similar, yet upgraded structure. Due to the steep lots configuration and existing elements like retaining walls, we cannot gain adequate parking on the property. These variances have been granted in the past and no special privilege is apparent. 3. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed renovation will not have any effect on any of the above factors. 4. How the request complies with the adopted Town of Vail planning policies and development objectives. The proposed request is fully compliant with Town of Vail planning policies and is an encouraged pattern to redevelop and upgrade Vail Village Core properties. GRAPHIC STANDARDS EXTERIOR ELEVATION IDENTIFICATION WINDOW IDENTIFICATION 1 — DRAWING NUMBER C1 A4.01 — SHEET NUMBER WINDOW TYPE INTERIOR ELEVATION IDENTIFICATION KEYNOTE IDENTIFICATION 99 DRAWING NUMBER 99 4A7.01 99 C ?� NOTE NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 99 DETAIL IDENTIFICATION REVISION IDENTIFICATION CA9101 DRAWING NUMBER 001REVISION NUMBER — SHEET NUMBER ASI f REVISION DESCRIPTION WALL SECTION IDENTIFICATION SECTION MATERIAL GRAPHICS 1 — DRAWING NUMBER A5.11 — SHEET NUMBER CONCRETE a UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED EARTH BUILDING SECTION IDENTIFICATION tPOROUS FILL 1 DRAWING NUMBER (GRAVEL) A5.01 — SHEET NUMBER STEEL ENLARGED DETAIL IDENTIFICATION ALUMINUM AREA OF DRAWING TO BE ENLARGED MASONRY - BRICK 41 DRAWING NUMBER MASONRY - A6.01 — SHEET NUMBER CONCRETE BLOCK DOOR IDENTIFICATION RIDGID INSULATION 308— DOOR NUMBER XXX BATT INSULATION GYPSUM PLASTER ROOM/SPACE/AREA IDENTIFICATION ROOM NAME ROOM NAME PLYWOOD 314 — ROOM NUMBER 876.00 SF ROOM AREA FINISH WOOD PARTITION TYPE IDENTIFICATION 23A — PARTITION TYPE; RE: PARTITION TYPE SCHEDULE ACOUSTICAL PARTITION TYPE IDENTIFICATION 76H — PARTITION TYPE; RE: PARTITION TYPE SCHEDULE STRUCTURAL GRID A — COLUMN LETTER 1 COLUMN REFERENCE GUIDE COLUMN LETTER ELEVATION DATUM IDENTIFICATION LEVEL NAME ELEVATION PROJECT TEAM OWNER LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS ED VENERABLE CERES NAME 175 FOREST RD PO BOX 2134 ADDRESS VAIL CO 81657 EAGLE CO 81631 CITY STATE ZIP P:VOICE P:970.949.3286 P:VOICE F: FAX F: FAX F: FAX ARCHITECT STRUCTURAL SURVEY KH WEBB ARCHITECTS ASTRA ENGINEERING EAGLE VALLEY 710 WEST LIONSHEAD 7887 E BELLEVIEW SURVEYING INC CIR AVE, STE 1100 41199 US -6 VAIL CO 81657 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 AVON CO 81620 P:970.477.2990 P:303.475.5691 P:970.949.1406 F: FAX F: FAX F: FAX CONTRACTOR MECHANICAL SOILS NAME NAME NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP P:VOICE P:VOICE P:VOICE F: FAX F: FAX F: FAX CIVIL ELECTRICAL � W NAME NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP P:VOICE P:VOICE F: FAX F: FAX BUILDING & CODE INFORMATION BUILDING CODE: IRC 2015 ZONING: TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONING LOT SIZE: 20,255 SQ. FT 175 FOREST RD, VAIL COLORADO n n n 7-7 DRB SUBMITTAL 4.23.2018 - 185 FOREST 175 FOREST _ 1 : Sheet Name co 0 OO L x co 0 x NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION U 0 O LO x X X x GENERAL a CIVIL C1.0 PLACEHOLDER LANDSCAPE L1.01PLACEHOLDER ARCHITECTURE A001A SITE COVERAGE ®®®®®®® ® T M, I HEIGHT CALCS W J �� L.lry iW ® PROPOSED GRFA CALCS m ®EM TM T GARAGE LEVEL PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8,238' - 6" PROPOSED LIVING LEVEL PLAN W = � A101C PROPOSED MASTER LEVEL PLAN � C C J O MASTER LEVEL NORTH ELEVATIONS � W a � CD J -4c 8,232'- 6" SOUTH ELEVATIONS ENTRY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS CONT. �� J 8,228' - 11' S2.01 PLACEHOLDER PLUMBING P1.01 PLACEHOLDER MECHANICAL M1.01 PLACEHOLDER ELECTRICAL GUEST BED 8,22,spiral LIVI1� ,222. 6`' 8,226'- 6" w L Sheet # Sheet Name co 0 OO L x co 0 x D 0 O LO x x 0 O — x x U 0 O LO x X X x GENERAL A000 COVER SHEET CIVIL C1.0 PLACEHOLDER LANDSCAPE L1.01PLACEHOLDER ARCHITECTURE A001A SITE COVERAGE A001B HEIGHT CALCS A101.2 PROPOSED GRFA CALCS A101A PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN A101B PROPOSED LIVING LEVEL PLAN A101C PROPOSED MASTER LEVEL PLAN A201 NORTH ELEVATIONS A202 SOUTH ELEVATIONS A203 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS CONT. STRUCTURAL S2.01 PLACEHOLDER PLUMBING P1.01 PLACEHOLDER MECHANICAL M1.01 PLACEHOLDER ELECTRICAL E1.01 PLACEHOLDER �0/ L.L U) LLI O LL L0 r O CU J � No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS COVER SHEET A000 ZONING ANALYSIS: LOT SIZE: .465 ACRES = 20,255 SQ. FT. \ BRG=N 78°56'16" W SMH MH 0840 MEAS. INV. ELEV. 8232.3 SITE—COVERAGE AREA MEAS RIM ELEV. 8238.7 1 " = 10'-0" 101 BASIS OF ELEVATION: SMH MH 0820 INV. ELEV.: 8233.8 MEAS. RIM ELEV.:8241.3 SITE COVERAGE CALCULATION: LOT AREA = 207255 SF 20% MAX = 47051 SF ALLOWABLE PROPOSED TOTAL = 4,030 SF: 710 0' 10' 20' 30' SIDENTIOAL ZONING IST FOR UNIT B GARAGE) LOWED 1 SITE AREA) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r) ry U) W ry O LL L0 r J Date L.lry No. Description Date A001A U 0 Q 1./7 Q G W 1 = � � � � C � J O G � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J 4.r b SWI L • t r) ry U) W ry O LL L0 r O CU J � Date 4.23.2018 No. Description Date A001A Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS SITE COVERAGE A001A LO co CD N CO O N LO N ZONING ANALYSIS: \ tiKCi=N lb'b l b- VV 41.1 SMH MH 0840 MEAS. INV. ELEV.: 8232.3 MEAS. RIM ELEV.: 8238.7 HEIGHT CALCS 1/8" = 1'-0" BASIS OF ELEVATION: SMH MH 0820 INV. ELEV.: 8233.8 MEAS. RIM ELEV.: 8241.3 65 ACRES = 20,255 SQ. FT. 'WO -FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIOAL ZONING D' FRONT (+/- 14' ENCROACHMENTS EXIST FOR UNIT B GARAGE) 3' SLOPED ROOFS, 30' FLAT ROOFS x,051 SF (20% OF TOTAL SITE AREA) ALLOWED D% FOR UNIT B (1,620 SF ALLOWED) 2,153 SQ. FT. REQUIRED (60% OF TOTAL SITE AREA) :URRENTLY: 13,250 SF./65% BUILDING ENVELOPE 710 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r) ry U) W ry O LL L0 r J L.lry No. Description Date U 0 Q 1./7 Q G W 1 = � � � � C � J O G � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J 4.r b SWI L • t r) ry U) W ry O LL L0 r O CU J � No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS HEIGHT CALCS A001 B \ tiKCi=N (6 bb I bi VV 41.1 SMH MH 0840 MEAS.INV. ELEV.: 8232.3 MEAS. RIM ELEV.: 8238.7 BASIS OF ELEVATION: SMH MH 0820 INV. ELEV.: 8233.8 MEAS. RIM ELEV.: 8241.3 a .465 ACRES = 20,255 SQ. FT. TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIOAL ZONING 20' FRONT (+/- 14' ENCROACHMENTS EXIST FOR UNIT B GARAGE) 33' SLOPED ROOFS, 30' FLAT ROOFS 4,051 SF (20% OF TOTAL SITE AREA) ALLOWED 40% FOR UNIT B (1,620 SF ALLOWED) 12,153 SQ. FT. REQUIRED (60% OF TOTAL SITE AREA) CURRENTLY: 13,250 SF./65% 35 SF ;7 SF SITE AREA DISTURBED SITE = 26% OF DISTURBANCE FENCE 710 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r) ry U) W ry O LL L0 r J Date L.lry No. Description Date A001 C U 0 Q 1./7 Q G W 1 = � � � � C � J O G � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J w L • t r) ry U) W ry O LL L0 r O CU J � Date 4.23.2018 No. Description Date A001 C Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS SITE DISTURBANCE A001 C Q N co 0 N co N v s_ s _3 8�s1 X h h� 248. 0' UTILITY `v EASEMENT � h X92, D R�4L' ?5' REAR SETBACK SNOW STORAGE 1/8" = 1'-0" D 0 A D ( DD *PER TOWN OF VAIL SECTION 14-5-2 IF DRIVEWAY IS HEATED,MINIMUM SNOW STORAGE AREA MAY BE REDUCEDTO (10%) OF THE REQUIRED PARKING AND ACCESS AREAS SNOWMELTED DRIVEWAY AREA BOUNDRY (985 SF) SNOW STORAGE AREA (110 SF) 110 1985 = 11% (SNOW STORAGE AREA) SANDSET IRREGULAR FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) ON GRADE STONE SLAB SANDSET STEPS, (9) RISERS @7" EACH BOULDER RETAINING (TYP.) SANDSET IRREGULAR FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) ON GRADE STONE SLAB SANDSET STEPS, (12) RISERS @7.5" EACH ,NDSET IRREGULAR FLAGSTONE 'EPPERS (TYP.) )OLDER RETAINING UNDER EDGE LNTILEVERED PARKING ✓:26.0 V:22.5 TILEVERED PARKING JCTURAL WALL (6' MAX) RDRAIL OR COURT PAVERS VV STORAGE k (55 SF) )NCRETE PAN E OF ASPHALT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �0 ry vJ W ry O LL L0 r J Date L.lry No. Description Date A001 D U � � 0 1./7 Q W 1 � � C J O C � � CD J -4c C � L/1 _ 1� J w L • to �0 ry vJ W ry O LL L0 r O CU J � Date 4.23.2018 No. Description Date A001 D Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS SNOW STORAGE DIAGRAM A001 D TOTAL LOWEST LEVEL WALL SURFACE AREA (BASED ON A 10' WALL HEIGHT FOR THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE WEST UNIT (UNIT A) AS APPROVED IN 2008) ZONING ANALYSIS: WEST UNIT: 2,152 SF (APPROVED 2008) LOT SIZE: .465 ACRES = 20,255 SQ. FT. EAST UNIT: 1,727 SF ZONING: TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIOAL ZONING TOTAL: 3,879 SF SETBACKS: 20' FRONT (+/- 14' ENCROACHMENTS EXIST FOR UNIT B GARAGE) HEIGHT: 33' SLOPED ROOFS, 30' FLAT ROOFS SITE COVERAGE: 4,051 SF (20% OF TOTAL SITE AREA) ALLOWED BELOW GRADE WALL SURFACE AREA 40% FOR UNIT B (1,620 SF ALLOWED) LANDSCAPING: 12,153 SQ. FT. REQUIRED (60% OF TOTAL SITE AREA) WEST UNIT: 914 SF (APPROVED 2008) CURRENTLY: 13,250 SF./65% EAST UNIT: 1,171 SF TOTAL: 2,085 SF TOTAL GRFA ALLOWABLE (7,183 SF): 60/40 SPLIT TOTAL DEDUCTION FOR LOWER LEVEL: 2,085 SF 13,879 SF = 0.537 (54% DEDUCTION FOR HORIZONTAL FLOOR AREA) 4,309.8SF (UNIT A) / 21873.2 (UNIT B) GROSS SF (BEFORE DEDUCTIONS) DEDUCTIONS LOWER LEVEL: 1,357 SF LOWER LEVEL: 1,357 SF X.54 = 733 SF LIVING LEVEL: 1,357 SF CRAWLSPACE: 101 SF MASTER LEVEL: 1,495 SF GARAGE: 505 SF PRE -TOTAL: TOTAL (BEFORE DEDUCTIONS) 4,209 SF DEDUCTIONS: 1,339 SF PROPOSED TOTAL GRFA FOR THE SECONDARY UNIT (175 FOREST RD): 43209 SF - 13339 SF = 21870 < 2,873.2 (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRFA FOR SECONDARY UNI co U) 0 1v1n1(r 1 P\/P1 P1 AN 1 2 3 al 19 a 7 a 10 LIVING LEVEL PLAN 188 SF rn_'� LOWER LEVEL PLAN - GRFA 1/8" = V-0" 0 LIVING LEVEL PLAN - GRFA 1/8" = V-0" D 368 SF r TOTAL SURFACE AREA = 1727 SF AREA = 556 SF ABOVE GRADE (32%) AREA = 1171 SF BELOW GRADE (68%) MASTER LEVEL PLAN - GRFA 1/8" = V-0" J Lin _ � c Lon CD J _ CD J im G {"; � � J 4M -cc W 4-..} Lwn 1� J No. Description Date Project Number 000000 Date 5.7.2018 Drawn By J NS PROPOSED GRFA CALCS Al 01 02 Scale 1/899 = 1'-0" co CDN LO LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 188 SF rn_'� LOWER LEVEL PLAN - GRFA 1/8" = V-0" 0 LIVING LEVEL PLAN - GRFA 1/8" = V-0" D 368 SF r TOTAL SURFACE AREA = 1727 SF AREA = 556 SF ABOVE GRADE (32%) AREA = 1171 SF BELOW GRADE (68%) MASTER LEVEL PLAN - GRFA 1/8" = V-0" J Lin _ � c Lon CD J _ CD J im G {"; � � J 4M -cc W 4-..} Lwn 1� J No. Description Date Project Number 000000 Date 5.7.2018 Drawn By J NS PROPOSED GRFA CALCS Al 01 02 Scale 1/899 = 1'-0" co CDN LO I" I EXISTING L 1/4" = V-0" UNEXCAVATED C^ 3 A203 DD —::::4 0 OWER LEVEL /"� PROPOSED LOWER 1/4" = V-0" LEVEL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BEDROOM Date SUITE #3 I" I EXISTING L 1/4" = V-0" UNEXCAVATED C^ 3 A203 DD —::::4 0 OWER LEVEL /"� PROPOSED LOWER 1/4" = V-0" LEVEL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 ry vJ W ry O LL L0 r J Date L.lry No. Description Date A101A U 0 Q 1./7 Q G W 1 = � � � � C J O J C G &-.a � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J 4.r b L • to 0 ry vJ W ry O LL L0 r O CU J � Date 4.23.2018 No. Description Date A101A Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN A101A EXISTING LIVING LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A203 4 XISTING R WALL - 2 3 SNOWMEN GA E D AGGRE El FIREi Dmr I — � GRILL DW � o KITCHEN ° �DW I I �I S pp 9g „ 9174 1' N_ CL O I I � 3_g112" 3 — I G A301 ---- — — — — — D n? 22 �i I— I II III I I I I I — — — — — — — — — 1 I i LINE OF EXISTING FOUNDATIONS WALL TO REMAIN AS RETAINING WALL L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I I I I I 3 2 1 PROPOSED LIVING LEVEL PLAN ��J 1/4" = V-01, IMF M© TALL CAB 1 I A 1 i I \ I \ TALL CAB \ \,N/MICRO 0" 3 A203 PAI•ITRY N DD w D C 4, "T CRAWL SPACE ACCESS PANEL 1 91j 1' _ 10" GUEST OBATH C;iG PWDR " I I 4 I 6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION L.L U) W L i J Date L.lry No. Description Date LEVEL PLAN A101B C3 W 1 = � � � � C � J O G � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J w w L L.L U) W L i O CU J Date 4.23.2018 No. Description Date LEVEL PLAN A101B Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by JNS PROPOSED LIVING LEVEL PLAN A101B Q 00 00 CDN co N V 5 6 4 3 2 II 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I ... Ln J L!ry U � � - Q 1 � 12' - 14" o o I J C v I SNpWMELTE GAT � � J EXPOSED AGGROE — `^. o � DECK I 01-45/81, i— J AMY'S I I CLOSET 00 00 A _I 0 1 _ P I STED N SS ____________________________________�II GLA Ilii I co S J ills (3iI EDT 14"FLUE - CLOSE I \ MA TOE / — H OI MASTER I PIPE X2 \ BED pR — \ I IEDROOM I iiii I .P I — I��//ISTING ' I I `J SOAP .P W D — \ / I E/� NICHE \ II I Lit PLL XRIOR W II / \ oq Cq MASTS I MUD A20D3 FG�ASD O oA \ 3 BATHRo, ROOM S SOAP °' IE D w E I w lilt I \ FLU , A203 4 1 CANTILEVER / \ — _ / III IO _ 114 —II CATR I -------------- �------- LOST ----------- — /'( I ��\� I IIII / I I II II II L I = I \ MASTER i l I I--------, BATHROOM l i i �� _— — U I I I I I II II _ I OPEN \ � i i i i i i I i I— "9 TO O Illi iiii 7'- BELOW \ I l i l I I I I I 5 \ I I I II I i i i I I I I i DD 7 _7 5116" vz Wan @36" � I --------- I il I - COFFEE + MAKE-UP BAR LINEN ----------/,� I ELEVATOR '�---------" ---------------I DN N 2' _ g 114" I I 9114' 4' _ 7 112" ----DN— — w MUD I --- ---------i ft ROOM tQ— I DN I IIV GARAGE G 0 I LINE OF EXISTING I / II W FOUNDATIONS WALL GUARDRAIL I TO REMAIN AS RETAINING WALL I — ENTRY O I --SLAB— ----------- I > I II / GARAGE LL I I II LO OPEN TO I BELOW / I II F \ I / OPEN No. Description Date \ I �_ � — / TO— / BELOW DN ------I-- EXISTING II DN RETAINING WALL ENTRY GATE DRIVEWAY 4 E I II �— -----SNOWN► -- — /—--- --STAIRS--- — 3 Project number 000000 2 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by JNS EXISTING MASTER LEVEL PROPOSED MASTER LEVEL PROPOSED MASTER LEVEL PLAN 12 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" Q A101C coCDco N co N V EXISTING MATERIAL ELEMENTS FOR 175 & 185 FORREST RD 1 BEIGE STUCCO (TO MATCH) 2 77-1 . k r a - f 1 NJ k �w STONE VENEER (TO MATCH) EXISTING MATERIAL PHOTO r I � MATERIAL rl I 1 STUCCO BEIGE 2 STONE VENEER ASSORTED U PAINTED VERTICAL WOOD PANEL SIDING (TO MATCH) MATERIAL AND COLOR KEY (REF A204 # MATERIAL COLOR 1 STUCCO BEIGE 2 STONE VENEER ASSORTED U DARK COLORS 3 WOOD PANEL SIDING GREY 4 DAVINCI SHAKES W 1 = � (ROOF) BROWN 5 METAL RAILING TAN VERTICAL BALLISTERS *175 FOREST RD. EXTERIOR MATERIALS & RAILINGS TO ACCOMMODATE WITH EXISTING DAVINCI SHAKE ROOF (TO MATCH) EXISTING RAILING DESIGN (TO MATCH) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 ry U) W r O H L0 r J L.lry No. Description Date U 0 Q Lon Q G W 1 = � � � � C � J O � �^ � G J -x 1� J b L ne 0 ry U) W r O H L0 r O CU J No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by Author EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A200 EXISTING 3/16" SCALE � o 0 w PROPOSED 3/16" SCALE X-1 JRAILINGS TO MATCH EXISTING III hY NEW EXISTING I FBI LE Hit ip Ilpl 1lNEW EXISTING MW *175 FOREST RD. EXTERIOR MATERIALS & RAILINGS TO ACCOMMODATE WITH EXISTING MATERIAL AND COLOR KEY (REF A204) # MATERIAL COLOR 1 STUCCO BEIGE 2 STONE VENEER ASSORTED C3 DARK COLORS 3 WOOD PANEL SIDING GREY 4 DAVINCI SHAKES W 1 (ROOF) BROWN 5 METAL RAILING TAN VERTICAL BALLISTERS GARAGE LEVEL 138' - 6" 4❑ LOWER LEVEL 8,210'-6" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �0 ry U) LLI O LL L0 W __J -x r -- Lary No. J H C3 � � W 1 � � C � J O � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J w L • to �0 ry U) LLI O LL L0 O CU J � No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS NORTH ELEVATIONS A201 *175 FOREST RD. EXTERIOR MATERIALS & RAILINGS TO ACCOMMODATE WITH EXISTING MATERIAL AND COLOR KEY (REF A204) # MATERIAL COLOR 1 STUCCO BEIGE 2 STONE VENEER ASSORTED U DARK COLORS 3 WOOD PANEL SIDING GREY 4 DAVINCI SHAKES W (ROOF) BROWN 5 METAL RAILING TAN VERTICAL BALLISTERS EXISTING 3/16" SCALE EXISTING I NEW PROPOSED 3/16" SCALE I I I EXISTING I NEW I I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 ry U) W ry O L0 r J L.lry No. Description Date U Lon � CM � W � C � J O � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J 4.r b SWI L • t 0 ry U) W ry O L0 r 0 CU J � No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS SOUTH ELEVATIONS A202 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING 3/16" = V-0" MATERIAL AND COLOR KEY (REF A204) # MATERIAL COLOR 1 STUCCO BEIGE 2 STONE VENEER ASSORTED C3 DARK COLORS 3 WOOD PANEL SIDING GREY 4 DAVINCI SHAKES LW 1 = � (ROOF) BROWN 5 METAL RAILING TAN VERTICAL BALLISTERS G EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 3/16" = 1'-0" AGE LEVEL 8,238' - 6" fER LEVEL 81232'- 6" QUEST BED 8,224'- 3" ING LEVEL 8,220'- 6" VER LEVEL 8,210'-6" *175 FOREST RD. EXTERIOR MATERIALS & RAILINGS TO ACCOMMODATE WITH EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING 3/16" = V-0" WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 3/16" = 1'-0" E LEVEL 3,238'- R ,238' - R LEVEL 3,232'- 6" ENTRY 228'- 11 " BED 3,224'- 3" G LEVEL 3,220'- 6" R LEVEL 3,210'-6" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �0 ry U) W ry O LL L0 J L.lry No. Description Date C3 Lon CM LW 1 = � � � � C � J O G � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J 4.r b SWI L �0 ry U) W ry O LL L0 O CU J � No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS CONT. A203 0 ry (n 0 W CU r J 0 H L0 r No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by Author 3D VIEW 1 A900 0 ry (n 0 W CU r J 0 H LO r No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by AS 3D VIEW 2 A901 Ll fiTl7�i i�lllli7�} ��II:IIYY- ® nw_=111® NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I Y 1 U) W ry LL L0 r J L.lry No. Description Date U 0 Q 1./7 Q G W 1 2 � � C J O J C G &—.a � � J C+ � L/1 _ 1� J 4.r b SWI L • '4 I Y 1 U) W ry LL L0 r O CU J No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS AXON VIEWS 1 A903 0 ry (n 0 W CU r J 0 H L0 r No. Description Date Project number 000000 Date 4.23.2018 Drawn by J NS AXON VIEWS 2 A904 OT 2 OT 28 UTIEITY � EASEMENT 15' REAR SETBACK ,---_PARCEL B • LOT 26 / 0.194 ACRES ci ♦ ♦ ♦� - ' / \ 15' OFFSET FROM �I LD-NQC ' ♦ ` / �\ DRIP EDGE, REMOVE TREES ♦ ♦ : / \ \� - INSIDE OF 15' Qf�I C'( 00 6BOULDER RETAINING WALL - - - - _ - - - _ - OI 02 ♦ OI TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) 04 `% SANDSET IRREGULAR _3` 02 FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) 03 - - ON GRADE STONE SLAB SANDSET STEPS, (a) RISERS @7" EAGH bw:6.0+ tw:10.0 �� 04 J / - / , O4 BOULDER RETAINING (TYP.) ✓� ---/ ' 0 bw: .0 ' 05; �I 0 1 .26 10 i 05 06 `� I I. 0 _ 07 OT 29 - 10.5 13.8 bw:11.0 0 ` 15. -' /2� i/ GUARD RAILING tw- .0 08 bw: 1 � _ \�- SANDSET IRREGULAR Lower Level ffe:10.5 - 10 - + tw: 0. 10.0 10 - FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) I I _ � � � � ' 1. ON GRADE STONE SLAB SANDSET 12- _ - - - - GRADE AT BUILDING MINIMUM 20.5 w:5.Q \• STEPS, (12) RISERS @-1.5" EAGH ^5.25 150 + tw: 0. - 6.25 - tp:20.5 > + 21.0 I1.5/�� SPIRAL STA I RGASE W/32 RISERS AT 6" EAGH +30.0--- `SANDSET IRREGULAR TOP LAND I NC : 38.5 - FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) BOTTOM LANDINO:22.5 '+ 125 0 �� / ` \ BOULDER RETAINING UNDER EDGE -\Z � ♦ / +Lci ling:24.5 + _ �i , i .5 2 OF GANTILEVERED PARKING TW:26.0 4 BW: 22.5 PARKING ELEVATION 38.5 ; '� 5 �,,.26 P KING ELEVATION r _� _ ♦ 20 ��2� ��ni 26� (FOLLOWS PRO RTY LINE) - - - 8 SETBACK GARAGE EASEMENT SEE LEGAL �/ _ GANTILEVERED PARKING DESCRIPTION S � - 12 DooK SAT. WALL - - Garage ffe:38.5=,., �,�- STRUCTURAL WALL (6' MAX) PAGE 394 -� + bw:3.5 ., �, -, i�� O +tw: __4 3 - _ GUARDRAIL ♦ ♦ _ L 4 - - MOTOR COURT PAVERS J 2 8. _ TYPE T.B.D. \ ` ♦ 8 6 - _ LARGE SUS/ OUTLINE 2' CONCRETE PAN EDGE OF ASPHALT E S T R O A O 50' C RAPH I G LEC END SYMBOL DESGRIPTI ON 8 4 O 8 16 24 SGALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" \ EX15TINO 5PRUGE, PINE, OR FIR TREE TO BE J PRESERVED. SEE 5URVEY FOR 51ZE5. \ 7 \ W Ir� EX15TINO A5PEN TREE TO BE PRE5ERVED. SEE SURVEY FOR 51 ZE5. 0 W Q EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED. SEE M � 00 5UR\/EY FOR SIZES. 8 4 O 8 16 24 SGALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" IZT 00 0 W 06 N M 0 7 00 N W Ir� M D0 �� U 0 W Q 2 U M � 00 a LU 0 IL Q U _0 0 cn p 0 U Z Q J Qj GA (p W M r -I N x 0 m v U O 0 a O j V) L•L ^) W cn V1 OLL U LL O -bn � O m C6 O Lr) (10 v •• •• a..+ C6 O > C6 > 25 April 2018 7 May 2018 Title: CONCEPTUAL PARKING AND STAIRS Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Sheet: L 1 © Ceres Plus, LLC. 2018 C TY�) ELECTRIC TRANSEOR LOT 2 LOT 28 UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT I I I \ / 15' REAR SETBACK --00195 / \ ,---_ PARC EL B • _SOT 20 _----- -\ \ �A f� -j-� 0.194 ACRES Cj 00 /00 6BOULDER BETA I N I NC WALL — — _ —01 0 � LIQ L� Sz L R _ - _ - - - - - OI S[IN bw:2.0 O3 T 29 X X X zxz' STONE 04 `- � SANDSET IRREGULAR PILLAR cTYP iQ5 +bw:b. — 02 FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) PARC EL A o� �\ / \ `� 0 / O ON GRADE STONE SLAB SANDSET �� \ L O T 2 6 0 -+ STEPS, (ci) RISERS @-1 EAGH acs _ \ \- _ _ / bw:b.tw:10.0 04 04BOULDER RETAINING (TYP.) 015 1).26�OQ UN: .0 10 05 tw:10.0 0.5 13.— �y O 15 GUARD RAILING R E S T R 06 N M Building Goverage (4,030 s.f.) 0 rn r OG \-Tj l \ SANDSET I RREO ULAR E � FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) ON GRADE STONE SLAB SANDSET STEPS, (12) RISERS @-1.5" EAGH SANDSET I RREOULAR FLAGSTONE STEPPERS (TYP.) BOULDER RETAINING UNDER EDGE OF GANTILEVERED PARKING TW:26.0 BH: 22.5 GANTILEVERED PARKIN+ STRUGTURAL WALL ((b' MAX) OUARDRA I L MOTOR COURT PAVERS TYPE T.B.D. 2' CONCRETE PAN EDGE OF ASPHALT SITE GOVERA E STATISTIGS Total Lot Area Landscape Area Required (60% of Lot Area) 20,255 s.f. (0.465 acres) 12,153 s.f. 8 4 O 8 16 24 SGALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"' Lot Area 20,255 s.f. LESS 06 N M Building Goverage (4,030 s.f.) 0 rn Driveway Goverage (1,3x4 s.f.)=5,424 s.f. Total Landscape Area Provided 14831 s.f. _ Total Hordscope Area Provided 2,836 s.f. (Iq.12%) Total Softscape Area Provided II,gC15 (80.8830) 8 4 O 8 16 24 SGALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"' IZT 00 0 w 06 N M 0 rn 00 N w � M rn rn U 0 w Q x U w m � � 00 Q Lu _0 a Q U ru L O N D U Z Q J Qj W M r -I N X O CID U 0 0 a O 4_j — v , LL W a -J cn OLL U LL O —bn � O Lr) ('o U •� •� +.j O / / 25 April 2018 Title: SITE COVERAGE Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Sheet: L2 © Ceres Plus, LLC. 2018 it LOT 27 r-rinccT'-~ R0.AD (50 ROW) ��,eITL CCV�R?4C.;;E CALCULATION q �s ae 6 8230 -32 r 1 7XFOG�JRE C-4,LCULATION OUJEF, L-EVEL LJALL F: LANDSCAPE AREA = 1350 S.F. LOT 27 LCT SIZE _r��55 SF. r AREA G4LCULATION SITE COVFRgCs= GALC:UI_A7 GN LOT AREA = 20;55 S.F. 20% MAX = 4,051 SF. ALLOWABLE PROPOSED TOTAL = 3,IS5 S.F. 5QUARE FCOTAe CAL CUL AT I CN: GRFA 1'1AX = 1153 S.F. 60%140% = 4309 5F./2014 5.F ALLOWABLE PRIMARY SECONDARY LOWER LEVEL = 2425 S.F x 58 = 1401 SF LOWER LEVEL = 104 SF x .10 _ 453 SF. LIVING ROOM LEVEL = 2355 SF. MID LEVEL = 88 SF ENTRY LEVEL = 442 SF, UPPER LEVEL = 522 SF TOTAL = 4,204 5 F TOTAL = 1,833 S F GARAGE = 558 5.1= GARAGE = 421 5F (NOT INCLUDED IN 45OVE TOTAL) (NOT INCLUDED IN ABOVE TOTAL) A N I�� �I �J ❑ IJ �� � 0 � � � 0 I I = 58 1.00 LETT 28 8230 -32 I- 36 CW ` RET VHl tiT36 r-- — —— — — — —- — I I FJ I 3 I I � I 3 ►� C > > C � i C I � � I r -- — I I ---� Ii 1 r i I C L f —NTRi' LEVEL. SQUAf;RE FOOTAGE Segerberg Mayhew & Associates Architects P.C.-A.I.A. ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIORS Main Office: Eagle -Vail 10 1 Eagle Road -Building 6 Avon, CO 81620 Tel 970 476 4433 Fax 970 476 4608 Denver office 12600 West Colfax Avenue #A-140 Lakewood, CO 80215 Tel 303 623.3355 Fax 303 623 2262 info@smarchs com www sm=hs corn LIVING LEVEL 50JAF�E FOOTAGE LOWER LEVEL SOUAREF FOCTAC3E Revisions: DRB SUBMITTAL 9/21/01 DIB RESUBMITTAL 10/12/07 12/5/01 DRB MEETING SUBMITTAL REVISIONS TO DRB 5U5MITTAL - 1115/08 PROGRESS SET - 2/14/08 PRICING SET - 2/28/08 PERMIT SET - 4/11/m8 Q RESPONSE TO TOV COMMENTS - 5I -f IDS Drawing Title: SQUARE FOOTAGE AND SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS r Date: 8/21107 Project No: 31001.00 Drawn by: 5m< Checked by: KS Sheet: 2DD7 SMA SF -1 0' LOT 24 10' 20' LOT 26 DECK I LOT 27 i i i nE� � i i 1 � , S 89°04' E 147.50' 0 8 5.0' UTILITY 10 0, 3 9' ---------------j- --EASEMENT - - ----------------------------- NOTES: 1) DATE OF UPDATED SURVEYi 10/16/2017 2) LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CONPANY POLICY Na V278943 DATED 8190- 12/27/02 WAS USED FOR ALL TITLE AND EASEMENT INFORMATION. 3) NOTICEi ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU NUST CO NrENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, NAY ANY 92 ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE CONrENCED NOTE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 4) BASIS OF ELEVATIOW SEWER NAN OLE 0820. (SEE DRAWING) 94 30' 5) BASIS OF PROPERTY LIN: LOCATIOW PREV. FOUND NONU ENTS AT NE COR LOT 26 AND COR LOTS 22/23/24/25. 6) BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ALONG PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE 96 AS SHOWN ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY. A BOUNDARY SURVEY WOULD oI BE NECESSARY TO DETERNIME THE TRUE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOT AND CD SETBACKS, WHICH NAY VARY FRON THE PLATTED DIrENSIONS. co 7) THIS SURVEY AND THE IN O RNATION CONTAINED HEREON IS THE PROPERTY OF 98 w EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING, INC. AND IS INTENDED FOR THE SOL: USE OF THE ORIGINAL CLIENT ONLY. ANY USE OF OR TRANSFER TO OTHERS IS PROHIBITED. o 8) BUILDING SETBACK IN'ORNATION IS NOT PLATTED. PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVENENTS ON THIS PROPERTY, TOWN OF VAI_ 8200 CD 0 SHOULD BE CONTACTED FOR CORRECT BUILDING SETBACK IN'ORNATION. Z 9) BUILDING SHOWN WAS LOCATED AND MEASURED TO TRIM AND VARIOUS EXTERIOR MATERIALS. STRUCTURE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON z FOR ADDITION DESIGN. 02 --- CD 0 XX DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE WITH APPROXINATE TRUNC DIAMETER 04 Ir 06 00 �D XX DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE WITH APPROXINATE TRUNC DIAMETER O8 8210 12� \ i \ 35.E \ \ 14.3 PEAS' \ X PARCEL A i 11.7 X % LOT 26 If ' 0, 8 0, 47.11' L-- 05 Q - 0, 3X2 0, 3 7/ 0,8X4 / 12l 05 0, 8 0, 4 / FF Phi LOT 28 ALLDL 0. 3 L,lf90091 L LEA ILIT AILITY 0 3 � 31, S3, PNOE PEO 0 2 J 0, 3 ?�'u�11 0. 3 0, 8 � 0, 34-MnI 1 1, 0 0. 6 0, 8 0 7 o \, 0. 5 0 5 8200 0, 8 0. 5 0, 8 05 05 0, 8 ALI 0, 5 0 3 .S j �Y 40.2 i X!S 11.3 / GROUND BELOW 01� Y / PARCEL B LOT 26 `35.8 0.19 S PEAK 85B 0. 7 'to 1, 0 1, 0 0 8 l-" CPP /12 0. 5 07 O 0, 4 21 ti W 0, 8 p 0, 5 oU ti Z X12 0. 7 05 .1 14 1s 0, 8 i 33. o8 07 16 LD NG 32.5 � ` 1¢,01`�j 42.2 23.6 �K 23.4 /" 0 7 �as LINE °'� 18 N 24°57'32" E �mr I 30,10' (TVP) av� /-8220 X 47COELMD / °f? 8 0.5 \I� I 23.7 22 42../ / Zj 46 23.4 / \\ `� PAT10I \ `� ``�Q/ j6 24.8 0 4 24 0.8 27.0 1. / 28. 50.0 A STENE 26 22's COCPAO 30A o, 3 0.8 ��° , � 3.7 / X j PARTIALY 30.1 _ SEE LEGAL ICK - X 22.3 _ 2.3- 0. 27.0 / / VITH GAti�0 28 WALL EASENW �. oE�T= X - < 0 �P- M� / '` / FIOlt1AZ �C M 1= 32.1 X =i= =i==r�8"�/ / /54.2 �4 PAGE 894 32.6 _ 35.5 `�� 3X3 1Qg / PEAK Ofd 8 8S,\1 50.1 j 0 230 q 331 X - , V`S �1 / 41 X 0, 5 36.5 V ��� / GARAGE 32 X --\>�TAIRl�r 17J 38.7 / 0 4 34.1 _)� 37.0 DCK T / 37.7 / 39.1 34 O KOxx aff i 7.8 X IVx.'K LI . / -`� 40.8 35.337.6 NEW CMP 2U f� CO 37.8 POZT CTM 1 8. 9. 35.5 4 8 10 X38.5 3 8. 0 37.8 w - 36.2 36.9 2 38.7 `-°-�---------- ---- ----------�---------------- a 39.7 X � ( � 38.7 .5 40.8 NET. WALL _ -�--- ------ 'CONCRiMPAk STONE` 395 5 A 0=10°02'52" �------------ __WALL 9. 0 5 CONpIETE R EDGE A&%lALT KOAD 39s --_ _�-`396 -- 39.3 EV �0r6 R=680.90 F E S T R -- - 40.6 TOP A 11 39.4 �EtE PAII' 40.2 ° CLEN=120,48' 1J COCKEYE WALL -- BRG=N 85°14'14" W50/ =02°33'08" 397 - _ 41A C R❑1n/) R=687.90 40.2 -X405 ® L=30.64' INLET MOOkO CLEN=30,63' 40. 3 _ NEAP. My ELEW KRela BRG=N 78°56'16" W 41A NEAL RDI ELEW KR80.7 VALVE NNAG My ELEW KR88.9 O NEAL RDI ELEW 8240 41199 HIGHWAY 8 & 24. EAGLE-VAIL P.O. BOX 1230 EDWARDS, CO. 81632 (970)949-1408 LECTRIC NEM \ IKO PIN i LOT 29 D+ BUILDING WILaING ONLINE LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Wall Easement 0 That part of Forest Road right-of-way, according to the plat for Vali Village First Filing recorded In the office of the Eagle County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder, described as followsp Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Lot 26, Block 7, said Vali Village First Fllkw thence, along the northerly right-of-way line of said Forest Road, 53.30 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central angle of 04.261451, and a chord that bears S88'021170E 53.37 feet to the True Point of Beghnhgj thence continuing along said northerly right-of-way line, 1.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central angle of 00'051001, and a chord that bears S85.46.251E 1.00 feetj thence, departing said northerly right-of-way, S240571311W L25 feet thence N85.461251W 1.00 feetj thence N24'571311E L25 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing L67 square feet, more or less. 1.2AK DOW amim UAWARC MffLw N24.57'3174 5�`S24.57'31'W'25'WJ 1.25' N85.46 1.00' LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Garage Easement ----------------------------------- That part of Forest Road right-of-way, according to the plat for Vali Village First Filing recorded In the office of the Eagle County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder, described as followsp Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Lot 26, Blodc 7, said Vali Village First Fiting thence, along the northerly right-of-way line of said Forest Road, 56.42 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central asngle of 04.411581, and a chord that bears S87'541411E 56.41 feet to the True Point of Beginnings thence, continuing along said northerly right-of-way line, 22.35 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central angle of 01'511401, and a chord that bears S84.371511E 22.34 feetj thence,knnpp said northerly right-of-way S24'571311W 7.49 feet thence N65'02'29departtl-W 21.0% feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 802 square feet, more or less. _ =W ARC _ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, MNchael J. Post, a Professional Land Surveyor registered under the laws of the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this topographic survey was made by me and under my supervision, and that the survey Is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge. e � Mic P.o . s Cotgp QSv,� 30116 : Of Dat&°I_loL�1�Z : ry ♦ �y, �. .� O/V 0, 8 � I40 8 21 amim 40.8 WEKINIr / 12l p GROU, BELOW \ \ 0,8 23.5 \ 'to 1, 0 1, 0 0 8 l-" CPP /12 0. 5 07 O 0, 4 21 ti W 0, 8 p 0, 5 oU ti Z X12 0. 7 05 .1 14 1s 0, 8 i 33. o8 07 16 LD NG 32.5 � ` 1¢,01`�j 42.2 23.6 �K 23.4 /" 0 7 �as LINE °'� 18 N 24°57'32" E �mr I 30,10' (TVP) av� /-8220 X 47COELMD / °f? 8 0.5 \I� I 23.7 22 42../ / Zj 46 23.4 / \\ `� PAT10I \ `� ``�Q/ j6 24.8 0 4 24 0.8 27.0 1. / 28. 50.0 A STENE 26 22's COCPAO 30A o, 3 0.8 ��° , � 3.7 / X j PARTIALY 30.1 _ SEE LEGAL ICK - X 22.3 _ 2.3- 0. 27.0 / / VITH GAti�0 28 WALL EASENW �. oE�T= X - < 0 �P- M� / '` / FIOlt1AZ �C M 1= 32.1 X =i= =i==r�8"�/ / /54.2 �4 PAGE 894 32.6 _ 35.5 `�� 3X3 1Qg / PEAK Ofd 8 8S,\1 50.1 j 0 230 q 331 X - , V`S �1 / 41 X 0, 5 36.5 V ��� / GARAGE 32 X --\>�TAIRl�r 17J 38.7 / 0 4 34.1 _)� 37.0 DCK T / 37.7 / 39.1 34 O KOxx aff i 7.8 X IVx.'K LI . / -`� 40.8 35.337.6 NEW CMP 2U f� CO 37.8 POZT CTM 1 8. 9. 35.5 4 8 10 X38.5 3 8. 0 37.8 w - 36.2 36.9 2 38.7 `-°-�---------- ---- ----------�---------------- a 39.7 X � ( � 38.7 .5 40.8 NET. WALL _ -�--- ------ 'CONCRiMPAk STONE` 395 5 A 0=10°02'52" �------------ __WALL 9. 0 5 CONpIETE R EDGE A&%lALT KOAD 39s --_ _�-`396 -- 39.3 EV �0r6 R=680.90 F E S T R -- - 40.6 TOP A 11 39.4 �EtE PAII' 40.2 ° CLEN=120,48' 1J COCKEYE WALL -- BRG=N 85°14'14" W50/ =02°33'08" 397 - _ 41A C R❑1n/) R=687.90 40.2 -X405 ® L=30.64' INLET MOOkO CLEN=30,63' 40. 3 _ NEAP. My ELEW KRela BRG=N 78°56'16" W 41A NEAL RDI ELEW KR80.7 VALVE NNAG My ELEW KR88.9 O NEAL RDI ELEW 8240 41199 HIGHWAY 8 & 24. EAGLE-VAIL P.O. BOX 1230 EDWARDS, CO. 81632 (970)949-1408 LECTRIC NEM \ IKO PIN i LOT 29 D+ BUILDING WILaING ONLINE LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Wall Easement 0 That part of Forest Road right-of-way, according to the plat for Vali Village First Filing recorded In the office of the Eagle County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder, described as followsp Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Lot 26, Block 7, said Vali Village First Fllkw thence, along the northerly right-of-way line of said Forest Road, 53.30 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central angle of 04.261451, and a chord that bears S88'021170E 53.37 feet to the True Point of Beghnhgj thence continuing along said northerly right-of-way line, 1.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central angle of 00'051001, and a chord that bears S85.46.251E 1.00 feetj thence, departing said northerly right-of-way, S240571311W L25 feet thence N85.461251W 1.00 feetj thence N24'571311E L25 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing L67 square feet, more or less. 1.2AK DOW amim UAWARC MffLw N24.57'3174 5�`S24.57'31'W'25'WJ 1.25' N85.46 1.00' LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Garage Easement ----------------------------------- That part of Forest Road right-of-way, according to the plat for Vali Village First Filing recorded In the office of the Eagle County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder, described as followsp Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Lot 26, Blodc 7, said Vali Village First Fiting thence, along the northerly right-of-way line of said Forest Road, 56.42 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central asngle of 04.411581, and a chord that bears S87'541411E 56.41 feet to the True Point of Beginnings thence, continuing along said northerly right-of-way line, 22.35 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 687.90 feet, a central angle of 01'511401, and a chord that bears S84.371511E 22.34 feetj thence,knnpp said northerly right-of-way S24'571311W 7.49 feet thence N65'02'29departtl-W 21.0% feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 802 square feet, more or less. _ =W ARC _ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, MNchael J. Post, a Professional Land Surveyor registered under the laws of the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this topographic survey was made by me and under my supervision, and that the survey Is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge. e � Mic P.o . s Cotgp QSv,� 30116 : Of Dat&°I_loL�1�Z : ry ♦ �y, �. .� O/V r" Land Ttle e. hRntiTEr. Co MNr —NWC fO7— Order Number: Property Address Land Title Guarantee Company Customer Distribution ztPREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions. 175 FOREST ROAD, VAIL, CO 81657 Date: 10/06/2017 PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER's ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS For Closing Assistance Closer's Assistant For Title Assistance Char's Patterson Kate Malloy Vail Title Department 0090 BENCHMARK RD #205 0090 BENCHMARK RD #205 6110 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE #300 AVON. CO 81620 AVON, CO 81620 VAIL. CO 81657 (9701 748-4784 (World 49701 748-4789 (World 49701 477-4500 (World 4877) 408-7373 (Work Fax) 4877). 408-7373 (Work Fax) eaglecountyre uestsOltgc.com cnatterson0itgc.com kmalloyaa Itgc.com Company License: CO44565 Company License: CO44565 Buyer/Borrower AMY VENERABLE AND C. EDWARD VENERABLE Delivered via: Electronic Mail Seller/Owner CAROLINE AMPLATZ Delivered via: Electronic Mail Agent for Buyer PARAGON REAL ESTATE INC Attention: AMY VENERABLE 6464 S QUEBEC ST #425 CENTENNIAL, CO 80111 (303) 437-5559 (Work) (303) 437-5559 (Home) (303) 284-6909 (Work Fax) amy@paragonhomesdenver.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Agent for Seller LIV SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY Attention: TYE STOCKTON 292 E MEADOW DR #101 MOUNTAIN HAUS VAIL, CO 81657 (970) 476-7944 (Work) (970) 471-2557 (Home) (970) 470-6220 (Work Fax) tsg@livsothebysrealty.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Lender - New Loan GUARDIAN MORTGAGE Attention: LORI PORRITT AND CHRISTLYN RAINS 5299 DTC BOULEVARD SUITE 100 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 (810) 953-7243 (Work) loriporritt@gmc-inc.com;ChristlynRains@gmc-inc.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail LIV SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY Attention: JAN JOHNSON BEAVER CREEK LODGE PO BOX 539 EDWARDS, CO 81632 (970) 748-5158 (Work) (970) 845-0423 (Work Fax) jan.johnson@sothebysrealty.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Land Title CAAKAvree txx MNV —Sime r}G7— Order Number: Property Address Parties: Seller: Land Title Guarantee Company Estimate of Title Fees V50048758-2 175 FOREST ROAD, VAIL, CO 81657 AMY VENERABLE AND C. EDWARD VENERABLE CAROLINE AMPLATZ Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices. Date: 10/06/2017 i i CHAIN OF TITLE DOCUMENTS: • Eagle county recorded 11/17/2015 under reception no. 201521629 • Eagle county recorded 09/14/2005 under reception no. 929413 PLAT MAP: • Eagle county recorded 08/06/1962 under reception no. 96382 Estimate of Title insurance Fees "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 Reissue Rate $3,835.00 Deletion of Standard Exception(s) $65.00 "ALTA" Loan Policy 06-17-06 Bundled Purchase Loan Rate $2.972.00 Endorsement Alta 8.1-06 $0.00 Endorsement ALTA 5-06 Um Endorsement ALTA 9-06 $0.00 Tax Certificate $0.00 Total S6,872.00 If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at closing. Thank you for your order! i i CHAIN OF TITLE DOCUMENTS: • Eagle county recorded 11/17/2015 under reception no. 201521629 • Eagle county recorded 09/14/2005 under reception no. 929413 PLAT MAP: • Eagle county recorded 08/06/1962 under reception no. 96382 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Customer Ref -Loan No.: 1709021780 Property Address: 175 FOREST ROAD, VAIL, CO 81657 1. Effective Date: 09/29/2017 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: Order Number: V50048758-2 "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 Reissue Rate $4,200,000.00 Proposed Insured: AMY VENERABLE AND C. EDWARD VENERABLE "ALTA" Loan Policy 06-17-06 Bundled Purchase Loan Rate 53.265,920.00 Proposed Insured: GUARDIAN MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF SUNFLOWER BANK, N.A., ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: CAROLINE AMPLATZ 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: PARCEL B, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 26, BLOCK 7, VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1984 IN BOOK 378 AT PAGE SA, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. Copyright 2006-2017 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B-1 (Requirements) Order Number: V50048758-2 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: 1. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 2. CERTIFICATE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DECLARATION RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 2004 AT RECEPTION NO. 895487. 3. WARRANTY DEED FROM CAROLINE AMPLATZ TO AMY VENERABLE AND C. EDWARD VENERABLE CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. 4. DEED OF TRUST FROM AMY VENERABLE AND C. EDWARD VENERABLE TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF GUARDIAN MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF SUNFLOWER BANK, N.A. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $.3,265,920.00. NOTE: ITEMS 1-3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED FROM THE MORTGAGEE'S POLICY, ITEM 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY LIEN AFFIDAVIT, FORM 100 WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MORTGAGEE'S POLICY WHEN ISSUED. NOTE: ALL PARTIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE LIEN AFFIDAVIT AT CLOSING. REQUIREMENTS TO DELETE THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS IN THE OWNER'S POLICY TO BE ISSUED A. UPON RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF A SATISFACTORY FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT FROM THE SELLER AND PROPOSED INSURED, EXCEPTIONS 1 THROUGH 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. ANY ADVERSE MATTERS DISCLOSED BY THE FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT WILL BE ADDED AS EXCEPTIONS. B. IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, EXCEPTION NO. 5 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. C. UPON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL PRIOR YEARS' TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, EXCEPTION NO. 6 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2017 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. NOTE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICIES AND/OR ENDORSEMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS COMMITMENT ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE UNDERWRITER OF SAID POLICIES AND/OR ENDORSEMENTS. THIS COMMITMENT MAY BE REVISED AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERWRITER TO ISSUE THE POLICIES AND/OR ENDORSEMENTS REQUESTED. THIS NOTE WILL BE DELETED UPON THE RECEIPT OF SAID APPROVAL. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Order Number: V50048758-2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 7. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8. RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM, SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JULY 12, 1899 IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 9. RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM, SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 04, 1923 IN BOOK 93 AT PAGE . 10. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1962, IN BOOK 174 AT PAGE 11. EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE PLAT OF VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1962 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 96382. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Order Number: V50048758-2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 12. EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 26, BLOCK 7, VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1984 IN BOOK 378 AT PAGE $4. 13. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 2004, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 895487. 14. MATTERS DISCLOSED ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INTER -MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING CERTIFIED OCTOBER 08, 2015, JOB NO.15-0092 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PAVER DRIVEWAY, CONCRETE PAN, & STONE WALLS BUILT OUTSIDE OF LOT LINES. SAID IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE IS STORED AS ESI 34263184. LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Land Title C! AKNTF.F:F MKV —Sswe 107— Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: (A) The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. (B) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: (A) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidait indemnifying the Company against un -filed mechanic's and material -men's liens. (D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. (E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. (A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF r" LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, Land.Ttic� LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY C.AK�NTF.E� MKV LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND —Sswe107— OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company and Meridian Land Title, LLC, as agents for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: • applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web -based transaction management system; • your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; • a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and • The public records maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non -affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: • We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. • We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. • Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. • We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Commitment to Insure ALTA Commitment - 2006 Rev. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, (Company), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedule A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. Conditions and Stipulations 1. The term "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. This commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at www.alta.org. Standard Exceptions In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the Public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey or inspection of the Land would disclose and which are not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 President AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION ALTA COMMITMENT FORM Adopted Copyright 2006- 2017 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Stock Company 400 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612)371-1111 Mark Bilbrey, President Rande Yeager, Secretary Account#: R007064 Parcel #: 210107113032 Owner: AMPLATZ, CAROLINE 175 FOREST RD VAIL, CO 81657-5012 Property Address: 000175 FOREST VAIL AREA, 0 Comments: Certificate of Taxes Due EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY, CO Carl #: 22213 Requestor LAND TITLE - VAIL Requestor* 50048758 Email: DPEREIDA@LTGC.COM; Amount due is vaftN?ffRy.0a%31VIW§.*m Legal Description- Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Block: 7 Lot: 26 PARCEL B BK -0378 PG -0085 DEC 2-8-84 R895487 DEC 10-25-04 TAX DISTRICT SC103 TAX YEAR CHARGE BASE AMOUNT INTEREST FEES TOTAL DUE 2016 Ad Valorem $16,93120 $0.00 $0.00 $16,933.20 TOTAL TAX $16,933.20 $0.00 $0.00 $16,933.20 EXEMPTION (APPLIED) $0.00 PAID $16,933.20 TOTAL LIABILITY (current and prior years): $0.00 ORIGINAL TAX BILLING FOR 2016 TAX DISTRICT SC103 Authority Levy Tax CO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION,076 0.253 $83.78 COLO MTN COLLEGE (CMC), 012 3.997 $1,323-65 EAGLE COUNTY, 001 -011 8.499 $2,814.55 EAGLE CTY HEALTH SERVICE, 096 2.755 $912.35 EAGLE RIVER WATER &SAN., 069 0Z49 $281.15 ERW & SAN DIST WATER SUBDIST, 085 1.385 $458.66 MINTURN CEMETERY DISTRICT, 043 0.450 $149.02 RE50J SCHOOL DIST, 015 - 018 25.209 $8,348.18 TOWN OF VAIL, 036 4.705 $1,558.11 VAIL PARK & RECREATION DIST, 058 3.031 $1,00175 TAXES FOR 2016 51.133 $16,933.20 * Credit Levy Values Actual Assessed Residential Imp $2,272,740.00 $180,910.00 Residential Land $1,887,560.00 $150,250.00 TOTAL $4,160,300.00 $331,160.00 All Tax Lien Sale amounts are subject to change due to endorsement of current taxes by the lienholder. Tax Lien Sale redemption amounts must be paid by cash or certified funds. This certificate does not include land or improvements assessed under a separate account number, personal property taxes, oil, gas and mineral rights, transfer tax or mise, tax collected on behalf of other entities, special or local improvement district assessments or mobile homes, unless specifically mentioned. Information regarding special taxing districts and the boundaries of such districts may be on file or deposit with the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder or the County Assessor, 1, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the entire amount of taxes due upon the above described parcels of real property and all outstanding sales for unpaid taxes as shown by the records in my office Rom which the same may still be redeemed with the amount required for redemption are as noted herein. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9/25/2017. TEAK SIMONTON, TREASURER BY: TOWN of DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0005) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the May 29, 2018 meeting. TOWN of DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (G RFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0009) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the May 29, 2018 meeting. ATTACHM ENTS: File Name PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance staff memo.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B - Applicant_ Narrative_PEC18-0009.pdf Attachment_C Proctor Variance Plan_ Set_PEC18-0009.pdf Description PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Staff Memo PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment A -Vicinity Map PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment B - Applicant Narrative PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment C - Plan Set TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for review of a variance from Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicant: Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker SUMMARY The applicants, Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, for the property located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive / Unit 5/Lot 41- 43 (Hamlet Townhouses). The variance would allow for the construction of a crawl space with an access opening (door) larger than 12 square feet, which is the size limit to qualify as crawl space and thus not count as GRFA. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this application, subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects, recently obtained approval of a Design Review Board (DRB) application (DRB17-0392) to construct a 225 square foot storage space at the rear of the home, under an existing deck. Approval by the Design Review Board was conditioned upon the storage space being limited to no greater than five feet (5') in headroom, with an access opening of no larger than 12 square feet. This was done because any crawlspace or storage space over five feet (5') in headroom, or with an access opening larger than 12 square feet, is considered gross residential floor area (GRFA). There is no available GRFA remaining on the property, and since the site is nonconforming on the density (dwelling units per acre), the GRFA could not be used even if there was remaining GRFA. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a crawl space access opening (door) larger than 12 square feet. The proposed access door is 24 square feet. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with applicant's responses to variance criteria (Attachment B), and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND This application was last reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on March 12, 2018. During that meeting, some PEC members indicated that they might be able to support a variance for a larger access door, but that the full head height storage area was not supported. Based on the feedback heard from the Commissioners at that meeting, the applicant has revised the proposed plans and is now seeking a variance for only the door opening size. The height of the storage area has been reduced to 4' 11 ". IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions.- A. xclusions: A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts.- 1. istricts: 1. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements, crawl spaces, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area, except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage. Town of Vail Page 2 (1) Enclosed Garage Area: Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. (2) Attic Areas With A Ceiling Height Of Five Feet Or Less: Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the topside of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. (5) Crawl Spaces: Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5) or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet (5) may be excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the Administrator. Title 12 —Variances, Vail Town Code 12-17-1: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and Town of Vail Page 3 site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION.- Within CTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 4 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Title 12 — Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements 12-18-1: Purpose This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this title. 12-18-4: Uses The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this title for the zone district in which it is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or building floor area than it occupied on the effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. (Ord. 29(2005) § 40: Ord. 5(2001) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 20.400) Town of Vail Page 5 V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: Mapped Floodplain: View Corridor: 2014 West Gore Creek Dr., Unit 5 Vail Village West Filing 2, Lots 41-43, Unit 5 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Low Density Residential None Yes, western corner of lot not impacting development None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard* Required Site Area 15,000 SF of 39,403 SF Total No Change Buildable Area 34,821 SF of Buildable Area Front — 20' Front (N): 9' Front (N): 9' Sides — 15' Side (E): 11 Side (E): 11' Setbacks Rear — 15' Side (W): 49' Side (W): 49' No Change Deck — 7.5' Rear (S): 9' Rear (S): 9' Flat Roof — 30' Building Height Sloping Roof — Unknown No Change No Change 33' Density (DUs) Max. 2 29 28 No Change Density (GRFA) 9,014 SF 15,873 SF 15,873 SF No Change Site Coverage Max. 20% (7,881 SF) 16.4% (6,466 SF) 17% (6,691 SF) +0.5 % (+225 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% (23,641 SF) 62.3% (24,562 SF) 61.7% (24,337 SF) -0.6% (-225 SF) Parking & 51 parking 32 33 +1 Loading spaces (*Note: This chart includes development standards for the entire development lot for The Hamlet Chalets and Townhouses.) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster South: Low Density Residential Eagle County Zoning - Residential Suburban East: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential West: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Before acting on a variance application, the PEC shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Town of Vail Page 6 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed access opening larger than 12 square feet will have no significant impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The benefit of the proposed larger access opening would be increased functionality, improving the ability to store items that might otherwise remain outdoors, such as a picnic table or deck furniture. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is not necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Granting a variance for the larger access opening does not help to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the area. Staff finds that there is nothing unique about this property that warrants a variance for the size of the access opening. While we agree that the access opening greater than 12 square feet would be convenient and would make the storage area more functional, it is not necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment. As a result, staff finds that proposed larger access opening would create a special privilege for the applicant. Staff finds the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will not have any significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities or utilities. By granting the variance, the storage area will be more functional, which may help to improve public safety by allowing the applicant more space to store items out of public view, which may potentially reduce clutter and opportunities for theft in the area. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 7 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission deny the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Denial Motion: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions to allow for an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 9, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- Town ode, Town of Vail Page 8 b. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District, and C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." Approval Motion: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, a request for review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009)." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. `Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 9, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District, 4. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Town of Vail Page 9 5. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- d. easons: d. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- e. ode, e. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District; and f. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative C. Plan Set, prepared Town of Vail ("Application for a Variance"), no date. by Martin Manley Architects, and dated 03-28-18 Page 10 , f �1 •fir � .- � . r' 4000 Ida rt \ y, ob, \ AT -:-• \`14 , f �1 •fir � .- � . r' 4000 Ida rt \ y, ob, \ AT r I ATTACHMENT B - APPLICANT NARRATIVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A. Name and address of the owner and/or applicant and a statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the permission of the owner to make application and act as agent for the owner. John M. Hutto and Holly W. Proctor, 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 11, Vail, CO 81657 B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning the site: Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 C. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested, the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title that would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. Applicant requests a variance from the restrictions in place with respect to the size of the access opening to the crawl space that is limited to 5' in height under the Two -Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) zoning applicable to the site. The size of an access door under these regulations is limited to no more than 12 square feet. Applicant requests the ability to construct a door that is the height of the storage space (5') and 6' wide (double doors of 3' each). The storage area is designed to enclose the area under a deck which sits approximately 8 feet off the ground due to the existing natural grade. The storage will not be climate controlled or otherwise habitable nor is it intended for any use other than storage. This request is predicated on the practical difficulty that is imposed by the GRFA restrictions that limit the height of the storage area to 5' in height; a door opening of only 12' feet further inhibits the usability and functionality of the storage area, intended to house sporting gear, furniture, lawn, landscaping and snow removal equipment, and other household items. With access to the storage limited to such a severe degree, many of these items will be left outside and exposed, thereby creating an eyesore for the project and community as well as a safety concern resulting from the unnecessary risk of theft or damage. With respect to the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, the proposed access opening of greater than 12 square feet will have no have an adverse impact on such uses or structures. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation will, in effect, allow for compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Across Gore Creek, Casa Del Sol is a multi -family project zoned Residential Cluster. Directly across West Gore Creek Drive, Ptarmigan Townhomes is a multi -family project zoned Residential Cluster. For some reason, the Hamlet was zoned under the Primary / Secondary designation, which in turn imposes an undue hardship by requiring conformance with P/S restrictions on an existing multi -family project. Had the Hamlet been zoned in a way that was consistent with sites in the vicinity, i.e. the neighboring developments including Casa del Sol and Ptarmigan Townhomes, the Applicant would be permitted a storage space of 250 square feet and a door of appropriate height. The Applicant seeks no "special privilege" in this application yet requests consideration that would be granted had the zoning been correctly applied. The hardship imposed by the existing zoning designation essentially penalizes the Applicant for owning property that is part of a 29 unit complex (originally 30) and yet is zoned for Primary / Secondary use. Finally, the proposed opening will not have any significant effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubic facilities and utilities and public safety. The proposed access, by increasing the functionality of the storage area, will in fact, enhance public safety by mitigating the risk of vandalism and theft at the property and for the neighborhood. D. A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on the site, and on adjoining sites if necessary, pertinent to the variance requested, including site boundaries, required setbacks, building locations and heights, topography and physical features, and similar data. The site plan has been provided under the previous Application for Variance. E. Such additional material as the administrator may prescribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application and to the findings prerequisite to the issuance of a variance as prescribed in section 12-17-6 of this chapter. Please recall the buildings on site were built in 1971 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The Hamlet was a replat of Lots 41, 42, and 43 of the Vail Village West Filing 2 that was recorded in 1965, under Eagle County Jurisdiction. Those lots were later platted as The Hamlet in 1975, under Eagle County jurisdiction. This property, along with others in the neighborhood, were annexed to the Town in January 1986 (Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1986). The neighborhood was subsequently zoned by the Town to Primary Secondary Two - Family Residential in March of 1986 (Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986). In this case, as noted above, it is not understood why the Hamlet was singled out under the Primary / Secondary zoning designation while the neighboring multi -family properties were more appropriately zoned under Residential Cluster. Given the fact that the annexation took place in 1986, it is unlikely we will determine the basis for the designation, however, the Applicant requests that this variance be considered in the context of the hardship imposed as a result of zoning that was and is incongruent with the existing improvements as well as the fact that this request does not reflect the Applicant seeking special privilege, but rather treatment that would be consistent with that granted to owners of similar properties in the vicinity. F. A list of the owner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the subject property which is subject of the hearing. Provided, however, notification of owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent, or the registered agent of the condominium project, or any member of the board of directors of a condominium association. The list of owners, managing agent, registered agent or members of the board of directors, as appropriate, shall include the names of the individuals, their mailing addresses, and the general description of the property owned or managed by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each individual or agent to be notified to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. It will be the applicant's responsibility to provide this information and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the adjacent property owners shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid. Managing Agent for the Hamlet Association: Eileen Jacobs, Mountain Caretaker, Inc., PO Box 1093, Eagle, CO 81631 Hamlet Association Board President and Owner of Hamlet Townhouse #3 & Hamlet Chalet #1: Harold Jorck, West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 2, Vail, CO 81657 G. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 27(2016) § 7: Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 2: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 2: Ord. 8(1973) § 19.200) This Approval Letter has been delivered. co 66 00 0 N 00 N co 1. LOWER LEVEL 1/8" 1'-0" I� III II II II II II II II II II II II 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = 1'-0" 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = V-0" ROOF 1 51.1 SF 3. UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" Area Schedule (Gross Building) Name Level Area GARAGE APT 9 ACCESS. - Not Placed APT 7 1. LOWER LEVEL 355.5 SF APT 10 34.4 SF -- 356.7 SF GARAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 497.8 SF NEW STORAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 225.6 SF APT 8 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 9 ACCESS APT 8 34.4 SF Apt 11 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 12 ACCESS 625.6 SF 34.4 SF APT 9 3.. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 12 UNIT SEPARATION WALL 372.2 SF M L� 0 BE REMOVED O X co m E N Apt 11 � L o a� a 625.6 SF W 0 CL N p U� APT 12 ACCESS = 1..` 0 �__ �__ 34.4 SF 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = 1'-0" 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = V-0" ROOF 1 51.1 SF 3. UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" Area Schedule (Gross Building) Name Level Area GARAGE Not Placed Not Placed APT 7 1. LOWER LEVEL 355.5 SF APT 10 1. LOWER LEVEL 356.7 SF GARAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 497.8 SF NEW STORAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 225.6 SF APT 8 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 9 ACCESS 2. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF Apt 11 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 12 ACCESS 2. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF APT 9 3.. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 12 3. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF Grand total: 11 3500 SF Area Schedule (Existing GRFA) Name Level Area APT 7 1. LOWER LEVEL 355.5 SF APT 8 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 9 3. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 9 ACCESS 2. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF APT 10 1.. LOWER LEVEL 356.7 SF Apt 11 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 12 3. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 12 ACCESS 2.. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF Grand total: 8 2776.5 SF Area Schedule (Site Coverage) Name Area SITE COVERAGE EXIST 1320 SF ROOF 1 51.1 SF ROOF 2 3.3 SF SITE COVERAGE NEW 213.8 SF Grand total: 4 1588.1 SF 00^ ICt"r AI A MM ATI\/C J PROCTOR RENOVATION "THE HAMLET" TOWNHOUSE UNITS 5 & 6 2014 W. GORE CREEK DRIVE NOTE: THE TERM "TOWNHOUSE" IS BEING USED AS AN ADDRESS LOCATION AND DOES NOT ADEQUATELY MEET THE CODE DEFINITION OF TOWNHOUSE. PLEASE SEE CODE SUMMARY FOR MORE DETAIL. {3D} Copy 1 U -1. 1 ht UVVIVtK F'KUF'UJtJ HIV HL I LKH I IUN I U I ht bUILUINU BY REMOVING A UNIT SEPARATION WALL AND CREATING A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT OUT OF TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS. 2. THE UNITS 8 AND 11 WILL BE COMBINED BY ABANDONING THE PROPERTY LINE. 3. INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE KITCHEN UPGRADES AND A NEW GAS FIREPLACE. 4. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE UPGRADE OF WINDOWS/DOORS AND ADDITION OF TRANSOM WINDOWS. 5. A NEW DECK IS PROPOSED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. A NEW RAILING TYPE IS PROPOSED FOR THE OLD AND NEW DECK. 6. REPLACE NEW DOORS ON MAIN LEVEL - ALL TO MATCH AS 6 PANEL DOORS. SCALE 111 to, qD� U /AAAI ET DI A -r AREA OF COMBINED LOTS: 9,106 SQ. FT. EXISTING BLDG FOOTPRINT ABANDON LOT LINE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION NEW STORAGE ADDITION: 214 SQ. FT. NEW DECK ADDITION 20 4- V)L SW Lori LDI 4) ❑v30551'46 HE ibR LOT 41 of. R =18991' �638g• COM MONDRWtWAr EASEHIkT AREA a _ IVE HISTORICAL CONTEXT NOTE: THE THREE "TOWNHOUSE" BUILDINGS OF THE HAMLET WERE ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OF VAIL WITH 6 DWELLING UNITS EACH. THE THREE "CHALET" BULDINGS OF THE HAMLET WERE ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OF VAIL WITH 4 DWELLING UNITS EACH. EXISTING BUILDING r VICINITY MA x La V 0 N v P - WEST VAIL Vol. 1 � Sheet List Sheet Number Sheet Name Al COVER SHEET A2 FLOOR PLANS A3 FLOOR PLANS A4 ELEVATIONS A5 SECTIONS A6 DETAILS A7 AREAS PROJECT SUMMARY Owner: Holly Proctor 909 S. Clarkson St. W Denver, CO 80209 H W W 303-859-3369 J hollyproctor@msn.com Architect: John G. Martin AIA - Martin Manley Architects co o PO Box 4701, Eagle, CO 81631 office: 970-328-0592 Q john@martinmanleyarchitects.com Builder: To be determined Location: 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive #5 and #6 LL O Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6 Vail, Colorado Parcel # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 N (Units to be Combined) CODE SUMMARY This project falls under the iursidiction of: The Town of Vail Design Review Board and Building Department The 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC 2015) The 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2015) Class of Work: Residential Renovation / Alteration Type of Occupancy: R-2 (Apartment Houses) Type of Construction: Type V -B (Non-Sprinklered) Levels: 3 -story (Non -Conforming) The Building is essentially a mirror-image duplex with a property line running through the middle. It was designed and built with 6 separate apartments on three levels making it non -conforming as a duplex or townhouse by modern code. The lot line is proposed to be abandoned and two dwelling units on the main level combined by the removal (alteration) of a separation wall. This will make the building a 5 -unit apartment building and will fall under the IEBC2015 as an occupany classification of R-2 non-sprinklered. There is also proposed the elimination of shared entrances thus creating separate entrances for all the units of the building. The work being proposed falls under the "prescriptive" option for alterations in section 403 of the IEBC 2015. The alteration work is making the building better from a code standpoint by reducing the number of dwelling units as well as eliminating shared exits. The building as originally built is 3 -stories in height. This is another non-conformance from the 2015 code. An R-2 non-sprinklered building may not be more than 2 stories in height (see table 504.4) however the NS (non-sprinklered) value is only for use in evaluation of existing building height in accordance with the International Existing Building Code. Since the remodel work is categorized as interior "alteration" only and does not affect building height or stories in any way, the non -conformity does not get worse and can remain. FIRE DEPT. SUMMARY Town of Vail Fire Dept. Notes: Smoke Detectors and Carbon Monoxide alarms must be installed IN ALL DWELLING UNITS, and be installed per 2015 IFC and VFES fire alarm installation standards. A monitored system is required. ZONING SUMMARY TOWN OF VAIL ZONING DISTRICT: Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential (PS) Area Calcs use assessor's square footage for the Hamlet Enclave SITE AREA (TOTAL) = 39,403 S.F. GRFA SUMMARY: 46% SITE AREA < 10,000 S.F. = 4,600 S.F. 38% SITE AREA < 15,000 S.F. = 1,900 S.F. 13% SITE AREA < 30,000 S.F. = 1,950 S.F. . 6% SITE AREA 9,403 S.F. = 564 S.F. TOTAL GRFA ALLOWED = %014 S.F. TOTAL GRFA EXISTING = 15,873 S.F. (NON -CONFORMING) SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY: SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED = 7,880.6 S.F. (20%) SITE COVERAGE EXISTING = 6,466 S.F. SITE COVERAGE NEW = 214 S.F.. SITE COVERAGE TOTAL = 6,680 S.F. (CONFORMING) LANDSCAPE AREA - NOT APPLICABLE BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM = 33 FEET BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED = 29'-9" FEET PARKING - EXISTING 6 UNCOVERED SPACES EXISTING 1 COVERED SPACE TOTAL SPACES = 7 0 N ci 0 W H W W J E W O U 0 co o (C) �E CM O U q Q N W U co U O U LL O C) !E a� L W > O >, N 00 Ln w (1) 0 Z I U Ln N co cooE ON M L� Q O X co m E N � L o a� a W 0 CL N p U� 0 N ci 0 H W W E W O U 0 co o (C) .O --1-5 N 06 CIO Z LO > L C) N 00 O o ON N O L o � Q) L U W 0 CL N p U� 1..` 0 �__ �__ (D L 4--1 � 3: E 0 N N a)O Lu L � . G 0 Z 0 N ci X X X H W W E W O U co o (C) .O --1-5 N 06 CIO 2! LO > L C) N 00 ON N O L o � Q) L U W O N p U� 1..` 0 �__ �__ (D L 4--1 � 3: E 0 W N a)O L � 0 N ci X X X H W W E W O U co o U o a Q N V co ao w 0 N 00 N co 4 I 1 (SEE SOUTH ELEVATION) 2 A5 VENTS A5 J A5 ANICAL NOTE: I Q STUCCO I THE XISTING MECHANICAL WALL OVER CMU BOIL 1 FINISH I BASE OARD HEAT WILL REMAIN. BASE WALL 1 IN RE DECK ABOVE A6 VENT ® I 10'-0" I 1 MEET ON -COMBUSTIBLE AND I LU E - * CLOSET WALLS REMOVED. REMOVE CLOSET PERATION CODE EXISTING REQU EMENTS FOR THE FLUES ACTIVE 1 EXISTING STRUCTURAL B CES MECH. I EXPOSED CONC WALL m p N 10'-0" I 11 I' a 1 EXIST. I NEW STRUCTURAL I GAS I 1..` I NEW STORAGE I POST 6X6 F RED FIRED FURNACE 1 N r0n v AREA Lu 1 N G UNHEATED i ii I SPACE ; � I i i NEW GRAVEL WALK 2 I ESS THAN 5'Q ; A6 N tr IN HEIGHT (SEE I p. ILL 11 i BEAM ABOVE 1c__j I I I I I I I w z I I i i DECK ABOVE I °o 101-0.. i EXIST. c c o EXIST. I I EXIST. \ BATH I o KITCHEN APT.7 I - 5'-0° -6°1 FIRED \ o STUDIO 000I I TO REMAIN 00 I I 1 I I I I 1 - EXISTING I I 1 MECH. O O I 1' 1 1 I a ACCESS DOOR 1 JI 0' 2' 4' THIS SECTION OF�oo DECK (ABOVE) BUILT' WITH TREATED U - EXIST WOOD SLEEPERSJ,�c BATH ON GRAVEL BED. I I I I --�--- EXISTING STAIRS W NEW RAILING 11 11 11 14R @7 5/8" I DOOR OPENING TO BE REPLACED WITH WALL. (SEE SOUTH ELEVATION) 2X4 W/ 5/8" TYPE X GWB EACH SIDE. SLAT VENTS N J 2X6 WOOD STUD ANICAL NOTE: I Q STUCCO I THE XISTING MECHANICAL WALL OVER CMU BOIL RS FOR THE HOT WATER FINISH I BASE OARD HEAT WILL REMAIN. BASE WALL 1 IN RE ------- 1 VENT ® I 10'-0" I 1 MEET ON -COMBUSTIBLE AND I LU E - * CLOSET WALLS REMOVED. I i PERATION CODE EXISTING REQU EMENTS FOR THE FLUES ACTIVE 1 NEW CHIMNEY. 1 MECH. I I EXPOSED CONC WALL m p N 0 a a 1 EXIST. I U) I GAS I 1..` I NEW STORAGE I F RED FIRED FURNACE 1 N r0n v AREA Lu 1 N G UNHEATED i ii I SPACE ; � II 2 I ESS THAN 5'Q ; A6 N tr IN HEIGHT (SEE I p. SECTIONS) z I I I EXIST. \ I GAS I FIRED \ I FURNACE I I 1 - EXISTING 1 1 MECH. I 1' 1 1 JI CANTILEVERED 1 BEAM ABOVE 0' 2' 4' THIS SECTION OF�oo DECK (ABOVE) BUILT' WITH TREATED U - EXIST WOOD SLEEPERSJ,�c BATH ON GRAVEL BED. I I I I --�--- EXISTING STAIRS W NEW RAILING 11 11 11 14R @7 5/8" EXIST. FJUES REROUTED 1 INTO NjVV CHIMNEY ABOV f EXIST. o KITCHEN 0 0 27'- 6" GARAGE TO REMAIN. NEW POST AND BEAMS ADDED TO WALLS AND CEILING 0 APT 10 STUDIO TO REMAIN /3\ A6 UP — I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I A5 I I EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING AREA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o � I W 1 � I - oa 4"� EXISTING STAIRS (ON -GRADE) 14 R @ 7 5/8" i u u u u Illi i d 61 d i i i//�/ 16' 1. LOWER LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" cy cy A6 MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING NOTES ANY UPGRADES TO THE BOILERS AND HOT-WATER BASEBOARD SYSTEM IS TO BE DESIGN -BUILT BY THE MECHANICAL SUB -CONTRACTOR. THE MECHANICAL FLUES ARE TO BE RE-ROUTED THROUGH A NEW WOOD - FRAMED CHIMNEY AND MUST MEET APPLICABLE CODES FOR CLEARANCES AND FIRE -SEPARATIONS. ANY RE-ROUTING OF, OR NEW, WATER AND GAS PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE DESIGN -BUILT AND DETERMINED BY THE PLUMBING SUB -CONTRACTOR. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL BUILDING DEPT. PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. lil-ma 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 2'- 9" 4 1 REPLACE OLD RAILING 2 I W/ NEW TENSION CABLE I?A5A5 I A RAILING TO MATCH1 -------- ---------- — — I I I I I 9'- 6 3/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" EXISTING DRIP-THRU r--- DECKTO REMAIN I I I I 4X4 WOOD P0; (PRIMARY) 1X1 WOOD P0; (SECONDARY) NEW TENSION CABLE RAILINC W/ WOOD TOP RAIU ATNTAI 3Axi1,W >T >T 1►1:k/11A/11AaB]xo]LMMI REDWOOD DECKING OVER SLEEPERS OVER V W.P.MEMBRANE ON SLOPING PLYWOOD ON 2X12 SLOPED JOISTS V W 00 rn EXISTING ROOF ABOVE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING STONE RETAINING WALL 0' 2' 4' 114'1- 0" I I I H ��I� REMOVE EXISTING DECK, REPLACE W/ NEW 1 LARGER DECK NEW '-0" X 7'0" ENTRY DOOR (ALL NEW DOORS TO MATCH 6 PANEL) REMOVE DOOR AND REPAIR WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE X DRYWALL I REPLACE EXISTING DOOR NEW GUARDRAIL 1 T-10" T-10" EGRESS FOR APT. 9 NEW HANDRAIL Al I I I I /3\ TO A6 1 PARKING 1 1 14 R @ 7 5/8" LOT BELOW REPL�CE WINDOW I DOOR OPENING TO BE REPLACED WITH WALL. W DBL. DOORS I 2X4 W/ 5/8" TYPE X GWB EACH SIDE. SLAT VENTS N J ME ANICAL NOTE: I Q 0 THE XISTING MECHANICAL r_____� GARAGE i F BOIL RS FOR THE HOT WATER I I BASE OARD HEAT WILL REMAIN. TO BE RESTORED AS A GARAGE: IN RE OUTING THE EXHAUST*WALL REMOVED. i i VENT THE CONTRACTOR MUST *DOOR REMOVED. MEET ON -COMBUSTIBLE AND OF WALL AND LU E - * CLOSET WALLS REMOVED. FIRE PERATION CODE * GARAGE DOOR TO BECOME REQU EMENTS FOR THE FLUES ACTIVE IN TH NEW CHIMNEY. 1 1 I EXIST. FJUES REROUTED 1 INTO NjVV CHIMNEY ABOV f EXIST. o KITCHEN 0 0 27'- 6" GARAGE TO REMAIN. NEW POST AND BEAMS ADDED TO WALLS AND CEILING 0 APT 10 STUDIO TO REMAIN /3\ A6 UP — I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I A5 I I EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING AREA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o � I W 1 � I - oa 4"� EXISTING STAIRS (ON -GRADE) 14 R @ 7 5/8" i u u u u Illi i d 61 d i i i//�/ 16' 1. LOWER LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" cy cy A6 MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING NOTES ANY UPGRADES TO THE BOILERS AND HOT-WATER BASEBOARD SYSTEM IS TO BE DESIGN -BUILT BY THE MECHANICAL SUB -CONTRACTOR. THE MECHANICAL FLUES ARE TO BE RE-ROUTED THROUGH A NEW WOOD - FRAMED CHIMNEY AND MUST MEET APPLICABLE CODES FOR CLEARANCES AND FIRE -SEPARATIONS. ANY RE-ROUTING OF, OR NEW, WATER AND GAS PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE DESIGN -BUILT AND DETERMINED BY THE PLUMBING SUB -CONTRACTOR. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL BUILDING DEPT. PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. lil-ma 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 2'- 9" 4 1 REPLACE OLD RAILING 2 I W/ NEW TENSION CABLE I?A5A5 I A RAILING TO MATCH1 -------- ---------- — — I I I I I 9'- 6 3/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" EXISTING DRIP-THRU r--- DECKTO REMAIN I I I I 4X4 WOOD P0; (PRIMARY) 1X1 WOOD P0; (SECONDARY) NEW TENSION CABLE RAILINC W/ WOOD TOP RAIU ATNTAI 3Axi1,W >T >T 1►1:k/11A/11AaB]xo]LMMI REDWOOD DECKING OVER SLEEPERS OVER V W.P.MEMBRANE ON SLOPING PLYWOOD ON 2X12 SLOPED JOISTS V W 00 rn EXISTING ROOF ABOVE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING STONE RETAINING WALL 0' 2' 4' 114'1- 0" I I I H ��I� REMOVE EXISTING DECK, REPLACE W/ NEW 1 LARGER DECK NEW '-0" X 7'0" ENTRY DOOR (ALL NEW DOORS TO MATCH 6 PANEL) REMOVE DOOR AND REPAIR WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE X DRYWALL I REPLACE EXISTING DOOR NEW GUARDRAIL 1 T-10" T-10" EGRESS FOR APT. 9 NEW HANDRAIL Al I I I I /3\ TO A6 1 PARKING 1 1 14 R @ 7 5/8" LOT BELOW REPL�CE WINDOW x x x W/TRANSOM 0 N J UP TO O O J u - Q 0 APT. 9 CODE NOTE: NEW LAR ER WINDOW STAIRWELL WALLS HAVE - - - - - - 00 U O AND TRANSOM TO U � O EXISTING 5/8" THICK ■ W REPLACE EXIST. DRYWALL BOTH SIDES ■ 00 OF WALL AND LU E - ------------------------------ Ln N co 00 E 0 UNDERSIDE OF STAIR. -- --- ---`--- EXISTING ADD NE DBL. WINDOW - - - - - - BEDROOM AND AND TR NSOM - _ _ = BATH TO TO MAT H EXISTING REMAIN NEW D OR AND TRANSOM TO REPLACE WINDOW ----------------------------- _______ IRE -ROUTE EXISTING MECH. COMBINE KITCHENS e� FLUES FROM BELOW I I REPLACE MOST ITEMS DESIGN BY OTHERS NEW DIRECT -VENT GAS FIREPLACEI DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED UPON 1 DESIGN -BUILD DEMO OF BRICK FIREPLACE i I FUEL -GAS, 1 PLUMBING, AND 1 L MECH. BY OTHERS REMOVE BRICK FIREPLACES i I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O IJ 0 --------------------- --J 1 I MOVE PARTY WALL i 0 COOKTOP IN / POST TO REMAIN i ISLAND W/ RE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER I DOWNDRAFT CENTERLINE OF NEW i VENTING STRUCTURAL BEAM I 1 IF- - - - i REF. ADD TR NSOM ABOVE _____EXISTIN SLIDING GLASS DOOR____ --- ---� CEI ING TIMBER BEAM TYP --- NEW__NEW OFFICE WALL N =_ -- EXISTING ALIGN W/ BEAM ABOVE BEDROOM AND NQN-STRUCTURAL 2X4 WOOD BATH TO STUD PARTITION WALL W/ 5/8" - - - - - - REMAIN DRYWALL EACH SIDE. --------- -------- ----------- 8'- 0" NEW Z_0 POCKET CODE NOTE: DOOR NFW nFFICF STAIRWELL WALLS HAVE ADD TRAN OM 1 ABOVE EXI T WINDOW I — — — — — — — — — — (_ — I L I --------------- -----------------� I I i 2. MAIN LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" 16' EXISTING 5/8 THICK UP TO DRYWALL BOTH SIDES APT. 12 OF WALL AND UNDERSIDE OF STAIR. ABANDON LOT -SPLIT LINE TO PARKING LOT BELOW REPLACE EXISTING DOOR T-0" X 7'-0" EGRESS FOR APT. 9 REMOVE DOOR AND REPAIR WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE X DRYWALL NEW T-0" X 7'0" ENTRY DOOR (ALL NEW DOORS TO MATCH 6 PANEL) 0o T_ N M x x x W 0 N J i E O O J u - Q 0 (c) �E M O (D U Q a) W U 00 U O U � O U� a� L ■ W V_ c 5) >, ■ 00 � LU E ■ _ Ln N co 00 E 0 co Lo 0= —a o m x co E m p N 0 a a > U) 0o T_ N M x x x 0 N i E O O J u - Q 0 (c) �A a) 06 c Lo L 00 O o 0 N p N 0 U > U) 1..` N r0n v Lu a G 04.0 �w � G O N N O z 0o T_ N M x x x 0 N i E O O J u - Q 0 (c) �A a) 06 c Lo L 00 a 0 N p N 0 U 0 U) 1..` r0n v a G 04.0 �w O N N 0o T_ N M x x x co z J a N i E O O J u - Q 0 U 0' 2' 4' 8' 4. ROOF LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" Q co co 66 w 0 N 0000 N co 16' EE 0' 2' 4' 8' 3. UPPER LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" 16' W J �E CM O O U a LU 00 U U o(l) � U� U O a� L ■ O j W , ■ t V- W N ■ I Ln co ti Z U N oo E co Q O co X rn 0 E a O ■ LO Co // L 00 i 0� O � p N 0 U L) '� a U) 1..` 0 � L �—� 0 - Ca w N N O L � n o � ¢ coC; x0 z= 00 Lu N M x 1C z J a M L- � � E O O J u- Q 0 U N G O Z N M x 1C z J a M L- � � E O O J u- Q 0 U EXISTING EGRESS �F EXISTING EGRESS �mwm STING GRAVEL EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD SIDING 2 A5 4-j Ll-�-] u [REPLACE NEW OODOOR STING GRAVEL 4 A5 Plate F 2 NEW RAILING AT EXISTING DECK TO MATCH 3. UPPER L NEW TENSION WIRE RAILING $ 3X4 WOOD TOP RAIL 4X4 WOOD POSTS (PRIMARY) NEW , 1X1 WOOD POSTS (SECONDARY) WINDOW SEE DECK & RAILING DETAILS 4 p NEW W.P. DECK 'late Height 20'-0" 'ER LEVEL 8'-11" NEW TENSION CABLE GUARDRAIL AT EXISTING DECK IAIN LEVEL 0" ;AIL RAIL 3LE TO MATCH ELEVATION NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" Q co 66 w 0 N 00 N co ELEVATION EAST 1/411 = 1'-0" 3 A5 Plate Height 20'-0" 12" 2" D EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD EXISTING ExisT. SIDING WOOD VERTICAL SIDING L NEW CHIMNEY W/ IMPROVED FLUE TERMINATIONS AND FLASHING Plate Height 20'-0" ELEVATION SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION WEST 1/411 = 1'-0" 1 2 4 W O A5 A5 A5 W J W Q� c o U 0 a �E M O O U Q Q co 66 w 0 N 00 N co ELEVATION EAST 1/411 = 1'-0" 3 A5 Plate Height 20'-0" 12" 2" D EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD EXISTING ExisT. SIDING WOOD VERTICAL SIDING L NEW CHIMNEY W/ IMPROVED FLUE TERMINATIONS AND FLASHING Plate Height 20'-0" ELEVATION SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION WEST 1/411 = 1'-0" c N M d O W O J E W J W Q� c o U 0 a �E M O O U Q a) Lu CU M U 0q) U � O U� a� L W O j , c ♦• Lo W N I Ln N co 000E L'ZU co O X co E r m O L o a1 a W o a o U) c N M d O O E W J W Q� c o U 0 a 4-5 a) CIO Z Lo L C) c 00 O = o ON N O L o � L U W o a o U) r1/ O _a O is N O N N � Lu L � . G O Z c N M x x x O E W J W Q� c o U 0 a 4-5 a) CIO 2! Lo L C) c 00 ON N O L o � L U W o a o U) r1/ O _a O is W O N N � L � c N M x x x co Z O a E W J W Q� c o U 0 a 12 2 UPPER LEVEL 8'-1111 III;=1= IIII■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11� 11■■■■■■III�UII■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II '1 11� II 1 L�Mm '1m I lllll"=1�1' 1' 1 1 __II'.______.ACCESS DOOR .___r. -��-- (SEE SOUTH•NEW STORAGL .RAVEL __ _____� Section 4 1 Section 1 1/411 = 1'-011 1 /4" = 1'-011 66 00 0 N 0000 N co Section 2 1/4" = 1'-011 ate Height 20'-0" =R LEVEL 8'-1111 ,,IN LEVEL 0" _=R LEVEL -8'-1111 MAIN LEVEL 0" LOWER LEVEL � Section 3 1/4" = 1'-011 ?late Height 20'-0" 'ER LEVE 8'-1111 AIN LEVEL 5 IIl 0" /ER LEVEL 5 Il -8'-1111 W J �E M o O U Q LU M U U ow L U0 Elm 0 O 2 L W v- O ■ Lo w _ co Z U N ao00 E ui X co 0 E a Q SS O N 06 Lo L 00 0 Ill v- 0 � p N L) '� a U) I..L 0 � L :_� 0 E N N 0 a) L � n 4 o y o �Zv� v 0 CD— co w coco 2 N M 0 N Z O L E U W 0 U z O o w � O 0 z N M x 1C N Z O L E U W 0 U Q C) L0 co 66 00 0 N 00 N co (V N (V � M `Y' 2 1/2" X 3 1/2" WOOD CAP (SLOPE TOP) (V N co CON 2X2 METAL POSTS 04 N TENSION WIRES PASSING THRU PRE- M co N DRILLED HOLES IN POSTS 2X6 RIM SPANS BETWEEN POSTS (V (V e MM, W.P.MEMBRANE OVER FLASHING W/ DRIP EDGE NOTHING MUST PENETRATE MEMBRANE. N V. 2X6 REDWOOD DECKING ATTACHED TO TREATED SLEEPERS M p 2X6 SLEEPERS W/ RIPPED BOTTOMS i Lo 2X12'S SLOPING - 1/4" / FT. 7` 4 11 14 FT DISTANCE CANTELIVER OVER BEAM a STRONG POST ATTACHMENT TO HOUSE WALL CONC. WALL W/ STUCCO FINISH RE: STRUCTURAL DWGS. 7Z AT LONGEST POINT RE: STRUCTURAL DWGS. a a 4 a o� DECK & RAILING DETAIL - NEW LOCKING■ WAT MEN UP V UND OPEN JOISTS FROM BELOW, (NO SOFFIT) TENSION CABLE RAILING SYSTEM "FEENEY RAILINGS" OR SIMILAR 3D View 1 2 1/2" X 3 1 j CAP (SLOP TENSION U THRU PRE - IN POSTS 2X2 METAL EXISTING STRONG P RE: STRUC EXISTING DECK & RAILING DETAIL - EXIST 1" = 1'-0" 2. MAIN LEVEL — o„ — 1 EXISTING POST NEW NEWEL POST NEW 4X4 NEWELL POST (TYP) BOLTED TO SIDE OF STRINGER NEW WROUGHT -IRON HANDRAIL (MEET IRC 2015 REQS) ATTACH TO NEW GUARDRAIL TENSION CABLES EXISTING METAL TREADS EXISTING STRINGERS NEW 1/2" METAL RODS WHICH SPAN BETWEEN EXISTING STRINGERS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE 4" SPHERE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN TREADS. TYPICAL EVERY RISER. 1. LOWER LEVEL 3 STAIR SECTION - EXTERIOR 1/2" = 11_ovv EXISTING POST DRILL HOLES FOR TENSION CABLES NEW POST KNIFE PLATE CONNECTION AT BASE Co N M d O W O J W c 0 E U 0 Q_ �E M O O U aLu N CU 00 U 0(l) 0 � O U� a� L ■ W O j , ■ 00 V_ co ■ Z _ U Lo N co 00 E ON co Lo 0= Q O rn X co E N _ m O L o � a W c/ CL a 0 U) Co N M d O O W c 0 E U 0 Q_ N 06 Z Lo L C) c 00 O_� = o ON N _ O L o � L U W c/ CL a 0 U) 0 1..` r0n v V G O is N O N N Lu L � . G O Z Co N M x x x O W c 0 E U 0 Q_ N 06 ! Lo L C) c 00 ON N O L o � L U W a 0 U) 0 1..` r0n v _a) G O is W O N N L � Co N M x x x N J H W c 0 E U 0 Q_ Chalet 1 = 2,643 s.f. 4 apartments PLAT Cop! 12" = 1'-0" Q C) L0 co 66 00 0 N 0000 N co Chalet 3 = 2,254 s.f. 3 apartments &.30.51'4He eta R ■169.91' r CF! = 1,439 s.f. 3 apartments ZONING SUMMARY TOWN OF VAIL ZONING DISTRICT: Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential (PS) Non -Conforming density SITE AREA (TOTAL) = 39,403 S.F. GRFA SUMMARY: 46% SITE AREA < 10,000 S.F. = 4,600 S.F 38% SITE AREA < 15,000 S.F. = 1,900 S.F. 13% SITE AREA < 30,000 S.F. = 1,950 S.F. 6% SITE AREA 9.403 S.F. = 564 S.F. TOTAL GRFA ALLOWED = 9,014 S.F. TOTAL GRFA EXISTING = 15,873 S.F. (NON -CONFORMING) SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY: SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED = 7,880.6 S.F. (201/6) SITE COVERAGE EXISTING = 6,466 S.F. SITE COVERAGE UNUSED = 1,414 S.F. Townhouse 6 = 1,380 s.f. 3 apartments Townhouse 2 = 1,433 s.f. 3 apartments Townhouse 5 = 1,380 s.f. 3 apartments swoon Lot 4% U Townhouse 4 = 1,621 s.f. 3 apartments l� 1 Townhouse 3 = 1,650 s.f. 3 apartments EXISTING GRFA TOTAL = 15,873 S.F. SITE AREA TOTAL = 39,403 S.F. W J �E CM O CD U aLU co t CU Oq) F � U� U O ai L (1, >W , co E ■ co U N co �Q o xco i- 0 E a a O ._ 06 Ln L 00 i 0� L6 O � p N o U L) a) 3:U) L.L O L �—� Oa) Ew N � O � Ppb * -L o¢ y U �C� � CD 00 co 2 N M O a W E 0 U Q_ Z O = o N W (Y G 0 z N M x 1C a W E 0 U Q_ a I ' I ' I � I EDGE OF CREEK APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE / / OF CREEK EDGE OF / CREEK PARCEL BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 5 10 20 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 10 ft. F, 40 i \-50' CREEK SETBACK i UNIT 5 OUTLINE OF BUILDING NOTES: UNIT 6 1) THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS EXHIBIT IS TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF GORE CREEK AND THE CREEK SETBACK IN RELATION TO UNITS 5 & 6. 2) NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. G : SPD o/Yr, 30091 :-o-lo- 28/20171.-'- o- /28/20171. - �'4L L A�� ��Q L, Ln 0 0 a• n v 0 rn N x O J J p00 10r-4 10 � �p Z � O i� • 07 aQ 4J j O H Q) N I O o � o O Z � 2 Q W 0 0 O W� l m w m � � � s O U F—I �I O O Q) N I o � o Z � 2 Q W 0 0 O m m � � s O U TOWN of DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: April 23, 2018 PEC Results ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description pec results 042318.pdf April 23, 2018 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VA10 April 23, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Brian Stockmar Absent: Pam Hopkins, Karen Perez 1.2. Election of Chair & Vice Chair Brian Gillette moved to nominate Ludwig Kurz as the Vice -Chair of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Brian Stockmar seconded the motionand it passed (4-0). Brian Gillette moved to nominate Brian Stockmar as Chair of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motionand it passed (4-0). 2. Site Visits 2.1. 841 Vail Valley Drive - Vail Nature Center 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 60 min. 9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a yurt or similar structure at the Vail Nature Center, located at 841 Vail Valley D rive/U n platted (Ford Park), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0013) Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Chris Neubecker This Conditional Use Permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and diligently pursued toward completion or the approved use has not commenced within two (2) years from the date of approval. Any conditional use which is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation, shall not be resumed thereafter; any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform to the provisions of Title 12, Vail Town Code. 2. The floor plan and site plan included as part of the permit application review by the Planning and Environmental Commission are illustrative only. The precise location of the Nature Center yurt within the site may be modified, however the size of the yurt may not increase without a modification to this permit. 3. Approval of this conditional use is contingent upon the applicant obtaining a Town of Vail design review approval. 4. Failure of the applicant to adhere to these conditions of approval may require review of this Conditional Use Permit, including a public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and may result in revocation of this permit. 5. Upon the completion of the use of the yurt, or three (3) years from date of approval, whichever happens earlier, the Applicant shall remove the yurt and foundation and shall revegetate all disturbed soils with native vegetation. Neubecker began by referencing vicinity map of the site that depicted the location of the existing Vail Nature Center building and the proposed locations of the yurt and accompanying temporary toilet facilities. The proposal will also require approval by the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB). Neubecker defined "yurt" for the commissioners. He then stated that the proposed yurt will be 27' in diameter. He also discussed the changes that will be required to make the site compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As the request is for a conditional use permit, Neubecker stated that staff does not anticipate any negative impacts on or off the site. Neubecker summarized the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memo. Kurz —Asked Neubecker to confirm the foundation for the proposed yurt. Neubecker stated that while the rendering depicts a wood deck base, the actual base will be concrete. Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, stated that it will be a traditional concrete deck about the same size as the footprint of the yurt. Kurz followed up by asking the location of the associated ADA parking. Neubecker and Hall both confirmed that the nearest ADA parking is across Gore Creek and close to the amphitheater. Lockman —Asked for more information regarding how the site will be made ADA compliant. Stockmar —Asked if the concrete slab foundation will be removed when the yurt is removed. Hall confirmed. Neubecker added that the removal of the foundation is included as a condition of approval. Kjesbo —Asked if three years is sufficient time to complete the project. Hall confirmed, but stated that they could ask for an extension in three years, if necessary. Neubecker added that the boardwalk is not part of the conditional use permit, but it will be reviewed by the DRB. Stockmar —Asked for more information about the existing conditions of the Vail Nature Center building. Hall stated that the long term fate of the structure is still under discussion. Stockmar asked for an estimate of the number of visitors per year to the Vail Nature Center building. Hall estimated in the tens of thousands visitors per year. Public Comment Gwen Scalpello stated that she is actively involved in the Vail Nature Center. She stated that the building is an asset to the community and she believes it is important for the Vail Nature Center to be able to continue in operation this year. She reiterated that there is ADA parking close to the amphitheater. Greg Clifton, Town Manager, concurred with Ms. Scalpello in the importance in keeping the Vail Nature Center program operational and that this request is part of that effort. The decision of what will happen with the building in the long term will be part of a public review process that will begin in the near future. Stockmar —Asked if the existing conditions of the structure posed a danger to the public. Clifton responded that the structure does not at this time pose a danger, but it will require improvements. The town is being cautious regarding the building, thus the request for the yurt. Gillette —Asked if the town was purchasing or renting a yurt. Clifton stated that the town will be purchasing the yurt. Gillette — Concurs with staff's recommendations Kurz —Also agrees with staff's findings and recommendations. This will allow a town asset to continue its operation. Kjesbo — Concurs with the other commissioners. Lockman — Finds that the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. He expressed some concern regarding the use of a boardwalk as a long term solution for accessibility. Stockmar —Also concurs with staff's findings and recommendations. He expressed that the Vail Nature Center is a valuable resource to the community and encourages making the site accessible. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Perez 3.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an Amendment 5 min. to the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a new building at the Vail Nature Center, located at 841 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted (Ford Park), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0014) This application has been withdrawn by the applicant. Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Chris Neubecker 3.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 90 min. 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0049) Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Tom Braun, Braun and Associates Planner: Chris Neubecker & Kristen Bertuglia Neubecker began by summarizing the events of the previous times the item appeared before the PEC. More specifically, Neubecker discussed the March 26, 2018 PEC meeting and the topics that were discussed and/or identified for review at that meeting. Upon request, an implementation matrix has been incorporated into the updated document. Other changes to the document include: changes to maps to increase legibility; clarification of language for Action Item 24; addition of key definitions; increased legibility of the wildlife resources map; added language regarding conservation easements and designated open space zoning. Neubecker stated that some items have not been changed, despite previous requests from commissioners or public. Among the items that remain: the Vail Trail extension is still included in the concept trail plan; minutes of the wildlife forum have not been included, but the link to the forum will remain on the town's website; minutes from staff and town consultant meeting minutes will not be included; priorities will be identified at a later date with direction from the Town Council; and the document does not address changes to the Designated Open Space zoning process. Neubecker concluded by stating staff recommends approval of the Plan update. Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc., made a presentation that summarized the planning process to date. He reiterated a few of the changes that Neubecker previously referenced. He stated that he and staff feel it is best to discuss prioritization via an annual discussion with the Town Council. He provided more information on how to address requests to change the zoning process for Designate Open Space. The Vail Trail Extension remains in the concept trail plan as it remains a conceptual idea that may fit into public requests. No construction of the trail would occur without thorough research into the viability of the trail, its potential impact on wildlife, and the examination of the overall context of development within the town. Braun emphasized his belief that concept trail plan brings a balanced approach to trails in the town. He then made comparisons and contrasts between this plan and the original 1994 plan. Gillette —Asked what entity is responsible for purchasing gates for trail closures. Greg Hall stated that the town is paying for the materials. Diana Donovan — Stated that the reason she and other members of the public have been focused on the Vail Trail Extension is because it is currently staked in the field and construction was supposed to be completed by now. She believes the proposed location is in one of the worst spots in regards to its potential negative impact on wildlife. She also does not believe the Vail Trail Extension will be a beginner level trail. She does not believe the Vail Trail Extension should not be included in the plan update. She cited Bill Andree of the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife in her opposition to the trail. Anne Esson — Stated that she was impressed with the amount of time and effort the commissioners have put into this project. She is opposed to the inclusion of the Vail Trail Extension in the conceptual trail plan. She also cited Bill Andree in her opposition to the trail based on the potential negative impacts to wildlife. She asked the commissioners not to approve any plan that includes the proposed Vail Trail Extension. She stated her concern the trail would have on the peregrine falcons that nest in the area. She also believes the trail extension will have a negative impact on Memorial Park's peaceful setting. She asked that if the PEC were to make a recommendation to the Town Council, that they encourage the Town Council postpone hearing the item until at least mid -J une when more residents will be in town. Braun — Stated that the staked area referenced by Ms. Donovan is from two (2) years ago, prior to the plan update process. He pointed out that the plan also points out that some social trails be closed, and specifically references Memorial Park. Lockman — Thanked the public for their comments and thanked Tom Braun and staff for providing clear detail in their response to public and commissioner comments from the last meeting. He stated that the plan reflects all of the interconnected issues in the town and is not just about one trail or parcel. I n regards to proposed trails, he finds that the plan specifically mentions the importance of wildlife when considering any new trails. He agrees with how the plan discusses Designated Open Space zoning and conservation easements. Kjesbo — Stated that he believes the plan has been well vetted and that any previously open questions have been adequately answered. Kurz — Stated that he was ready to hear a motion for approval at the last meeting, but the plan is even better in its current version. He finds the plan strikes a reasonable balance between economic development, recreation, and wildlife preservation. He encourages the Town Council to find funding for enhanced signage and other measures established in the plan. Gillette — Stated that he is happy with the current version of the plan. He is ready to begin the next stage of the plan and start implementing some of the suggestions and conducting more in depth studies. Stockmar — Concurred with Commissioners Lockman and Kurz. He finds that the plan has been significantly improved since the previous meeting. He is concerned about the potential negative impact on wildlife that may result from the proposed Vail Trail Extension. He is not certain it is a necessary component of the concept trail plan. He concurs with Commissioner Kurz that there should be a commitment to public education of the importance of wildlife habitat. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Perez 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. April 9, 2018 PEC Results 5. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department TOWN of DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: Eagle River Valley Housing Needs & Solutions Update ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description 2018 Eagle Valley Housing Needs and Solutions FINAL.pdf Housing Needs Report i 9 R'vffi rL - -- 1 ,ii CY h• ��•� �� _- r• tea• . � y•a� r �y J6. http://www.eaglecounty.us/housing/ EAGLE COUNTY PREPARED BY \\'ILLII�OItU, LLC la n uSe & affordable h&using Willa Williford 303-818-0096 wiIla@wiIIifordhousing.com IN TEAM WITH ,--�wsw coNsuLriNc E I Rees Consulting, Inc. C NRC URBANrural frontier forward — continuum — :d INTRODUCTION Purpose The Eagle River Valley Defined �What is Affordable? ' What is the Difference Between Housing Need r and Market Size? Key Findings & Policy Considerations PART I - CURRENT CONDITIONS, TRENDS, AND HOUSING NEEDS UPDATE ■ M ! 0 Current Conditions Who We Are and Where We Live 'r. Trends in Housing and Job Markets t'; 7 Housing Demand Update n What is Behind the Numbers? r PART II - HOUSING SOLUTIONS Ownership Housing - Design & Development Rental Housing Development & Design Housing Tools APPENDICES Appendix A - Acknowledgements & Contributions Appendix B - Area Median Family Income & Purchase Prices Appendix C - Home Sales by Zip Code Appendix D - Methodology & Sources Appendix E - Survey Definitions of Tools 1 2 3 4 G 10 13 17 25 28 33 46 54 62 63 64 66 72 INTRODUCTION Purpose The goal of this report is three -fold: 1) Provide current context on people, jobs, and housing markets in the Eagle River Valley; 2) Update the housing demand calculations and projections that have been used consistently over the past 1 1 years; and 3) Inform housing policy and implementation by providing up to date information on what local house- holds and employers need: their housing goals and intentions, the tradeoffs they are willing to make, and solutions that are likely to be the most well received. This report is organized in two parts: PART I 1L. AL I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Eagle River Valley Defined The study area is the Eagle River Valley, from Vail to Dotsero. While the entire valley is socially, economically, and geographically connected, there are three distinct market areas, which are defined as: • Up Valley, which includes the towns of Vail, Minturn, and Red Cliff. • Mid Valley, which includes Eagle Vail, Avon, and Edwards. • Down Valley, which includes Wolcott, Eagle, Gypsum, and Dotsero. Burns, Bond, and McCoy are not included. Basalt and EI Jebel are covered by a separate study for the Roaring Fork Valley. ?— -I-- L-*P or INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC Incomes are typically expressed as a percentage of the median, which is abbreviated in this report as AMI (Area Median Income). The following table provides the incomes for each AMI category with the corresponding affordable price for housing, each representing the maximums for each range. Interest rates have a profound impact on housing affordability. These price points assume an interest rate of 5%. Interest rates are likely to rise going forward and a one point increase in the rate lowers the affordable purchase price for a 100% AMI household by $30,000 to $35,000. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS AND PURCHASE PRICES BY AMI EAGLE VALLEY - 2017 L. Max Affordable fent j Source: CHFA, consultant team. Full calculations are provided in Appendix c.. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSING NEED AND MARKET SIZE? Housing Need Part I of this report calculates the need for additional housing based on a method pioneered by Rees Consulting, Inc and RRC Associates in the 1990's to address the question: "How many additional housing units are needed to address housing problems and provide a sufficient labor force to sustain the economy?" This measurement is a key component of Housing Needs Assessments. It quantifies needs in two categories: Need is used for many purposes including setting of goals and objectives for housing, strategic and land use planning, allocation of resources, establishing funding sources and developing tools to comprehensively address needs. Market Size Part II provides a traditional method for analyzing housing markets used primarily by developers (private, non-profit and public), lenders and investors for specific ownership and rental housing developments. This measurement is a standard part of project -specific market studies. It represents the market from which a proposed housing development will draw its owners or renters. It is used to determine if projects are feasible and to gauge risk. Market size addresses the question: "Is there a sufficient market for the proposed units to be sold or rented?" After quantifying the total number of households that comprise the market, Part II of this report segment that market by income, household type and size, and housing and location preferences to inform decisions about location, unit type, bedroom mix, pricing and amenities. While some lenders may allow market analysts to consider in migration and population growth in estimates, a more straightforward and conservative method, like used by CHFA, considers only existing households. It is assumed that, with growth, demographics and preferences will remain much the same. In market analysis it is not necessary to consider households that might move in unless major events, like a large tech company moving into a resort community, are planned. INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Since the end of the recession, around 2011, jobs and population have been growing much more rapidly than housing inventory, and with that has created many challenges: • frustration for employees seeking housing, • employers facing unfilled positions, high turnover, higher training costs, and lost productivity, • precipitously increase in home prices, well beyond the means of most local residents, and • extremely low vacancy rates, resulting in limited choices and rising costs for renters. If forecasts prove accurate, these tensions are poised to increase, with about 7,150 new jobs coming to the Eagle RiverValley by 2025. Mid valley is anticipated to have the most new jobs, but up valley is not far behind. If the economy remains strong and and no new housing is created, these growth pressures will translate into higher numbers of unfilled jobs and continued rapid escalation of housing prices. Another approach is to create new housing for the additional employees and their families who fill these jobs. According to Office %J State Demography projections, these new households are anticipated to live more often in mid valley and down valley markets, adding to the eastbound morning commute pattern. These assumptions align with recent growth patterns and future opportunities, and policymakers are poised to make decisions that can influence the course of future housing g rowth. Housing Need Responding to the demand demonstrated in this re- port is a matter of local public policy, which should be driven by local goals and objectives. Creating new housing happens through a complex set of drivers and constraints including available land, land use policy, developer interest and capacity, financial fea- sibility, and local subsidies and requirements. The high cost of taking no action on workforce housing has consequences for individuals and families, the economy, civic engagement, and overall community character and sense of genuine place. When setting policy goals and direction for housing locals, communities rarely target achieving 100% of the catch-up and keep -up demand estimates, nor are resources likely available to achieve 100% of the gap. Rather, it is incumbent upon policymakers to use the data in this report to set goals that are an appropri- ate blend of aspirational, attainable, and respon- Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC sive to community values and vision. Making any progress, or just staying even, in producing housing affordable for the local workforce in a market with gaps as large as those found in the Eagle RiverValley requires a consistent, incremental, multi -pronged approach. The communities of the Eagle RiverValley have many significant accomplishments in the realm of workforce housing, and renewed commitment and continued work are essential moving forward. The communities that make up the Eagle River Val- ley are well-positioned to work on housing goals and strategies that are tailored specifically to individual communities, as well as to collaborate on region- al solutions. Both local and regional approaches are warranted and necessary to create diverse and long-lasting housing solutions for the local work- force. INTRODUCTION KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Ownership Housing Based on the conclusions drawn from the resident survey, policy makers should keep the following pri- orities and considerations in mind when shaping pol- icy strategies around home ownership housing: Ownership housing in proximity to work has many tangible and intangible benefits associat- ed with creating a sense of place and community, stability for school children and employers, year- round contributions to the economy, decreased commute times and increased volunteerism. • Local households, both owners and renters, have an overwhelming desire to remain or become homeowners, regardless of income. • A diversity of attached and detached housing product is needed, with a range of price points, upgrade options and amenities. • Affordability is the key obstacle for locals seeking to buy in the Eagle River Valley. Numerous tools will be needed to overcome the affordability gap for most locations and product types. • Affordability and location are the highest priori- ties for buyers. If homes are located in desirable communities and priced affordably, buyers will make tradeoffs on unit type and size. Regardless of where in the valley buyers are seeking to live, community character is the most important lo- cation attribute local households consider - un- derscoring the need to integrate housing efforts in comprehensive community planning and that preserves and enhances sense of place, locals or family -orientation, social opportunities, and proximity to services and entertainment. • Given the significant gap between the market and what locals can afford, deed restrictions are a necessity for most unit types and price points. Fortunately, deed restrictions are widely accept- ed by consumers. One third of current homeowners would like to move within the valley in the next five years. If an owner buys a new/different residence and their current free market home is purchased by second home owner or inventor for short term rentals, there is no net improvement in the rela- tionship between supply and demand for local residents. • Moving owners into new homes could be a component of a housing strategy that would support mixed income developments and fo- cus on building neighborhoods. Preserving the homes that will be sold as pri- mary residences when providing new home op- portunities could be considered, including buy downs or other incentives to place deed restric- tions on homes being sold. • Also, owners of deed restricted units could be given priority for new ownership opportunities, which would create movement in the deed -re- stricted inventory. Availability of funds for down payment is key to making sure that renters with the desire to pur- chase a home and stay in the Eagle River Valley are able to do so when a home affordable to them becomes available. For this reason, local communities should continue to support the Ea- gle County down payment assistance program, which has a strong track record in assisting local households. Ir _ i "A key to addressing the housing challenge is political will" -2018 Survey Respondent INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Rental Housing While most renters in the Eagle Valley would prefer to own, rental housing is an important component of a healthy housing ecosystem. Most renters will not be able to afford ownership in the near term, and rental housing is needed for new employees recruited into the community. Building additional rental housing should continue to be part of local housing policy goals, especially in consideration of the current ex- treme low vacancy, escalating rental rates, and high levels of cost burden among renters. Housing Tools • Up valley and mid valley should be the priori- tized for new rental development, as 82% of cur- rent renters prefer those locations. Renters, especially those with low wages are price sensitive, and proximity to work is their most important locational attribute. Jobs within the market area and what rental price points are appropriate for households making those wag- es should be considered when siting new rental housing. Both local and regional approaches are warranted and necessary to create diverse and long-lasting housing solutions for the local workforce. The communities that make up the Eagle River Valley are well positioned to work on housing goals and strategies that are tailored specifically to individual communities, as well as to collaborate on regional solutions. Part I reported on the nearly unanimous agreement among employers and residents that workforce housing is a problem in the Eagle Valley, and those sentiments carry forward in employers and resident's overall enthusiasm for tools that contribute to workforce housing solutions in Part II. When considering local and regional tools and how they could be formulated into housing strategies, policymakers would be well-advised to begin with the tools that received the most support from employers and residents: 1. Providing town/county land for workforce and local residents' housing. 2. Providing public financing through the towns, County, or housing authority. 3. Fast track processing of land use proposals that include workforce housing. 4. Towns or County taking the lead in building housing, which could be as developer or as lead on public/private partnerships. 5. Inclusionary housing, which requires new residential development to contribute to the workforce housing inventory. 6. Commercial linkage, which requires new commercial development to contribute towards workforce housing based on the need for housing for the employees of the new jobs generated. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS These tools represent a balanced mix of funding, partnerships, incentives, and regulations. They are some of the more aggressive tools in the affordable housing toolkit, which reflects the urgency of the is- sue and a good level of knowledge and acceptance of these tools by residents and employers. Of particu- lar note is the desire for local municipalities and the County to lead housing efforts. Local government is a key player in all six of the most frequently supported strategies. Perhaps because they experience the day to day challenges of hiring and retaining employees in the current jobs/housing environment, employers rated more strategies highly, including: • Fee waivers for water, sewer, and other impact fees. • Excise tax on short term rentals. Density bonuses for inclusion of workforce hous- ing. While considered slightly lower priority by residents, these tools may be appropriate components of the housing strategies for some communities. It is clear that local communities would be wise to create some momentum and build upon success- es before seeking any dedicated funding streams through a new tax (with the possible exception of short term rental excise tax). Property tax exemp- tion, sales tax, and property tax make up three of the five least supported strategies. The tools chapter also provides data on where among the three market areas the tools received more and less support, which should be helpful as communities consider local and valley wide housing strategies. Several themes point toward the relevan- cy of a valley -wide housing strategy: • Several tools including providing town/Coun- ty land and inclusionary zoning received strong support valley -wide. • Support for housing tools was strong across households of all incomes ranges. • Learning best practices from each other, devel- oping regional approaches, and strengthening cooperation were consistently expressed in the open-ended questions. • Partnerships with employers offer promising op- portunities. Both small and large employers ex- press interest in investing in workforce housing and expanding the housing opportunities they currently offer. Communities within the valley have a long history of successful workforce housing initiatives and many have used different housing tools at different times, including public private partnerships, land trades, annexation agreements, inclusionary housing, com- mercial linkage fees, and leverage of local funds to match outside investments in housing. There is op- portunity to build upon these successes (as well as incorporate lessons learned) to create a more consis- tent, unified approach going forward. r INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC - Tb- r a - Fr- a�I�ti PART Current Conditions, Trends, and Housing Needs Update CURRENT CONDITIONS What Housing Problem? We asked survey respondents about their perceptions of housing as a problem, by asking: "Do you feel that the availabiIityof housing that is affordable for the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is..." Their response was emphatic: it's a big problem. • A remarkable 91 % of household survey respondents felt that the lack of availability of housing that is affordable to the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is one of the most serious problems or the most critical problem in the region. • And, 85% of employers felt that the lack of availability of housing that is affordable to the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is one of the most serious problems or the most critical problem in the region. • No employers responded that it is"not a problem"or"a lesser problem." Perception housing problem - employers and h ouseh aids The most Cr1rical problem in the region Une -of the mope serious problems A rnodclrat.:� p 45blcLm ()rLP Gf rill? I FKi93 Il '% IP1i1,+-f F7! t] [A E. rri4 I Nut a problerrl I Source: 2018 employer survey, 2018 household survey. -11 ON IG% 20% 3-C% 4M Yr • 60PA / 80% 9 103% ■ trnployw s ■ Hs i iv, I i i old , There is strong consensus valley -wide that housing affordability is a serious or critical problem. A full 99% of renters feel that this is one of the more serious or the most critical problem in the region, and 84% of owners feel the same way. PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC CURRENT CONDITIONS Per-ne ptio n ho us ing prob lern - by fen ure The rum vIticil stub n -nth* regle:n -M% 3.ar, earrcaf the mare frhbus. probitrno- 43V. 54'9 AronCtrME 3rvhlam RSG One 4111 ;ham rmlvrr r lfrsr problem. 0 Nal a prahltm 0 0% 2W, 4n -Wi or Rine Own Source: 2018 household survey Mid valley respondents where slightly more likely to perceive the problem as"more serious" or "most critical" than their up valley and down valley neighbors; 94% compared to 89% for up valley and 88% for down valley. IOo% S sun TYX 6 30% 4Q' a0 2 LQ' 0% Serious or Critical - three market areas up valley Mld va IIey lc Wre srria us = Wst crLtical Source: 2018 household survey. Dowty Va iley Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC PART I CURRENT CONDITIONS Perceptions of severity have some variation by income: combined responses for "serious" and "most critical" range from between 82% and 97%, with lower income households tending to have higher severity ratings. Interestingly, 92% of households over 200% AMI also felt it was "serious" and "most critical." Serious or Critical Problem by AMI 100% 97% 95% 9W ElYK 75% 717K 911-M 7i i4 Icsa AMI 60.1 to 100AN11 100. Ito 140 AMI 140.1 to ZOO AMI aver.20-D AM1 Source: 2018 household survey all PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Household Characteristics H o u se h old Types - thre e -m arker areas aawri 1+a I rr up value 11 A,dul1 livir-Salone C&trpl -:�, rro ldhIlvi ren j C"ol r with alrrt4rml 4 Slryer parent wldti dnl#d[rrM f ■ Uvdated roxrn mems ExUndrda mvh r" nation family i Ftn' IlY And roomnbake IS j Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC 35% 3M ZVX 7M 15% 10% S� �r H hold Nae - three market areas u 0 1 2 3 4 5armare ■ Ilp YA6Y ■ d[ MAftlbw Source: 2018 household survey WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Looking at the demographics of the Eagle River Valley, some of the distinctions and similarities between the three market areas begin to emerge, as well as the reasons the workforce housing shortage is being felt so acutely at this time. Across the valley, the average household size is 2.9 people. Each household has an average of 1.8 employed persons, and each employed person has an average of 1.24jobs.These metrics are used throughout the demand calculations. Mid valley is home to the most year-round residents, however, down valley has been adding year round households more rapidly since 2010. The demand for second homes and the percentage of homes occupied by full time residents is one of the defining distinctions between the three markets. The three market areas have a number of distinctions with regard to household composition and age of residents. • Mid and down valley are home to a higher percentage of households with children and adults in the prime working years of 30-64. Looking at the presence of children in the household provides a striking contrast: only 17% of households up valley have children present, while almost half (48%) of down valley households include children. • Down valley has larger households, especially those with four or more individuals. • Up valley is home to proportionally more adults living alone, roommates, millennials, individuals over 65 and extended/multigenerational households. • All three market areas have similar 22-26% of couples without children. Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Incomes and Tenure Mid and down valley have similar distribution of incomes, while up valley is home to a higher proportion of households with incomes below 60% AMI and above 200% AMI. Incarn-e 1) im r i h it i -o r • thr&& mark -et area 1Y 1 I upVahap fiidVial wr Dcr n Vd.6" ■ (3M End beIaw M14wx ■ XMI-1.+109 _ 140 1 2v: Grerter than 2bM Source: lu 18 nousenoia survey. The majority of renters (58%) have incomes below the median income. As incomes increase, households become more likely to own. About 23% of renters have incomes at or above 140% AMI. These households may have formerly been considered "renters by choice," but may be priced out of homeownership in the current market. 35% sm 25% 20% 15% UK 5% 0% Income Di5#rltmlon - OwnjReni 60% and bel o -m 6A 2-100% 141).1-149% Source: 2018 household survey. 10D.1-ZOTA Greater Imam 2 % Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I Down Valley 34% Rent 66% Own GYPSUM OVERALL 45% Rent 55% Own Down Valley 30% Hispanic 70% Non - Hispanic DOTS 16 Mid Valley 46% Rent 54% Own Up Valley , 62% Rent 38% Ow j EAGLE 70- ED AIIDS�41+F VAIL f D C) IV r� !-P t f3 MINTUkN u 11 f I X Y I t _Y Al RED' ' m P, /I i : •1 Y C:FyP5t m EAG LE 11 A L L E V Mid Valley 34% Hispar 66% Non Hispanic Up Valley 13% Hispanic 87% Non - Hispanic VAJ L L M1NYI FZN -s ■ ,T- ICED curr ''.f TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS Housing Shortage and the Economy The housing shortage negatively impacts employers in terms of employee retention, business development and growth. In 2017, unemployment in Eagle County was 2.2%, the lowest level since 2000. This situation leaves very few employees living in the valleyto fill positions. High housing costs and a predominance of low wage, tourism industry jobs exacerbate the challenge because employers have difficulty attracting and retaining employees from beyond the Valley. • An estimated 1,600 jobs remained unfilled, heading into the peak winter season of 2017/2018. • Jobs are remaining unfilled for longer periods of time. Last year 43% of jobs remained open for more than a month, compared to 18% of jobs five years ago, according to the Vail Valley Partnership - 2017 Workforce Survey Report. • As is common in resort areas, the largest employment sectors are accommodations, food, and retail. • Eagle River Valley employees have a weekly wage $220 lower than employees in Colorado overall. The fastest growing occupations will continue to be in the accommodations, food service, and retail sectors, including waiters and waitresses, retail sales clerks, food preparation, and housekeeping. These jobs typically pay wages below $31,000/year, or about 50% AMI for a single person. 3S� 3AaG iot JAM xPi Ch Source: ]obs and VHF #S by Industry S.ec#0 r - ;Eaoe Valley ZD16 �%q;fiok •--IvvMp"numlWapo Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC I I P-/ 1 1 $SMO fex8m + mcm Slade � S. TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS An estimated 1,200 employees in the Eagle River Valley intend to retire in the next five years, and most of these retirees will stay in the valley. New employees needed to fill those jobs will struggle to find housing they can afford. Additional homes will be needed to house new employees recruited to fill these jobs as they become available. For Sale Housing Market The last full Housing Needs Assessment was completed in 2007. Since that time, median household income has increased 6%, while home prices increased 20%. Change in saIa price and median incoma - 2000.2019 57NAW S6WM S519.M $soot � �- S2aOAM S62 ].070 t s, $5Z.7G0 $8,3.X-0 $$SCDD r s 2D] 275 2016 *Widen irtome iriry"dot sf --Ve-lwn Sale prlrela' lurdh) Source: 2007 Ho Second homeowners and short-term rental investment buyers currently compete with year-round residents for homes at all price points affordable to locals. With continued scarcity of housing throughout the valley, all three markets are likely to see continued price increases and decline in homes occupied year-round. It is very difficult to buy a home in Eagle County with an income derived in the Eagle River Valley. Based on survey data, about 5,000 local households with income below 140% AMI ($113,000 or less for a three-person household) would like to purchase a home within the Eagle River Valley. But only 64 homes were listed for sale at prices they can afford in January of this year. The majority of these listings were condos, likely to be purchased by second home or investor buyers.There is an inventory surplus in of homes for sale over $600,000, which serves households over 200% AMI. Buyers of these homes will predominately be from out of the area. AL 1 . {� r � � ■ I 'ice PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS CURRENT MLS LISTINGS AND LOCAL HOUSEHOLDS WHO WANT TO PURCHASE # of Current MLS Listings AMI Range Max Up Mid Down Total Affordable Valley Valley Valley Listings Purchase Price 60% or less $190,000 0 0 1 1 House - holds Want to Buy 1,440 60-100% AMI $316,000 1 4 7 12 2,110 100-140% AMI $443,000 7 13 31 51 2,120 140-200%AMI $632,000 12 22 43 77 1,550 Greater than 200% - 199 218 68 485 1,070 AMI Tot i 9 i17AM 150 jjjk2jM 8,290 Source: roil -5, nousenoia survey, consultant team A local household would need an income of about $152,000 (or 236% of Area Median Income) to afford the median priced home that sold in 2017. Median Income and Median Sale Price - 2017 S7ao,15M S6.Z 1,0GO swo,ow 55MON 54.000 Medan Income Affordable Pri-ce Mid •ket Price tncome needed Source: MLS, CHFA, consultant team Last year, median sales prices exceeded what is affordable to a household with median income for all areas and home types except condos in the down valley. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC PART I TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS 1WM= S L &UDA04 $ L 6W= SL44WDW $Lum= S7IMM $ M.3m 5WD.000 $4uquw $2CQ000 S• � Cando Median Sala Prices - thr-ea market area - 2017 $LW $744.036 $LMIM Uk Vdlfy Mie Ike 1 rye 54y#ffilm At Dawe Valley Uup4dAtrOwACHI ic 56nglz Famllw Arlortablt ]CDk AMI -iud h6uw Source: MLS, consultant team Scarcity is a significant factor in the high cost of housing. Of the 1,300 homes sold last year, only 10% sold at prices that would be affordable to a household with income of $80,600 or lower (100% AMI). Up valley, only nine condos in Vail and four single family homes in Red Cliff were affordable for incomes of 100% AMI. Mid valley, all homes sold that would be affordable to 100% AMI or lower were condos, and single-family homes were distinctly unaffordable with a median price approaching $2 million. Down valley there was a more balanced mix of condos, duplexes, townhomes, and single -family -homes, however, only 21 % of all homes sold down valley were affordable to 100% AMI households. Number of Homes Sold - 2017 Source: MLS PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS For Rent Housing Market It is similarly difficult to rent a home. Over the past five years, vacancy rates have been dropping, and rent levels rising. With vacancy levels now approaching zero, the rental market is no longer functioning effectively. Employees who are new to the area, or people needing to move based on changes in their housing needs have great difficulty finding a home to rent. Landlords experience low turnover and have little incentive to make repairs and improvements. Such scarcity has driven prices more rapidly than wage increases. In 2007, average rent for all unit types was $1,150. Currently, average rent is $1,700, an increase of 48%. (Both figures exclude utilities, which also impact affordability.) Incomes have only increased 6% over that time period. This dynamic is driving up cost burden, especially among the lowest income renters. Most the rental housing reported on this trend graph has deed restrictions that place a cap on rents. As the economy has improved, vacancy rates have plunged, but rents have only increased modestly, due to the deed restrictions. In free market rentals, low vacancy rates are pushing rapid price increases. S11WQ SIAM $11M 511wo sm SON Sino moo 50 Rent a rid Varan ry Tre nd - Deed Rest ri ned Pro perties 20.0 2011 3012 2011 Y01eb 3015 2D16 MY AvengeRenk -Vacancy Source: Polar Star Market Reports 2010 to 2017 CA x� With rental inventory limited, renters of all incomes are competing for the same units, and the lowest income renters are only paying about 19% less than the highest income renters. Employees in a household need to work about 120 hours a week, or three full time jobs, at minimum wage for the average rent and utility payment to be considered "affordable" Mid valley has the highest average free market rent, likely due to a higher number of households renting larger single-family homes. Overall, the gap between free market and deed restricted in the region is about 20% or approximately $330/month. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS SLB�J �id88 Savo s�o Sago 5� Ave rage R a rets - t hree market a re as Si'&W - %A30 $� $ Up VWWV "d wrrlay aown VaMlw rFtpMMR-A%WOP ■DeedEltstricted- AuerapeRant Source: 2018 household survey, December 2017 Polar Star Market Report tuoo $1,370 The gap between market and deed restricted is about $350/month for two- and three-bedroom homes. Average R e ryt - N um ber of Bedr-aorrrs s��oa SR&x SLS S L.6W S r.d131) S1.W S1.DD Sano � Q r4�4 � k4d�4m � Rtdroor 3 Rr� •c•c m ■ Detd R"r {SeC Ave digs Rent rit+t Mow ke. - A"rdla Rrnl Source: 2018 household survey, December 2017 Polar Star Market Report PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS Commuting The mismatch between where local workers live and where jobs are located requires much of the workforce to commute. • About 9% of the workforce commutes from outside of the valley; • Vail has a jobs/housing balance of approximately 6,OOOjobs, requiring at least that number of employ- ees to commute into Vail from other parts of the valley; • Mid valley has a more balanced housing/jobs mix, with only about 600 more employees than jobs; • Down valley plays a significant"bedroom community" role, housing more workers than there arejobs. �Nti kS Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC 41t. PART 1 43 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS Housing Shortage and Cost Burden The tension between high housing costs and low wages is hurting individuals and families in the community. As households stretch to find and retain housing in a tight market, the proportion of their income spent on housing increases, leaving less for food, healthcare, childcare, transportation, and retirement savings. When a household spends more than 30% of income on housing, they are considered "cost burdened."The term "severely cost burdened" is used when more than 50% of household income is devoted to housing costs. • Approximately 3,800 households (22% of all households) in the Eagle Valley currently live under the duress of cost burden. • The percentage of households experiencing cost burden has decreased since 2007. • When asked about their housing plans, 13% of survey respondents reported that they intend to leave the Eagle RiverValley in the next five years, which may be an indicator of the trend observed by realtors and property managers that residents who are ready to own a home, start a family, or "step up" in their career may choose to leave the community. Not surprisingly, cost burden disproportionately impacts renters and lower income households. About 64% of all households under 60% AMI are cost burdened; a third are severely cost burdened. As incomes increase, the likelihood of cost burden decreases. Of renters, 38% are cost burdened, compared to 10% of owners. Renters are also more frequently severely cost burdened; 10% compared to 3% of owner households. The problem of cost burden exists valley wide. It is most prevalent in mid valley where about 2,000 households (about a quarter) are cost burdened. About 21 %of down valley households are cost burdened and 19% of up valley households. Pefcent of Hou3eholdsCost Burdened JIM zsx r� 70% >trk x� LOW Im 21' 2x Source: 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, 2018 Household Survey cost :au rde-n by Ten ufe U"F* Vl UN TV, Case surdcned Ml 40 SAL hnl ira7 Svrdrntqd 2CM 4Yr W% 2V4 M 47% 5TA {fir 70% 41^ Wi 7[r Source: 2018 Household Survey n RRA w Qwn PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE Eagle County has been consistently using the "catch up/keep up" method of calculating housing demand over the past decade. In this report, the approach is refined to provide demand calculations and market gaps for the three market areas within the Eagle River Valley, as well as the valley in total. Estimates are provided for the number of housing units that are needed to support job growth, sustain employers and employees, and stabilize housing prices. This demand update provides data by region, AMI, tenure, and for the valley as a whole. This summary table below includes homes that the free market will provide, and homes for which subsidies, incentives, and/or regulations will be required. STIMATED HOUSING DEMAND -EAGLE RIVER VALLEY -2018 THROUGH 2030 2018 2020 2025 2030 Catch-up (Existing Needs) Unfilled Jobs 1,100 Rental Market 310 In -Commuters 560 Overcrowding 800 Total Catch-up 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 Keep Up (Existing Needs) New jobs 1,030 2,350 3,870 Retiring employees 200 770 1,320 Total Keep -up 1,250 3,120 5.190 Total Housing Units Needed 2,780 4,030 5,900 7,970 L Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE Own/Rent Mix Both ownership and rental housing that is affordable for the local workforce and other residents is needed. The gap estimates below use a mix of 55% ownership and 45% rental, generally reflecting the current own/rent composition in the community. For homes that will be built to address local needs, the ownership/rental mix is not exact, but in practice largely a function of the community's desired direction, housing goals, opportunities and private market performance. While the rental market rebounded more quickly post -recession than the ownership market, both have now sufficiently recovered to warrant additional development. Location The total number of housing units needed are allocated by area based on owners and renters first choice for where they want to live in the Valley. This approach: • Is most responsive to market demand and the preferences of residents; • Recognizes the extensive cross commuting that exists - although jobs location is closely aligned with where residents most want to live (see the Housing Solutions section); and • Improves the housing/jobs balance among new jobs and workers coming into the Valley. While the location of jobs is one factor that influences where employees want to live, others like schools, shopping, and community and neighborhood character are key determinants of location preferences. One weakness to this approach is that it doesn't incorporate land constraints, development opportunities, or the level of subsidies required in different market areas. Policy makers working regionally could decide to re- allocate workforce housing production goals with these considerations in mind. .& The market will address a portion of both ownership and rental housing. The income levels that the market now serves vary within the Eagle River Valley as shown on the following table. By 2020, the total housing projected is 4,030 homes. We anticipate a portion of those homes will be supplied by the free market. The gap not served by the market will total around 2,450 units- about 1,220 for sale and 1,230 rental units, very close to a 50/50 split of for sale and for rent. Monitoring market conditions and making changes, if needed, to the forecasting model in the income levels served by the market would generate changes in the owner/renter mix and overall workforce housing gap moving forward. • PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE For Sale Housing Gap by Region and Income — 2020 Owner Units by AMI Where Owners Want to Live Max Affordable Price Up Valley 26% Mid Valley 39% Down Valley 35% Total 100% <60% $253,000 48 72 66 186 60.1% to 100% $316,000 122 180 164 466 100.1 to 140% $443,000 173 256 234 663 140.1 to 200% $632,000 135 200 183 518 Over 200% >$632,000 90 134 122 346 Gap - # for sale units Gap - # of rental units 480 510 230 1,220 Rental Gap by Region and Income - 2020 Rental Units by AMI Max Affordable Rent Up Valley 42% Mid Valley 40% Down Valley 18% Total 100% Where Renters want to live <60% $1,200 212 202 91 505 60.1% to 100% $2,020 228 217 98 543 100.1 to 140% $2,820 143 136 62 341 140.1 to 200% $4,030 95 91 41 227 Over 200% >$4030 73 69 31 174 Gap - # of rental units 580 560 90 1,230 Total Gap 1,060 1,070 320 2,450 *Totals are rounded to the nearest 10. Key Gap - Market does not provide 100 Blend - Market partially provides 100 Market provides 100 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS? The estimates for housing demand are composed of a variety of assumptions, some quite conservative, others more aggressive. When considered in aggregate, they represent a balanced picture. However, the reality of these projections can change rapidly, as market conditions fluctuate. For that reason, the consultant team has provided Eagle County Housing and Development Authority with a spreadsheet to do annual updates that reflect actual job growth. Variations in the economy will most certainly occur between now and 2030, and the projections for that timeframe should be refreshed frequently. The full census in 2020 will also provide a good opportunity to update these assumptions and projections. This section provides a brief explanation of each assumption used in the demand update. The full description of sources and methods can be found in Attachment D. Unfilled Jobs About 1,050 homes are needed to fill the estimated 2,470jobs that remained unfilled during the peak winter hiring season this year. Unfilled Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed Unfilled jobs (Dec/Jan 2018) 2,470 Jobs per worker 1.24 Employees per household 1.8 Housing Units Needed 1,100 Functional Rental Market Availability of rental housing is so low that the market does not function properly: renters have difficulty moving from one unit to another as their circumstances change, rents have been increasing at rates much faster than incomes, and vacancy rates are less than 1 %. The lack of a functional rental market makes it very difficult for new employees to find housing when hired to support an expanding economy. A vacancy rate of 5% is generally considered a balanced market in mountain communities. At this vacancy level, it tends to be financially feasible to own and operate rental units, and unit availability is typically adequate to provide choice for renters and stabilize rental rates. To increase the vacancy rate to 5%, approximately 310 additional rental units are needed. Rental Market Assumptions & Units Needed Number of existing rental units - 2017 7,660 Number with 5% vacancy rate 7,970 Housing Units Needed 310 PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS? In -Commuters About 9% (2,600) of all employees are now commuting into the Eagle Valley for work. Based on employer estimates, about 39% (1,010) of employees would move to the valley if affordable housing options were available. This generates demand for an additional 560 units to accommodate employees who already work in the region. In -commuters Number of in -commuters Employees who would move Employees/household Overcrowding Housing Units Needed Assumptions & Units Needed 2,600 1,010 1.8 560 An estimated 2,670 households in the Eagle River Valley are living in overcrowded conditions. TypicaIly, an increase in the supply of workforce housing equal to about 30 percent of the number of overcrowded units will largely address overcrowding to the extent practical, given consumer choices and cultural preferences. Overcrowded Assumptions & Units Needed Overcrowded units 2,670 % need to reduce overcrowding 30% Housing Units Needed 800 New Jobs The single largest driver of local workforce housing demand is new homes to keep up with estimated job growth. The following table includes numerous assumptions and estimates to identify the number of housing units needed over the next two, seven, and twelve years. As stated above, these can be kept up to date by the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority using the consultant team spreadsheet. New Jobs Increase in Jobs over 2017 Jobs per Employee New Employees Employees/household Assumptions & Units Needed Housing Units Needed 1.8 1.8 1,030 2,350 2030 8,643 1.24 6,970 1.8 3,870 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I i 2020 2025 2,304 5,250 1.24 1.24 1,858 4,234 Housing Units Needed 1.8 1.8 1,030 2,350 2030 8,643 1.24 6,970 1.8 3,870 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I i WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS? Retiring Employees About 110 homes are needed each year to provide housing for employees who will fill the jobs vacated by approxi- mately 240 employees anticipated to retire each year in the Eagle River Valley. Most retiring employees intend to stay in the community post retirement. For those who intend to move, it is unlikely their homes will be affordable to the employees needed to replace them. Retiring Employees Assumptions & Units Needed # of employees to retiring annually 240 Jobs/employee 1.24 Employees/household 1.8 Housing Units Needed Annually 110 a PART I Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC p1b _ ' *.+ MAIN 01101116wz9111r119 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART 11 Part II provides information for use in the planning, design and development of housing in the Eagle Valley. It exam- ines the type, size and price of home residents prefer as well as location preferences and neighborhood considerations to support the selection and planning of sites for housing development. It consists of three sections: • Ownership Housing Design and Development Rental Housing Design and Development Housing Tools These sections answer the questions: 1. Where should housing for locals be built? 2. How should it be designed? 3. What pricing is appropriate? 4. What tools are most likely to be successful? PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Market Size The current potential market for homeownership in the Eagle Valley consists of approximately 8,290 households. These estimates are based on residents who indicated they want to move within the Eagle River Valley within the next five years. They represent the market from which ownership projects must draw buyers, and are distinct from the esti- mates of housing need presented in Part I. About two-thirds are renters who want to move into ownership; and Roughly one-third are owners who want to buy a different home. Potential Homeownership Market by Own/Rent Source: 2018 household survey Three-fourths of renters want to move within the valley in the next five years and, of these, nearly 90% want to own. The percentage who want to move into ownership is high compared to the 65% of households that owned homes in 2007, and much higher than is realistic given affordability and down payment availability, which are examined later in this section. The extremely limited availability of rental housing and escalating rents in recent years likely contributed to the increased desire for ownership. Most owners (66%) want to stay in their current residence although about one-third want to buy a different home. If more homeownership opportunities are provided, more choices and movement within the ownership market would be an overall positive. However, there is a challenge for the year-round resident housing supply, because homes cur- rently occupied by local residents are likely to be sold to second homeowners, see Policy Considerations. Decisions about the provision of homeownership opportunities — number of units, location, unit type, amenities and pricing, will depend on policy and developer decisions as to which segments of the potential market for homeowner- ship should be the focus. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC Own Rent Overall Total # of Households, 2017 9,350 7,650 17,000 %want to move into a different home within the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 34% 75% 53% # want to move into a different home within the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 3,180 5,810 9,010 % want to own 99% 89% 92% # want to own 3,150 5,170 8,290 Source: 2018 household survey Three-fourths of renters want to move within the valley in the next five years and, of these, nearly 90% want to own. The percentage who want to move into ownership is high compared to the 65% of households that owned homes in 2007, and much higher than is realistic given affordability and down payment availability, which are examined later in this section. The extremely limited availability of rental housing and escalating rents in recent years likely contributed to the increased desire for ownership. Most owners (66%) want to stay in their current residence although about one-third want to buy a different home. If more homeownership opportunities are provided, more choices and movement within the ownership market would be an overall positive. However, there is a challenge for the year-round resident housing supply, because homes cur- rently occupied by local residents are likely to be sold to second homeowners, see Policy Considerations. Decisions about the provision of homeownership opportunities — number of units, location, unit type, amenities and pricing, will depend on policy and developer decisions as to which segments of the potential market for homeowner- ship should be the focus. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC umNr_r%3nir DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND Tradeoffs in Location/Price/Size/Type Potential homebuyers were asked to rank the importance of four considerations when purchasing a home — price, lo- cation, type and size, in light of the need for trade-offs due to expensive land, limited sites and high construction costs. • Location - a home in the community where you most want to live • Price - a home that is the most affordable option for the minimum size you need; the best value • Size - space is key; you would choose a larger home that might require you to share walls, like a town home, rather than a smaller single-family home. • Type -Type is an important consideration if you would choose to live other than where you prefer to buy a single-family house rather than a condominium or townhome A key finding is that type of home and size of home is relatively unimportant for potential buyers compared to location and price. This suggests that there is flexibility in terms of the type of units to be developed in response to demand. If priced appropriately and located where desired, condominiums and townhomes may be acceptable to many who prefer to buy a single-family house. If housing cannot be developed where potential buyers want to live or prices are not considered to be a good value, it will be more important to provide the type of units that buyers most want. Importance by Own/Rent 1=most important; 4=least important Source: 26 16 nousenolcl survey r4i PART 11 N �- _'r 17 y % li Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC Own Rent Location 1.84 1.94 Price 2.04 1.63 Size 2.95 3.08 Type 3.17 3.35 Source: 26 16 nousenolcl survey r4i PART 11 N �- _'r 17 y % li Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Location -Where Owners Now Live and Want to Live Most owners live in the area of the valley that is their first choice. This is especially true up valley where over 90% of owners are living where they most want to live. Nearly 10%, however, would prefer mid valley. Of mid valley residents who would rather live elsewhere, most prefer up valley. In contrast, more down valley owners would like to live in mid valley than up valley. Where Owners Want to Live by Where They Now Live Shading denote residents who live where they most want to live. Source: 2018 household survey Individual communities show: • Proportionately more owners want to live in Vail and Minturn; • Slightly fewer want to live in Edwards; • In Eagle, preferences are in line with the current condition with about one-fourth of owners wanting to and now living there. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART 11 1 1 Live Now Want to live (first choice) Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Up Valley 91% 24% 7% Mid Valley 9% 70% 16% Down Valley 1 0.0 j 6% j 77% Total 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% Source: 2018 household survey Individual communities show: • Proportionately more owners want to live in Vail and Minturn; • Slightly fewer want to live in Edwards; • In Eagle, preferences are in line with the current condition with about one-fourth of owners wanting to and now living there. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART 11 1 1 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Location -Where Owners Now Live and Want to Live (cont'd) • In neighboring Gypsum, however, proportionately more owners reside there than desire. These findings suggest location preferences are based largely on community rather than area, at least with regards to down valley. Where Live and Want to Live by Town Where do you now live in or near Now Live 1st Choice Difference Vail 9% 19% Minturn 3% 6% Eagle Vail 8% 8% Avon 9% 7% Edwards 27% 23% Eagle 23% 24% Gypsum 13% 8% Source: 2018 household survey. Note: Redcliff, Wolcott, and Dotsero excluded due to small sample size. Location Characteristics Up valley appeals most to households without children - about 60% are singles living alone, couples without kids and roommate households. Mid valley appeals to a broad mix of households. Down valley is home to relatively more families - over 60% of owner households living there include at least one child. L� • PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Location Attributes Homeowners in the Eagle Valley rate community character, defined as"locals or family-oriented, social opportunities, entertainment, restaurants, etc.' as their top consideration when choosing where to live, higher than proximity to work, which is at the top of the list among renters. • Proximity to work is the second highest consideration for homeowners; • Community amenities - schools, parks, libraries, etc., amenities rate high in importance among homeowners. • The ability to have pets is also a top consideration with two-thirds of owners rating pets as very or extremely important. qr �M1 Com,Atinn4 norbLur ,DfMrMlcy m nark conimunftp #mcnftlfs Pmour lk� W akHngjreco1 Pm #u aIkYaIsa&5k Avoijb 1 f4 of bus Lanae IiYoIlak-ility 10 day-InF! i .'� IL f :u Character & Pr£7ximity 4.4 4.5 1.4 1.5 ZA 3.3 5-4 LIN +J3 4.3 Mian: lit Ir4mmmtF 5—Ywy 1mgNt f%t Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART L OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT In addition: • Owners who live alone generally place less importance on character and proximity attributes but rank availability of bus service and proximity to skiing/recreation higher than other types of households. • Couples with children generally rank location attributes higher than other households, especially availability of day care and quality of schools. They place lower than average importance on bus service and proximity to skiing/recreation. • The importance ratings by other types of households tend to fall in between the preferences of people living alone and couples with children. • Mid valley resident rate most location attributes slightly higher than other owners while down valley owners generally place lower importance on location attributes. A few specific distinctions • Mid valley residents place greater importance on proximity to work and community character. • Quality of schools and availability of day care is higher for mid and down valley owners. • Up valley owners place greater importance on availability of bus service. Amenities Households ranked amenities as follows: • In-unitwashers and dryerstopthe list of amenities, rated either very or extremely important by85% owners. • Decks or patios rate equally with energy efficient heat - 70% of owners rank both very/extremely important. • Playgrounds or parks on site are also important to owners, especially households with children, and considerably more important to owners than renters. • Fitness centers on site are generally not important, as is typically the case in mountain communities where recreation opportunities are abundant. Fewerthan 9% of owners consider on-site fitness centers important. As with location attributes, mid valley owners generally rate the importance of amenities higher than elsewhere in the valley. There are few differences in the rank order of amenities by area of the valley though down valley owners rate energy efficient appliances and heat, and exterior storage lockers noticeably lower than other owners, presumably due to its milder climate and because many down valley homes have garages. V1rt;1ff*w In unit E?u'i4D-r µsilo Fn PWP .Mk int hma Emrn eftom 4@pkm i es Fkim%ffWiFm* an Wtoorrmo by Nbirlar shier k0w F Enm mmo•r da mat fmporte-lce of A me n itre s [0 [5 iS j ]0 1.5 3A0 4.5 1.0 1.5 55 N1oan: 141ot Im"nt: S—vory;rrrsn.3n- Source: 2018 household survey PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Unit Type Residents who want to buy within the next five years were asked to rate four housing options on a scale where 1 = not at all interested and 5 = very interested. The hypothetical home types were created to test demand and tradeoffs. The prices are based on price points affordable to local employees and recent history of deed restricted home sales. Renters who want to buy are flexible with regards to unit type, with single family homes, duplex/triplex units and townhomes receiving similar ratings despite large price differences. Owners who want to buy a different home have strong preferences for a single-family home. Income levels and type of units that residents are interested in buying are correlated. • Lower income households are more interested in attached units, with townhomes rating higher than condominiums or duplexes/triplexes. • Higher income residents have little interest in condominiums and a strong preference for single family homes, with duplexes and triplexes preferred over townhomes. U r it Tpe D6sirad by Owny116nt 01 t 0." ! , -'': 5f• BUPA'Pla PL L itrwr�pur ir CL Rdf!m I rh Y i R7 .D 0.5 ] ..5 2 2.5 1 is a 4.5 ■ hAY wwi owmms Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART 11 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Unit Type Type of Home Desired by AMI This distribution is based on very interested (ratings of 5) responses. 60% or less AMI 56% 30% 15% 6% 60.1 to 100 AMI 24% 24% 28% 29% 100.1 to 140 AMI 17% 29% 30% 26% 140.1 to 200 AMI 3% 8% 16% 24% Over 200 AMI 0% 8% 11% 14% Source: 2018 household survey Upgrades Survey respondents had the opportunity to rate upgrades they would seek to and believe they can afford regards to a hypothetical home. When given an array of add on features or upgrades to choose from, fewer than 10% indicated they would prefer the base models. A private yard for $10,000 was the top choice for both renters and owners who want to buy. There are notable differences, however, between owners who want to move into a different residence and renters who want to move into ownership. • Owners more often selected multiple upgrades with a two car -garage, additional full bathroom, two additional bedrooms and extra storage measuring 8' by 8. • Renters desire fewer upgrades but rated one additional bedroom, a one -car garage, an extra half bath, and a storage locker higher than owners. Examination by unit type reveals most potential buyers: • Would like an additional bedroom except for those who are very interested in a 3 -bedroom single family home. • Want and think they could afford a garage. • Want and think they could afford a garage. PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Upgrades (continued) Additional F"tum I-cAr 13jir4gK SK = d#� t - c4t* GwW- SigDIu � kr V*A* - v4'. $5, X v;-5�5�4G0 AnrAp ict4w $LDM ghw M4m*OF3ho bwM 0 I + M 30 40 .rid 9d NwM ro Source: 2018 household survey ow mown Examination by unit type reveals most potential buyers: • Would like an additional bedroom except for those who are very interested in a 3 -bedroom single family home. • Want and think they could afford a garage. • Also want/could afford a private yard unless they are very interested in buying a condominium. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART 11 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Upgrades (continued) Upgrades by Unit Type Shading denotes features desired by more than 50% per unit type. Bedroom: 1 additional: $25,000 57% 71% 61% 45% Bedrooms: 2 additional: $50,000 22% 21% 35% 32% 1/2 Bathroom: $15,000 23% 51% 31% 29% Full Bathroom: $30,000 36% 44% 47% 45% Storage Locker: $2,000 32% 22% 25% 17% Exterior storage — 8'x8': $5,000 29% 20% 22% 26% 1 -car Garage: $20,000 57% 57% 52% 42% 2 -car Garage: $30,000 9% 34% 43% 64% Private Yard: $10,000 38% 50% 54% 76% Other (fill in feature & price) 9% 12% 9% 11% None of the them 0% 1 % 3% 3% Source: 2018 household survey Potential buyers who are very interested in purchasing the single-family home option also want to purchase the most upgrades, including a two -car garage. On the other end of the spectrum, residents interested in purchasing a condo- minium want fewer upgrades. =I- �F PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Financial Considerations PRICING The average prices that owners and renters who want to buy feel they can afford - given base prices and de- sired upgrades - range from $263,500 for a condominium to $553, 250 for a single-family home. Home Prices by Unit Type Price of Homes with Options Base Price $200,000 $325,000 $375,000 $475,000 $200,000 4.0% 37.8% 37.1% 60.1 to 100 AMI 27% 30% $200,001 to $250,000 $250,001 to $300,000 $300,001 to $350,000 14.8% 15.4% 140.1 to 200 AMI 29% $350,001 to $400,000 6.3% 46.2% 26.5% 14.0% 46.6% F 9% $400,001 to $450,000 $450,001 to $500,000 7.6% 25.0% 12.8% $500,001 to $550,000 4.3% 10.9% 40.4% $550,001 to $600,000 3.5% 33.5% $600,001 to $650,000 9.8% $650,001 or more 3.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mean $263,149 $397,692 $449,159 $553,255 Median $255,000 $395,000 $445,000 $547,000 Source: 2018 Housing Survey Affordability is a constraint impacting the ability of renters to move into ownership and, to a lesser degree, owners who want to buy a different home. Overall, 18% of residents who want to buy a home within the next five years have incomes of 60% or less. These households are candidates for Habitat for Humanity and similar homeownership efforts that serve very low income households. Over half, however, have incomes above 100% AMI, which indicates that homeownership pricing could vary widely. AMI Distribution of Households that Want to Buy Source: 2018 Housing Survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC Now Own Now Rent Overall 60% or less AMI 1% 27% 18% 60.1 to 100 AMI 27% 30% 28% 100.1 to 140 AMI 30% 20% 24% 140.1 to 200 AMI 29% 14% 19% Over 200 AMI 13% F 9% 10% Source: 2018 Housing Survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DOWN PAYMENT AVAILABILITY The availability of funds for down payments will be a factor in pricing and determine how many residents who want to own will qualify. Although there are some mortgage programs with little or no down pay- ment required, it is appropriate to assume that down payments of 5% will be needed. With a base price of $200,000 the minimum down payment would be $10,000. Most owners who want to buy a different home would have ample down payments given home equi- ty - about $121,500 on average. Roughly 6%, however, indicated they would have less than $10,000 to put down. Renters generally have far less available for down payments; they have approximately $30,000 on average available. About 15% of renters have no funds available for a down payment, 12% have some funds but less than $10,000 and another 20% have between $10,000 and $15,000. This leaves just over half who should have sufficient funds for down payments if homes are affordably priced given their incomes. Residents who want to buy a home in the next five years were asked about their knowledge of mortgage requirements to determine if qualifying is likely to be an impediment to ownership. Results indicate home- ownership counseling is needed, especially for renters who want to buy. Knowledgeable about Mortgage Requirements 70 64 ° 54 a 4a 31 dJ za i4 0 very knowledgeable 5omewQ=1LnVM kd&Fahle Nat weryr tnewimpable C'.v., RFr- l Source: 2018 Household Survey PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEED RESTRICTIONS Deed restrictions have become the norm for workforce housing in Eagle Valley. The survey confirmed what realtors indicated - most residents will accept a deed restriction that limits price appreciation and occupancy in order to own a home. Overall, deed restrictions would be acceptable to 70% of residents who are interested in buying a home in the Eagle Valley within the next 5 years. "How would a deed restriction that limits resale price appreciation to 3% per year and requires that homes be sold to households with at least one person who works in Eagle County impact your purchase decision?" Own Rent Overall The deed restriction would be acceptable to me at below-market 61% 76% 70% prices, OR I would pay more for a market unit that is not deed restricted -- how 39% 24% 30% much more? Source: 2018 household survey Some residents who want to buy would pay more for a market home, free of price/occupancy restrictions. The most often cited figure was $50,000 more. i r - L4 may{ oe t M Fi. = Ll., + Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC < Y RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN The information presented in this section can help inform policy direction and development decisions about new rental housing. Market Size The potential market for rental housing in the Eagle Valley consists of approximately 7,650 households, the total number residing in the Eagle River Valley. They represent the market from which rental projects must draw residents. Market size is distinct from the estimates of rental need by AMI presented in Part I. Decisions on the number of new units to build should consider need. Design/location/rent decisions should be based upon the characteristics and preferences of renters currently living in the valley who will likely lease most of the new units. Employees moving into the valley will also be a component of renter demand, but they will constitute a small proportion of the target market of new rental product, and they are likely to have similar characteristics to existing renters. A subset are the 5,780 renter households that want to move within the Eagle River Valley within the next 5 years. As described in the Ownership section, the large majority of renters want to move into ownership; just under 11%want to continue to rent.The number who will be able to buy, however, depends upon the devel- opment and pricing of ownership opportunities. Many will likely remain renters. Very few owners want to move into rental housing and are not a quantifiable rental market segment. Potential Rental Market Total # of Renter Households, 2017 % want to move into a different home in the Eagle River Valley in 5 years # want to move into a different home in the Eagle River Valley in 5 years % want to rent # want to rent Source: 2018 household survey Renters M . 111111p— 7,650 76% 5,780 11% 635 PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Location Far more renters now live mid or down valley than they desire. Of renters who want to remain in the Eagle Source: 2018 household survey While many renters would prefer to live up valley, most renters now live in the area of the valley that is their first choice. The desire to live elsewhere is highest among down -valley renters who would rather live up val- ley - nearly 60% would prefer to live mid or up valley. Where Now Live Compared to Where Want to Live Shading indicates residents living where they most want to live. Want to live (first choice) Where Live Now Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Up Valley 94 28 9 Mid Valley 5 66 30 Down Valley 1 5 61 100% 100% 100% Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC PART II RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Location Preference Characteristics Up valley appeals more to renters who live alone, couples without children and roommate households. Few- er than 20% have children in the household. Mid valley is the first choice for a diverse mix of renter households - singles liv- ing alone, roommates, couples with and without children, and particularly single parents with children. Down valley is more attractive to families with children although about half of the renters who indicated it is their first choice are households without children. There are variations in 1 I choice location by income. Desire to live up valley is high- est among the lowest and highest income renters. Renters in the moderate and mid- dle-income ranges are more likely to prefer mid valley. is# -choice Ywhere want to Uwe by linrome CNW 2GO L41D Lin 2M AMI mil tv 1DDAM em% a �= ANO 1b to W 3) +4 so 6ami Vr" ■ il" UMy m L-pVArf Source: 2018 household survey as ?a Location Preferences by Town Examination by individual community shows proportionately more renters want to live in Vail, Minturn and Edwards than now live there. Although the sample is very small, it appears that renters who commute in from other counties want to continue to live in their current communities. Where do you now live in or near Vail Minturn Eagle Vail Avon Edwards Eagle Gypsum Renter Location Preferences ow Live 18% 8% 8% 22% 16% 15% 9% Source: 2018 household survey. Note: Redcliff, Wolcott, and Dotsero excluded due to small sample size. 1 st Choice 26% 13% 5% 16% 18% 12% 5% Difference PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT&DESIGN Location/Neighborhood Attributes In general: • Renters feel proximity to work is their most important consideration when searching for housing. • Community character, defined as"locals or family-oriented, social opportunities, entertainment, restaurants, etc" is very or extremely important for over 60% of renters in the valley. • Pets allowed is third in importance; for many renters in the Eagle Valley and other mountain towns, having dogs is a priority. • The availability of day care ranked lowest on the list overall, yet daycare and the quality of schools is very or extremely important to most families with children. PV0WMkt} W work Comm unf y character Pets alkrwrd CommuridyrarnenNes Fromltnity to &hNngjrecreatbn Awaftabillty of tm serwlce QualAyr of schmis Awa IlablUtyr of daw care Lo catia n -Cha racte r & P roxi rn its+ 0 0.5 1 1.5 z 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1=not impvrtant; 5 --very important Source: 2018 household survey Differences within the valley: • Availability of bus service is more important to renters who live up valley than mid- or down -valley renters, which suggests that getting around Vail may be more valued than using transit to travel up and down the valley. • Proximity to skiing is more important to up -valley renters of slight importance to mid valley renters but only moderately important to down valley renters. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Amenities Renters in the Eagle Valley generally place high importance on amenities: In -unit washers and dryers are extremely important to most renters (57%) and have become standard in new apartment properties. Most renters feel energy efficient heat is very or extremely important. While many renters indicate their util- ities are included in their rent payment, utilities average $223 per month year- round. Several large apartmen complexes bill flat fees for utilities rather than requiring residents to place accounts in their names and pay deposits. Exterior storage lockers are of mid-range importance to renters; however, property managers report storage is of upmost importance. • Fitness centers on site are typically of little importance to renters in mountain communities where recreation opportunities are abundant and easily accessed, and this holds true in the Eagle Valley. There is little variation in importance ratings by household type. Exceptions are on-site playgrounds/parks, which are more important to families with children, and WI -FI included, which is more important to adult -only households. Also, while mid -valley renters rated most amenities slightly higher than renters on average through the valley, there are no significant variations in the importance of specific amenities by where they now live or most want to live. ImportancL- of Amenities WaPhor fdryw r lurµt Er fwo Wklml h*at Enrrp effld-&-d &.: plhwKt% Emtck or prilo fxhcrler 5taradc Iackff INF -FJ ftelLtd od PIM r"d{Jprrt me eitipearnmrbx FAR*mede" r oo riIdr 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.11 2.5 3rD 115 # 0 IS %0 l -riot Imilionmil, 5-yery Wnpoithnt Source: 2018 Household Survey 4APART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC I RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Unit Type Most renters live in housing units that were designed/developed for ownership — primarily single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and condominiums. Fewer than 40% of renters now reside in apartments. Bedroom Mix Tonrrhw,i-a or �r�rr 3�#L Rental LJ nits by Typo 3da nc with hiersds,rhofrmIww Iv1h.r tx �14•�re:1y hk� 45 There are relatively too few small rental units and too many large units. Renters living in three-bedroom units 35 outnumber renter households with one bedroom, which ,a is not typical. While the two -bedrooms are in relative !S balance with need, more one -bedroom units and fewer 24 three-bedroom rentals are needed. ks Nearly 60% of renters live alone or with one other L4 person, which is why most want one- or two-bedroom units. The percentage living alone is slightly lower than the portion of one -bedrooms needed, likely due to the ability/desire of couples to rent one -bedroom units. w Renter Household Size People in Household % Renter Households 1 27% 2 30% 3 18% 4 16% 5+ 9% Source: 2018 household survey Apertarenr ;a Dtir��sT�r trfp�e t 1 r, El edioomi - Current Borne and N Sed Compared #nrasi rete+oc+� T"hl+Jr4A+ Pmat irrenn ■ Cuv&-A rlo--1 a r:a ad Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC PART 11 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Rents The average market rent in the Eagle Valley is $1,700 per month. Utilities average an additional $223 per month. Rents are lowest up valley, which may seem counter intuitive, but appears to be due to variation in the type of units occu- pied by area. Relatively more renters live in older, smaller, multi -family units up valley as compared to larger, newer, and more single-family homes mid and down valley. Average Market Rents by Area Free Market - Average Rent Up Valley� $ 1,560 Mid Valley $ 1,840 Down Valley $ 1,550 Overall $ 1,700 Source: 2018 household survey, CHFA Nearly one-third of renters pay between $1,500 and $2,000 per month, the largest category. Average rents are generally affordable for households with incomes over 60% AMI. This does not mean that, however, that all renters within each AMI category have affordable housing. There is a mismatch between incomes and rents paid, which is common when rental availability is tight and there is little opportunity for moving from one unit to another, as documented in the Cost Burden section. Rents paid in the 100% to 140% AMI range are not proportionately higher than in the 60% to 100% category. Higher income renters out compete others. Market Rents Lvv� Rh r■ 3100 41A99 $L90-13730 $LM} • iZA9P !�L5W Source: 2018 household survey Rent Paid Compared to Affordable Rent by AMI AMI % Renter House- Average Rent Paid Affordable Rent holds 60% or less AMI 28% $ 1,200 $ 1,210 60.1 to 100 AMI 31% $ 1,510 $ 2,420 100.1 to 140 AMI 19% $ 1,650 $ 2,820 140.1 to 200 AMI 13% $ 1,970 $ 4,030 Source: 2018 household survey, CHFA Note: Over 200% AMI excluded due to small sample; includes deed restricted and employer-provided units. PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT&DESIGN Tradeoffs Since there are insufficient opportunities to provide housing up valley where half of all renters want to live (about 3,900 renter households) their second choice for where to live should be considered. Second choice responses show far higher preferences for mid valley and, to a lesser extent, down valley communities. Generally, renters who most want to live in Vail would rather live nearby in Eagle Vail than further away. The big drop in Vail between 1 st and 2nd choice indicates that most renters who want to live mid or down valley would choose other nearby communities rath- er than seek housing up valley in Vail. 1st an d 2 nd Ch of ce Locati ons [c rnp ared 30 25 20 — � � 1 0 VIM fk%rrtum Eagle VaIG Avaq Edwards Engle Silpsurn ■ fit QraC! 2nd Choice Source: Resident survey Residents who want to rent were asked: "How much more would you be willing and able to pay for rent where you most want to live (1 st choice) compared to your second choice?" About one-fourth are not willing to pay any additional rent to live where they most want to live, and an almost equal percentage are only willing to pay $100 per month. Results above that amount are widespread with some renters indi- cating large amounts (>$1,000/month) that they could not likely afford. Impact of Restrictions Residents who want to rent were asked: "How mightemploymentand income restrictions impact you rwiIIing to lease an apartment, if at all?" Results show: A very large majority (over 90%) would provide employment verifications. Roughly half would like some form of pricing restriction for rents with low yearly rent increases. Over three-fourths would sign one-year leases. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS Overview Many approaches have been used to address housing needs in the Eagle Valley for more than three decades.Towns, Eagle County, private and non-profit developers, and employers have combined a variety of tools to produce over 3,000 affordable homes for residents to date. Despite these widespread efforts and their achievements, developing affordable housing has become more challenging over time, with few opportunities and rising gaps between affordable prices and market realities. To address the housing needs quantified in Part I of this report, new tools will be required to supplement and expand the strategies used in the past. Residents and employers were surveyed to determine which tools would havethe greatestsupport in the EagleValley.The following question was posed in both surveys: Conceptually, how do you feel about the following strategies for increasing workforce housing in the Eagle River Valley and its communities? The surveys tested 15 tools in these four categories: Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PROVIDING TOWN/COUNTY LAND Providing County orTown land that is vacant or under-utilized EMPLOYERS d6 16 4 16 J RESIDENTS d& 16 16 6 r.1i. TOWN OR COUNTY BUILDS HOUSING Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch or Chamonix) EMPLOYERS d616 RESIDENTS d6 16 16 4 6 FEE WAIVERS Water/sewer tap fees, permit fees waived for workforce housing EMPLOYERS & I& I& � RESIDENTS 1111 16 16 6 01 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Revenues from general fund (appropriation by elected officials required) EMPLOYERS. RESIDENTS d6 16 16 iLj 4S SALES TAX Sales tax paid by consumers (vote required) EMPLOYERS 16 16 6 6 RESIDENTS 16,61666 TOWN/COUNTY/HOUSING AUTHORITY FINANCING Town, County, or Housing Authority provides financing. EMPLOYERS 1101 RESIDENTS 16 l INCLUSIONARY HOUSING A percentage of new units in subdivsions are restricted for workforce housing EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS, EXCISE TAX ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS Tax on short-term rentals, for example 3 -5% -(vote required) EMPLOYERS46 RESIDENTS PROPERTYTAX EXEMPTION Exempt from property tax paid by property owners (vote required) EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 4 4 16 REDUCED PARKING Reduced parking requirements for workforce housing EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS FAST-TRACK PROCESSING Workforce housing projects go to the front of the line for review. EMPLOYERS 4 16 RESIDENTS + 16 1 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE Requiring new commercial development to provide housing EMPLOYERS 46 16is RESIDENTS 4116 DENSITY BONUSES Density bonuses when workforce housing is built EMPLOYERS 46 16 RESIDENTS 4116 RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE A type of impact fee on new construction EMPLOYERS d6 16 16 4t. � RESIDENTS 06 16 6 ILj � � PROPERTY TAX Property tax paid by property owners (vote required) EMPLOYERS 06 RESIDENTS 416 * 6 0 f 55 HOUSING TOOLS There is more support than opposition for all tools, ex- cept property tax and, among residents, reduced park- ing both of which received ratings of less than three. The top six tools include at least one from incentives, partnerships/public initiatives, and development regu- lations.This indicates residents and employers recog- nize a combination of efforts will be needed and no one "silver bullet" is going to address workforce/affordable housing needs in the Eagle River Valley. Overall, employers more strongly support housing tools than residents, although there are many similarities in the rank order. Property tax is a notable exception with lower support among employers than residents, proba- bly due to the much higher tax rate paid on commercial property than residential property. Employers ranked commercial linkage 7th among the 15 options, just slightly lower than the average rating given by residents, which is notable since the tool may be viewed as unfavorable to businesses. In-depth examination of the survey ratings by category reveal variation in opposition/support that should be helpful when designing and obtaining approvals for individual strategies. Results are presented for resi- dents; employer responses generally mirror those of residents. IN _74 h PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS 0 Incentives Generally, there is strong support and relatively little opposition to incentives yet it is not consistent across the board for the four tools in this category: • Support for fast track processing is strong with very little opposi- tion. • Opposition is also low for fee waivers and density bonuses with a relatively high percentage who are neutral about these incentives. • Residents are very divided about reductions in parking require ments with the highest"strongly oppose" percentage among the 15 tools tested. • More residents are uncertain about density bonuses than any of the other tools tested; 17% responded "don't know." Incentives 50 45 40 C, hA o 30 "A LD 25 4-• ai 20 10 Q Dwaft bonUfos Fee waiVers Reduced parking Is Fast va ck pro-cessing L, L = strarkgly appose ■ Z ;; dpp0qA a 3 =neutral ■ 4 =sup part 5 =strongly su ppa rt Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS 0 Partnerships and Public Initiatives Support is generally strong for partnerships/initiatives though residents are divided: • Providing Town or County -owned land rated high est overall with minimal opposition; only about 10% opposed. • Construction and financing of housing by the towns, Eagle County or the housing authority also received strong support with little opposition. • Residents are divided about property tax exemp- tions. While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of residents strongly oppose. M 50 V1 V Lq 43 R 30 f 0 'o ..IIA Par-tInerships & PuhIirinifiatives Nowidirag County/Town Torn or CouFft buI& 1ro r?fC-u rntyr/Houi4ng Pruperty tail cxemptiDn land housin Authorrty financing ■ Lz ukoraolly-Uppow Source: 2018 household survey ■ 2 = uppow 9 3 = nautral *4 = support 5 = s4ronglyr support PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS () Development Regulations Three tools were tested that impose requirements on new development for the provision of workforce housing. Support outweighs opposition for all three. • Support for both inclusionary housing and commercial linkage is strong - about 65% support or strongly support these development regulations while only about 10% oppose. • Residential linkage received far lower support, a rela- tively high level of neutral responses, and opposition from over 20% of residents. Residential linkage also had relatively high uncertainty (11 % of responses). • Residents are divided about property tax exemptions. While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of residents strongly oppose. Developrrent Regulations 45 40 1� 25 — iG 210 Al � 15 10 — Camrtti entla6 I In ka ge Residential linkage I n[ lu slanary H outing 1= stronglyGppaste r, 2 _ opp*5e a 3 _ newral ■ 4 = support S = strongly support Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS 0) Funding Funding alternatives garnered relatively more neutral responses than did strategies in the other three cate- gories, but with great variation among the four funding tools in terms of support and opposition. Providing Town or County -owned land rated high est overall with minimal opposition; only about 10% opposed. • Construction and financing of housing by the towns, Eagle County or the housing authority also received strong support with little opposition. • Residents are divided about property tax exemp- tions. While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of residents strongly oppose. Funding as 30 0 CU E Ex€be tax on short-term Property tax 531estax General fund revenues rentals 1 = sora,nZIV appose F 2 _ oppose r 5 = neutral ■ 4 = support 5 = stronslY support Source: 2018 household survey PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS Differences within the valley Support/opposition are similar throughout the Eagle River Valley, which indicates the potential for a valley -wide stra- tegic housing plan with shared implementation of housing programs. A few notable differences: Mid -valley residences expressed slightly higher support overall for the majority of the tools. Mid -valley residents were more likely to support the Towns, County or Housing Authority building housing, perhaps due to the success of Miller Ranch in Edwards, and to support the provision of financing by the Towns, County or Housing Authority. Support is essentially equal among up -valley and mid -valley residents for four tools — commercial linkage, excise tax on short-term rentals, desity bonuses and general fund revenues. • The only tool for which support was higher down -valley than in the other two areas was reduced parking, probably since parking shortages are primarily an up- and mid -valley problem. Support for Strategies es by Area 111 111111111111111111 A ? '�e / � +° 4�6 top Ah � k � 01 4 Source: 2018 household survey ■ up velrey+ ■ mi d va ueyf Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC Down ab 11 e 5.0 4.5 a.s 3.0 2.5 M # 1.5 1.O a_o 111 111111111111111111 A ? '�e / � +° 4�6 top Ah � k � 01 4 Source: 2018 household survey ■ up velrey+ ■ mi d va ueyf Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC Down ab 11 e HOUSING TOOLS Characterizing Support These trends are observed related to support for the housing tools: • The more strongly that residents believe the availability of affordable housing for the workforce in Eagle Valley is a problem, the more likely they are to support housing tools. • Renters expressed higher support than homeowners for all housing tools tested. • There is, however, support for housing tools across all income categories. The average rating among lower income residents (<-60% AMI) was 3.7 compared to 3.6 among upper-income residents (>200% AMI). Although the overall rating was lowest among households in the 160% to 200% AMI category, support for housing tools still outweighed opposition. • Residents who currently occupy housing that is deed restricted or provided by employers are more likely to support these housing tools than occupants of free market housing. • Residents who want to move into a different home in the Eagle Valley, or want to leave the Eagle Val ley, showed higher support for tools than residents who want to stay in their homes for at least the next five years. • Support varied somewhat by type of household. Persons living with roommates and "other" house holds (extended families, roommates and family members, etc.) indicated the highest support for housing tools, while couples with no children were the least supportive. In order from highest sup- port to lowest: • Workforce households showed greater support than households with no employees. • Support is similar among all age groups other than senior households (at least one member age 65+). Support is lower among seniors than the overall population for most tools, especially parking and property tax reductions. Support among seniors, however, is slightly stronger for the three devel opment regulations - inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage. • There appeared to be very little correlation between support for housing tools and ethnicity/race. • Workforce households showed greater support than households with no employees • Support is similar among all age groups other than senior households (at least one member age 65+). Support is lower among seniors than the overall population for most tools, especially parking and property tax reductions. Support among seniors, however, is slightly stronger for the three devel- opment regulations - inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage. • There appeared to be very little correlation between support for housing tools and ethnicity/race. PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS Other Solutions Nearly 200 residents offered additional suggestions about what could be done to provide affordable work- force housing in the Eagle River valley. Many took the time to offer multiple suggestions and specific exam- ples. One brief comment about what should be done summed it up: "Anything and everything" • Comments generally fell into the following categories: • Impose higher taxes/fees on second homes, large homes and short-term rentals. • Allow/build smaller units - accessory dwellings, tiny homes, lock offs, basic apartments, dorms and yurts. • Build and restrict housing for specific types of employees, like teachers. • Get employers more involved in providing employee housing. • Look to other communities -Vancouver, Martha's Vineyard, Steamboat Springs. • Improve transit, a point emphasized by realtors and property managers. Housing more employees down valley, especially renters, is generating the need for significant improvements in the transit system. • Reduce land development and building regulations and decrease development fees to make it more affordable for the private sector to produce housing. • Develop regional approaches and cooperation. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC HOUSING TOOLS Employer Assisted Housing Employers have long contributed to housing in the Eagle River Valley. Many residents suggested employers should take greater responsibility for workforce housing in the future and employers seem to agree. When asked about the types of assistance they now provide or would consid- er providing in the future, results showed there is sig- nificant potential for increasing employer -owned rental units, housing search assistance, rent deposits, master leasing and, to a lesser degree, providing land for housing and purchase price buy downs. Housing Assistance Provided by Employers Provide Would Now Consider Purchase price buy downs _ 6% _ 18% Land on which housing could be built _ 9% j_ 20% Master leasing units to rent to your employees _ 24% _ 45% Rent or first month/deposit subsidy foryour em- ployees M 29% �_ 49% Employer -owned rental units 41% 63% Down payment/mortgage assistance _ 41% 33% Assistance with housing search 61% X47%� Temporary/relocation housing 53% _ 43% Hiring bonus / salary stipend / higher wages 59% 57% Source: 2018 Employer Survey. Note: Multi -Response question; totals exceed 100%. PART 11 Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC APPENDIX A - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements Thank you to the many agencies and individuals who made this study possible: • Eagle County and Eagle County Housing and Development Authority who made the resources available and as- sisted with survey outreach. • Subject matter experts who contributed their time and expertise -Tori Franks, Kim Bell Williams, George Ruther, Virginia Egger, Morgan Landers, Michelle Metteer, Jeremy Rietmann, Colton Berke, Jill Klosterman, Janet Hawkin- son, Chris Romer, Commissioner Kathy Chandler -Henry, Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney, Commissioner, Jill Ryan, Brenda Camunez, Priscilla Coffin, Kyle Denton, Brooke Franke Gagon, Betsy Laughlin, Corey Lamothe. All the local residents and employers who took a few minutes to complete the survey in December 2017 and Janu- ary 2018. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES APPENDIX B - AREA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND PURCHASE PRICES Area Median Income for Eagle County, 2017 Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 AMI Classifications $48,360 $80,600 $112,840 $161,200 Extremely Low (30% AMI) $18,810 $21,480 $24,180 26,850 $29,010 $31,170 Very Low (50% AMI) $31,350 $35,800 $40,300 $44,750 $48,350 $51,950 60% AMI (LIHTC max) $37,620 $42,960 $48,360 $53,700 $58,020 $62,340 Low (80% AMI) $50,160 $57,280 $64,480 $71,600 $77,360 $83,120 Median (100% AMI) $62,700 $71,600 $80,600 $89,500 $96,700 $103,900 Moderate/Middle (140%AMI) $87,780 $100,240 $112,840 $125,300 $135,380 $145,460 Upper (200% AMI) $125,400 $143,200 $161,200 $179,000 $193,400 $207,800 Source: CHFA Affordable Home Price Calculation by AMI, 2017 AMI% 30% 60% 100% 140% 200% Household Income- 3 persons $24,180 $48,360 $80,600 $112,840 $161,200 Affordable Purchase price Affordable monthly payment (30%) $605 $1,209 $2,418 $2,821 $4,030 Principal & interest (80% of pmt) $484 $967 $1,934 $2,257 $3,224 HOA, taxes, insurance (20% of pmt) $121 $242 $403 $564 $806 Mortgage Interest rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Max mortgage $90,086 $180,172 $300,343 $420,400 $600,572 Max Affordable Price -5% down $95,000 $190,000 $316,000 $443,000 $632,000 Affordable Rent+ utilities 1 $6051 $1,2091 $2,4181 $2,821 1 $4,030 Affordable purchase prices were calculated assuming that a household would have 5% for a down pay- ment, and would qualify for a loan that 30% of their monthly income. HOA, property taxes and insurance of 20% where included. The max mortgage assumes an interest rate of 5.0%, which is about half point higher than prevailing rates for 30 -year fixed rate mortgages. Interest rates are rising, however, and will have a profound impact on housing affordability. A one point increase in the rate, as occurred in 2013, would drop the affordable purchase price for a median income household by $30,000 to $35,000. APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDIX C - HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017 Vail - 81657 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 25 $ 2,200,000 $ 3,333,000 $ 316,000 $ 1,884,000 Townhouse/Du- 75 $ 1,425,000 $ 2,178,000 $ 316,000 $ 1,109,000 plex Condo 160 $ 743,750 $ 1,629,000 $ 316,000 $ 427,750 Red Cliff- 81649 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 6 $ 242,000 1 $ 340,000 $ 316,000 $ (74,000) Townhouse/Du- 1 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 316,000 $ 26,000 plex Condo - $ - I $ - $ 316,000 $ - Minturn - 81645 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 9 $ 521,000 $ 719,000 $ 316,000 $ 205,000 Townhouse/Du- 4 $ 713,250 $ 741,000 $ 316,000 $ 397,250 plex Condo 1 $ 570,000 $ 570,000 $ 316,000 $ 254,000 Avon/Beaver Creek/Eagle Vail - 81620 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 41 $ 3,325,000 $ 4,386,299 $ 316,000 $ 3,009,000 Townhouse/Du- 99 $ 770,000 $ 1,138,007 $ 316,000 $ 454,000 plex Condo 225 $ 490,000 $ 877,865 $ 316,000 $ 174,000 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES APPENDIX C - HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017 Edwards - 81632 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 106 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,843,958 $ 316,000 $ 1,384,000 Townhouse/Du- 49 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,285,429 $ 316,000 $ 744,000 plex Condo 12 $ 818,125 $ 894,771 $ 316,000 $ 502,125 Wolcott - 81655 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 9 $ 950,000 1 $ 1,332,056 $ 316,000 $ 634,000 Townhouse/Du- $ _ $ - $ 316,000 $ - plex Condo - $ - I $ - $ 316,000 $ - Eagle - 81631 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 92 $ 615,500 $ 670,334 $ 316,000 $ 299,500 Townhouse/Du- 49 $ 423,500 $ 424,038 $ 316,000 $ 107,500 plex Condo 10 $ 312,500 $ 320,000 $ 316,000 $ (3,500) Dotsero/Gypsum - 81637 Zip Code # of Affordable Affordability Sales Median Average o Price - 100% Gap p Single Family 155 $ 400,000 $ 460,768 $ 316,000 $ 84,000 Townhouse/Du- 38 $ 376,500 $ 368,561 $ 316,000 $ 60,500 plex Condo 12 $ 194,800 $ 201,967 $ 316,000 $ (121,200) APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES Primary research was conducted to generate information beyond that available from existing public sources. This appendix provides the methods and sources used, such that the research contained in this report could be replicated or updated as needed. Study Area Definitions The three market areas were defined by Census Tract and Zip code, as follows: Household Survey An online survey was conducted from late November 2017 through mid-January 2018 to collect information on the current housing situation of local residents and employees. The survey explored household characteristics, housing perceptions and preferences, tradeoffs, and preferred housing solutions. The link to the survey was widely distributed through various media, employers and multiple other outreach efforts (see below). In total, responses were received from 705 residents in the Eagle River Valley: 147 from up valley, 347 mid valley, and 211 down valley. The margin of error for survey tabulations is within about 2.5% at the 95% confidence interval, meaning that for any tabulation the percent reported is within plus or minus 2.5% from what is actually the case. For data representing less than the full population of responses (e.g., home owners only), the margin of error is higher. Employer Survey Concurrent with the household survey, a short online survey was also conducted to reach employers in the Eagle River Valley. The employer survey inquired about the number of year- round and seasonal workers (summer and winter) employed, where workers live (commute patterns), employee retention and recruitment issues, to what extent em- ployee housing is perceived to be a problem, and employers preferred housing solutions. The link to the survey was distributed by the Vail Valley Partnership, through in-person visits to many restaurants and retailers, direct phone and/ or email invitations to the valley's 50 largest employers with follow-up phone calls. Responses were received from 84 employers representing 9,700 jobs, approximately 27% of all jobs in the Eagle River Valley. Survey Outreach • Outreach for the online employer and household surveys was conducted as follows: • Two press releases to all local news outlets. • Editorial coverage from the Vail Daily News on (11/30/2017). • Public service announcements on local radio stations: La Nueva Mix, KSKE, The Lift FM. • Radio interviews on Mid Day Mile and on the Zephr. • Email distribution to Eagle County Government E -News Subscription. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC Census Tracts Zip codes Up Valley 6, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03 81645, 81649, 81657, 81658, Mid Valley 4.01, 4.02, 5.01, 5.02, 15.03 81620, 81632 Down Valley 2, 4.03 81631, 81637, 81655, Household Survey An online survey was conducted from late November 2017 through mid-January 2018 to collect information on the current housing situation of local residents and employees. The survey explored household characteristics, housing perceptions and preferences, tradeoffs, and preferred housing solutions. The link to the survey was widely distributed through various media, employers and multiple other outreach efforts (see below). In total, responses were received from 705 residents in the Eagle River Valley: 147 from up valley, 347 mid valley, and 211 down valley. The margin of error for survey tabulations is within about 2.5% at the 95% confidence interval, meaning that for any tabulation the percent reported is within plus or minus 2.5% from what is actually the case. For data representing less than the full population of responses (e.g., home owners only), the margin of error is higher. Employer Survey Concurrent with the household survey, a short online survey was also conducted to reach employers in the Eagle River Valley. The employer survey inquired about the number of year- round and seasonal workers (summer and winter) employed, where workers live (commute patterns), employee retention and recruitment issues, to what extent em- ployee housing is perceived to be a problem, and employers preferred housing solutions. The link to the survey was distributed by the Vail Valley Partnership, through in-person visits to many restaurants and retailers, direct phone and/ or email invitations to the valley's 50 largest employers with follow-up phone calls. Responses were received from 84 employers representing 9,700 jobs, approximately 27% of all jobs in the Eagle River Valley. Survey Outreach • Outreach for the online employer and household surveys was conducted as follows: • Two press releases to all local news outlets. • Editorial coverage from the Vail Daily News on (11/30/2017). • Public service announcements on local radio stations: La Nueva Mix, KSKE, The Lift FM. • Radio interviews on Mid Day Mile and on the Zephr. • Email distribution to Eagle County Government E -News Subscription. Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES • Newsletter outreach to members of the Vail Valley Partnership, Vail Chamber and Business Association, Gyp- sum Chamber, and Eagle Chamber. • Direct phone calls and/or email invitations to the 50 largest employers. • Email outreach to all current participants and applicants for Valley Home Store and ECHDA properties and programs. • Spanish language outreach at ECHDA owned and managed properties, and on La Nueva Mix. • Email links on the websites of Eagle County Government, Eagle County Housing, and The Valley Home Store. • Social media messages on Eagle County Government Facebook page, Eagle County Housing Facebook page, Eagle County Classifieds Facebook page, Vail Moms Facebook page, Vail Moms classifieds Facebook page. Property Manager and Realtor Focus Group A focus group of property managers and realtors was conducted on October 12, 2017 to obtain information, insights, and assist with survey design.This focus group provided qualitative information on trends, challenges, housing prefer- ences and shifts in demand. Secondary Data A variety of sources of published information were used in the preparation of this report, including: • 2010 Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and population and household projections from the State Demog- raphy Office in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA); • Employment information from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; ESRI; • 2016 Area Median Income from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; • 2017 and 2018 Multiple Listing Service (MLS) listings; • Existing reports, and of particular note the Housing Needs Assessments from 2007, 2012, and 2016, Vail Valley Partnership Workforce Survey Report 2017, Land Title, and Polar Star Market Reports. Demand Calculations • The following components make up the Catch-up/Keep-up demand estimates. The following baseline data points are used throughout the demand calculations: • Total jobs in the Eagle River Valley of 35,810, per ESRI December 2017. • Total occupied housing units in the Eagle River Valley of 17,030, per 2010 Census, brought up to date with DOLA State Demographer data. • Jobs/household per the 2018 household survey is 1.9. However, given that this change is not large compared with the 1.8 jobs/household previously measured and used for other calculations for housing policies in the valley. To remain consistent, 1.8jobs/household is used in this report. If a larger change is measured in future years, these calculations should be revisited. • Jobs/employee of 1.24, per the 2018 household survey. Unique assumptions are described below. Final demand numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES Unfilled Jobs In the 2018 Employer Survey, employers reported that 7% of jobs remained unfilled in the peak winter hiring season. This percentage was applied to the total jobs in the Eagle Valley. Unfilled jobs were then translated to units needed by calculating the jobs held/person (1.24) and the employees per household (1.8). Unemployment is currently so low that very fewjobs can be filled by employees who already live in the Eagle River Valley, so no discount was given for local hiring. Total Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed 35,810 % unfilled Jobs (Dec/Jan 2018) 7% # unfilled jobs 2,470 Jobs per employee 1.24 Employees needed 1,992 Employees/Household 1.8 Housing Need 1,110 Functional Rental Market The number of existing rental units was derived using DOLA and Census figures, which estimate a total 17,030 oc- cupied homes in the Eagle River Valley. Since tenure estimates have shifted considerably towards renters since the 2010 Census, a combination of DOLA and survey response data was used to estimate that 45% of all homes are renter occupied. The research team estimated that I% or fewer of these units are vacant, based on Polar Star reports and the property manager/realtor focus group. An additional 4% is a conservative estimate of what is needed to achieve a 5% vacancy rate. Functional Rental Market 2017 Total Units per Census + DOLA Assumptions & Units Needed 17,030 % rentals, per survey + DOLA 45% Rental Units 7,660 Goal of 5% vacancy - assume 1% already 4% Housing Units Needed 310 • • 3 �• •• 4 II 111 1 1�1 •Ji hi _— r EN V Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES iii APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES In -commuters The percentage of in -commuters and the extent to which they desire to move to the Eagle River Valley were estab- lished through the 2018 employer survey. In- commuters Total Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed 35,810 Jobs per employee 1.24 Total employees 28,879 % Commuting from outside 9% Number of in -commuters 2,599 Desire to move 39% # Who would move 1,014 Employees/household 1.8 Housing Need 560 Overcrowding The 2018 household survey established that 16% of all households are currently overcrowded. Consistent with previ- ous studies in Eagle County, the definition of 1.5 persons per bedroom was used to define"overcrowded"The metric of 30% reduction has also been used consistently over time as a practical measure to relieve, but not eliminate, the problem. Overcrowded Total survey respondents over crowded: Assumptions & Units Needed 16% Total Housing Units 17,030 Overcrowded units 2,670 % needed to reduce overcrowding 30% Housing Units Needed 800 New Jobs Newjobs for 2020, 2025, and 2030 were projected using the baseline of ESRI jobs in the valley, and applying the antici- pated growth rates as published by the State Demography Office on the DOLA website December 2017. New Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed Increase in Jobs over 2017 2020 2,304 2025 5,250 2030 8,643 Jobs per Employee 1.24 1.24 1.24 New Employees 1,858 4,234 6,970 Employees/household 1.8 1.8 1.8 Housing Units Needed 1 1,030 2,350 3,870 APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES Retiring Employees Employers responding to the 2018 employer survey provided the data that 4% of the workforce intends to retire in the next five years. This data was annualized and applied to total jobs in the valley, using the consistent assumptions aboutjobs/employee and employees/household. Gap, Location, and Tenure The gap calculation begins with the total housing need estimated for 2020: 3,870 units.This number is then discount- ed with the assumption that 9% of jobs will continue to be filled by in -commuters, to establish a demand for 3,800 units within the Valley. The color -coded chart identifying where gaps exist by region and tenure is estimated using the market and AMI data compiled in Chapter 1. Quantification of these gaps is highly sensitive to changes in the market and should be re- viewed regularly. The location for new housing was established by household survey respondent's stated preferences regarding where they want to live. Percentages used are as follows: Retiring in 5 Retiring annu- Down Valley years ally %total jobs with employee planning 350 Remt 42% 4.2/ o 0.8% to retire Total Jobs 28,879 28,879 # Jobs held by retiring employees 1,202 240 Jobs/employee I 1.241 1.24 Employees/household 1.8 1.8 Housing Units needed 540 110 Gap, Location, and Tenure The gap calculation begins with the total housing need estimated for 2020: 3,870 units.This number is then discount- ed with the assumption that 9% of jobs will continue to be filled by in -commuters, to establish a demand for 3,800 units within the Valley. The color -coded chart identifying where gaps exist by region and tenure is estimated using the market and AMI data compiled in Chapter 1. Quantification of these gaps is highly sensitive to changes in the market and should be re- viewed regularly. The location for new housing was established by household survey respondent's stated preferences regarding where they want to live. Percentages used are as follows: The tenure mix of 55% owners and 45% renters matches that of the survey weighting, which was derived by finding a middle ground between the 2010 Census tenure mix and that of the 2018 household survey, which seemed to indicate that the mix of owners and renters has shifted in favor of renters since the recession. Comparison of 2007 and Current Demand While the general method used to estimate demand has remained the same, most of the assumptions have changed significantly over the past 10 years. While both the rental and for sale housing markets are now greatly exceeding 2007 price points, many other elements of the current economy are more fragile, and overall demand projections and hous- ing gaps are lower than in 2007. Catch-up In 2007, the construction industry was extremely strong, and unfilled jobs were at a record high. This year, unfilled jobs present a significant challenge to employers, but do not match 2007 levels. With very low snowfall, this winter looks to Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Own 26% 39% 350 Remt 42% 40% 18% The tenure mix of 55% owners and 45% renters matches that of the survey weighting, which was derived by finding a middle ground between the 2010 Census tenure mix and that of the 2018 household survey, which seemed to indicate that the mix of owners and renters has shifted in favor of renters since the recession. Comparison of 2007 and Current Demand While the general method used to estimate demand has remained the same, most of the assumptions have changed significantly over the past 10 years. While both the rental and for sale housing markets are now greatly exceeding 2007 price points, many other elements of the current economy are more fragile, and overall demand projections and hous- ing gaps are lower than in 2007. Catch-up In 2007, the construction industry was extremely strong, and unfilled jobs were at a record high. This year, unfilled jobs present a significant challenge to employers, but do not match 2007 levels. With very low snowfall, this winter looks to Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES fall short of the past few years' economic activity as measured by sales tax receipts. This could mark the beginning of an economic slow -down for the Eagle River Valley, or the economy may rebound quickly with a strong summer visitor season and plentiful snow in 2018/2019. • Functional rental market is a new metric added in 2018 to address the extremely low vacancy rates, rapidly rising rents, and lack of consumer choice in the rental market. • In -commuters are always a challenging demographic to measure. However, 2018 employer survey responses align closely with State Demographer estimates, both of which show a significant decrease in in -commuters since 2007. This may be related to housing scarcity and competition for employees in neighboring communi ties. • Given relatively flat wages and significantly higher home prices and rental rates, the increase in the overcrowd ing in 2018 comes as no surprise. • When all of these factors are combined, there is an estimated 1,670 fewer units needed to meet current de mand than in 2007. Keep -up • In 2007, keep -up demand and the housing gap were projected out 12 years, through 2015. This year, twelve- year projections are also provided, but greater emphasis is placed on the nearer term forecasts of 2020 and 2025. This approach, combined with State Demographer estimates, has resulted in significantly lower job growth projections. • The rate at which employees are retiring has slowed quite a bit. In 2007, an estimated 275 new units were needed each year to fill housing gaps left by retiring employees, compared to only 110 units per year given cur rent conditions. Post -recession, many employees have pushed back their retirement dates, or made plans to scale back their work commitments without retiring. • While the overall estimates for housing units needed were much higher in 2007, so were the assumptions about what the market would provide. In 2018, the gap represents 61% of the total housing need, compared to only 27% in 2007. Comparison of Housing Demand Summary — 2007 and 2018 Catch-up 2007 2018 Change Demand for unfilled jobs 1,420 1,110 (310) Rental Market - 310 310 In -commuters 2,469 560 (1,909) Overcrowding 557 800 243 Total Catch-up 1 4,446 2,780 (1,666) Keep -up - Projected to Year 2015 2020 12 yrs/2 yrs Job Growth 4,776 1,030 (3,746) Retirees 3,284 220 (3,064) Total Keep -up 1 8,060 1,250 (6,810) Total need Gap 12,506 3,398 4,030 2,450 (8,476) (948) APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc./ Willliford, LLC APPENDIX E - SURVEY DEFINITIONS OF TOOLS Definitions of housing tools by category presented in the survey. Incentives Density bonuses when workforce housing is built Fee waivers -- water/sewer tap fees or permits for workforce housing Reduced parking requirements for workforce housing Fast track processing -- workforce housing projects go to the front of the line for review Property tax exemption Development Requirements Commercial linkage: requiring new commercial development to provide housing Residential linkage: a type of impact fee on new residential construction Inclusionary Housing: a percentage of units in new subdivisions restricted for workforce housing Taxes Excise tax on short-term rentals, for example 3% - 5% - vote required Property tax (paid for by property owners) - vote required Sales tax (paid for by consumers) - vote required Public Initiatives Providing County or Town land that is vacant or under-utilized Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch and Chamonix) Town, County, or Housing Authority provide financing General fund revenues - appropriation by elected officials required Other Solutions - Employer assistance for housing -- rent or mortgage subsi- dies, etc. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES Ad #: 0000239368-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5/11/2018 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/11/2018 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 5/23/2018. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/23/2018. �1 Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JEr 1 LYA�'i rt4L als�6 rebrarew pt1m�.�. ppTARY'[7:ldf8k09938A' N'/ Cfn1�W;SI�N %'%c3Rlw4FIiGi15P9,2�' TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS- SION May 14, 2018,1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Roetl -Vail, Coloretlo, 81657 1. Call [o Omer 1.1. Adendance 1.1. 1751 Reatl -Venerable Reci- 2view of —ish- Arehiteetural Pro - Steps, Bay Win- , pur...nt to Sec- mwn wde. to I. depreeerNed A request for a review of a prescd- regnla0ons a .ralyd t to Secfion 14- Resitlential Development, Vail Town to allow the Design Review Board IJ to apply dltteren[ design review stand bad mlly 11-97separate and distinet development and settingforth details in regard there- ,plg005) 5 min. Applicant has qua d to table this to the May 29, 2018 meeting. s Icant: Aro. Panner. LLC, repr...led rad Hagedorn n- Just Lightfield A request for review of variances SS Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in a, 1s of the amount permitted by lot area and 1e district antl [p allow an access opening a crawl space of Rrealer 1M1an 12 square to table this hn Hutto,rep- I. Approval of Minutes 1.1. April 23, 2018 PEC Results I. Informational Update I.I. Eagle River Valley Housing Needs k Solutions Update r. AEJournmem rhe applications net inrormation about the pro- :osals are available for public insoeclion dudno Ad #: 0000231939-01 TOWN OF VAIL Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM TNI S ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Your account number is: 1023233 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and PROOF OF PUBLICATION Environmental Commission of to Town of Vail will hold a public hearing In acnordance with seclIon 12 - 3-6, Vail Town Code,on May14,2D1Bat LDOpmir the Town of Vail Munidpal Building. VAIL DAILY io, to review of -D -4-r, BeIco- 1 Architectural Profecib sesA B Books, d2l] VarianceVails STATE OF COLORADO pursuead W Se fi<x, Vail Town COUNTY OF EAGLE Code, to allow a deck end accompanying staircase emci moa°than fi et �ee)t G�j no medrea ;ed Cnit (south) and side (east) setback. located W 175 1, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of Forest RoadlLot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filingg 1, and seting torch details In regard therato. (PEM - 015) the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in Applicants: Edward A Amy Venerable, represent - as by KH Webb tt PenilN whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, The applications and information about the State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, propos- Is are availaGa icr public inspectbn during office hours W the Town of Vail Community Development that said newspaper has been published continuously and Department 75 South Frontage Road. The public Is invited W ate S site vIshs. Pleaseca11 Thepu79- 2138orvishwww.vailgov.wmrolanning braddidon- uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of alirdcrmation. more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the Wlign language Interpretatbn sballabie upon request N 24-hour nobficanon, dial 711. first publication of the annexed legal notice or Published April 27, 2018 In the V611 Daly. advertisement and that said newspaper has published the 0000231939 requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/27/2018 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/27/2018 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 5/4/2018. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/4/2018. �1 Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JEr 1 LYA�'i rt4L als�6 rebT,arev;Rtlm�.D. ppTARY'[7:ld56kOg938g' N'/ Cf,;SIDN %'%171lw4FIiGi15T9,2�'