HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0225 PEC.
3
T�WN QF V�IL "
MEMBERS PRESENT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 25, 2008
12:00 pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS ABSENT
12:OOpm - Training: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (lunch provided)
Site Visits:
1. Williams Residence - 2570 Bald Mountain Road
Driver: Bill
Please note: Times of items are approximate and subject to change.
60 minutes
1:00 pm
15 minutes
A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code,
pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition within the west side setback,
located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC070036)
Applicant: Ed Williams, represented by William Hein Associates
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONDITION(S�:
45 minutes
2. A request for a final review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development
Plan Required, and Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
redevelopment of Solar Vail into a mixed use development to include Type VI employee housing
units, professional offices, subterranean parking, and public utilities installations including
transmission lines and appurtenant equipment, located at 501 North Frontage Road West, Lot 8,
Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070052)
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Lindall
Architects, P.C.
Planner: Scot Hunn
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONDITION(S):
45 minutes
3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a prescribed regulations amendment to Chapters 12-23,
Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to establish standards
and criteria related to mitigating employee housing requirements, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC070075)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Staff/Planner: Nina Timm and Bill Gibson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONDITION(S):
Page 1
10 minutes
4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12-14-20,
Commercial Core Construction, Vail Town Code, to allow for the extension of the commercial
core temporary construction signage for businesses, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC080003)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONDITION(S):
5 minutes
5. A request for a final review of variance from Section 12-6C-5, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-11,
Parking, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a front and side
setback encroachment and to reduce the required on site parking to facilitate construction of an
addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13t" Filing, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080002)
Applicant: John and Katherine Adair, represented by Pure Design Studio
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to March 10, 2008
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
6. Approval of February 11, 2008 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
7. Information Update
8. Adjournment
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
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. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published February 22, 2008, in the Vail Daily.
Page 2
. . ... . ._ .. .... . ... . . . ... .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . f � ...^' """_ ".: ,: . , . .. -..... ..___ I
0753
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COL.ORADO
CJS.
COUNTY OF EAGLE
I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that i am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa-
per 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; that said newspaper has been admitted to the
Unifed States mails as a periodicai under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend-
ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices
and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legai notice or advertisement was publ�hed in the regular and entire issue of every
number of said daily newspaper for the period of ................. consecutive insertions; and that the first
publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated .......��.,. �2..�
�' ....... ... ..............
A.D. �,,,�,`.,�,.._ and that the iast publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated.��::�:.Z�...... A.D. .......��g:.........
.
in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .. ��day of .......�.��. �E��
............. .. ..... . ..�(.l,,,(.�,.,,,� .....................
Publisher
Subscrib and sworn to before me, a notary public.in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado,
this ....��:�. day of .............�.iJ..4)•
My Commissian
/�p J. Sc\
�Q�v
�VOiq�qy �
U) � �
�� �ii�L�c O
� �P „
�'io,. � CO�-� �.�.\o
--�: .:, �. rruniage rtoaa-_vail, Color
MEMBERSPRESENT. MEMBE
12:OOpm -TrainingS'Lionshead Re
Master Plan (lunch provided)60 minut�
Site Vlsits: 1:00 pm °
7.Williams Residenge - 2570 Bald Moi
Driver: Bi0
vwage Filing �3, and.
thereto. (PEC070036
; Appiicant:i Ed Wiilia
Hein Associates ;
Planner.Bill Gibson
ACTION: ' '
MOTION: ! SECON[
CONDITION(S):
45 minutes
2.A request for a fina
iplan,'putsuant to Sec
Plan Required; and £
Uses; Vai1 Town Cod
ment of Solar Vail into
Va
�ENT
ment
'ApplicantSonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented
6y Gwathmey Pratt Schuitz Lindall Architects, P.C.
;Planner.Scot Hunn-
ACTION: -
MOTION: 'SECOND: ' VOTE:
coNOmoN�s�.
45 minutes
°3:A request for a final reoommendation to the Vaii
;Town Council, pursuant.to Section"72-3-�,
=Amendment, Vaii Town Code, for a prescritied
`regulation5amendment to Chapte�s12-23,
Commercial Linkage and 12-24; Inclusionary
"Zoning, Vai[Town Code, to establish standards I
`and criteria related to mitigating employee housing i
requirements', and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC070075)
ApplicanCTown of Vail
Staff/Planner. Nina Timm`and Bili Gibson '
ACTION: '
MOTION: 'SECONO: VOTE: `
CONDITION(S):
'ifl........�.,_ . . .. . .
1 V,
Am
reg
; c.o�
alla
tem
Ilan�
....................... °:;APE
................... . ...................... '- �
, •`` PIaP
; Notary Public ' ac�
71pN5 ' SECOND:
e
�
,vaa i ne.pubuc is invited to attend tfie project
Stientation and the site visits U7at precede the
�ublic hearing in the Town of Vail Community ;
)evelopment Department: Please call (970)
�79-2138 tor add'Aional information.
Sign Ianguage interpretation is available upon
°quest with 24-hour notification. Please: call (970) !
79-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for '
iformation.
:ommunity Development Department
'UbIiS_Fiyd FPhrna -�� - �nno ... ..•-..�
il
TOWN OF YAIL �
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town
Code, on February 25, 2008, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in
consideration of:
A request for a final review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11,
Development Plan Required, and Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a redevelopment of Solar Vail into a mixed use development to include Type VI
employee housing units, professional offices, subterranean parking, and public utilities
installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment, located at 501
North Frontage Road West, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC070052)
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz
Lindall Architects, P.C.
Planner: Scot Hunn
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-
7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12-
14-20, Commercial Core Construction, Vail Town Code, to allow for the extension of the
commercial core temporary construction signage for businesses, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC080003)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please
call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Published February 8, 2008, in the Vail Daily.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
SS.
COUNTY OF EAGLE
0755
I, Steve Pope, do solemniy swear that i am the Pubiisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa-
per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, Sfate of Colorado, and has a
general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pubiished continuously and uninterruptedly
in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-iwo consecutive weeks next prior to the first
publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the
United States mails as a periodicai under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend-
ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices
and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
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 ........�...... consecutive insertions; and that the first
publicati� f said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ......:���-!••�-•��••••••�••�••••
A.D. ....�..�-�...�.�.... nd that the last publication o�said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
-��, '}d
dated....��,� ............... A.D. .............•l�.':• �..........
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this�.�.. day of .....:�t��--•.••�:b.'•���
........ .. ....... ... .. ... .................................
- Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado,
this ....L�?���..�......... day of ..........�.'���--•�......L.�d �
nny
J.
� - �OTARy <.a
N
\�j. �1a�LIC Q„4 ryo
���'� r�it'fl4`',.�tr�\...
Type V
offices,
Fionta
! Patch,
(PECO'
:,-� Aoplic�.
; by Gw�
Planne
A reqi
{!Town
iff Amen
i-regul�
at
in
�ck 2; Vail Potat�
irt regard theretc
businesses,
?d thereto:
orientation and the site visitsthat precede the
public hearing in tfie Town of Vail Community
Development Department. Please call
" 970-479-2138 for additional infortnaGon.
Sign language interpretation is available upon
' request,-wrth 24-hour notification. Please cail '
, 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing;
Impairetl, for information.
� Published February 8, 2008, in the Vaii Daily.'
. ...... ................::�':� . ..... �
Notary Public
I� t1�tTi`[i77,\�1�11I1 fl
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 25, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail
Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition within
the west side setback, located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/�ot 33, Block 2, Vail
Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070036)
Applicant: SVII c/o Ed Williams, represented by William Hein Associates
Planner: Bill Gibson
I. SUMMARY
The Applicant, SVII c/o Ed Williams, represented by Bill Hein Associates, is requesting a
final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to
Chapter 12-17, Variances, tc5 allow an addition within the west side setback, located at
2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details
in regard thereto.
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 a.pplication, subject to the findings
noted in Section Vlli of this memorandum.
I1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Applicant, SVII c/o Ed Williams, represented by Bill Hein Associates, is requesting a
variance to accommodate a proposed renovation of the west duplex unit at 2570 Bald
Mountain Road. This proposed renovation will include the construction of a 293 sq.ft.
garage addition (expanding from one bay to two) on the north side of the structure, an
108 sq.ft. entry and master bath addition (enclosing the breezeway between the existing
house and the existing garage), and a 211 sq.ft. second story.bedroom and bathroom
addition (located above the existing and proposed garage spaces and breezeway
enclosure). Approximately 13.5 sq.ft. of improvements are proposed on the both the
main and upper levels of the structure within the required 15 foot west side setback.
A vicinity map (Attachment A), the previous architectural plans (Attachment B), the
revised reguest (Attachment C), and the revised architectural plans (Attachment D) are
attachec! for reference.
I I l � ' c �_ � i � : ( e7 : Z �11) ' � F 7
The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1972 and subdivided with
Town of Vail approval in 1976.
In 1978, the original developer obtained Town of Vail design review approval and a
building permit to construct the existing duplex. The originally approved building permit
plans show that the duplex was to be constructed 16 feet from the west property
' boundary. In 1981, the Town of Vail approved an addition to the residence based upon
the original site plan information. In 1982, attorneys representing the owners of the
adjacent Lot 34 sent a letter to the Town of Vail indicating that the subject duplex was
not originally constructed in its approved location. The letter also noted that the
approved 1982 addition was actually being constructed on the adjacent Lot 34, rather
than on the subject site. There is a hand written note on the file copy of that letter.that
reads: "Resolution was encroaching was removed."
A copy of a 1980 Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) showing the true location of the
subject duplex was submitted in a 2002 letter to the Town of Vail. Based upon this ILC,
the subject duplex was constructed within the west side setback and has been
encroaching upon the adjacent neighbor's property for at least 27 years.
In 1992, the east unit of the subject duplex obtained Town of Vail approval to enclose
the breezeway originally separating the house and garage. In 2007, the east unit
obtained Town of Vail approvals for a new entry awning.
The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed a similar variance request by the
applicant at its November 12, 2007, public h'earing. At that time the applicant was
proposing a larger addition to the home with more substantial encroachments into the
property's west setback. The Commission voted 7-0-0 to deny that variance request.
The applicant subsequently filed an appeal of the Commission's November 12'" denial.
On January 8, 2008, the Vail Town Council tabled the appeal discussion to February 5,
2008, at the applicant/appellant's request. .
The applicant and their representatives explored various design alternatives to the
proposed additions that would substantially reduce the requested encroachments into
the required setback area. Based upon the applicant's request to amend their variance
proposal; at its February 5, 2008, public hearing the Council voted 7-0-0 to remand this
request back to the Planning and Environmental Commission for further review.
IV. APPLICABLE PLAFdNING DOCUIVIEfVTS
Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the
review of this proposaL
TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS
Article 12-6D: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District (in part)
12-6D-9: PURPOSE: .
The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended fo
provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-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 fo ensure adequate light,
2
air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with singie-
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
ln the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum� front setback
sha/1 be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet
(15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15').
Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part)
12-17-1: Purpose:
A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical
ditficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of
this fitle as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement,
variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical ditficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of
a site or the location of existing structures thereon; f�om 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
shal/ not be a reason for granting a variance.
Chapter 12-18: Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements
92-18-1- Purpose
This chapter is intended to timit 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
permiitinq nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this
chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoratian, or replacement
which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the
development standards prescribed by this title.
Chapter 12-18-2: Continuance
Nonconforming sites, uses, structures, and site improvements lawfully
established prior to the etfective date hereof may continue, subject to the
limitations prescribed in this chapter. Sites, uses, structures, and site
improvements lawfully authorized by permits or regulations existing prior to the
effective date hereof may continue, subject to such limitations as prescribed by
such permits or regulations.
V. SITE ANALYSIS
Address: 2570 Bald Mountain Road �
Legal Description: Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13
Zoning: Two-Family Residential District
Land Use Plan Designation: �ow Density Residential
Current Land Use: Duplex
3
VI.
l/I�
Lot Size:
Hazards:
Standard
Setbacks (min):
Front:
West Side
East Side
Rear:
GRFA (max):
West Unit:
East Unit:
46,483 sq. ft. (1.067 acres)
Moderate Hazard Debris Fiow
Allowed/Required Existinq
20 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
9,438 sq. ft.
n/a
n/a
Site coverage (max.): 9,297 sq. ft. (20%)
45 ft.
0 ft.
.�
.�
6,255 sq. ft.
2,806 sq.ft.
3,449 sq.ft.
3,764 sq. ft. (8%)
Landscape (min.): 27,890 sq. ft. (60%) 38,494sq. ft. (83%)
- ... -.
35 ft.
0 ft. (additional
encroachments)
no change
no change
6,697 sq. ft.
3,248 sq.ft.
no change
4,294 sq. ft. (9%)
38,278 sq. ft. (82%)
Parking 6 8(3 enclosed) 9(4 enclosed)
� West Unit: 3 4(1 enclosed) 5(2 enclosed)
East Unit: 3 4(2 enclosed) no change
SURROUNDIiVG �AND USES /�ND ZONING
Existinq Use Zonin
North: Residential Two-Family Residential District
South: Open Space Outdoor Recreation District
East: Residential Two-Family Residential District
West: Residential Two-Family Residential District
REVIEW CRITERIA
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail
Town Code.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
The existing duplex structure does not conform to the minimum 15 foot west side
setback requirements. It appears that an error occurred during the original
construction of this residence and the structure was not sited in its approved
location. This error was not discovered until several years after the initial
construction was complete and after a subsequent addition was also constructed.
Since the existing structure was not lawfully established in its existing location,
the structure is not "legally non-conforming" in regard to the Town's setback
requirements.
0
Staff believes the proposed enciosure of the existing breezeway and the
proposed garage expansion further the Town's development objectives of
creating enclosed parking and connecting residences with their a�sociated
garages to create single unified structures.
The neighboring duplex, located to the west at 2550 Bald Mountain Road, is sited
further downhill (south) from Bald Mountain Road than the applicant's duplex.
The neighboring property also includes mature trees and substantial landscaping
directly adjacent to the applicant's proposed additions. Therefore, StafF believes
the proposed breezeway enclosure and garage expansion will have only minor
impacts to the existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity in
comparison to existing conditions.
The November 12, 2007, Commission packet included a letter from the
Applicant's western adjacent property owners, Rocky Christopher and Dr. Ronal
Wollard, stated that the previous proposal was "acceptable" to them. Staff
believes this revised proposal will have less impact to the neighboring properties
than the previous November 12th design.
2. The degree io which relief from ihe sirict 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 a grant of special privilege.
The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently granted setback
variances for new garage additions to homes that were originally constructed
without garages or with inadequate garages, since the construction of a garage
furthers the Town's development goals and objectives related to traffic and
parking. The Planning and Environmental Commission often found that the
location of these homes on their sites created hardships warranting a variance.
Therefore, StafF supports the construction of a garage addition within the west
setback to allow the Applicant to expand the garage similar to the east unit of this
duplex and other sites in the vicinity and within the Two-Family Residential
District.
The Vail Town Code requires duplex residences to be physically connected to
their associated garages to create a single, unified structure. The Applicant's
proposal to enclose the existing breezeway to connect the existing residence and
garage achieves this Town development object. In 1992, the east unit of this
duplex enclosed the original breezeway separating that unit from its garage.
Staff believes the applicant should be afforded the same opportunity. Therefore,
Staff supports the construction of an addition within the west setback to enclose
their breezeway similar to the east unit.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populaiion,
transporiation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant impact on the public
health, safety or welfare, public facilities, or utilities in comparison to existing
conditions of the site.
5
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed variarice.
VII1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval, wifh conditions, of
a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant
to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition within the west side setback,
located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the
criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented. �
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance
request with conditions, the Community DeVelopment Department recommends the
Commission pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the
applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town
Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to atlow for an addition within the
west. side setback, located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail
ViNage Filing 93, and setting forth details ir� regard thereto."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance
request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission
impose the following condition:
"1. This approval is contingent upan the applicant obtaining approval of the
associated design review application."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance
request with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings based upon a review of Section VI1 of the
Staff's February 25, 2008, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission finds:
1. The granting of this variance, with conditions, will not constitute a granting of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the Two-Family Resideritial District.
2. The granting of this variance, with conditions, will nat be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. This variance, with conditions, is warranted for the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will
result in pracfical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with
the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. •
0
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not app/y generally to other
properties in the Two-Family Residential District.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the Two-Family Residential District."
IX. ATTACH�iiENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Previous Architectural Plans �
C. Applicant's Request
D. Proposed (Revised) Architectural Plans
�
AiS��V�--'-a.
,4tfachment �
__ ` ��,. ,�,
J'/' ` \
"".��-� -- `./'� /
`�`,___.—`�i^`}^l� I .-"
' /' .+�'
/ / �,. r '^ � � �.+• '
, �_-
� , ' '�/// � ' /"' V
� 1
��..__.._._.�ilF�".----�"_ // �'r.�..�� .
____�.>��
-..,.,,�
r'
v
�"�64
�
�
— :e�.,...._—
;
---�.��^ �--...,.,� �� �
\� �-----•----
� _. �"""'.�.
' _..._2�87'L„'"""'_ --,��.._.,-'"�'�- --- •-`.'`�
� i-'- ----�•�\ .
-'-£�"7 fi -"-_" "- �
, ...-.----""-, . ��----.
' -- - t�311a -" """ — ^'". \
� \��
���
� ���
��
i`l°-��" ' .
�p�,7
P��„i'p'{'
�j�
tt.Wi`.F- W!d- Et:�//ffey-i 'i I� � cr'.�Gi.4'
M?aN t�ae�.. ta.eVa-11cu L� 687c.t�
u� �..v�-y�vnTicN ic��o" = bs�6.s
-----�:r— � . . . .i, \` �
O I ' _ �
-----°— -------- � j'.� (.-- — ,� � . \ .� �'�'
-------- % ' f � `�--- �
� ,,
�_ '.� . , ., f� �
rur .+H�r w�:�-r uNm �'�` � I
,�
� I�I` � I �
•
; � � ' �,.J
. #ffr.rti tf FFOPC^.� i. r •' . ' ' � .. :;,' ��/
(�511C.nEP)iW.�f�i-I , � _ � .• � I /
� ��. : / . i
I , � . •. • '• <'
' '-�
�— F�-
\�,,--�7c-� t�w :1eNE r�xa�Hir� wru-
\ �� .Jl""�
eiS�57M� j,
` �`i6fWcL7 t7�rIVE.. �fYU'TR# F-�x�s�'(IN���4J/\ I� •`
I !
`� ; � \�� � V f �— —�—.
-€•^u78-�---""'� �. � /
„`� . ♦ i ,.�� �._
'., '�/G�_..__.— —
—P��>--^.... \`•� /—.�, _,_,�/�' --'",
� \� `.._..----^"'"` �I_ j--'
� � J�
�-'�,� ,,.---/
� ."—^L`�.,�2""" \ � � •----''��—_ ""....—� ,. "i
•�- � I .,/
\ � r --"_ f,�/'•— J
� \ `! � _..-..,.- ...1`
. . •<=°'y' \ J .�'_ "' -" !' ,r. f .
� ~�� -..--"�r ��'��
� � '..—� _..-,'' •,r�,'.
u-- �\` _-------'�'',� '"_--- /''' �pl,.
___.. �---� � -;� .''
��,��� -
�� �.n;�.
_�,,\ ; � � �
��
/�
��='•7�
�
,..P�57G
UHE�
�,/i/r+n��/� . ,�.,U�., 41'��
/
�IT�: i�w. '.
�� ira.��
/I�.•���P
M�
2:S�D P-�°�U� N�UNTAIN f�1� (W�i' LwiT� V?�IL,�I.�F�tG�G7 81G%"1
�
� R
i �
� �
��- , u .
�6 a ,...-
: ` � �� �j�f'' . r
Z � i "�, °
- • G
� i. "
� _
i '
' ^ n
a
oro
. � ' a � -,�.��
z --
u t"�'? o�
_�
s � � ° � �i
0
o -i
' A
' .
a
� '
0
� �
0
: z '. 'u
o�
.'�+ Z
O �
�
'
� �' `_ __
5 I
~ ( r
I o
N
�
�
� ���€ �
' `4�� ' --__
' � o ' �
. 1 � y
/ �
�./' I
'� /
�.+-"� '�"i� ���
/ �
/ /
. /
� � h� 3 i �?� .
�^ra ..c&
_�o� , "z
�,�� _ �j� €{�
A;,,7.. fiap, � �i��
lx-..T a ,'j'O $ry�� � t . . � �' � . .
9
�`s�F�� € $��� , .
I ��� :. ��a� �
���� g�4 ��'
pa. �_g6 e� 1 .
- rfl5g �6
' p�Y
§R� ° ' ���
,�, ' ;��
�., . _.
oN4 �5�.
''
...-^" ^"" �.
aS g� "a�^a£ � 6 � � , �-"'a°��E°oa: �} �
�ys 5 � p� ' gA•°�FB�� A> ��� �
s�g�� �i�°_o ���� �g5 R � RFp�a^8'��., �,9R
a�,4e� � b s� Y�� � ` �a ��a��av"8 �s�
p��� R la F
��A�� �`�A � �� �� � 1 �u�^���'��e ���.
§ `jP�4,..$�R'na .
'F.��� �oxr� � '^- �� � I � l�aR5���3��s '��
����o g��o s �a° ,�5 � ° ..>z�R��"�ss Rq
�$�� e ° 4� eF `�' t ' w Sq�y+ y°u N� �6
FoF1 6 �`�"��"'y>
�a� 5@ v t e- �;.ds�;Ao�� ,.
��E �-e$ M �� �g � >�--"N_>� ,.� 2'
�� � ���:. � ��� »y�5� @
s-� i '� a �� ' �"-ga4g�c,.3�� 3�
'q'�F. S� d6 e . q,��,4-:i:.��Aa�
�°�a ��'r� �� ,Pz£ , °c-=L�'�� =a� �v
� a ^R- � • e,�°4"-,�• a
a��� �,qg� � u� F€s aa=:&•E�$�� �6
���k ��a�2 �� ee a�� ?`^g�4�4>�" ,�
P �£�r � sF , G6 . �g 4�a� �3 Pu
��� ,o a r� ? t /// �y„�_ A 3=2
/ �Ra'� �a"p �b
/ a R6�` ��^
I R�..
°n 0 � `'
� z 2C y ,
s N ��y ro
> �en °
�
m ��myro 1 °
�'iy�°^m� o
.h�. � 4] ^' N c. n '
m ��s�s
d ��zro.�
o�o�� �
zz`a^
`� �xsNn
n ro C t
� � � z _"---
� G1 H -- �_ ...-._, --�---
O
f») Jl9�r! q, Jr"'_-^_. L6 q Ne�-_ l4 �..'7--�
r � °� �
o; _ _g� , . J,�
;�� � ,x,.
� -'`---n,a,
e � ...•
t0Y 4p= � � � .�� �
� F i :
lii� �
n� r �' ao '� .
A L ���,�,,.b:30�"' �� ° I
L2E'Y'€ � �',F�.�iJ2j8�� .
� G N�e -
-.(=4 �� �
� 1
� r
� �
� 4
i�
_ ,,tts, _ _
l tzo '
`�_ =>r
� �a `_
_
�:�
�
L57� �:�i,.l;� j�i.aN"i,°.Ihl f�L',°sp!�J�"7 UN�'?"� V�IL, r'�t�°>Fz.�.R'.•� nl��'1
2.�'�'%�' �ALG i'I�LlN�1,�IN �Cr�i� (W��T' uh�IT} � l/?�ii.., Gc.�L���` z�)l `7
lr,.
rL �
�
P'%�t7�%'��
e:�ci+t
uN� oF 1?�P
A�VE
l�/P...�l�
���bp
OPP.1�1 ^k> I�..Lc�v/�
-0
�
U.I'P�- I-�VF 1.. i�N�
x��c. Y!t°-1�^"
��'
. . . . . I.a.L�l . . . .
�
�
�
�
�'-•- . ' GFfE f.� P-a'JF
i '�'�r,,��e
y r ;i
��� •��- �� =�i �, �
� ��� � _--
� �� — --
_. _ �I
' ��I
��� � � dI
� ��o�� � � u u I���� .I��
� � � � � � ��i,_=����
-- - ` ( �������� �
i : �� �
� ; � � ' ���
i �' , ` I��
.,
� °°',��
��
,�
��� �r.
I
' i �
i �
,�
.....�.
�� - - .��
2;57b �Lt% N�'I.�INTAIN I�P?�� (WEST UNIT� VAiI=, �l..L`t�hiZ` �IG57
��
��
�
p-e�F .
�
r, �;
�,
��
�
257G> �A�..[� M.�7i)N`fAln1 s�r�nr !w��-r' �;���-r1 ,���� ,.., ,..,...,,-. »..--..
� ; :`:
.._ ; �'
�°
�
�
��
-�:
N
�
�
3
��
�
, ��
,,
k.
�r
��
ir��,,.
I���',.
,,�
� •�f
� r_n, ^z a:�. � r;• v�.� �,.�-re;� i o, r. � n ; � �.--,- � �. �-. .
C
�
�
��c
+-
d�
�
o_,
M;
I�
�� �� �� .
2�•`7�-`' Ed°�l-G h"1GY+,lNTr�,IN �='�'�i^� (�'� UN�) 'Vi°�1L,�L,��F�1G�...'`Y c`�I�`.�r
�
�
�
��
�7
(-4
'��
�`N
\
�\ .. w� i�=— .
. i •
,i� � -t\
YWn�i t..^-`.'GI..tGr.h�
'��:�� 1....��4� 1 C,J�iI l I,�C�N I`'--t"'�V� i ih,�i.�r' I �i��� I`� �,�^•.''v. C..�i��e'�,A �l"� ?;!s!-/--..' . . .
_ _
�f,� _ .�
:,; �
�
. ; ` ' , �.
,
,
;
, ,
... l i... • .."1':', . "' '..' . '' .'�.. .' :..�. .. , �:. .�...'.
.�) �.� � . � �'� �v. 1: � 1�,. .: . . � � ' � �'N; � �l=.i � � � � II
-. , ' . . . � � � � i
� � i. . . . . • ' . . ��_. . , . . . . .. . . . . II
�� �" �'� � i�� � t1� r', ���_._ " ' _ � .... .'- . . .r�. ..... ..._. . . _. - � �,
i a� '
_j � �I ��..— , ; ; ; � n ,
�o ( + �oY ,. . i ' ._ � r � ��� r-'1 c �� � . t'�� � r ; � � ' � � ' '
' � � ' � _....�. F�� e� IO� � _ .. ._.... _ . `��
.: .; .., I I �'..;.. . ' , s . _ - F . _ ' .
� I� I.. � I
_
. , . /�
. . "�:^, ': 'u .:� '.. �� "�'. . ; ' I . .� .. . :'1 . ... . . _ - � . �,: .. -lJ
1 ",�� A
. . : iY . ' � � - - -- �
� �. . 5�� . a i,. , t ...,'� ' : ! . .
�_ ����'l '0 ��.. �� � ... ( ' .�IE3 . . . � .... .
� ' ) u' " ��� '.� � ! '
� � � ( ' � � E . k " ' I
; � ; E � � � -�- y' r. . ; , , _ �
; � : r.. � k''.. � � m -� ' �� 4 � � `{=i i L i`"-�1 i u' o t(�i ro t �
�
� � i .
� a� �
k' � � � y �• Ir ( _ r !�u �_� i._a 1
�:� i J u . 0 � , I �v. � '. � . ,
t �� J . � r I . y � � i ( �' � I �`i Y � .
_ M,�� _ � �
.' . r 1- � �,. �� � I(.. i { ���i Ir_ .. L' ,�� si � .1, �p.
�
� �i 7 � , � --
�' M P`- . _' _ t— _ t Y'..: ' . }. �
y p i
',: �II � � I � '�� � � , � ��T �° ` - '-� � A
(;. - t 1 i� �� _i i �
� I � � i ; a �� ` C +
,: i l: $u� � a a� i�7 i
. � i. �', �� , � @ � �,. ��� � .s ' .. �r� �. . . i . _�
f �,` W
r . f� . . . t � �- t � � . a ., .. . � i i; . .
} �� � � � ��t ' � �7G �, �, . ��' i ( ..�� y�� .. � � � L�z ' :s .. �� (� � . .
fi
� �- 3 � 1 �. r _.' �� ��. �� 11 . '`�� ��, � � I � �� .�6n� ' -a�' (° : o I
�. i t ` i,i � � � . a' � � � ���� � .. �, � .�.�� � 6 i� �II-�i. i .: j �,. i I�' �' � .
1
1 S i5`� �� 7 t �
_ ' k � � _, = p � j ' � �'" .� ; � ,
, � � p
! �Ir�a-r cj� � t.;+}�F� .��" `i �� � � i � 1� ���f..
� J :� i��. X r �F��' fi� z1 }.Y ' �� y �t t� i ��h'*Y � �� -�1 �� !� t i i �,� �f .' �-.� 4 _ �--� 1 i,�.. y . r"'T I �. �
r' u � �,:� .._..;.._� ��1 �,.:�`_ � � j , c ' 4a E 7' l] { .: .�4 1 �F�, �r- .•—(�w }
. tt ,+ i � � I r '' i � v� j � � *r� .: L `1` � I �' �?. �--- J �-j' a -7 I �' � �
� ;� i i � ihj� t'� I r, 4 . t i r�. i i r� �� r r j �'� �. � J�[ _ �� �� � 9 � i
���' �cy i��f ��-� � r � ? 1 � ��;4L 1 t �� t
� � . , i � �- ; � �
1 �1 '�'SEf �! " j° �'�� � '�i� L � � 1 e'� . �'iM' f ' � � ��.� d�� � t f , . � �
r � 4� F 4 } �Z r i y� �{I � �r �� e 9 t �„r � � � --�. � a� � i �-.; � ,.�p � x : r�o ( � � � � �. �8 . . ! + .
.., s �� iJl. *� '� r �I�� .� . : .. � i a �j�� P' ♦ �
��E„'' i.l'a �ti.'� r r7 �j ( +� V�y�, � � � r t .�.. � � r a� �t� �` I ;� .�'. }n"N � � ' I : ! .. ` `. .
�, R3 r�r 'fty � f�,+ �5 �., �i l' S'�' j � 15.�{b1i) �,±i j ' 1 .�
c ,�, ��i� i I
� � `� 1� �{..�ri l �4 {�'% � t .`4 �{ �t �I �x r �{r,,j �...- �� � �. �� r l..�. S . 6 .
�- a ��a . u .:� 'Q..� �.5 t �I �a l �/'� kp
ir . � � iF a '-1' . . � � k4 7 — . ". �' . �
� a yj$ + �'�� ts�p �� � �I � � i i5 -� � — � - f' ° � ,a'e
+ ; � i� }� � ���n I� �.'. � , J i ' � � ! . �� . Y �.y .1.
�r � �� -. S d � � r � � � d� Zy��t� t ��� ° � . e z � � i �+�{� � ,. � � � ' a .. - � � �. .
3 J
t. <i i � l� ��� �.: .b �o �+ .�5�1'p �� t a . �a s '� S'
- � & � .t � .:t � . ' S' t3 �}r'dJ . .j �� I � '�� P '�_
; ,p F { �
� ��`� ���F� � 4 ; i �;;:'
� � � y � � :' `
k v , i -� : , ��, � � 1 ,s i � i ��a. �; �
!' ' �. ;' T p i i ; i; Ta �y
'. 0:� :� -,- ,,, - ... _��i -.-.-� .
5 � � T � ,� � �
: : ` �� = � -t - - -- �-
t ; ��� ,� � ,
. . . : ' �... F1° `bN-1 ..'.. a t S � � { . J . _ ' .. ' _.. ( a . . � _.,... . . - "-t � .
. . .. .. _"_ . .. ,
_ .
.,. . . . �..; -..:_ ,Y;.LnH . _ .� • . . .
i.
� �,t �� 1 r� � `" �
, . � — � ;� ; a, � ���v
n j i i ��f! 1 �_
� a:� + j i� . n. � � �.a '� s. � �,
i ..'^ i .�'p � ,. I ,.. j � � � � �) � :d ..' � �. . . ':� .QR +. � ii�' �; q � . .. .
�� � �r��=t i � .. �� . ( .r � i 1 � � � 1 'C T Y�qY , � I i �. ' ; , ir �
� � � f e . . rk�h i, i �, -i • I ,���v�� � I �� . . � .� � i" � . . . ±.. .
: � � .� n c' , I' -t � .- �- Y_1_x - �nC � 9 - .. � � . .
, f, , ,:�a � - Ti1 ,.' � �' �� � ?t t �� _ ' �'
�� . �'4 .._ �: `�. �- 6' a ` .: � �r�'r....: ��::�: ::. ....--��—i � . _ �....._.p
� . ,h y '_ I ' 1 :q...�" _ id� . _ �n .
� 1 I. ^ ` 8e�� R� i gQx '
; I , ' � i; . k§
. a i�r��'" pte.• .:�r . �.'�e 1 .i.`, 4 f � {� . � . Jf i$s � .
l : � � ' �F� ° '� ; -; � . � .� ���1��_'�., :•`rJ: g g �O��F �
, ,.
��' o'Z NF`('�` �° . 4 t'k� 8 ;r�y - ° b'-�� o
.. � . .�, +l) (:� � Tq I� . i : xp9 � ; i N � � `. ., ''^ ; ii.41b' " ' . , .
t jpY � �Y' 4i�G
. ,'s. 6 s I ; +, �, � a � o u °uE �
i
, (�: �y � � � I _ �� e
'. I ' d'p I � �" - :.3- ..... . i �� * � -- . . _. � . . _ .
. . I .. . . . ' _ .
�kL
,, ; i ` wt f � ` . -',f' * �
' � � � ._J f ° .:`l�: 4 , T. ' ... . 7 � ye . . . V�. ��. a.i^ _. r.�.y'�"4 .._ .._�.,_ , . oµ�,
`
.. m . .
4 4 "__. _.... �!._ . "'i ._ .. . . . . . /� ......_
; I . � '. �CJj �!�i(r` il/J ' Iri1 � �� . . .�� n� .
� _ _ i � i r WQ�` � �'a
, (� � ' d{ , �d
! t _ � i �'ii�' ° .� �� �7
�' . ����`�*1 .. . . . ,. h�s% S . ��'°,�
. . � ... _. ... . . .._ . U ' . J•.�
. IK.ID . �. ,....... . . .. 5�.: .. ._...... p. �......♦ ._......_.�:°........___�_ �D
; ' '�:"_'""'�""_""_"'_._..�......._....�__. �
I_ �6 �' � � I ' 4 C i
,_ . .. ' .,.. _.. . ia,..... _...-�� �9d ..4�8.� .:....._._._ � '''�q---�...._,.._..._.. --..°--t'-.° ---.,_.i��_ .�d�� .
..c , , . .. -_`_ .___. -t.._. . � --_.. . . r.. _ � . .
' � � � � C 7
. : '� � . ' . 44-6 - _ _ . . ... .. . _ _......__» � � . .
. . �_.�� � � � _' _ _ _� � _ '.v,�c..�___ � .
� . � �,.. .. . . . . - . . . -. . ' . � . . .
' . ' �� t�_�: L--1�� I i.N_.('-."i. _�--� Tl.�i I ('�--~--��i...C.- _ _— . . � � ' .
� � `
') , IVC.:3f u�71"'f , � �J�J ' �j �i }"G I.�� � ( 4-') N"�?
t'" t'�O �
- • 2.�7C• �hW MG'.�NYAIN R�y:� ,�� � .
� . ,4a.' �..a: �c • �. talL, c.,'Y.c4a,G� . �!/--- � .., .:.., .. '�� � � .... � . Gc?�p2�'�7G'a
,, . ..... _ :
�ya� ��,� . � ` I i � s :,� � . ', ..�..`-,_ . . `�:t ,. . - . , . . .. - . .. . ... , , .
•. �
C
...a,_.S � .4...... . r � ..:.. . ,. ... .. �., . ..
� . . , " � � � . ' . . � � . . -�:�
. . . :. . . � . . . . . .
. . . . .. � -. . . .. - .. � . .
.. . . . ;:: . ., : . ..� �. � ; . � � . . . .
:.. . .� . . .. .. � . . � �. ,�`: r
..... .. .. � ... , .�>..,. . .`Yj. `.,. � .. : �' .� ... ��� �c .�� � � ' . .. . .. .
. , :. ; . , ; ' ., . . . . .. . ..:,�,
m t�: c� _.... . .. . .. .. , . _ _ . .:. ..- ;
.o y ..
,
� i tf' . _ _ .._..,...�_........:..#..'—'—.._.:._' _._p.._. _.._._.'_...:�--'._....__._._.._A . . . .. .,,. .
I 111 (
� �
. -. . . .... . . �
�`. . - -----=------ � -�.... __._. ;..._._ _.. :._,_ �_�.
'.IF . . .. . , - . . . . . , � '
-� . fi�. : ,I � i
.' i
. . . ., .. __ ,
.:.
,
� i
� i
- � ��,) I..;+ tt-- ----G ---------a# s
. " . I.... '.. .. . � �B
� , ( ' '
yx. . ' I ' 1 . . ' I ,
. , " � � I��� `� �^ �� `� .� � �� �)
� � _i �,zl � I
' C� _. i 1--- - -•� :.: � �- � i'
1t ' � .� , k
I � . � �) '�� � �� � � �
, � Q � - C6 �� i � ; .. ;F
i G`) p �.�j ., � a �
� ° � .
t. .1�. �Y � .'i, � � V
j ��� � � � �
: %a � { y Id i
: I �.: ' . ,:� .,_: ,.__ �� .._.; , 1 � � '
,� -. . _ . . . . .�, � -1 w
,
� �
� (���('�', r(�" '�, t T— � --� i`Q
� � �,
� '
: �
. � .�r� � �:. . . �� i ;; � t�:
� � ;r
;.� .�.- � ; �J. , �,.. .,; . .
'' � �
y, r i.
;t
� e
� � :�r -i.. � �a.' � f ` �,
7 r �
; � � C� j�' � �7��'. I , � .
� ,°E� 'L� r Ir,:�i ,. � s
'- i j � ;, � ; ;. `
t'i � - --a . m. : . -- ---- �+ �
� .�, . ; wi � � 7i5 � �s'�s. � i t � � a s' . � ' .
� .}' .� �I�e ,'1 `��tc f� �,
_ �` .' ! 1 �. ' ; it . � .
.� � ` � � ftl . } � ' `' �IS , � .
- ' a�� , � �' i �t' I 7Y«r ��•:; a . � " .. � � g .
, -. .. . � .�' ` fe r :� "� � . .. � v._ � . � . . . .
' � . . . ' ' ,'f f-0 ! � �,� . �y'. '�� .. I.: I �s. . . ,� , � � ! .
�. . . .� . _: _ .
�
�. � �- : -+-` - "����.,.-.,,—>�_,��„ 1 -} -- � -; � `Q
�, _._� _. . .. .. - �
' � �. �� 1���'',., .r �! 1' �
. . .. 1 � � "� . C '� li ..LS- w' � � , ��. ( .
_ ' , i? � .L � .:.—y "''
U
� �. lal r � ,s � �l" �.. E .,
a
. ♦ �e �8 1.� . _ i:�j�.�. !� ic
(
` r 'GC) � � �c � � ,o
�� � �> - � � �
i QT�� �} �.,� ���„��F �;," ^il�: �, i
, E. ,.� �..,_ C_. � i .�. . ;:s o �
i aa
�
� I� � C b d� �� �.
� a ., _ � _�-- — �{ �
Gc1......._ _. . _ � .. ��;_..� Iy,.. � �
� � +
I � 9 t l, ��W _.. �} .... �
, ^
,� . r ...:T.�.�' j� \ �
j ��m•i . ;:. Va �'rf91 :I .�{ . %` �✓� 1 �/:l `� � �' u !
'�1 3• ..._ ' � ` '
� � � Ic � i n 4 � ..._. � k �v 4-.. �.�r� q. �i- ��' � : . .
� q" fi�, J�, < y� . ...... f':o,.. �
�1� y� S. . c. 2L*cT v uf� ' i'
, � '�I I:VB� ; \'t S � ^. _ i1_..._ .. ... I7..._....... ..._...-l+i ,A
� �' � ' d ;o
� U' ��4�i ti . � � � � �.
J. . e 4-� 5 . 4 g. � ¢Ml__. . _ 1Z _✓91 . 5� �4 �� i ,
�.� LL-�---- 1,- - - -�-
i � o R, : , �a �
� �.: i a; a� �
i . ' �= -
, -
- �,
; ; �.., .. . .. .. _. ,. .--,--_-- i-. _ . ... {fl
� . - -� �---=- �---------- � :�, r': .
�r Y 3 I :r�bi�� ,
i {; ,t , , , ���r��
' • - �, ; '�
( . _.._... .....-. . t: p ° .. . ., _17 ..... ...,.. . tl ..: ......_(S �
el,. ,e ,. �'fiQ�e�c
.. . ' 't• i• "i �`�, . � pV ?�. - p�
f 1�, ,?, . �� .
� .�
; �� � . ; S� ,
j ?; , � � �
i : l . 3�.. :
� O � U G O �) v��
i .
0
..e . ..
;�� �XISTiN -C'-�, c=,GN_IiIYI�N.�
, --._.._...__..
i�: t�e:.-r u�rr
. 257G er,yG n:%urC!'AIN r4�+r.:
c. 47+IL, cc1.i"Fh�.^
vi' � � ,`�„�' ;pG'� 2
� ...:;;�.. �. , .; . �. . r .
. v� ��.. '� . . . _ ....
1��-' �.I�.I;�i�,.
d����a- '.
,
n
tJ . _ � . .: ; . �.
. �J 4� �" ("7 C�)`
e �{� Cj ��._..__.� _ •
r'
��I�F : _
` ' � -- --� -�-- -- ---._- _•.---. ._. . -- -.- ...-- ---
. _ ._...
�-------- •::--..._._..�-- ----__�._._--.�:
��' _ .. .. _ ,
�; . • , _. _...- - - _. . . _. - .
; � � •
�� �; . . � .
, , �j _: ; ;._
t �i ; � � -- _.-- ------- � ��
r -- (-- -�, i ; ,
�� '
..,, . ��., rF � �. � J ..: .
D � � \ ��--��
�Q� �.1 -.:. ::... .. ---__. .:_. :.. � � n,� -, -- �.
;
� ,', C-� C�' - - , , � .
__�` ..... ..... =�,f-1. .I.. '
�, � . ;� I ,.
. ; �� �
^ , : j? '
; . , �, Ig �
� � � 4
;� �. . �,_.�, � :�{�'��V . � � .. � � , i�.. � ;; .
. � . t ''� , � � � t_ .
��.�. , I�} ' � � . i ,. _
��i 1 r �'�� �� . ( '.( .'j � ' ' �: ("
� - ` ' ,� ,,' �`�`��� ? .{� '
� I� ' I
�I� � 'i ; f � ' 1
r , (i .° g � i �' ,� � � �p
' G► 'E�? � � ' � ' I' •
i � ; � , � �.
_ . � �
.. . i( �.- {-:` I` �� rT�'� �
� � `� � � : ---
, � � � - � � . ..�#- . ... _ -0
� � y
.. s � � ..� 1'
� �-�� � li . 5 ' . . . � ' ' .
;:
.. � �: � ..� � , � ' 5 �. � a ;ti gVw� la�� : �'a, . � �. . .
�1 �
� , ! � a .. j� . (s _ ---4a7-• �3
'� � � tl�� s�. A �,' � : �� i � n .�j`
� � � ' . '�:.' . � �' � •� ..'... J r''� � � � � . .. .�
�� . 4$ , i
.. � . . �. � . . .
., o h� � , � �
� ,,�
' � b � �4
, ' 1~ . . . . ......._.._....�..._ . . � . ... . � �
r .A
,J') . _..... _ .. "" . ..
. . � . ' . . ' . . r-i ��� h � .` 1 ��YQ:.. . . i � . � � � .
�, y � i.
; , , ., � ��` �� a F� g � m �} .
"7`-'�r��'�,"�- � �� I � � f , �n ;I. I
v P � (S�. f I� -� .!I
. , . . . � . i �� 6 . ' � —^ti -_•`_ I lo .
B
. . . . . , � ... «- . � . . . . . . . S� .. . � ' ..�.� . .
. � ' A�� .; p ; . ��a{� `VY.� ;i.. � .'� .
y m: t�- :� i.
' E�`' �3 : . .. ; � �'. . 0 � .
�. � , '�j (^�' K � ;
a . � i ^�r. 'i r�� �� \ ,.
U i . � . �. �r-� p: . � �_ _�CL .,}, M 4 ' � GY� .S . ' / . . . . .� �
. ! I��.�, � ' I� � ii."� '�', �� W� d' � `' i� I� c . .
�+ � �' . �ij'? .
. fi . . , Grti'� �� � �i . -�.�'3 � I �
. . . . �.s .I �
�j . � T : �' . � I .
:;: . .. . . �.,_* . ^JI .
l @.
. y�. .i . '_ ' .. �3.
� , ,; �_ �Z.� � � r� — ---...._ __ ,�
a �
. ; `S-L .�a`C!�. , N ���, I.
�� , �`/ ' ��n�'N� Is.-e.Ya _,.��.�1? .�� o� .
�'. t : . . . .__, a .
.. .
.
� � � ��..� -�-,.-� -� i
,
,. _. .
, ,
.. .- � � -; �� T. _ . . .... . . . . . ....__ :
� �..
A y ,, .f � , . i . I
y.:0 l� ' ._ i . '. ,� .. ��;j.j ;i . . .
.- :'( I
.� �
t� ' v'd �f t o y------- -= ----_ � _ �: �
p �q � p�r� +;�(, i
�i7 Ic F � +� ��v � :
l.. -.-- — _ _'_ ,�: _ �,.i 1` i I: � : .
'h �� I
o�i � ;
. �,,.! , zv-o � . _..:�'° .
� . � . w_._....T-� __.__. _...""_._.__ ._. _.._"_'_i._ .. ... .' _'_""._':� � '�.
� C� U G c� ��
� d ��:I�TIN ..�'-� � � .. c _
�tt ----.. _._... _ :-�'�.l`!.Gi-f�ic.. h�4._. _ __
f '
��. Z��r �w r^���n�nw r-�i �.°"," 33 ,v�'�°c:� 2 ��t'" =�;_IN�
.�. U41L., C�=1.O;�iG.r �(/`'.`��,; .� . . GO.�{� F-.,G? .
t�i!�1�'" . :.. . . :.::�
, i
_ _ ,
,
. ., ,;.: , ... .
} � . "
� �4, _ .
. ��
� , . Q .
�-: 4, C�: O p
,
,
r F' � _. _ _..�._ . . ' . �. . . . . . . . � , .
i ( � .�. :. � . . . � . . . : . .. .
.L � � . .... ..__._.. . .' ' .
.�� , . . . . .. .� � �, . � . . . . . . .
�� � � _..... ...F-. ._.. .----- — � . � --- --- ---- � � • ..
. ✓ t - � ' .—' - . — — .,........_ ._... _. . __. �_ -
� . � � �
f � F i. _ I I ��-� �:� ' .. . ;
j , �� y'/ �---�t ::'
�^ E .'�i: ' `'� . ' . ;�I.: .. ... .. , �ir I
i � ', .' ... _ ..
) F i�2 '/ t . . �., ' . . . . . . I . i ( ' �'. �� . � .
� ` � ( �
� c �A' � k y � ` �� � , �� . I . ..': 1 � . I
�� �
�
�,, „ 5 r � � — _ , � �- — ' —� _ � :
! } � h � ' N
� ,� j �w � , :� . T �� � ����i ��� �.. � f � � .. I
z- t�; � � I i �' I � 1 � �
s � .
},�. }t! �. I j, t� J .. .',� 1 . .,� 1
.r i . � 4.�.. .i �� �. �.� ' . . ,.� ' . .
�;i '�' ,,��r '� �.� �, � , s -
� ' u� �
i' i .� I 0
5 . + t u3 � � '
�t �'f -.a. �,7fi; r .ir e � � �I •I� i .� :� .��i ( � i t
N...,,L i rr 4.n. t r < i r �� � � � i � t�� .. h � � A �„ �.
� af � '��. �F t J ��� r i � < � � � ' � . � i�' � � i i ' � �' �� � �� � � .. �
tiy���S� '�y Stc,w�`y�� � �; 7 �� � r � :� s � � � ;3 ��.., � .
.n r�;� ) �Y!'( �' 4i ��' . . �- �.d � 1.i' � �.,��`o-'�' � �rr
t Y t.� 7� r a � � 'K
tl v ,� . � ry r rl ,,>_ '�..i i �i , '.:�:
�7 t � y , -i i ,
A'� �7. . F r � .,) r'� � � ; i �. ,..' ' I�^
�' � M ' � .. , � i . 1 f,.. ��
�-��1 `''�V .if�7� i� r�v ',d } �l�i �- I , : � " �� . : �� ` �:�.� ..� �.. Id .. � . .
.. �i � � Y t� i i� � �' . �f H
(.; f } . �Y t }J'� 1 � 1 } �!T� f �,; ` i� I h ' .1 . .
, � �' 1
'' , , t � ,,� { � � I
�/�r L J -{/i���)
> . ��.T '� - � � .;. � � 7 OA' ��� 11 �. . P ' N � �._ 1 � �
�... �.' � �- t g � �...
' ���. .. . � ��� s� •'�i a .:;�V�� - � ������ � 9� ��) �� � � ' , I
� ���': I) ��.��� �.� � 1 � � - ' �
� �' 1 5 . ; �"�� � I � . 't'
�r', �.. � R I y _ �, ' �..; �p ' . � - .
� � � � 1 . . � f � h i' � . 9 D - � �
F�' ' : '� AIJ'I�J! � ,iyl»q, '. sly w'.o __ �a' ,i 1fS � ' . .
,:
t
-'• ;.- - i ( � ::!
� ��
�j _.. . _ . . ... .. - — — /'�
r hg j � , �
� t� �. � - ��. f r ''"�_.*,��-rt-+ . Z;J '
r�-
r�-� �ir�o. � ' �..
� ... n'.�'� ���..«�_�y k,_...} . :. . � . . I.� . .
P � ' �[ .� � � � 3 � M... ... '
, ,-:I �, �S`� �. ,_ , , i , �op ;� , ..
- , � ., �m
.«-:.: � �. ' i I , ;
. � 19� � . � i . ' �,�,v � 1 . ( (c �.
, . . . . �� �, �.� , . . . � � r �_y� i , .
.. I �� ,1_.,t� , q_ n _ ��x� .L _!e-r__ � �°
, - , � ��. -j , — �,; � I
� �,f , -t � ' a�} I
.. . :��' 6� �. .� � dh 6_ ��
. � . i' F � ' i .
1 � "
.) . . 1 -t�_ ..: �� � � i . . . �
-O. _. :..�..... .._..._. .;. 1 — ' �� Y �� �
j �
� ' e
..� . . ... . .-� .. . ._..... . . .. . ^_ _ ._ i _..._. .�. ....
I (
( . I � � �"?h' i , j � ' � � ; � ` � i
I i =a� m � � � -� a �� . �..
� �. I� 4� �i I �. I. o a �
( ! ; ; 5 ' • � _� _.... ._.. _._ ,� � '
' �.S • �,�.� I 3 ..PF .' _ !
.: . I . � . � ia � . n . _ p �
� ; I sv ��{. . J � �.e%_.. � _ �k-c:�o � z%h� � . !v �
; --I--- :`,5;. i �
j i � -_J , �x,�� � n'� i I
�
' . . .. , . ' .--�--=---=,. --_ -__l:^'i�_ Tqz-^--ii--"� .•.`�'��.'--'' . . .. __._. . ....---- -_.._ {� .
� � �.oM.��.q��� :� _ w ' �
I i • P.e. t�. �a.... � ' , �
; i , ._.. _,
i j
; ;
' � �—�
,
I� _ a.....i._.:._. �i•> ' . ;�-o '. ;v.o. •
. ---�._..kc_ ---. .._ __ ._..
.O O. b O � O `.
� �: � _
°�. �y:1�T!N � �r� �
1 � __....__... .....-�'�'_ .. `--q`EDIT,._-i�l..�
. ... ._.___...-----
;�, ING
s: ��r u..�iT ;,.o�. �3 ��cci� Z (31"N �i',...
�� � Z97G dSLD I10 i�l'tP,IN R.-tL� �� .
-: a.� a I�IL ccit�F.hUr �/!d`.- � CP1.;� .�-J..--r'"'
A. . .. �. . ..... ..
.liF.l! u� �...�' .�. l' , . ... ... . . . .. .
. .. �..,:,. :�.: . .. . . ..... . ... .� . . . . . ' . . .
q �j y.
..� �' `1. ' : . . .. . ' . i�! , ., . . .�.::�.' .
_
tk�
r} .� . .. . . - � . � �. . � . . . �� � ' , .. � . . ., . .. ��.
- � ' � . . __" t""( . . � , i. �' ,� � �
' . .I � " .. ......... .. ...__._ _._. _
i' � �i� '
f i
'.,�( � � � � • � jI! .
1 j I� .. . . . . ���i� � �'i ��
. � I I ;�� , ��'' �i �! �
— , � — . ._ ...., . ' I
� ,y,
a � I� i
,' �� t'� ��� i -t� ( 1 i. �I� � . , ` . {I.. .. ' _"_ � � � �ii�li.I�'� li�It��i4�li�i'��'lli I�� ��,'�t����j����il�l�
'�� 7c � � i i jI d''�Ii�i,�I � '
�' .t � � _� � � _ .. � � ' ' (
i i _� � , ,
��_ O . I �� � � � p� j�l � t �II .� i I I i
' L A2.J 0, S i,: � �,, :.. �� .. � � i ��j I�� ; � �� ��� �i �,� i �' i
l �
� r. I..i�.: .�.,. o.� .��� �il� �+i�ii��li�ir�i,�
�i , .:.;, - S) i� .. . �i •, ,. �,S� ��� �.I�f �i i �I I � �.� �+���I� �
� i.. I a ��I��� �'• � �. �•.I� ��,�I i I �I �i f �l
�� , • m ,fps�� �^v� � y i . . . ' ',�, c`5 �'�� � l s,r ��{:�� � � �i� �I'��+��.�, . (
t
�, - � � ``"' i � r. I l�l� � 1f! l � j � I� �� � ��I ����
' � j� :�• r ��'..r � �iti''�I�.(���I�' i�.l'��� �II��,����' �
������{� { 1
1� C � r.;li�� � k�1 �� ti�.�—C'J . �t .�. ��� ����� l I �I�( II� ��I I�'I ��.�ll�f la � � �i 1^
�, t � h I, � I� . �( �) ��+i �� � —:..%
i� rD � ,�� �,�I� � '�� �''�I�� �' ii .. ... L7QQQt 'S� Z�i: '�'•� �� .
,, i � 't� " ` , l ,'� i : ❑ �1 CI C7 � ' e- � � ' �
1' � � { � �� � � r� . � . . ! i� CiI� L�1 C� ji � � �' � � i :
� �ppp f � _ ^� � �.�� I
-.,. �1 4 �. � ��, ' �1 . �� � �I � ..,� A,jI.i�Z �
,� . �, � rQ, � ,£ � �� � q a
I� C � �a � �
' � f � �.
t �E � �, h , �h� . � �. I� � �� , �� �'i�:.
` �� , ,� � , l � � �� � � E ,,! � � r .
...,,5.3 i �:.r - . - t� �7 � �,: +�� �; r ;i i� -�� .�i �1 �' ��� f� I���{ _,�y.q .-,9, �) .��- .
{ '
4- ' i � -'Q p y.� � � . i r
�� I �'� - �' c �1 � T\f ��� � r . . { - —(w�1 I
i l i - r .�i � � `�j").y "� '�'�'! .Y { � � ° � �? F �c �� � � � � �
,�� . 5 � t ll -'�. . `^"'"� � ,;, ..ar � i � � 1� ll �C t �: � x ,!� q �� �. 1
h.�� e - ��, � `� .�st` t � i r i . i�,. '` - i i r t� i.�. � t luJ u
+��. �< � ti�-`w ��° t�, }�.• � y : ��R li 3 ,�. '�r I .,.9 tt � + �� �i�jP�. � 1
r �,(:° � �i �� {�' U li s {.s .� .I�?� � . . ���>> ���1 . �
1 t)� � �Cf �`/��V '._"'°T`5 STii ' ,�Ui% l. ! � .t �R �l a c ! 1 �I�� .11 '
` � � ' - , r � , 5 � f t .. * ; � 1 R i � � � � � � ,
¢,S ,'11{ r _...� �'� � i� � r I
�s � � � , �ir''l;1� ' � c; - - � ' . � � ;�—�� � 4IIi �;� �,;,;� (
�� -r I ti q �� R i �. � � t It .�� i
'�1 lY1fl 4�'i� � ��� 4�I.I���1 i, O 1'�� (' .'jI I�I�I�T��Y�
.1�. ,�n'k. � �:.� r r.: � ,i. � .41�.� i 7.i.�
) t' S---r' � . , i �� 1.... 1 A. IL, - C �� t�F �I t I i�� I
.�a ��1 i. '-- . t.. a (i � t' � I 1 �� i! � . ' c �I y�� t�iL 3� rv� i i
J� .�il� 1Y Y ���� kA �. � I��III� ' it�
; � �� �i {�N x'�--� i s. � �����i .�ail� ��� � � 3 t ; ��` I�i�jl�qii �d�y..� ( .
��, . � �— ,,�}�,�,! , J;� ,: � !, : :•� � ,. `` � . ��11�4�1i1� ���jl'�i�,6{�'r hl •
I .� .� � ��F'�E,r �i . ��� ' ���'���t�l4�fi��.
-� D Q x � i r� �t�;i�''` ,'i� � i�,r, � �� 1.�iT �.�c(�ii(����I 1,+!+I..
`. �S !� ' �' � � ,' � �. ��r. Yt1�li ������ ���1� � Z . �� . i � f�t �
�� � , �y��, , , .�, � �.�� � � i T .
zy .�,�� � ;� � � :�.,, a. � �
i � �� i : ` �� E
p ` � �I`' a , —Q 'i . . , ( � , --�
�' ' € �v .L �' . .. �1 ; . � a• � � �� i , . .
i' � t' � � 1 0 1 �$ ' iu i' g� t€'�� oA �� �{�_'� � i j.
II ,) a � �S .� ��� , � , b`(t �';�9� � '�Y 9IL._Ii ���4�6"
,� �� � �1 h = �f �� � . . .��: , � gz �,�.;.
�� 1 C .. i � �,� (i,.' . . . . ' � . a�. a ; O I �. �
. - _�1 " � . , � � . . .'i . ; � � �x ; n� . . ' . � I� .�' . r .
� ; � � . r
� �.
i�. .. � �'.O �� Q � � . ' �t� � ��d�d � Q.� � ( i � c "t�`"ii
� � S
� = � a . il b,�_an;; � „� i �j�; � �;. ,�, � '
;: � . � �.:.; � u pL�OC]�: �� �t .
' �:�� } � � �4 � ., Qi�dn � i � -�`-,' � �
, .
): ' -J 1i �� i �, •, .
. .. -,
�; � -- -- - -� ;� , �'i� d i�:��l�ln'� c
i' Q . :� -�� � �� k , . '� � I� '� � � , �
I. i i U� i � `i
ii . ,I.'- ."-..'—!I � Yi� .�� ,� p� . � -� :1 I� � � i .�.. ��i 1 I
� � � �� O �� �; i . . . � i I. 1 I �� �: i� t� � I� ;'�� . �
., � l� F . � �� � � ,� ;� ,,. � ,�, . ,
; ; � _ a '� �� , �,'. ,; �i� :i � i
N i jc ° n �� � � ;. �� � i � � �t � i. t �� I�k
�� �� DT C, QQ � �i—�� 1 � � : , �� i��': I ,�, 1� �' � ,i�:
n -. _ '=°�� �"-1� � I �
-- , � _ .- - �'-- ---'--} .' -------�- '��i.i� ��i 'I. �� ;�'. i � .
� I ,� � i + ' �
� . � �
; ,? i r� ""I � t,� i i
i _�: �i� i.: , ��.:_.9� �� ;,,� :� ,
� — ..... .._, ,,. ,i� . ,� ,
_ .
' _ ._ ' ... i .. �:.. � � , �i � � -
� --�— �_��: a,y�m � � � � � �� i,�.
.
.
�
;
; ` -. - ---- - - --.._.. ... ._ _ �
. ;1 --- _ .. .��' i i c� �
, ;� ;
I � I :�� � j I
. �o I
�? -�- r�; ��a — � c�� �3
�i � �:ISTIN .�'.-� ��VI�"i�=`I�IS . _
� ��i- u�rr i_-�I� �3 3' .OG!�- 2 '"� � r ='1,`�_..i N� C^
2°�7G �.Lt'1:1��;FtiA!I. R-�.: CCi.j,...G��?r��.�Y/
`� UAIL, �c4,�Fr�ci^ V�" • ;,,,. �. .
At�achrnent C
Architecture/Pfanning
�1�����SS��i���S
Members af the American Insfitute of Archifiects
Memo �to s
F.rom •
Date:
Town of Vail •
Community Developmen� Department
Bill Hein
Wm �.Hei.n Associates
Februa�y 12, 2008
Subject: Addi.tional Revisions
Wesic Ut1:i�t - T�o Fami2y Dtaple�
257Q Bald Mountain.Road .
Lot 33, Block 2, Vai1. Village Filing 13
Vail, Co,lorado
The accompanying.information repr.esen�s adjustments to.the
proposed redesign far the r�model of the abave referenced
duple� unite Issues of canc�rn relat�ng.�to setback conflicts
along the w�st property line have been addressed and the
revised plans �efiect a minimum amount of squar� footage that
projects into�the se�tbacke This small encroachment - 13.5
sq.ft.a�t both the Main Level and �the Upper Level - is needed
t� allow a�.ai�acal connectian of the existing un.it �to the
exi.sting garage. These adjustments are in keeping with
discussions concerning t'he project �rith Town s�taff.
The project redesign inc•ludes the followxng:.
- Relocation af laundry to lower level
- Redesign of master bath area at upp�r l�vel
- Eliminata.on of proposed b�droom suite above ga.�ag�
- Reduction of height and mass of area at expanded
garage - reducing impact on adjacen� properties
- Significant xeductaon of p�oposed new square:fa�ta.��.
for �the unit wi�th a min�mum propased beyond �he
setback line
Along with the above me��ioned adj.ustmen�ts. the followin.cr
is a recap of the changes to the exfsting unit that have
already been agreeded to:
- Redesign of ex�erior �o upda�e and imprave an old,
tired 1970's struct�re •
- Remav� existing decks currently in the setback at
at the main 1eve1
3�3 East Alamedn � Denver. Colorado 80209 3Q3-722-8401 fax 3C)3-b98-0665
February 12, 2008
Page Two
- Remove sou�h facing deck off of the master bedroom
at the upper level .
- Replace the enti�e exterior
to the structure ta include
acceptable shingle roofing
finish and materials
stucco, stone and Town
Additionally, the following square_footage adjus�ment applaes4
As previously proposed, the amount-of added (new) square feet
on �he main level totaled 170 sqoft. of which (+�-) 87sqafto
was beyand the setback line and a total of 628 sq,tt. was
vroposed at �he upper level of whic� {+/-) 2�2 was in the
setbacke The current proposal reduces th�se numbers signi�f-
icantly with a main level total of 108 sq.fte of which 13.5
sg.fte is in the se�back. The upper level to�al reduces to
211 sqofte with�l3e5 sq.ft. is beyon� the setback lineo
A tremendous amount of time has been investe� to bring.this
projec� to this pointe Numerous meetings with adjacent awners
have resulted in their support for the praject. The uni�
owners appreciate Town staff efforts and time spent on their
behalf in helping with a difficult situationa The unfortunate
condition that existU w�th the orig�nal nlacemen� of �he
structure in the west setback created probl�ms.for the owners
and the Tawn alike. Hopefully, a11 efforts to this point can
lead to agreement, su.pport and approval of a d�sign concept
tha� will benefit all concerned.
,4ttachm�nt D
J��r—��
I _�—_ V�`��
_-_.��_��_�`'"�' �-
J- -"' �"
�-- ,,,..--
�� '��
, � / J--r'
� i.,.,,,-^_
��"— . --ty'"-.�'.a'G,— � --'"'—"_..--''� '/� /�""""''.r
, / /'�/.,��( �'"--.._..- --
' � � J_"___ '
----s��r:�---'--_„� /
j--:-_-------.
� ///� i eKi9;�N�,. ...,�.. '�
w...r�'�i'i �'��."_`r�/ / � \\_
��� i
� ' / ` ,. , �— -.....
''—a'�.,.�.----'� � %'� /' � T
L�� � �� Nn�
/�/ .
� --
;.��.
+� �%;i.e
�
NCW PATi�'
15F1GY/ . _ '
�---
� �
y-i-}�% ����EiU�'Iit{G-__.
'1�
y
�
\, .S� _. __ -� � ..._.___..._---i-----..__._.._
���¢`��.__ �� � — - =1 - - -
i- _ - — --
.. �. _--
, _._ _'...
� � - ---- - --.._...:_
------ °-•-- --
.._-----.. .___-
� - - . _--- . .
------
` --._.._ __....._ _._.....__----
� e�r�rir� � .._�...._------- --•----
-----
���— �=: '; _ __:.:`---___-- -_�.-,�-__-• _:-::-:�-_ __
�----- --
�_� �
&"t� �--
_'\ i
�
�
---- `�%G'
; '� I��G --?JC !�
i --'"�.--'-"`
�.� =�r _�___ -�.�^�..
__�� ,,. --�� I
' �>---_-,` ( .
—,-2n7�F —.__i--'" \,� �
�
" . —EE�7lv --' i ` I ^`��� �1 .\� .
' �\
_., �&�,_,_..-�.,---.'-�,\�\. \\ . �` .� i��-.�—
. \ /�%i --''',-�
. ,,,_y \ �� /'" �,.•----
-=- �,� -�' �.. \
i �� `\�~\..,_.._---""_...�./•//
. \ ' _' --�z.-�.,� i � / . . � �..,-•--
�
, ��\
_._ �.
__•.
""'� 3nIb�E7StEFt�_p�y h�?..
::. .aPXx�r -;:2,.fE1="UNI.'f".: '. '.
E37P.`: , . � ::.
Exl�`f�Nd 't Gf-t�- _
�
P�?�l�r�" �
...-- -��
�,
..,�-°°`--°'
�
� � \ ,,,,,_ .--^"""_" ""
� ,,..__ /r �..�
..--"'
� , �-' "" �,.
. .. ._.;. ....��, ... .... ........ ....._... ....
; ` /'� --�^�^I '' ��•-o-r
J r, / ,�-----'' rs�"
C I _" _
� � . __��.�' fr _^, • _,,-��` ,,..
—i —.�_�_— '�..,��' sj°� ���!i
,____ _�� - --' _�' • ��..._
N�P.-
i ^ �� !�`'r;�• ,
; r�'� �-
,.�- _ �
�S�a �(,.p ��AIN � (W�T uMi7 )
\�L, G'�l.'�F�t(�c� ,�I/ a'7
�
c3.:�
`-=-i�'-..�
���� '
: Tq
i�x ��u� ���
r.icr,E::.... � `�`�5.�..�iyO
=-.,. ___ � �
� �� � .
i \ � ��
- /
- ;L-r�z,�ll.-•�i:i.
�;S✓7�}
,�.2`is7G
� i^-----�
�/
/J . ���.��� , '.
�IT�. PI,.�N.
�v. � i'= b'-a°
,.�
.,� '
�J�
. SET�+S'',K. L W E
\ _
; �-Ker�. ��' �...R �
..'. . �'� LIN�- . . / LINc-
. . �`-----'�---- �,i --. ---rt
_a � � �
, �� ��
� �'�`.` ., �� ei��°P . I '
N�`a . ,-r`�.J ri� F�vN � n
__:.'13�'`l�_., ...... k �. I 6'�. _ ':. ' .i
i�� `� I
/ / ` ` \ �
/ -�- UNEC� GX�"n bFGi�
UhIE.(�F FaflS'11N:°t ' �TD FTC- RPJ,1-.'�/ G �N
� .L"�.Gi�=:AtS�YE. . � �I �'
N� ---_ �-��___.� ._ �—.. . �--- - ----- . -
— —i
1
.. _ UVIN� �
1
► 1i
I � 1
uN z>P Fur� .
�
1�_ ��Ae�ve---- — ---1 �
�
�, �
' CINiNCa MEi71('s. . f
�.. ❑ I
4 . �
� l�ITGN �
� i
� I
� . _.. _ ._
�e� _ . �
°'- ` � { j - "�
" i '� " -_ �u, � ' �
i t � I
� l` �iN i�w, � f r W.G..! \ '
� +
: • ' - �� � �'� T�� ; � /�'� %/: \ -�"yIN 1^`.11"IN v�'.=x
�' �; �:h1�7FG.Y �� � � ..�ao ovev
;�: �� � � � �
------------- �tl ' ��• -- � :.rX�K 1�,' rF iohE.
{ � _:�teP,srra sN�
i ,,5, � \` . I
� -. Fpx , .,
_ , ,. ...
�t ; �z� ; . � � � � ^�` I\ __....__ � — .. I
. . � :: , � \
\
Rn � `� p _ __-�t � . �
N _
_ — ---- _, �. .
. `
�--6,�'� ,. —j�
.._ , . VJE;?^f lINIT. � _ ��� -�-.�`` 'I�+l�: N�p.3''.�:r'.� I
. � , ���'i�' '
...� ,3��� ��6" . - .__7��;�� . . . ( \� nr�, ��
_ __
� ��rr+ :
. � r;-r-r-7�-^�-r ,-° �'-i`: � �':�.� "'' .,` , . c1
� �. . ✓-- -�''�� _ � �
, --r - �� � �.
�(� � � � � ,K rt
I �: � ." i s�� ��. �
1 � ` � "�
Mi°,i N 1�1E..�L- FCAI�I a � ' �%' "' `
� ---
' . . ..:.:a"..%�1..L %+ai�2i . . � . �-.'
I �l.
�� .....�-- , ,
� y.�I � (
q � ,-
.�� ,�. , ,,� ' �i
,
ZZLB" \ --
�
, _. ;
25'� �1..::f7. I`1C7L�NT�fh�l (�t� �W�.�T UF41T� VA1L, �z..'�-c-�Zr'�R-°.`' 8)�� 7
`
�
\
�
\
\
_, _m `��. �� ,.� `�� .
�T
:.�.c� ��°��� _ ,
,
�.��c . �,�n r�..iNT,�iN ��o (w��'r uNiT)
vA�L, cci..�K�t� 8�4�7
� �o
��
{. �
,.
P �
�
`-�
�
Z
�
a.5 ir� r:.��.r�
��
��
o: �
� �.
�
�
d
�
\ldll . .r�l �.c...hrr-usi 2�'i.�y
_ �i
_ _ ,
�
�
�
�n
� \..
( �
� �
�
�
�
, � � ��i-.�} ,. � � . . .
�
�
� ..
. �•
�.
�
i
S
�
:.� ., �,�
�
, `��1 �
�i. .
;i�1j� �
�' �
�, f X j�'� i� �- e� " J �,4-A� !�Lt � f y ' G'L "s i f F 4 -S �
r :. a F t t v t . S T ha# t. X #� '� �.. 7 i�r . -. �. a...,� r
� �. # a s �y s�3 0 �r,� � a d S .s- t i 1- F=f 9�' � . �S' x r y� d ms t ,
tJt � i,�., i i� � �� -Y -;x � {. � �,r if� Ai,ch�itect���lPiann�uic� rt ��t ��� �`�'�S � �. �,-y ��,t�: r`E�,�y ��t�t � � � :� a�. � ,�:
r�' �h� i '^r �,° � t n : f� �r z3� a: #d +� h�7 j' S y� x�,� .� a... �,� y � � a �r rg�+ ,� f . Y � r . �,yt .1 { . .z +, .
, x�c.�u, >_.�r,.._n „7s v.> .,; . a+._f...��.zl.ixz. .....x. _....a..,.uf..,,.. ..5r�tsi . =1.,, �;.. r.,,�;�.r���. I�r:trae..ri rs :�.t..'4�,..�. '?;e,a.,.4.,.�.�� ii.,7z. �.x-:w�ab. �,�..,,1 N t'� 6:�_s,.
� P ' / ♦
u;�
, I
��
�'
�'
,a 1
41
�- �
z��t� c�i.-G ��NT,�,i� r"� (w�-r UNIT) v�ii�,��r�a��� z�l�l
£
�
�
z _
_� �
s�
�
�
1 . .
`Z Z'J G�LC :Y.+Giti'AII jfC• �: .
-P.�/c.L RT.N
T---
2.✓7d E?�I�P M��J,NT�';ll�l P;�,G' il,,;'P_��`i" IJNIT` `:i�,il_ !:��!.-7w..�r,;-� .�i�a=,-'
r.; ,
� �l
i
'
�
�
c�
d
'o
a
N
N
�
�
N
X
�
f�
t�
N
t
�
Q
a
2
N
QC
C
N
�
CO �
L O
N �
� II
� N
O �
CO
� Y
� �
-� J
.-�-� CO
� �U
N �
N �
� �
�U
a�
o°
� N
E X
a� N
� �
a� E
c a�
rnrn
00
O O
� �
�
C �
N �
�
Q �
O �
N �
� II
� �
C
CO �
� O
�N
� �
� �
� O
NN
C �
� U
O �
� o
� O
�
� X
CO �
7
� �
N N
O O
� �
� �
� �
� �
� �
O �D O O M � � �
O 0 � O O � � N N
1n M � � � �
in � � O N � � f� in M cD M
U � � � ° � � v U �n � O
�n U . � O M
' f� M . f� f� f�
vl � M � � � � N d3 � �
w d3 � d3 �j d3 d3 d3 w
Q � Q � Q �
W O O m W O O m W O O m
N � � � N � � � N � � �
LL � LL � LL �
a a a
� O O � O O � O O
� O O O � O O O � O O O
3 LL L(7 Ef) 7 LL L(7 Ef) 7 LL L(7 Ef)
�p Ef) Ef) �p Ef) Ef) �p Ef) Ef)
> > >
Q Q Q
wO O w O O w O O
� L(7 L(7 O � L(7 L(7 O � L(7 L(7 O
w ('7 ('7 w ('7 ('7 w ('7 ('7
(n (n (n
a0 a0 a0 a0 � V a0 V �
I� O m
O O O O 0 N O (O �j
O O O O � ('7 O I� �
�
0 0 0 0 ° ° o ° o
O �? �
N N N N � N N � M
� � � � � �
E E � E E � E E �
w w .� w w .� w w .�
� � J � � J � � J
c c c
(n (n 'T (n (n 'T (n (n 'T
C � � C � � C � �
O O LL O O LL O O LL
N� � r N� � � N� M O
U M � CMO U M M � (j M
. CO f� � . CO CO CO . CO � fD
N � � � N � � � N � � �
W Efl Efl Efl W Efl Efl Efl W d3 � �
LL LL
� � a �
� O O � � O O � � O O �
O O � O O � � O O �
3� m 3� m � LL� m
; Ef) Ef) � � ; Ef) Ef) � ; Ef) Ef) �
L
a�
rn rn rn 'a� rn � � � rn � �
CO CO CO � CO C'7 LI� .L I� � I�
O � �
� � I� �+ � OO I� �L � V
� � oo c� a � co
L
7 �
O � �
y o 0 o y o o � y o 0 0
-a O O O -a O O N -a O � �
0 � � � 0 � �n � 0 � cD M
t t N t
N N N
� � � � � � � � �
� � �
O � � � O � � � O � � �
� � � J � � � J � � � J
t3 c t3 c t3 c
� � � 'i � � � 'i � � � 'i
+� � .� N +� � .� N +� � .� N
� O O L.L � O O L.L � O O L.L
- � _
MEMORAiVDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 25, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant
to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a prescribed
regulations amendment to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-
24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to establish standards and
criteria related to mitigating employee housing requirements, and setting.
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070075)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timrn, Housing
Coordinator
Planner: Bill Gibson
I��IIi�iI�iT1:�1
The Applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a a final recommendation to the Vail
Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a
prescribed regulations amendment to Chapters 12-13, Employee Housing, 12-
23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to
establish standards and criteria related to mitigating employee housing
requirements. In addition to amendments to the Chapters listed above there will
be amendments to all the established zone districts which contain employee
housing units as a permifited or conditional use. The applicant has submitfed the
application in response to a reque'st from the Planning and Environmental
Commission to clarify certain portions of the adopted regulations. Staff is
recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to Chapters 12=13,
Employee Housing, 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning,
Vail Town Code, based upon the criteria found in Section VI of this
memorandum.
11. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a final recommendation to the Vail
Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a
prescribed regulations amendment to Chapters 12-13, Employee Housing, 12-
23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to
establish standards and criteria related to mitigating employee housing
requirem�nts. In addition to amendments to the Chapters listed above there will
be amendments to Articles 12-6A, Hillside Residential District; 12-68, Single-
Family Residential District; 12-6C, Two-family Residential District; 12-6D, Two-
Family Primary/Secondary Residential District; 12-6E, Residential Cluster
District; 12-6F., �ow Density Multiple-Family District; 12-6G, Medium Density
Multiple-Family District; 12-6H, High Density Multiple-Family District; 12-61,
Housing District; 12-7A, Public Accommodation District; 12-7B, Commercial Core
1 District; 12-7D, Commercial Core 3 District; 12-7E, Commercial Service Center;
12-7F, Arterial Business District; 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District; 12-71,
Lionshead Mixed Use 2; District; 12-7J, Public Accommodation 2 District; 12-8A,
Agricultural and Open Space District; 12-8D, Ski Base/Recreation District; 12-8E,
Ski Base/Recreation 2 District; 12-9B, Parking District; 12-9C, General Use; to
incorporate changes to the employee housing types listed as permitted or
conditional uses within each district and facilitate the implementation of these
regulations.
The Applicant is recommending that all commercial linkage and inclusionary
zoning requirements for new construction and demo/rebuild projects be
addressed through the on-site unit mitigation method. This recommendation is
based upon several factors, including: .
a The scarcity of developable land resources;
• The financial, political, and practical difficulties associated with the
construction of any free standing employee housing development;
• The need for additional workforce housing to ensure the long term
sustainability of Vail's economy;
o An opportunity to improve the Town's sense of community;
+ On-site units create "live-work" opportunities;
• On-site units create less demand on, and impact to, the Town's
infrastructure;
• The Town of Vail has an opportunity to become a leader in addressing
employee housing within Eagle County; and,
m 70% of the community's workforce housing needs created by future
development are not addressed by these regulations;
The Applicant recommends the remaining four mitigation methods (e.g.
conveyance of property on-site, off-site units, payment of fees-in-lieu, and
conveyance of property off-site) only be available to developers when one of the
following findings are made by the applicable governing body:
• That implementation of the on-site unit mitigation method would be
contrary to the intent and purpose of the applicable zone district..
• That implementation of the on-site unit mitigation method would be
contrary to the goals of the applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives.
• That exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or canditions apply to the
site that prevents the implementation of the on-site unit mitigation
method.
• That the method of mitigation proposed better achieves the intent and
purpose of this Chapter and general and specific purposes of this Title
than the on-site mitigation unit method. �
0
The Applicant and the Vaii Local Housing Authority also recommend the
following additions and/or changes to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage and
12-24, Inclusionary Zoning.
• There is no prioritization of the mitigation methods for all other types of
development projects.
o Establishing that any required mitigation of less than 1.25 employees or
any remaining unit floor area of less than 438 sq. ft. may always be
provided through the fee-in-lieu mitigation method;
o Establishing that projects resulting in a total mitigation requirement of less
than 1.25 employees or less than one whole unit will be reviewed
administratively;
o Establishing policies to address potential requests to modify an approved
Employee Housing Plan;
e Creating a new EHU "type" category in the Town Code for any unit used
to mitigate a commercial linkage or inclusionary zoning requirement. This
is necessary to distinguish these mitigation units from the other six types
of EHUs already allowed within the Town of Vail;
• Clarifying that the intent of Table 23-2, Size of Employee Housing Units,
for Commercial Linkage was that a three bedroom unit and any unit with
more than three bedrooms mitigate at the same rate of 3.5 employees;
• Clarifying the Mitigation Banking regulations;
o Allowing mitigation types of EHUs as permitted uses in the applicable
zone districts, rather than conditional uses.
Staff has identified the proposed changes to be made in the attached draft
Ordinance (Attachment B). Text that is to be deleted is in , text that
is to be added is in bold, and sections of text that are not to be amended may be
omitted.
III. BACKGROUND
a There is a substantial, direct, and rational connection between the need for
housing of employees generated by new development and redevelopment
and the requirements for the provision of employee housing, as documented
in the report entitled, "Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionality Analysis for
Emplovee Housinq Mitiqation Proqrams."
• If is the Town CounciPs goal to pravide housing for at (east thirty percent
(30%) of the net new employees generated from residential and commercial
development in the Town of Vail through the conjunctive efforts of
Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning. �
• On April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinances Nos. 7 and 8,
establishing Chapter 23, Commercial Linkage and Chapter 24, Inclusionary
Zoning of the Vail Town Code for the purpose of requiring new development
and redevelopment to provide a reasonable and appropriate percentage of
new employee housing which has a nexus to new job generation.
3
� At its December 11, 2007, public hearing, the Planning and Environmental
Commission requested Staff bring forward recommendations for
amendments to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage, and 12-24,
Inclusionary Zoning, to better define the Commission's role in reviewing
Employee Housing Plans and to clarify the priority of the five approved
mitigation methods.
• The Vail Local Housing Authority discussed the Commission's request at their
December 12, 2007, meeting. The Authority determined that the on-site
mitigation rnethod is the highest priority and forwarded a recommendation
that half the required employee housing mitigation be required on-site for new
construction and demo/rebuild projects.
• The Commission discussed this recommendation and numerous other issues
related to employee housing at its January 14, 2008, public hearing.
• At the Town Council's January 22, 2008, Council Member retreat and again
at its subsequent public hearings, the Town Council indicated that providing
on-site units is the most desirable employee housing mitigation method and
fee-in-lieu is the least desirable method, except when necessary to address
partial requirements.
• At the February 11, 2008, Planning and Environmental Commission public
hearing the Commission requested Staff forward recommendations for
amendments to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24,
Inclusionary Zoning to achieve the following:
s Prioritization of the five approved mitigation methods based on
value to the community;
s Flexibility and/or incentives for better mitigation options rather
than a requirement for all on-site mitigation; and
• A predictable review process.
• At the February 14, 2008, special meeting of the Vail Local Housing Authority
the Authority again discussed establishing a priority order for the allowed
employee housing mitigation methods. At the meeting, the Authority
reconfirmed its recommendation:
At least half of requisite employee housing mitigation must be
provided on-site for all new development and demo-rebuild projects
where Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning apply. .
Without this requirement the Authority does not believe that on-site unit
mitigation will be pursued by developers. Much of the discussion regarding
the available mitigation options has centered on calculation formutas,
financial parity, who would manage the development of housing projects, and
the like. However, if these arguments are set aside and the question is asked
"what scenario is in the best interest of the community from a long-term
�
�
planning standpoint", it becomes clear that on-site employee housing will
provide:
• The most certain delivery of employee housing;
s The greatest reduction in vehicular traffic (and associated noise and
pollution) by employees;
s The greatest reduction in public parking needs by employees;
s Reduce the loading of employee volume on our public transportation
systems;
• Best retain employee spending in town of Vai.l service businesses;
and
a Most effectively create the energy of a vibrant, lived-in community in
our resort core and commercial areas.
Additionally, the Authority recommends:
The remaining requisite mitigativn be provided via any of the five
allowed employee housing mitigation methods, or a combination
thereof, at the developer's discretion.
This recommendation is based on the Authority's belief that today all five
mitigation methods provide value to the community.
The Housing
recommended
requiremenf.
Authority does support adding three of the stafF
criteria to allow for relief fr.om the on-site
The Authority does not recommend adopting language that allows a
developer to provide a creative or "superior" employee housing
mitigation plan that could no longer require at least half of the
requisite employee housing mitigation be provided on-site.
The Housing Authority is also committed to annually reviewing the priority of
the five employee housing mitigation methods and offering their
recommendation to the Vail Town Council. This review is anticipated in
March of each year to coincide with the annual review of the fee-in-lieu rates.
ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES
Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a
recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council; will then review the
text amendment application.
5
V.
Planning and Environmentai Commission:
The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a
text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council.
Vail �ocal Housing Authority:
The Vail Local Hausing Authority is responsible for forwarding a recommendation
to the Town CounciL
Design Review Board:
The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the
Vail Town Code.
Town Council:
The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications,
or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code.
The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any
decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental
Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a
decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review
Board.
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
Staff believes the following documents are relevant to the review of this proposal:
TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12-1, Title, Purpose and Applicability (in part) �
Section 92-9-2: Purpose
A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of
promoting the health, safety, morals; and general welfare of the Town, and
to promofe the coordinated and harmonious development of the
Town in a� manner that will conserve and enhance its natural
environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of high guality.
B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more
specific purposes:
?. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public
facilities.
2. To secure safety from fire, panic, f/ood, avalanche, accumulation of
snow, and other dangerous conditions.
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation
and to /essen congestion in the streets.
�
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and
loading facilities.
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and
economic values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship
among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. .
7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land
with structures.
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other
desirable naturaJ features.
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and ofher
amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters.
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
community.
Chapter 12-3: Administration and Enforcement: (in part)
92-3-7: AMENDMENT.'
C. Criteria and Findings:
2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment:
a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an
amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the pianning
and environmental commission and town council shall consider the
following factors with respect to the requested text amendment:
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and
specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement
and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals,
objectives, and policies outlined in fhe Vail comprehensive plan
and is compatible with the development objecfives of the town; and
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how
conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the
subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer
appropriate or is inapplicable; and
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations
consistent with municipal development objectives; and
7
5. Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council
deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
Chapter 13: Empioyee Housing: (in part)
12-13-9: Purpose:
The town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this
economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's
abilify to provide sucn service is dependent upon a strong, high
quality and consistently availabte work force. To achieve .such a
wor9r farce, the community must work to provide quality living and
working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a
critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the
community's work force. The town recognizes a permanent, year
round population plays an importanf role in sustaining a healfhy,
viable communify. Further, the town recognizes its role in
conjunction with the privafe sector in ensuring housing is available.
Chapter 23: Commercial Linkage: (in part)
12-23-1: Purpose and Applicability:
A. The purpose of titis chapter is to ensure that new commercial
development and redevelopment in the town provitle for a
reasonab/e amount of emp/oyee housing to mitigate the impacf
on employee housing caused by such commercial development
and redevelopment.
Chapter 24: Inclusionary Zoning: (in part)
12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability:
A. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new residential
development and redevelopment in the town of Vail provide for a
reasonable amounf of employee housing to mitigate fhe impact
on employee housing caused by such residentia! development
and redevelopment.
TOWN OF VAIL LAND USE PLAN
Chapter II: Land Use Goals/Policies (in part)
5. Residential
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur
primarily in exisfing, platted areas and as appropriate in new
areas where high hazards do not exist.
5.2 Quality time share units should be accommodated to help
keep occupancy rates up.
5.3 Atfordable emp/oyee housing shou/d be made available
through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives,
provided by the Town of Vail, witn appropriate restrictions.
:
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace wigh the market
place demands for a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved
and upgraded. Additional employee housing ne�ds should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the communify.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Chapter V: Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps (in part)
Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic
health and viability for the village and for the community as a whole.
2.6 Objective: �
Encourage the development of atfordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.9 Policy:
Employee housing; units may be reguired as part of any new
or redevelopment project requesting density over that
altowed by exisfing zoning.
2.6.2 Policy:
Employee housing, shall be developed with appropriate
restrictions so as to insure fheir availability and atfordability
to the local work force.
2.6.3 Policy:
The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of
affordable housing by providing limited assistance.
LIONSHEAD REDEVLOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendation — Overall Study Area
4.9 Housing
Recent community surveys and grass-roots planning efforts such as
Vail Tomorrow have idenfified the lack of /oca/s housing as the most
critical issue facing the Vail community. Early in the Lionshead
master planning process, west Lionshead was identified as an opportunity
area to implement some of the community's housing goals, particularly
relating to employee.housing. These opportunities and associated issues
are outlined below.
4.9.1 No Net Loss of Employee Housing
Ground rule number five of the mas�er plan states that there shall be no
net /oss of employee housing in Lionshead as redevelopment occurs.
.�
Visual Issues
4.9.2 The financial realities of affordable housing often require cost
reducing measures, generally involving the quality of detailing, pJanning,
and architectural design. Given the strong desire to make these housing
projects feasible, it is recommended that some latitude be granted to
affordabie housing developers. However, it is also important that financial
realities not be used as an excuse to produce unsightly, poorly designed,
substandard products. Employee housing does not need to match the
architectural sophistication of a five star resort development, but it does
need to be good quality construction and design. Rivers Edge in Avon is
a good example of an attractive yet affordable employee housing project.
4. 9.3 Policy Based Housing.Opportunities
The first means of implementing housing goals in Lionshead is through
policy based requirements such as the employee generation ordinance
current�y being pursued by the Vail Town Council. As required by a
future ordinance, all developmenf and redevelopment projects, as a
prerequisite to projecf approval, should provide housing for
employees generated and to the extent possible this housing should
be located in the Lionshead area.
VAIL 20/20 STRATEGIC PLAN
Executive Summary (in park)
Housin : The high cost of housing and a lack of developable land
continue to challenge the community in providing adequate workforce
housing. Opportunities exist to increase the amount of employee
housing through redevelopment of existing housing, the purchase of
deed-restricted units and fhrough developer requirements. During
20/20, pa►ticipants placed workforce housing as a top priority for the
community and government leaders to address.
Community Values (in part)
Diversity: Vail values maintaining a diverse population of residents,
workers and visitors, with a broad representation of age, family
composition, ethnic background and economic means.
Land Use and Development (in part)
20/20 Vision: The pedestrian ambiance and scale of Vai! Vitlage and
Lionshead continues into 2020, where the European alpine charm of Vail
is replicated in its new development. The unique character of Vail is �
evident from the Tyrolean building style that speaks of Vail's history, to
the mountain contemporary style that heralds technological advancement.
The vibrant mixed-use pedestrian core areas of Vail attract guests,
residents and businesses. The diversity of businesses within the core
areas provides something for everyone and the new affordable housing
options are seamlessly integrated into the community's fabric.
10
Growth has been carefully managed to be sustainable and
complementary to the natural environment.
20/20 /mplementation: Based on input from the community during the
20/20 process, town staff developed the following goals and action
strategies to support the land use and development vision. The goals
also reflect the common themes heard from the community during the
20/20 process, inciuding a need for more employee housing,
increased environmental sustainability, reduction of I-70 impacts and
managed growth.
Goa! #4: Provide for enough deed-resfricted housing for at least 30
percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly
initiated development.
Actions/Strategies
s Update housing regulations to include more zone disfricts that
are required to provide employee housing.
• Redevelop Timber Ridge to increase number of employee beds.
• Use employee housing fund for buy-downs and other programs that
will increase the number of employees living within the town.
a Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives for
developers to build employee housing unifs.
Housing (in part)
20/20 Vision: The number of employees living withrn the town has steadily
increased, thanks to the town's commitment to ensure affordability and
availability of housing. The number of deed-restricfed rental and for-
sale units required of both privafe and public projects has
increased. The diversity of deed-restricted units can accommodate the
seasonal worker, as well as all leveis of year-round employees, inciuding
those with families. Housing in general has been transformed to include
green building standards.
20/20 Implementation: Based on input from the community during the
20/20 process, town staff with the Vail Local Housing Authority,
developed the following goa/s and action strategies to support the
housing vision. _
Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as
infrastructure thaf promotes community, reduces transit needs and
keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for
enough deed-restricfed housing for at least 30 percent of fhe
workfarce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated
development. �
11
Actions/Strategies:
s Research and propose next steps for strengthening the fown's
inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage policies, including
requirements for more zone districts.
s Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider
reducing requirements for employee housing developments.
•� Ensure pay-in-lieu funds generate as many workforce housing units
as possible.
s Establish protocol for disbursement of dedicated housing fund
resources.
• Research and secure potential alternative (besides pay-in-lieu)
funding sources for empioyee housing.
EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, 2007 (see Attachment C)
SECTION 8- HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS
Keep Up Needs
Housing Demand from Job Growth - According to employment
forecasts developed by the Colorado Department of Loca/ Atfairs,
Eagle County will have a net gain of over 4, 400 jobs in the next
three years and approximately 10, 300 additional jobs by 2015.
Job growth in Eagie County will be the result of expansion by
existing employers, new residential development and new
commerciai/industrial development. Of employers surveyed, 41
percent indicated they plan a net increase in jobs in the next two
years.
Given employment growth over the seven-year period between
2000 and 2007 of 7,222 jobs (1,032 per year), the estimated
increase of 90,316 jobs in the eight years between now and 2015
(1,290 per year) may be siightly over stated. The 4,776 additional
housing units needed to accommodate new jobs by 2015 should,
therefore, be viewed as the maximum number likely to be needed
solely to support employment growth.
Gaps
There is a significant gap between the current demand (catch-up).
units and the number of units available as of Aprii, 2007. The
di�ference of 3, 398 units between current demand for 4, 446 units
and currenf listings of 1,048 units represents the magnitude of the
gap between what residents and in-commuting emp/oyees want
for housing and what the free market is providing. The difference
for each AMl category represents the net demand between what
residents and in-commuters can afford and the free market price
of units.
The gap is largest in the 81 to 120
federal and state housing programs
incomes equal to or less than 80
12
percent AMl range. Since
only serve househo/ds with
percent AM! (Low Income
Housing Tax Credits and several grant programs have even lower
income eligibility standards) addressing the gap in the 81 to 120
percent AMI range will require partnering with private developers
and other local solutions that do not �ely on funding from outside
of Eagle County.
Proportionately, households with incomes greater than 140
percent AMI are the best served by the free market, with units
available to. meet approximafely 64 percent of current demand.
These figures are dynamic; additional units will be placed on the
market during 2007 that will slightly lower the gap. With 88 percent
of the current listings affordabie anly for households with incomes
greater than 140 percent AMI, the change should not significantiy
impact planning for solutions to address catch-up demand.
EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, 1999 (see Attachment D)
Section 9: Conclusions and Recommendations (in part)
• Develop county-wide commerciai linkage and inclusionary
zoning programs. Requiring employers to provide housing
for employees is supported by nearly 70% of the county's
residents. �f/ell over half support requiring that a percentage
of all new homes be designated for employee housing. �
s Develop affordable housing throughout the county except for
seasona/ workers, whose housing should be concentrated in
Vail.
V.1. REVIEVII CRITERIA
1. The extent to which the text amefldment furthers the general and
specific purposes of the Zoning Regulatians; and
These regulations were adopted in April, 2007, and mitigation was
intended to provide develapers with prescribed employee housing
mitigation requirements. As implementation of the requirements has
occiarred, it appears there is a need to.clarify requisite Employee Housing
Plan expectations to achieve desired outcomes as well as better define
certain aspects contained within the regulations.
Staff believes the proposed text amendments clarify the existing
regulations and will continue to further the general and specific purposes
of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage
and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning.
Staff believes the proposed text amendments are consistent with the �
Zoning Regulation's general purpose "to promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and
enhance ifs natural environment and its established character as a resort
and residential community of high quality."
13
Staff believes the proposed text amendments are consistent with the
Zoning Regulation's specific purposes:
"3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic
circulation and to lessen congesfion in the streets.
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street
parking and loading facilities.
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and
economic values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship
among land uses, consistent with municipal development
objectives.
11. To ofherwise provide for the growth of an orderiy and viable
community."
Staff also believes the proposed text amendments are consistent with the
purposes of the Employee Housing, Commercial Linkage, and
Inclusionary Zoning chapters of the Zoning Regulations that state:
"12-13-1: Purpose: The town's economy is largely fourist, based
and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service
for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such�service is dependent
upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force.
To achieve such a work force, the community must work to
provide quality living and �working conditions. Availability and
� affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living
and working conditions for the community's work force. The town
recognizes a permanent, year round population plays an important
role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the town
recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in
ensuring housing is available."
"12-23-1: Purpose and Applicability: The purpose of this chapter is
to ensure that new commercial development and redevelopment
in the town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing
to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such
commercial development and redevelopment."
"12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability: The purpose of this chapter is
to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in
the town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee
housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by
such residential development and redevelopment."
14
2. The extent to which the text amendment would beiter implement and
better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals,
objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and
is compatible with the development objectives of fhe Town; and
As Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning only address a small
percentage of net new employees generated by new development and
redevelopment it is imperative that each development mitigate its own
employee housing requirements on-site. Looking into the future there will
be no alternatives to providing employee housing within the Town of Vail.
Additionally, the employee housing regulations do not even address a
majority of new or existing employees.
As Staff began to analyze the five approved mitigation methods to
understand what modifications may be required to "equalize" the value of
each of the mitigation methods it became apparent that if the community
preferred on-site mitigation this was only going to be achieved by
requiring on-site mitigation. Initially Staff looked at small incremental
increases to each of the methods in order to create parity. Through
analysis it became � apparent that ensuring on-site is the preferred
mitigation method and on-par with fee-in-lieu or other mitigation methods,
dramatic changes would be necessary and would likely still not create the
desired on-site mitigation outcome. A copy of this analysis has been
attached for reference (Attachment A).
To address the Commission's request for flexibility, a finding is proposed
to provide a developer relief from the on-site unit mitigation requirement.
• That the method of mitigation proposed better achieves the intent
of this Chapter than the on-site mitigation method.
To address developer's concerns about predictability, the proposed
recommendations provide developers with the most predictable employee
housing review process possible. It clearly identifies and requires the
community's most valued employee housing mitigation method while
allowing relief from the requirement if it is contr.ary to:
The intent and purpose of the applicable zone district;
The goals of the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive
Plan and the Town's development objectives; and
The unique conditions or circumstances that exist on the site or
structure.
Staff believes the text amendments are proposed to further refine
expectations for requisite employee housing mitigation and elaborate on
specific sections of the regulations. The propased text amendments are
necessary to more clearly state the community's goal of on-site employee
housing. The proposed text amendments are also necessary to achieve
this goal in a simple and direct manner. Staff believes the proposed
15
amendments will better achieve the Town's stated goal of housing 30°/a of
the workforce within the community than the existing regulations.
Staff believes the proposed text amendments would better implement and
better achieve the following adopted goals, objectives and policies of the
Vail Land Use Plan:
"5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur
primarily in existing, plaited areas and as appropriate in new areas
where high hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available
through private etforts, assisted by limifed incentives, provided by
the Town of Vail, with. appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market p/ace
demands for a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community."
Staff believes the proposed text amendments would better implement and
better achieve the following adopted goals, objectives and policies of the
Vail Village Master Plan:
"Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-
around economic health and viability for the village and for the
community as a whole."
"2.6 Objective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing units
fhrough the efforts of the private sector.
2.6. ? Policy:
Employee housing; units may be required as part of any
new or redevelopment project requesting density over that
allowed by existing zoning.
2.6.2 Policy:
Employee housing, shall be developed with appropriate
restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability
to the local work force.
2.6.3 Policy:
The Town of Vail may facilitate in tlie development of
affordable housing by providing limited assistance."
Staff believes the proposed text amendments would better implement and
better achieve the following adopted goals, objectives and policies of the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan:
16
"4.1 Housing
Recent community surveys and grass-roots planning efforts such
as Vail Tomorrow have identified the lack of /ocals housing as the
most critical issue facing the Vail community.
4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities
The first means of implementing housing goais in Lionshead is
through policy based requirements such as the employee
generation ordinance currently being pursued by the Vail Town
Council. As required by a future ordinance, all development and
redevelopment projects, as a prerequisite to project approval,
should provide housing for employees generated and to the extent
possible this housing should be located in the Lionshead area."
Staff believes the proposed text amendrrients would better implement and
better achieve the foilowing adopted goals, objectives and policies of the
Vail 20/20 Strategic Plan:
"Land Use Goal #4: Provide for enough deed-restricted housing
for at least 30 percent of the workforce through po/icies,
regulations and publicly initiated development.
Actions/Strategies
s Update housing regulations to include more zone districts
that are required to provide employee housing.
• Redevelop Timber Ridge to increase number of employee
beds.
• Use employee housing fund for buy-downs and other
programs that wiil increase the number of employees living
within the town.
� Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives
for developers to build employee housing units."
"Housing Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing
as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit. needs
and keeps more empioyees living in the town, and will provide for
enough deed-restricted hausing for at least 30 percent of the
____ workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated
development.
Actions/Strategies:
o Research and propose next steps for strengthening the
town's inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage
policies, including requirements for more zone districts."
Staff believes the proposed text amendments would better implement and
better achieve the following adopted goals, objectives and policies of the
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment:
17
"Develop county-wide commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning
programs. Requiring employers to provide housing for employees
is supported by nearly 70% of the county's residents. Well over
half support requiring that a percentage of ail new homes be
designated for employee housing.
Develop affordable housing throughout the county except for
seasonal workers, whose housing should be concentrated in Vail."
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how
conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the
subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer
appropriate or is inapplicable; arid
Staff believes the propased text amendments are a response to the
actual implementation of new regulations adopted in April, 2007. These
regulations allow developers full discretion to choose which existing
employee housing mitigation works best to their advantage. Howeve�r,
� the results of these existing regulations are not achieving the Town's
stated goals and priorities of creating additional on-site units. A system or
incentives, or disincentives, could be created to encourage the
construction of more on-site units; however, this approach further
complicates the Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning regulations
and still does not ensure the community will achieve its housing goals.
The proposed text amendments are necessary to more clearly state the
community's goal of on-site employee housing. The proposed text
amendments are also necessary to achieve this goal in a simple and
direct manner.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land use � regulations
consistent with municipal development objectives.
Employee Housing Units are allowed in 23 of the Town's 26 zone
districts. They are only prohibited in Heavy Service (the three existing
gas station sites) and two of the open space districts (Natural Area
Preservation District and Outdoor Recreation District). As permitted or
conditional uses, the construction of Employee Housing Units in these 23
zone districts is encouraged and is inherently consistent with the Town's
development objectives:
As described in criteria #1 and #2 above; employee housing requirements
in general and employee housing regulations specifically related to on-
site units are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town's
Zoning Regulations, Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, 20/20 Strategic Plan, and the Eagle County
Housing Needs Assessment.
18
Staff believes the proposed text amendments will continue to facilitate
and provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail rnaster plans and
development objectives.
5. Such other factors and criteria the Commissian and/or Council
deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
VI1. STAFF RECONIMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the text
amendments outlined in the attached Draft Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend
approval of this request; Staff recommends the Commission pass the following
motion:
"The Planning and Environmenfal Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval of staff's recommended text amendments
for prescribed regulation amendments to Chapters 12-13, Employee
housing, 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail
Town Code, to establish standards and criteria related to mitigating
employee housing requirements, and setting forth details in regard
thereto."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text
amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI this
memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning
and Environmental Commission finds:
1: That the amendment is consistent wifh the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and poficies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town
Code; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the Tovyn and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality."
m
VII1. ATT/�CHMENTS
A. Comparison of Mitigation Methods
B. Draft Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008.
C. Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 2007
D. Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 1999
20
Attachment A
a` As commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning exisf today there is no priority
order in the methods of mitigation.
• The regulations apply to each method of mitigation equally.
• The existing regulations, related to mitigation methods, are not providing the
mitigation results the community most values.
a Without dramatic policy change it may not be possible to achieve the desired
employee housing mitigation.
• The examples below illustrate the existing regulations, equally weighted
mitigation methods, as well as attempting to prioritize mitigation methods with
weighted mitigation rates.
Hypoihetical Residential Project
126,311 square feet of new residential development
126,311 sq ft x 10% Inclusionary Zoning = 12,631 sq ft ,
----
Mitigation Methods Today
Value/Sq Ft Est. Cost
On-Site Sq Ft 10% 12,631 $500 $6,315,500
I
Off-Site Sq Ft 10% 12,631 $100 $1,263,100
Fee-in-Leiu "10% 12,631 $236.65 $2,989,126
Mitigation Methods Equally Weighted
Value/ Sq Ft Est. Cost
On-Site Sq Ft 10% 12,631 $500 $6,315,500
Off-Site Sq Ft 50% 63;155 $100 $6,315,500
Fee-in-Lieu 21.25% 26,841 $236.65
Mitigation Methods with Priority
On-Site Sq Ft 10% 12,631
Off-Site Sq Ft 65% 82,102
�_Fee-in-Lieu 35%
Value/Sq Ft Est. Cost
$500 $6,315,500
$100 $8,210,200
$236.65 $10,462,024 !,
� O O � 'T� O O � � O O �
m � � ^� m � � � � � � "';
� cn cn cQ � cn cn c� � cn cn cQ
� m m a� � m m n� � m m °*
C � "Q � � "Q 'Q � _ � 'Q �
� � � � . � � � � �
� � �
N
w c, � o � �, ,s o �, ,� .� o
a �. Q
cro vo o N N o o N o 0 o N
cr�
� � � cn � � s � �• � o
� o
�' _ �
?
� � �
-� � J � _J � 'J tC �i 'J �I �
� � � O � � � � � � �
� � co ,� oo cn cfl c� cfl cfl cfl
ta
N � � � W � � C = W � � c
� O O rt� � O O� � O O�
p� o O � � O o� p� o o U)
Ut � C31 � U� �
� �
4fi Ef� � N 00 00 00 (n .A -� 00 [n
� �
.p � ;-« ;-� �
W i t�p O O C�O �t�0 O W �! rR�D o
� W C71 � .A Ut CJf � V � CJ7 �-
� 0 O V O O tWfl O O
� � � T � � � � �
�
� Cn C/7 � fn Cn � Cn (n
�� � �
� m m � m m �! tD cD
c 3 � � � 3 � � 3
� � � � � �
ca � iv � '' n� n� n� n�
� o
� � � y � � o � �
�—* � _i � � � .� �
� � O N � O O O O
� .�p Oo -�P � oo Oo 0o Oo
.n n .fl
o c�''si c�i, � o c�"'n c�''i, � o c�s, c.Wi, �
0 0� o o� o o�
� � �
� � � � � v � �a m
c-� .s cn -� c r� � cn -n c fa -� cn -n c
° °o o � � ° o °o � � °. °o o � �
� .� -Q
� .,, � -� � ,�,
� @ � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � �
0 o m o o m o o�
cW�n � c��n -° c�n �°
m
� � �y � � �� � � ��
N N -, .« �I V �i t+o l'"f V'�1 :"'
W O � f7 .P� fJ1 GJf � � � Ctf C�
� � � t�n� -W.� � � � p � � t�n,_„
-� �"� Gtl
� � � W O Q � � O
�I N
rnrn
��
Q �
� .�
.-.-�' i
v
x �
�
om
��
� o
n �
� (p
�• �
O �
��
v
� �:
N �
� ='
.�
� (D
(� G
.�. (D
�O
� �
� �
� �
� �'
�
°oo
io cfl
rn @
� �
� ro
x �
N 'a
O 0
o �
C7 (D
O �
� �
!D �
��
�?. N
��
(D
r °-
�' s
v�
n
c� o•
m �
�� 3
��
o�
0
� �.
�
m
�
�
_
�
�a
0
M
�
�
n
�
�
�
�.
C
y
�D
�
��
n
�«
� .
Attachment B
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1
SERIES 2008
AN ORDIN�4NCE AMENDING ARTICLES 12-6A, HILLSIDE RESIDENTI�4L
DISTRICT; 12-68, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; 12-6C, TWO-
FAIVIILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; 12-6D, TUVO-FAMILY
PRIM/�►RY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; 12-6E, RESIDENTIAL
CLUSTER DISTRICT; 12-6F, LOW DENSITY NIULTIPLE-FA►i1�ILY DISTRICT;
12-6G, , MEDIUiUI DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT; 12-6H, HIGH
DENSITY MULTIP�E-FAMILY DISTRICT; 12-61, HOUSING DISTRICT; 12-7A,
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT; 12-7B, COMMERCIAL CORE 1
DISTRICT; 12-7C, COMIVIERCIAL CORE 2 DISTRICT; 12-7D, COMIVIERGAL
CORE 3 DISTRICT; 12-7E, COMMERCIAL SIERVICE CENTER; 12-7F,
ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; 12-7H, LIOiVSHEAD MIXED USE 1
DISTRICT; LIONSHEAD �1iIXED USE 2 DISTRICT; 12-7J, PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIUN 2 DISTRICT; .12-8A, AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SP�4CE
DISTRICT; 12-8D, SKI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT; 12-8E, SKI
BASE/RECRE�4TION 2 DISTRICT; 12-9B, PARKING DISTRICT; 12-9C,
GENER�4L USE;, CHAPTER 12-13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING, CHAPTER 12-23,
COMNIERCIAL LINKAGE, AND CHAPTER 12-24, INCLUSIONARY ZONING,
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
Town of Vail held a public hearing and reviewed and forwarded a recommendation of
for the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council in
accordance with the procedu�es and criteria and findings outlined in Chapter 12-3 `of the Zoning
Regulations of the Town of Vail; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines the provisions of Chapter 12-23,
Commercial Linkage and Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, must be
amended to clarify the basis on which Employee Housing Plans shall be reviewed; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the amendments are consistent
with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the developrnent objectives of the Town, based
upon Section VI of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission
dated February 25, 2008, and the evidence and testimony presented; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the amendments further the
general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations, based upon Section VI of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 25, 2008, and
the evidence and testimony presented; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the amendments promote the
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural,
environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highes�
quality, based upon Section VI of the Staff memorandum dated February 25, 2008,
WHEREAS, the Town Councii finds and determines that the public health, safety, and
welfare will be served by these adopting regulations, based upon Section VI of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 25, 2008, and
the evidence and testimony presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Article 12-6A, Hillside Residential District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in °fr;,�t"��g�, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-6A-2: PERiVII TTED USES:
.The following uses shall be permitted in fhe HR district:
Single-family residential dwellings.
' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapfer 13 of this title.
, � •
Section 2. Article 12-6B, Single Family Residential District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �i�et-k�e�g#, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-6B-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the SFR district:
Single-family residential dwellings.
T��.� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title. �
� •
Section 3. Article 12-6C, Two-Family Residential District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follaws (text to be deleted is in ����#, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
92-6C-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the R district:
Single-family residential dwellings. �
Two-family residential dwellings.
�-� " Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
, •
� •,
Section 4. Article 12-6D, Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District, of the
Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in st�i�et#r-etfgl�, text that is
to be added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
92-6D-2: PERMI TTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted:
Single-family residential dwellings.
0
Two-family residential dwellings.
�'� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
� •
, •
Section 5. Article 12-6E, Residential Cluster District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �1��, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-6E-2: PERMI TTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the RC district:
Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and
condominium dwellings with no more than four (4) units in any new building.
Single-family residential dwellings. ,
Two-family residential dwellings.
�}��e-I-l� employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
12-6E-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the RC district, subject to issuanee of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this tifle.
Business offices, as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A13 of this title.
Dog kennels.
Funiculars and other similar conveyances.
Home child daycare facilities as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title.
Private clubs.
Professional office, as further regulated by subsection 12-16-iA 13 of this title.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public or private schools.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
-�.y`�--N� . • . . . .
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 6. Article 12-6F, Low Density Multiple-Family District, of the Vail Town Code
is hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in s#-�i#e��g#, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-6F-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the LDMF district:
Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and
condominium dwellings.
Single-family residential dwellings.
Two-family residential dwellings.
T��� . .
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 93 of this tifle.
12-6F-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the LDMF district, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of
this title:
Bed and breakfasts as fur�her regulated by section 12-94-18 of this titie.
Dog kennels.
Funiculars and other similar conveyances.
Home child daycare facilities as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title.
Private clubs.
Public and private schoo/s.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows. �
Empl yee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 7. Article 12-6G, Medium Density Multiple-Family District, of the Vail Town
Code is hereby amended as follows (text ta be deleted is in �e��, text that is to be
added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-6G-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the LDMF district:
Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and
condominium dwellings.
Single-family residential dwellings.
Two-family residential dwellings.
' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
12-6G-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the LDMF district, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of
this fitle:
Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title.
Dog kennels.
Funiculars and other similar conveyances. ,
Home child daycare facilities as further regulafed by section 12-14-12 of this title.
Private clubs.
Public and private schools.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Emp/oyee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title,
Section 8. Article 12-6H, High Density Multiple-Family District, of the Vail Town
Code is hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in n}r;,°'",�a�;9,;, text that is to be
added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
4
12-6H-2: PERMI TTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the HDIVIF district:
Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments,
located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the
total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site;
additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrac'e.
Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and
condominium dwellings.
��,c ' Employee Housing Unifs, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 96 of
this title:
Bed and breakfasts as furfher regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title.
Dog kennels.
Funiculars and ofher similar conveyances.
Home child daycare facilities as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title.
Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations.
Private parking structures.
Private unstructured parking:
Public and private schoo/s.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public park and recreafion facilities.
Public parking structures.
Public transportatian terminals.
Public unstructured parking.
Pubiic utility and public service uses.
Religious institutions.
Ski lifts and tows. �
Timeshare units.
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 9. Article 12-61, Housing District, of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended
as follows (text to be deleted is in ��ilt�;�t#r-s�g#, text that is to be added is bald. Sections of text
that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-61-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the H district:
Bicycle and pedestrian paths.
� �
Emp/oyee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapfer 13 of ihis fitle.
Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space.
12-6/-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permiited in the H district, subject fo issuance of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
, y
Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the planning
and environmental commission) to the use of employee housing and specifically serving
the needs of the residents of the development, and developed in conjunction with
employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subjecf to a
conditional use permit:
Banks and financial institutions.
� Business otfices and professional offices as further regulafed by section 12-16-7 of this
title.
Child daycare facilities.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Funiculars and other similar conveyances.
Health clubs.
Personal services, inctuding, but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and barber shops,
tailor shops, and similar services.
Retail stores and establishments.
Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be
evaluated by the planning and environmenfal commission:
� A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing
on the property, and .
B. Dweliing units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling
units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the
property, and
--- - C. Dweiling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and
D. Dwelling units are compatibie with the proposed uses and buildings on the site
and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
Outdoor patios.
Public and private schools.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities. �
Public parks and recreational facilities. .
Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurfenant equipment.
�� " Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this fitle.
Section 10. Article 12-7A, Public Accommodation District, of the Vail. Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in s#�1��#�1�, fext that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
92-7A-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the PA district:
Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the
principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of #he total gross
residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory
dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace.
' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 93 of this title. �
12-7A-3: CONDI TIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA district, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-94-18 of this title.
Fractional fee club units as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title.
Healthcare facilities.
Lodges; including accessory eating, drinking, or retail estabiishments located within the
principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the
total gross residential floor area of the main sfructure or structures on the site.
Major arcades. •
Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations.
Private parking structures.
Private unstructured parking.
Professional and business offices.
Public and private schools.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public parking structures.
Public parks and recreational facilities.
Public transportation terminals.
Public unstructured parking.
Public utility and public service uses.
Religious institutions.
Ski lifts and tows.
Theaters and convention facilities.
-T-�ee-�� . . . . . .
Emp/oyee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 93 of this title.
Section 11. Article 12-78, Commercial Core 1 District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �e���et�gl�, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-7B-2: PERMI TTED AND CONDI TIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL:
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden
levels within a structure: �
8. �y�l� employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this tifle.
12-78-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; F1RST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL:
B.Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street
� level within a structure:
4. .��.�-�1� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated
by chapter 13 of this title. _ __ _
12-78-4: PERMITTED AND COND1TlONA�L USES; SECOND FLOOR:
A.Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on the second
f/oor above grade within a structure; provided, however, that a conditional use permit
will be required in accordance with chapter 96 of this title for any use which
eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit or any'portion thereof.�
g, ��e-�� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated
by chapter 13 of this title.
B. Conditionai Uses: The following uses shail be permitted on second f/oors above
grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Dog kennels.
Electronics sa/es and repair shops.
Household appliance stores.
Liquor stores.
Luggage stores.
Meeting rooms.
Outdoor patios.
Theaters.
�e--E� . . . . . .
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of fhis title.
12-78-5: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; ABOVE SECOND FLOOR:
A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the
second floor above grade:
Lodges.
Multiple-family residential dwellings.
T��.� ' Emp/oyee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
B. Conditional Uses: The foltowing uses sha!/ be permitfed on any floor above the
second floor above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. Any permitted or conditional
use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit, or any po►tion
thereof, shall require a conditional use permit. Such uses may include:
8. -�y�e-N-F . . . . . .
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 12. Article 12-7D, Commercial Core 3 District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in ,s�lce�l��, text that is to be added is
bold. Sectians of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-7D-1: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district:
Banks and financial institutions. �
Eating and drinking establishments, including the following:
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shops:
� Fountain and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
Health clubs.
Personal services and repair shops, including the following:
Beauty and barber shops.
Business and otfice services.
Cleaning and laundry pick up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing.
Laundromats.
Shoe repair.
Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies. -
Professional offices, business offices, and studios.
Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the following:
Apparel stores.
Art supply stores and galleries.
Auto parts stores.
Bakeries and confectioneries, preparation of products for sa/e on the premises.
Bookstores.
Building materials stores without outdoor storage.
Camera stores and photographic studios.
Candy stores.
Chinaware and glassware stores.
Delicatessens and specialty food stores.
Department and generai merchandise stores.
Drugstores.
Electronics sa/es and repair shops.
Florists. �
Food stores.
Furniture stores.
Gift shops.
Hardware stores.
Health food stores.
Hobby stores.
Household appliance stores.
Jewelry stores. �
Leather goods stores.
Liquor stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores. �
Photographic studios.
Radio and television broadcasting studios. �
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Superrnarkets. � �
Toy stores.
Variety stores.
Yardage and dry goods stores. _. __.
T��/-}� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title. .
Additional offices, business, or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in
accordance with the provisions of this section.
12-7D-2: GONDITIONAL USES:
1"he following conditional uses sha/1 be permitted in the commercial core 3 district,
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of
chapter 96 of this title: .
Any use permitted by section 12-7D-9 of this article which is not conducted entirely
within a building.
_ _ . ;
Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title.
Brew pubs.
Chiid daycare center.
Commercial laundry and cleaning services, bulk plant.
Commercial storage.
Dog kennels.
Drive-up facilities.
Major arcades.
Massage parlors.
Outside car wash.
Pet shops.
Public buildings, grounds, and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Radio and television signal �elay transmission facilities.
Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities.
Transportation businesses.
Emp/oyee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 13. Article 12-7E, Commercial Service Center District, of the Vail Town Code
is hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �#-rilt��#Fer�la, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-7E-3: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the CSC district:
Banks and financial institutions. �
Eating and drinking establishments, including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Cotfee shops.
Fountains and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
Personal services and repair shops, including the following:
Beauty a�nd barber shops.
Business and office services.
Cleaning and laundry pick up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing.
Laundromats.
Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
Professional offices, business otfices, and studios.
Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the following:
Apparel stores.
Art supply stores and galleries.
Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the
premises. �
Bookstores.
Building materials stores without outdoor storage.
Camera stores and photographic studios.
ro
Candy stores.
Chinaware and glassware stores.
Delicatessens and specialty food stores.
Department and general merchandise stores.
Drugstores.
Electronics sa/es and repair shops.
Florists:
Food stores.
Furniture stores.
Gift shops.
Hardware stores.
Hobby stores.
Household appliance stores.
Jewelry stares.
Leather goods stores.
Liquor stores.
Luggage stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores.
Pet shops.
Photographic studios.
Radio and television broadcasting studios.
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Supermarkets.
Toy stores.
Variety stores.
Yardage and dry goods stores.
Additional offices, businesses, or services determined to be similar to permitted uses
in accordance with the provisions of section 12-7E-2 of this article.
Employee housing units as provided in chapfer 93 of this title.
12-7E-4: CONDI TIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC district, subject #o issuance
of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Any use permitted by section 12-7E-3 of this article, which is not conducted entirely
within a building.
Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by section 12-94-18 of this title.
Bowling alley. _ _ _ _ _
_ _
Brew pubs.
Child daycare centers.
Commercial laundry and cleaning services.
Dog kennels.
Major arcades.
Multiple-family residential dwellings and lodges.
Outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in section 92-7E-5 of this
article.
Private clubs.
Private' parking structures.
Private unstructured parking.
11
_
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Theaters, meetings rooms, and convention facilities.
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 14: Article 12-7F, Arterial Business District, of the Vail Town Code is hereby
amended as follows (text to be deleted is. in st�l�e�g�, text that is to be added is bold.
Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-7F 3: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in fhe arterial business district:
Eating and drinking establishments, as follows, are permitted on the first (street)
level:
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shops, fountains, sandwich shops and restaurant.
Personal services and repair shops, as follows, are deemed to be generally
accessory and/or supportive of office uses and shall be permitted on the first (street)
level:
Beauty and barber shops.
Shoe repair.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
Professional otfices, business offices and studios.
Radio and television broadcasting studios.
Retail stores and establishments, as follows, are deemed to be generally accessory
and/or supportive of office uses and are therefore permitted so long as they do nof
exceed eight thousand (8, 000) square feet in floor area for each such business use
and so long as they are located on the first (street) level:
Art supply stores.
Bookstores.
Drugstores.
Florists.
Newsstands.
Stationery stores.
Tobacco stores.
Additional offices, businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses
in accordance wifh the provisions of section 12-7F-1 of this article.
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of fhis title.
12-7F-4: CONDITIONAL USES:
A.Enumerated: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the arterial business
district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Any use permitted by section 92-7F-3 of this article, which is not conducted entirely
within a building.
Bed and breakfasts as further provided by section 12-14-18 of this title.
Brew pubs. �
12
Child daycare ceriters. ,
Microbreweries.
Private unstructured parking.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public services uses, inciuding screened outside storage.
Service yards.
Transportation businesses.
Emp/oyee Housing Unifs, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 15. Article 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in s#-�ilc�+r-ec�g#, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL:
8. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden
levels within a structure: �
Banks and financial institutions.
Child daycare centers. ,
Commercial ski storage.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Personal services and repair shops.
Professional offices, business offices and studios.
Public or private bckers and storage.
Recreation facilities.
Retail establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski schoo/ and skier services.
7"ravel and ticket agencies.
��,c ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permifted uses described in this
subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL:
B.Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street
level within a structure:
Banks, with wa�k-up teller facilities.
Child daycare centers. __ _ _ _ _ _ _
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recreation facilities.
Retail stores and establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services.
Travel and ticket agencies.
�y�/� " Employee Housing Unifs, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this
subsection, in accordance with fhe provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
13
12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those floors
above the first floor within a structure: �
Accommodation units.
Attached accommodation units.
Lodges.
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and
.,f +hcn-c„',�-n'�;r.�..
�"�� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
Additionai uses determined to be similar to permiited uses described in this
subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
Section 16. Article 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �l��f�et�g#, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-71-2: PERMITTED AND COND1TlONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL:
B.Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels
within a sfructure:
Banks and financial institutions.
Child daycare eenters.
Commercial ski storage.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Persona! services and repair shops.
Professional otfices, business offices and studios.
Public or private lockers and storage.
Recreation facilities.
Retail establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services.
Travel and ticket agencies.
�/�,c ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this
subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
12-71-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; F1RST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL:
B.Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permiited on the first floor or street level
within a structure:
Banks, with walk-up teller facilities.
Child daycare centers.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Recreation facilities.
Retail stores and establishments.
Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services.
Travel and ticket agencies.
�e.../� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title. �
l4
Additional uses determined to be similar to permiited uses described in this
subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
12-71-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The fotlowing uses shall be permitted on those floors
above the first floor within a structure:
Lodges and accommodation units
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dweiling units, and
ef��is--�i�/e}
��-b� ' Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by
chapter 13 of this title.
Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this
subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
Section 17. Article 12-8A, Agriculture and Open Space District, of the Vail Town Code
is hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in s#�il��e���k�, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
92-8A-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional
use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 ofi this title:
Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves
assembly of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of
buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility.
Cemeteries.
Low power subscription radio facilities.
Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing /odges.
Public and private schoals.
Religious institutions.
Semipi►blic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats.
Ski lifts and tows.
Emp/oyee Housing Units, as furfher regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 18. Article 12=8D, Ski Base Recreation District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �r-�1��� text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
12-8D-3: CONDlT10NAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base/recreation district,
subject to the issuance of a conditianal use permit in accordance with the provisions of
chapter 96 of this title:
Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment.
Additions or expansions of public or private parking structures or spaces.
Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title.
' Child daycare center.
Food and beverage cart vending.
Public, private or quasi-public clubs.
Recreation room/minor arcade.
15
Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds.
Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows.
Redevelopment of ski racing facilities.
Redevelopment of water sforage extraction and treatment facilities.
Seasona/ structures to accommodate athletic, cultural, or educational,activities.
Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.
Summer seasona/ community offices and programs.
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 93 of this titie.
Section 19. Article 12-8E, Ski Base Recreation 2 District, of the Vail Town Code is
hereby amended as follows (text to be deleteci is in s�+lt�k�#, text that is to be added is
bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-5E-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permifted in the ski base/recreation 2 district,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions ot'
chapter 16 of this title:
Brew pubs.
Fractional fee units.
Outdoor dining decks and patios.
Private and pubtic clubs.
Public utility and public service uses.
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional or permitted uses described in
this chapter, in accordance with the pr.ovisions of section 12-3-4 of this title.
Section 20. Article 12-98, Parking District, of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended
as follows (text to be deleted is in ��,�'rcfm�'rrv�yii� text that is to be added is bold. Sections of text
that are not amended have been omitted.)
12-98-3: CONDI TIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a conditiona! use
permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Major arcades.
Parks and recreational facilities.
Private or public off street vehicle parking structures.
Public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourist or town
related and that are accessory to a parking structure.
Temporary construction staging sites. For the purposes of this section, a ter'nporary
,
construction. staging site shall mean a site on which, for a temporary period of time,
„
construction materials, heavy construction equipment, vehicles and construction trailers
may be stored.
Employee Housing Unifs, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Section 21. Article 12-9C, General Use District, of the Vail Town Code is hereby
amended as follows (text to be deleted is in �lc��a�l�, text that is to be added is bold.
Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.)
16 .
12-9G3: CONDITIONAL USES:
A.Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU district, subject
to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter
16 of this title:
Child daycare centers. .
Equestrian trails.
Golf courses.
Healthcare facilities.
Helipad for emergency and/or commuriity use.
Major arcades.
Plant and free nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or
other nursery products, grown, produced or made on the premises.
Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses.
Public and private schools.
Public and quasi-public indoor community facilities.
Public buildings and grounds.
Public parking structure.
Public theaters, meeti�g rooms and convention facilities.
Public tourist/guest service related facilities.
Public transportation terminals.
Public unstructured parking.
. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment.
Religious insfifutions.
Seasonal structures or uses to accomrnodate educational, recreational or cultural
activities.
Ski lifts, tows and runs.
Employee Housing Units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of fhis fitle.
Water and sewage treatment plants.
Section 22. Section 12-13-4, Employee. Housing, of the Vail Towri Code is hereby
amended as follows (text to be deleted is in s#�i����e�►gl�, text that is to be added is bold.
Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.) .
]7
n.,
�
Z
W
�
j
�
Z
�
Z
�+
4,
W
m
�
w
W
�
W
�
M
!`�
�
N
�c+
a
C y� G N C
F` tL1 Nw � cD�� . �� dw`� .
77 �/1 � � 'D .L. Q_ W � �"C„ � r.
� `� 3 �� � W �,�c � = v
� cZ a� tp ca. d �� `o
O �Wio�S�a �mo3o F�-.aki�c14io
� .." . �
0
Ei `�°� '�rom� y�
m W ...0 E �.0 � 0 0 U
� � E� �' ��"" `� m
� o o, `°�' O o' v°�i q o
�� o°o 0o c
�� Z r°> �-�.' �C c+�°� r�." a4 . �
` � �
,,,�, a3 co
�
��+� m�o�
m
�
c' Vo � Vo� Uo
"�= `r' �`, a``ic�
a�N 3 c
a a�va j cL.�.v � a�
° E� Ea� °'�-° ° Em �`-°m
� � � � � � �Q m� o� � mj `° 5 � ° Q� �
` t0 �°''�`��y� °_o' �'°'.c o��'o
o�,� v�iQ�-�'cmy �-°��°a��� `�mtu 3-Q v�..,n��,�
o � °°� �a � �� � �� m �a o N o c°h �.�a�.. °c � � @ ° � U � °
°'� °�' m��`° � u°�iw � m°,'� � mi"�..v m o o� � cu �`� c'm^'o'
N'D ' � cO�p p U O' O j y�� v�i (0 h�... a C � tT " .
�°�'� °`roco.�c°o=omm�°'-'�-�°'c �'�U' � =o�°�«���''c�cR
C�U� Q taa� � o�.<t � rn�r. m ci- m o¢ m m�L � t»�'�• �s cl- m o�
'a o ,,,, � R $ o
c°1i �i.i a o ''� W 'o .o � ,,�
'�o� (�m�,o Q� mo,�
iq�`� �a�imo� OW.,a�i°m�-�
ro m o. � y o i aC:� o m��
c c� m O'm �' � vUj a; � m a ro
0 � � O �." 'p O ' V � '
a�a W"m�� C�v,�°a�,�?j
'�o o � �'t c °:�C �`�[� °�' �o �Z ¢ �
RU� v�l- co �n W J t- m�u� o W Z
00 0�0� �
u`�. c u� " c� c� w o
E
0
� � �uQ. e °j cu�c. e !��: p
m �•O-q: p �.�[Y o .� y:.
° �"}Z'v� n Wv� � W �3q
:U uC � ��a �, m�a a� ���
Q �V1��-my'�o i�-m�a F�,-akic�iC�
o °' � o
aNi o��3 ai
'Q = � a �°
m �� f6��°w' `�°o�i
� �
�c Ea�i,a. �c�'� �C�,
�� �"- � �w m o J� a�
�'� Z C�' Z��y y �� ro
�° o � W
3m ' �iaQ'i -�com=' I�-`ov�i
O f�- i-. O y I-- �n rn .�
`o �, o� ��, � � � �Q .Q
� rn� � o°o �; 3 � c �O � � � � �� .��� °
o �`m y o =,° ti.-..'_'�F":a $ ��s h� � �V.�,, � �� �
aT�� ���E�°�.N �tica�� o� aziia�i a�i oc� ��a�i E
rn�� �c�a�`°a� �y ��m>,'�'� "'am �.c -c mp,-�',a,n,�`nE
�•€ � roa�;-v a=�:o `o � � cn v� '�'o:a
� �,� '�n o h y c ��'v� E E�n c'c m � c c c �n 3 E� a� E.a c°�
mCa�3a� v� w._mm'�m oa�a a�o 0 oa�om m�o
No.s O..CL�YI-CY...�� 4��YLL.QLY U'�ta) 4....ie�-JNU�Y�..l�l�c�ZLL.CL�L
m �
w � � ~
�
�
�
ai
°o
N
O
h
e
�
�
Z
U
C
C
a
O
�
Na '� ya � �� �
y �
� �.� Z m� Z �� � � `°.p c
W'•y W�•� W�'in W 3 0 0�'
� d` c d� e a�� c a� o o� o
�ua �uv ��a � v�H� i
� N N^
W a`v„ �N.. `°
a� � -. � �, �
ro
� .N •� °' ro �
,� cQU G~i N � ,�O � y
� V �� V�'e °o
p Z Oi.U�i a�N T=
w ro � � �
o. fB
,�m� a mC wmc �m�'
� o :...
Uo� Cy = 4h V � .
L� �, ; � m ro d� � m ro o� ; �r; u,;ti
ri�a� a"�°a5 a�°a� a�v�
z z � z
Q � Q Q
Z a � �
Q Q 4 " �4
�c 2 Z ����Z
� o � m o � Z' cu �
� �s c cv m c .Q
�� � d'"'°'��'+'� ,�n, d°oa�i'v�,�, ����
� ,C 'D � O ,C 'D �1 p Q7 � � � b
� � r ry� a01 1"" � O C;? C c�''0 N �" � V p, :� C � y� w: �
� �,a �,a ��c� aEi �_� ����5 �_� °' �n m a�_
�b a; � yw: d � m tn� � y°w' m u fi� �� a? o
Wo� wro;��4:roc:: WcL�o!«.�•�°: Wom�y
m � �
� m L. .� �� � c0 G y�� R7 R% .
I�— y� F�. O y N��� � 1,�- O� N�N� � I-�- v�i �':�
C m �' �' �
N`^ N M V O w � �-p � pyj N �+ N V d C �� V W � � �
o`o 0 o m � `° � o ��s-o �`° ai � twU m vmi d� �+=N �''N aCi
m U U U v) . c'..U�, a� � a°i m � o�� °: j � j c'�oyi> r n � j c'y a y i� � s `° � t?
'a.m m m m �.� � ��0= � •c m•CZ � a,� a� �'y,y y 'o: °''' y..�'�, d � �
°���� m•�� °' m a�i C� m o��W�° a� °'a aai.o.c m d°'a m cLro m a�i�
� E� E E E m•m c"`° �m m m ���� �'��oZ ��a�i�'� p� �a ca"� �n o� �v
's c�i � E E E c a�i'� t mm.°p a�i� �,'a � a`0W ����,-rj m�'y5 � n,�+�p ro�;'yj ��_
4QUUUUUQaC�T� nc�vQO¢�'°'oti m m aR E c�u roW"�'u.W a'Q E m��aW Qi
J '�j �
a N C C
�?d�,o 0 0
> > � L� "" �' �j� p�' � �
o. c,o t o'� o.c,i c;a ; o.
!� F-�' �V....i �� 1�' � N� j ti
�
a
�
0
0
N
0
m
.�
�
Z
a�
U
C
tII
c
O
�
a
�
a � c �
a� ��pm°=
v,�W Wj�a�
Q a� �- a� v E�'O
a� o
.� '�p w I-�• Cki vr U O
ri
� �
N
� F
t� D w �
V
Q C � � �
� �
�U V ��
a4 O�.UJ
Q C (jJ r"
� O' '� � �
�
� G � �
yN ,�'�,,, �, �p tb N �+ .
aa ac'�i°a �
�
�
a
m
.c
�
�
-° W
�4
.� .,��_, z
.Q
a
�
c
�
a'
vaW�
�� �
.n m
� �
.E E o .
�o
� !�! w: G
�U ��o
xa,
v� W W 5 � '�
4cpa d ��u-
,rp .�`e,,, F�-. N U U' . .
a�
� � c o, � m
m >'OZ° y Zt°��w°
�c'a�m° d W�`m�,w
.a o-5 t°'fi"' �+vt � E—° a�
� o �o � �,�—� E n.aw:
maCi,a.cmQ ��.�'``UaE,E�
a�i a�i oa y�w; Z�°'w' m � d��
>a�c m..`c Wro�a.c4.�!�,��,
o m -, 5
��z�° � 3 � � � aQ'i� o.0 0'a�i
Q E� o o O� F,. O ul N �/ ..! .� i.
� N r" N �'i c�i p,F.^
dmm' � 'a '�w
,�;� o 0 0`o `o a�i �a °' o w.�
� ui .,C �.:. ::. U U U vl ` y y k �a V h r.: �
� N��,h ro m yU,C�-'� R d0_.. C
�'_ � 'B 'n Ta m m ia w c� d
io a�ty,0 O o��.. � i�Q ai C v�i m�'c � a'i ��ti:
� �da�tn E Edddm ho�c�tn�y �Q..�
a� ��o.�:���EEE�a`,'c--���c�i�mc�`o�'a�iw
0 o y,� 3 O� G 5� V o O O o a�i j h•k �p � l�6 � �C Q' � d�/
UT 4Tc�CD..Q4,QUUUUUoO�Sc-.r3t7qtnc�i ro[�O
J �
V ` C
� % � fi ""�
lD
cC
a c.o��t
ti ti ����
�
�
a
�
°o
N
O
h
C
�
�
F
Z
U
C
N
G
�
�
y ��
.7 � N 'v,�`. �
W j �'"' j C
G7 V � V '�D
O `
k-�- N 4� U O
'tf''
N
N
t�
�
w� c0
QC
� y �
U � C
U
a�r°v
N
n
�, C4
,u; tv C
y, 1�0 t�6 N !^% .
a��CO 's C
4,Un'O 5
4
Z
4
2
�
�
� a
0
y �' O
W��LL
� U ` �
� O�f U �
a � �,
N
� W � C a� O
� y w O � c�II
N Q1~ �� �+�'a' .
E �...�� V �'� C
..N.. C.�.�..�..� .
T G i � � � G �
�
� v�'.. Q_ fII N C j a.
F'�..`ooi�uQ'iN�°�'
NT"Nai U O
N N N � � `p +"�Cf
�i � O O O O O d � i3 � O 0@i .5
ci ci .,* ::. ;:. U U U v� ` y� k ::. � h v.,
5jw �•`� V'`6 b ro%ia m°'C�1�c"� y°'O m o�i
b'ayiLO o o����� yd'o•..��p��..
��O'=� c � E �� m a'' i m a� iQ a��i�az�a �� o.o �
� .0 Q' � O�: O E E� E vd: C � p� y N`So m N y� N C
p�i �� a O j CVi � tVi O O O O O�i 3 t�i! �k � y chU ..AC a C N�
aO.Z�T4Q4QUUUUUaq�sv.��G�tq�i ro�1Q
�
N � c
0 0
`'� • ::.
� .� �C O) -�
Q, t� C y:. �
F�'c-fi,..N � 3
�
O
N
v..
O
y
C
�
�
t,"
�
�
Section 23. Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage, of the Vail Town Code is hereby
amended as follows (text to be deleted is in ��t�r�e�, text that is to be added is bold):
12-23-1: PURPOSE AND APPUCABILITY:
A. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new commercial
development and redevelopment in the Town provide for a reasonable .amount of
employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such
commercial development and redevelopment.
8: Except as provided in Section 12-23-5, this Chapter shall apply to
all new commercial development and redevelopment located within the foJlowing
zone districts:
1. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF);
2, Public Accommodation (PA);
3. Public Accommodation 2 (PA2);
4. Commercial Core 1 (CC1);
5. Commercial Core 2 (CC2);
6. Commer.cial Core 3 (CC3);
7. Commercial Service Center (CSC);
8. Arterial Business (ABD);
9. General Use (GU);
10. Heavy Service (HS);
11. Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU9);
12. Lionshead Mixed Use 2(LMU2);
13. Ski Base/Recreation (SBR);
14. 5ki Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2);
95. Parking District (P); and
16. Special Development (SDD).
C. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to all other
requirements of this Code.
D. When any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any other
provision of this Code, the provision of this Chapter shall control.
22
Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2008, draft
proposing 2, 500 square feet of new net floor area for an eating and drinking
establishment, the eq.uation would be as foilows:
((2, 500 square feet = 1, 000 square feet) x(6. 75)) = 16. 875 new
empioyees generated
16.875 new employees generated x 20% = 3.375 employees to be
housed
12-23-3: SIZE AND BUILDING REQUfREMENTS:
A.. Table 23-2, Size of Employee Housing Units, establishes the
minimum size of EHUs and the number of employees that can be housed in
each. All EHUs shall meet or exceed the minimum size requirements.
TABLE 23-2
SIZE OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS
Type of Unit Minimum Size Number of
(GRFA) Employees Housed
Dormitory 250 1
Studio 438 1. 25
One-Bedroom 613 1.75
Two-Bedroom 788 2.25
Three or More - 1,225 3.5
Bedroom
B. Every EHU shall contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a
bathroom.
C. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
D. Parking shall be provided as required by this Title
_ _
E. Each EHU shall have ifs own entrance. There shall be no interior
access from any EHU to any dwelling unit to which it may be attached.
�
�t�e�: .
..
.. _ -
24
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
12-23-2: EMPLOYEE GENERATION AND MITIGATION RATES:
A. The employee generation rates found in Table 23-1, Employee
Generation Rates by Type of Commercial Use, shali be applied to each type of
use in a commercial development For any use not listed, the Administrator shall
determine the applicable employee, generation rate by consulting the Town's
current nexus study.
TABLE 23-4
EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATES BY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USE
Type of Use Employee Generation Rates
Retail Store/Personal 2.4 Employees per 1, 000 feet of new
Service/Repair Shop net fioor area
Business Office and Professional 3.2 Employees per 1, 000 feet of new
Office (excluding Rea/ Estate net floor area
Office)
Accommodation UnitlLimited 0.7 Emptoyees per net new units
Service Lodge Unit
Real Esfiate Office 5.1 Employees per 1, 000 feet of new
net floor area
Eating and Drinking 6.75 EmpJoyees per 1, 000 feet of
Establishment new net floor area
Conference Facility 0. 8 Empioyees per 9, 000 feet of new
net floor area
Health Club 0.96 Employees per 1, 000 feet of
new net floor area
Spa 2.1 Employees per 1, 000 feef of new
net floor area
8. If an applicant submits competent evidence that the employee
generation rates contained in Tab/e 23-1 or the nexus study do not accurately
reflect the number of employees generated by the proposed commercial
development or redevelopment and the Administrator finds that such evidence
warrants a deviation from those employee generation rates, the Administrator
shall allow for such a deviation as the Administrator deems appropriate.
C. Each commercial development or redevelopment sha/1 mitigate its
impact on employee housing by providing EHUs for twenty percent (20%) of the
employees generated, pursuant to Table 23-1, or the nexus study, in accordance
with the requirements of this Chapter. For example, for a deve(opment
23 ' Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
12-23-4: REDEVELOPMENT:
Employee housing impacts need only be mitigated for a redevelopment
that results in a greater number of .employees generated from an increase in net
floor area, or an increase in the number of accommodation units or limited
service lodge units in the redevelopment; provided however, that if any existing
EHUs are to be removed, an equal amount of EHUs shall be replaced in addition
to the other requirements of this Chapter.
12-23-5: EXEMPTIONS:
The following shall be exempt from this Chapter:
1. The redevelopment of existing commercial development, if no new
net floor area, accommodation units, or limited service lodge units are created;
and
2. The construction o�' EHUs.
12-23-6: METHODS OF MITIGATION: �
' A. For all new construction and demo/rebuild projects that result in a
mitigation requirement of 1.25 employees or greater, the mitigation of employee
housing required by this Chapfer sha►l be accomplished with on-site u�its.
1, Exceptions: At fhe so/e discretion of the applicable governing
bady, an exception may be granted from this on-site. unit
requirement should the applicable governing body make one of the
following findings: �
a. That implementafion of �the on-site unit mifigation
method wou/d be contrary ta the intent and pcirpose of the
applicable zone disfrict.
b. That implementafion of the on-site unit mitigation
method would be contra►ry to the goals of the applicable
elements of the Vail Comprehensiv� Plan and the Town's
development objectives.
c. That exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or '
conditions apply to the site that prevents the implementation
of the on-sife unit mitigation method.
d. That fhe method of mitigafion proposed better
achieves the intent and purpose of this Chapter and general
and specific purposes of this Title than the on=site mitigation
unit method.
25
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
2. Aii on-site EHUs shall be deed restricted, as a"Type IV-CL"
(type t'our, commercial linkage mitigation) or "Type VII-CL" (type
seven, commercial IinOcage mitigation) EHU in accordance with
Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, of this Title.
3. At the so/e discretion of the applicable governing body, an
appiicant may provide on-site dormitory style units.
4. An applicant may provide a payment of fees-in-lieu for any
fractional remainder of the requirement generated under this Chapter
totaling /ess than 1.25 employees.
�1- B. For
Section 12-23-6A
Chapter shall be
following methods:
all developmenf projects, except those mitigated by
above, the mitigation of employee housing required by this
accomplished through one, or any combination, of the
On-site units.
a. > >
�
. All on-sife EHUs
shall be deed resfricted as a"Type IV-CL" (type four,
commercial linkage mitigation) or "Type Vll-CL" (type seven,
commercial linkage mitigation) EHU in accordance with
Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, of this Title.
� , -
At the so/e discretion of the applicable governing body, an
applicant may provide on-site dormitory style units.
2, Conveyance of property on-site. An applicant may convey
on-site real property to the Town on which no covenants, restrictions or
issues exist that would limit the construction of EHUs, afi the sole
discretion of the Town Council. This method does not mitigafe the on-
site unit requirements of Section 12-23-6A above.
3. Off-site units.
a. The requisite number of EHUs, or a portion thereof,
may be provided off-site within the Town, pcovided that such
EHUs are deed restricted in accordance with this Chapter.
b. At the sole discretion of the Pianning and
Environmental Commission, an appiicanf may provide off-site
dormitory units, unless the application is for a Special
26
Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2008, draft
Development District, in which case, the Town Council, in its sole
discretion, may accept dormitory units as a method of mitigation.
. � � �
a. The fee-in-lieu for each emptoyee to be housed
shall be established annually by resolution of the Town Council,
provided that, in calculating that fee, the Town Council shall
include the net cost (total cost /ess the amount covered by rental
or sale income) of real property and all related planning, design,
site deve%pment, legai, construction and construction
management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would
be incurred by the Town to provide housing for the employee to be
housed in that year.
b. An administrative fee, established by resolution of
the Town Council, shall be added to the amount set forth in
paragraph a hereof.
c. Fees-in-lieu shall be due and payable prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the development.
d. The Town shall only use monies collected from
fees-in-lieu to provide new employee housing.
5. Conveyance of property off-site. The Town Council may,
at its so/e discretion, accept the conveyance of proper�y off-site in lieu of
requiring the provision of EHUs, provided that no covenants, restrictions or
issues exist on such property that would limit the construction of EHUs.
. .
12-23-7: MITIGATION BANK:
A. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs constructed on-site,
constructed off-site, or otherwise acquired in anticipation of future commercial
development or redevelopment, provided that those EHUs meet all applicable
requirements of this Title. However, the construction or acquisition of EHUs in
anticipation of future development is at the so/e risk of the applicant, because the
commercial development shall be subject to all regulations pertaining to EHUs
which are in effect at the time the application for commercial development review
is submitted to the Town, even if those regulations change after the EHUs are
constructed.
27
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
B. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation
of any existing EHU credit upon submission of an application for development
review. lf the applicant cannot adequately document such credits, the Town shall
not be obligated to provide such credit.
12-23-8: ADMINISTRATION:
A. Each application for development review, except those exempt
per Section 12-23-5, shall include an employee housing plan eF�^^��l-���
����t��,-which includes fhe following:
.
._.��.:_ ;::.•,. :�_��.. :.�_,.::__ ,...:�_.:...._.s.-,.-: :�,:.�.e •-e-.:..s—._�
1. Calculation Method. The calculation of employee
generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by
which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this Chapter,
2. Plans. A dimensioned site pian and architecturai floor plan
that demonstrates compliance with Section 12-23-3, Size and Building
Requirements;
3. Lot Size. The average tot size of the proposed EHUs and
the average lot size of other dwellir►g units in the commercial
development or redevelopment, if any;
4. Schedules. A timeline for the provisi.on of any off-site
EHUs;
5. Off-Site Units. A proposa/ for the provision of any off-site
EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal;
6. Off-Site Conveyance Request. A request for an off-site
conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the .
request;
7, Fees-in-lieu. A proposai to pay fees-in-lieu shall inciude a
brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and
8. Written Narrative. A written narrative explaining how the
employee housing plan meets the purposes of this Chapter and complies
with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
G. B. Governing Body:
The Adminisfrator shall �approve, approve with modifications or deny
an employee housing plan involving a fota/ mitigation requiremenf of /ess
than 1.25 employees.
m
Ordinance No. 9, Series oi 2008, draft
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall approve, approve wifh
modifications or deny an employee housing plan unless the plan involves a
total mitigation requirement of /ess than 1.25 employees; the development
�la� is located within a Special Development District; or ihe plan includes a
request fo convey property., . ' �
� .
The Town Council shall approve, approve wifh modificafions or deny
an employee housing plan for a development /ocated within a Special
Development District or a pian requesting to convey property.
Before granting approval of an empioyee housing plan, the
applicable governing body shall ma6re findings that the employee housing
plan conforms to the general and specific purposes of this title, and that
the plan is compatible writh the applicable e/ements of the Vait
Comprehensive Plan and the development objectives of the Town.
� E. lf modifications to a submitted application for development review
changes the obligations of the applicant under this Chapter, the applicant shall
submit a modified employee housing plan. A modification to �an employee
housing plan shall be reviewed by the body that reviewed the initial employee
housing plan, in accordance wifh the provisions of this Chapter.
� F. An approved empioyee housing plan shall become part of the
approved application for development review for the atfected site.
G. • Requests fo amend an approved employee housing plan sha//
be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in this Chapter.
At the discretion of the Administrafor, minor amendments that do not alter
the basic intenf or methodology of the plan may be approved, or approved
wifh modifications, or denied by the Administrator.
12-23-9: OCCUPANCY AND DEED RESTRICTIONS:
A. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare
unit or fractional fee club unit.
B. EHUs shall riot be leased for a. period less than thirty (30J
consecutive days.
_ _ _
C. An EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit on the site.
D. An EHU shall be continuousiy occupied by an employee fer�ed
and shall not remain vacant for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive
months unless, despite reasonable and documented efforts to � occupy the
EHU, �e�#-al efforts are unsuccessful.
E. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of an EHU shall
submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town to the Town of Vail
Community Development Department containing the following information:
29 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been occupied
throughout the yea� by an employee;
2. The rental rate (un/ess owner-occupied);
3. The empioyee's employer, and
4. Evidence to demonstrate that at least one �� person
residing in the EHU is an employee.
12-23-10: TIMING:
All EHUs required by this Chapter shall be ready for occupancy prior to
the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the affected commercial
development or redevelopment.
12-23-11: VARIANCES:
Variances from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted pursuant
to the procedures and �tandards set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. ;
12-23-12: REVIEW.'
A. Purpase. The Town Council intends that the application of this
Chapter not result in an unlawfu! taking of private property without the payment
of just compensation, and therefore, the Town Council adopts the review
procedures set forth in this Section.
8. Planning and Environmental Commission review. Any applicant
for commercial development who feeis that the application of this Chapter would
effect an unlawful taking may apply to the Planning and Environmental
Commission for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. lf
the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the application of
this Chapter would result in an uniawful taking of private property without just
compensation, the Planning and Environmental Commission may alter, lessen,
or adjust employee housing requirements as appiied to the parti.cular project
under consideration to ensure that there is no uniawful uncompensated taking.
C. Town Council review. If the Planning and Environmental
Commission denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request a
hearing before the Town Council. Such hearing shall be a quasi judicial hearing
and conducted according to the Town's rules and regulations regarding quasi-
judicial hearings. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant
to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter would effect an
unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law. . If
the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would effect an
illegal taking without just compensation, the Town Council may alter, lessen, or
adjust the emptoyee housing requirements as applied to the particular project
under consideration to ensure that no illegal uncompensated taking occurs. The
decision of the Town Council shaii be final, subject only to judicial review.
30
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
Section 24. Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, of the Vail Town Code is hereby
amended as follows (text to be deleted is in s#�ik�##��, text that is to be added is bold):
12-24-1: PURPOSE AND APPUCABIUTY.�
A. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new residential
development and redevelopment in the Town of Vail provide for a reasonable
amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused
by such residential development and redevelopment.
� B, This Chapter shall apply to all new residential development and
redevelopment located within the following zone districts, except as provided in
Section ?2-24-5:
9. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF);
2. Public Accommodation (PA); '
3. Public Accommodation 2 (PA2);
4. Commercial Core 1 (CC1);
5. Commercial Core 2 (CC2);
6. Commercial Core 3 (CC3);
7. Commercial Service Center (CSC);
8. A►terial Business (ABD);
9. General Use (GU);
90. Heavy Service (HS);
11. Lionshead Mixed Use 1(LMU1);
12. Lionshead Mixed Use 2(LMU2);
13. Ski Base/Recreation (SBR);.
14. Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2);
15. Parking District (P); and
16. Special Development (SDD).
C. The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to all other
requirements of fhis Code.
D. When any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any other
provision of this Code, the provision of this Chapter shall control.
31 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
12-24-2: EMPLOYEE HOUS/NG REQUIREMENTS:
Every residential development and redevelopment shall be required to
mitigate its direct and secondary impacts on the Town by providing employee
housing at a mitigation rate of ten percenf (90%) of the total new GRFA. For
example, for a development proposing 5,500.square feet of new GRFA, the
calculation would be as follows:
5,500 square feet of new GRFA x 90% mitigation rate = 550
square feet of employee housing to be provided �
12-24-3: BUlLDING REQUIREMENTS:
A. Table 24-�, Size of Employee Housing Units, esfablishes the
minimum size requirements for EHUs under this Chapter. All EHUs shall meet or
exceed the minimum size requirements.
TABLE 24-1
SIZE OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UN1TS
Type of Unit Minimum Size (GRFA)
Dormitory 250
Studio 438
One-Bedroom 613
Two-Bedroom 788
Three or More -Bedroo 1,225
8, Every EHU shail contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a
bathroom.
C. Ali trash facilities shall be enclosed.
D. Parking shall be provided as required by this Title.
E. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior
access from any EHU to any dwelling unit to which it may be attached.
,
��
_ . ..
.. _
32
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
12-24-4: REDEVELOPMENT.'
Employee housing need only be provided for the increase in the GRFA of
a redevelopment; provided however, that if any existing EHUs are to be removed,
an equal amount of EHUs shall be replaced in addition to other requirements of
this Chapfer.
12-24-5: EXEMPTIONS:
The following shal! be exempt from this Chapter:
1. The remodeling of an existing dwelling unit;
2. The replacement of a demolished residential development,
provided the replacement structure does not exceed the total GRFA of the
original structure; and
3. The construction of EHUs.
12-24-6: METHODS OF MITIGATION:
A. For all new construction and demo/rebuild projects thaf resuit in a
mifigafion requirement of 438 sq, ft. or greafer, the mitigafion of employee
housing reguired by this Chapter shall be accomplished with on-site units.
1, Exceptions: At the so/e discretion of the applicable governing
body, an exception may be granted from this on-site unit
requirement should fhe applicable governing body make one of the
following findings: �
a. That implementation of the on-siie unit mitigation
method would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the
applicable zone districf.
b. That implementation of the on-site unit mitigation
method would be contrary to the goa/s of the applicable
elements ofi the Vail Comprehensive Plan and fhe Town's
development objectives.
c. That exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions apply to the site that prevents the implementation
of the on-site unit mitigation method.
d. That the method of mitigation proposed better
achieves the intent and purpose of this Chapter and general
and specific purposes of this Title than fhe on-site mitigation
unit method.
33
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
2, All on-site EHUs shall be deed resfricted as a"Type IV-►Z"
(type four, inclusionary zoning mitigation) or "Type VlI-1Z" (type
seven, inciusionary zoning mitigation) EHU in accordance with
Chapfer 12-13, Employee Housing, of this Tifle.
3. At the so/e discretion of the appiicable gaverning body, an
applicanf may provide on-site dormitory style units.
4. An applicant may provide a payment of fees-in-lieu for any
fractional remainder of fhe reguirement generated under this Chapter
totaling /ess than 438 sq.ft. of EHU floor area.
�!:- B. For
Secfion 12-246A
Chapter shall be
foilowing methods:
all development projects, except those mitigated by
above, the mitigation of employee housing required by this
accomplished through one, or any co►nbination, of the
On-sife units.
On-site units.
a. � '
� . All on-site EHUs
shall be deed restricted as a"Type IV-IZ" (type four,
inclusionary zoning mitigation) or "Type Vll-lZ" (type seven,
inclusionary zoning mitigation) EHU in accordance with
Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, of fhis Title.
b.
�
, ,
At the so/e discretion of the applicable governing body, an
applicant may provide on-site dormitory style units.
2. Conveyance of property on-sife. An appiicant may convey on-site
real property to the Town of Vaii on which' no covenants, restrictions or issues
exist that would limit the construction of EHUs, at the so/e discretion of the Town
Council: This meihod does not mitigate tMe on-sife unit requiremenfs of
Section 12-24-6A above.
3. Off-site units.
a. The requisite number of EHUs, or a portion thereof, may
be provided otf-site within the Town, provided that such EHUs are deed
restricfed in accordance with this Chapter.
34
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
b. At the sole discretion of the Planning and Environmental
Commission, an applicant may provide off-site dormitory units, unless the
application is for a Specia/ Development District, in which case, the Town
Council, in its sole discretion, may accept. dormitory units as a method of
mitigation.
4. Payment of fees-in-lieu.
a. The fee-in-lieu for each square foot shall be established
annually by resolution of the Town Council, provided that in .calculating
that fee, the Town Council shall include the net cost (total cost less the
amount covered by rental or sa/e income) of real property and all relafed
planning, design, site development, legal, construction and construction
management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be
incurred by the Town to provide the square feet in that year.
b. An administrative fee, established by resolution of the
Town Council, shali be added to the amount sef forth in pacagraph a
hereof.
c. Fees-in-lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the development.
d. The Town shall only use monies collected from the fees-in-
lieu to provide new employee housing.
5. Conveyance of property off-sife. The Town Council may, at its
sole discretion, accept a conveyance of rea/ property off-site in lieu of requiring
construction of EHUs, provided that no covenants, restrictions or issues exist on
the property that would limit the construction of EHUs.
12-24-7 MITIGATION �ANK:
A. The Town will provide credit for any EHUs consfructed on-site,
constructed off-site, or otherwise acquired in anticipation. of future residential
development or redevelopment, provided that those EHUs meet alt applicable
requirements of this Chapter. However, the construction or acquisition of EHUs
in anticipation of future development is at the risk of the appiicant, because the
residential development shall be subject to all regulations pertaining to EHUs
which are in effect at the time the application for development review is submitted
to the Town, even if those regulations change after the EHUs are canstructed.
B. lt shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation
of any existing EHU credits upon submission of an application for development
review. If the applicant cannot adequately document such credits, the Town shall
not be obligated to provide such credits.
35
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draff
12=24-8: ADM1NlSTRATJON:
A. Each application for development review, except those exempi
per Section 12-24-5, shali include an employee housing plan e�-�a#ernA�
e��ie�r-which inciudes the foilowing:
. ..
1. Calculation Method. The calculation of the inclusionary
zoning requirement, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation
method by which the applicant proposes to meet the. requirements of this
Chapter,
2. Plans.
that demonstrafes
Requirements;
A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan
compliance with Section 12-24-3, Building
3. Lot Size. The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and
the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial
development or redevelopment, if any;
4. Schedules. A timeline for the provision of any otf-site
EHUs;
5. Off-Site Units. A proposal for the provision of any off-site
EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal;
6. Off-Site Conveyance Request. A request for an off-site
conveyance shali include a brief statement exptaining the basis for the
request; and �
7. Fees-in-lieu. A proposal to pay fees-in-lieu shall include a
brief statement �xplaining the basis of the proposal.
8. Written Narrative. A written narrative expiaining how the
employee housing plan meets the purposes of this Chapter and complies
with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
�. B. Gove�-ning Body:
The Administrator shall approve, approve with modifications or deny
an employee housing plan involving a total mifigafion requirement of /ess
than 438 square feet of EHU f/oor area. �
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall approve, approve wifh
modifications, or deny an employee housing ptan uniess the plan involves /ess
than 438 sguare feef of EHU f/oor area; the devetopment � is located
within a Special Development District; or fhe ptan includes �a request to convey
property, � '
36 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
The Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications or deny
an employee housing plan' for a developmenf located within a Specia/
Development District or a plan reques�Fing to convey property.
Before granting approval of an employee housing plan, the
applicable governing body shall ma0ce findings that fhe� employee housing
plan conforms to the generai and specific purposes of this title, and that
the plan is compatible with the applicable elements of fhe Vail
Comprenensive Plan and fhe development objectives of the Town.
�B-: C. lf modifications to a submitted application for development review
changes the obligations of the applicant under this Chapter, the appircant sha11
submit a modified employee housing pian. A modification to an employee
housirrg plan shall be reviewed by the body that reviewed the initiai employee
housing ptan, in acco�dance with the provisions of this Chapfer.
�: D. An approved Employee Housing Plan shall become pa►t of the
approved application for development review for the atfected site.
E. Requests to amend an approved employee housing plan shaN
be reviewed in accordance with fhe procedures described in this Chapter.
At the discretion of the Administrator, minor amendments that do not alter
the basic intent or methodology of the plan may be approved, or approved
with modificafions, or der+ied by the Administrator.
12-24-9: OCCUPANCYAND UEED RESTRICTIONS:
A. No EHU shall be subdivided or divided into any form of timeshare
unit or fractional fee club unit.
B. EHUs shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30)
consecutive days.
C. An EHU may be sold or transferred as a separate unit on the site.
D. An EHU shall be continuously occupied by an employee �d
and shall not remain vacant for a period in excess of three (3) consecutive
months unless, despite reasonable and documented efforts to � occupy the
EHU, �►#aE effo►ts are unsuccessfuL
E. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each EHU
shail submit a sworn affidavit on a form provided by the Town with the following
information:
1. Evidence to establish that the EHU has been rented or
owner occupied throughout the year,
2. The rental rate (unless owner-occupied);
3. The employee's employer; and
37
Ordinance No. 1, Ser+es of 2008, draff
. 4. Evidence to demonstrate that at /east one #�;�a�# person
residing in the EHU is an employee at a business located in Eagle
County.
12-24-10: TIMI NG:
All EHUs required by this Chapter shall be ready for occupancy prior to
the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the affected residential
development.
12-24-19: VARIANCES:
Variances from the requirements of this Chapter may be granted pursuant
to the procedures and sfandards set forth in Chapter 17 of this Titte.
12-24-12: REVIEW.�
A. Purpose. The Town Council intends that the application of this
Chapter not result in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment
of just compensation, and therefore, the Town Council adopts the review
procedures set forth in this Section.
8. Planning and Envi�onmentaJ Cornmission review. Any applicant
for residential development who feels that the application of thi� Chapter would
effect an unlawful taking may apply to the Planning and Environmental
Commission for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. if
the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the application of
this Chapter would result in an uniawful taking of private property witMout just
compensation, fhe Planning and Environmental Commission may alter, lessen,
or adjusf employee housing reguirements as applied to the par�icular project
under consideration to ensure that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking.
C. Town Council review. If the Pianning and Environmental
Commission denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request a
hearing before the Town Council. Such hearing shali be a quasi judicial hearing
and conducted according to the Town's rules and regulations regarding quasi-
judicial hearings. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant
to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter would effect an
unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law. If
the Town Council determines that the appiication of this Chapter would effect an
illegal taking without just compensation, the Town Council may alter, lessen, or
adjust the employee housing requirements as applied to the particular prbject
under consideration to ensure that no illegal uncompensated taking occurs. The
decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review.
Section 25. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
38
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
Section 26. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 27. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of
an.y provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 28. All bylaws, orders; resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall
not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretafore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of March, 2008 and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 28th day of March, 2008, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
. .�. �....• �• • �� �� � ��-� � �- : �
.. . ��:
Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor
Attest:
�orelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
39
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, draft
i
Eagle Coun�y
H4USING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
. 2007
�
DECEMBER 2007
Prepared for.
Eagle Couniy
Prepared by:
RRC Associates, Inc.
4940 Pearl Easf Circle, Suife 103
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 449-6558
ar�d
Rees Consulting, lnc.
Attachment C
. , ,
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1
CONTEXT.....-•• ...........................................................................................................................•....................2
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................3
AREACOVERED ............................................:....................................................................................3
PRIMARYRESEARCH ..............................................................................:...........................................3
STAT{STICAL VALIDITY ........................................................................................................................4
OTHER SOURCES OF (NFORMATION ....................................................................................................4
DEFINITIONS......................................................................................................................................5
QVERVIEW OF THE EAGLE COUNIY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...................................................................7
NEEDSQUANTIFIED ...........................................................................................................................7
GAFAN,41_YSIS ...............................................................................................................::..................8
DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC AND MARKET CONDITIONS ........................................................................9
HOUSING PREFERENGES ..................................................................................................................11
SECTION 1- CURRENT HOUSEHOLD TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................13
COUN7Y POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLOS ..........................................................................................13
HousING UNIT EST►MATES ...............................................................................................................13
HOUSEHO�D ESTIMATES ..................................................................................................................14
HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS ...........................................................................................................14
Tenure.......................................................................................................................................14
HouseholdType ..................................................................................:.....................................15
Households wifh Children .........................................................................................................15
Change in Households Over Next 5 Years ..............................................................................15
ResidenceType and Size ..............:........................................................:................................. 96
LengtF► of Residency .................................................................................................................17
HouseholdIncome ....................................................................................................................18
HouslN� Cosrs .............................................................................................................................19
HOUSEHOLD AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI� ........................................................................................19
HOUSINGAFFORDABILITY .................................................................................................................21
SECTION 2- HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYER PROBLEMS .......................................................................23
HOUSEHOIDS WITH "HOUSING PROBLEMS° ...............................................:.......................................23
Cost-Burdened .......................................................................................................................... 23
Overcrowding............................................................................................................................ 24
PoorCondition ..........................................................................................................................25
EMPLOYERPROBLEMS ...............................................................................................:.....................25
Workforce Nousing Perceptions ...........................................................:...................................25
UnfrlledPositions ..............................:.......................................................................................26
Why you have unfilled positions ...............................................................................................26
Problems Due to Nousing, Transporiation, Day Care and Cosf of Living ................................26 �
SECTION 3- EMPLOYMENT AND GOMMUTING ............:.........................................................................28
JOB ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS ........................................................................:.........................28
EMPLOYERS� ANTICIPATED CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT ............:...........................................................28
JOBS PER EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYEES PER HOUSEHOLD ....................................................:..............29
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. � TOC
FINAL - FAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSE55MEN7 2007
HOUSEHOLD:JOBS RATIO .................................................................................................................29 �
JOBSBY INDUSTRY ..........................................................................................................................31
WAGES...........................................................................................................................................31
SEASONALITY OF EMP�OYMENT ........................................................................................................32
COMMUTINGPATI�ERNS ...................................................................................................................34
WhereWorkers Live .................................................................................................................34
WhereResidents Work .............................................................................................................34
Mefhodsof Commuting .............................................................................................................35
TENURE OF EMP�OYMENT ................................................................................................................36
HOUSINGASSISTANCE .................................................................................................:...:...............37
Employer Housing Assistance - Current ..................................................................................37
. Empioyer Housing Assistance — Fufure ..........................................................:........................37
SECTION4— HOUSING INVENTORY .........................................................................................................39
TYI'E OF UNITS ................................................................................................................................39
CONDITIONOF HOUSING STOCK .......................................................................................................40
AGEOF UNITS ......................................................................:..........................................................40
OWNERSHIPOF UNITS .................................................................................................:....................41
OCCUPANCY....................................................................................................................................46
DEED-RESTRICTED HOUSING ...........................................................................................................47
SECTION 5 - OWNERSHIP MARKET ......................................................................:..................................48
VALUEOF OWNED UNITS ...................................................................:.........................................:....48
RESIDENTIAL SALES BY YEAR ...........................................................................................................50
RESIDENTIALSALE PRICES .........................................................................:.....................................51
NEVJANDEXISTING SALES ...............................................................................................................52
SAI_E PRICES AND LOGAL (NCOMES ...................................................................................................53
SALESTO LOCALS .......................................................................................:....................................54
MULTIPLELISTING SERVICE ..............................................................................................................55
REALTOR(NTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................................55
SECTION6 - RENTAL MARKET .................................................:................................................................56
RENT.................................................................:.....................................:...............................:......56
VACANCYRATES ..............................................:...........:..................................................................57
RENTAL MANAGER INl'ERVIEWS ........................................................................................................58
SECTION7 - HOUSING PREFERENCES ....................................................................................................59
LoCAT►oN ........................................................................................................................................59
WhereWant to Live ..................................................................................................................59
lM�ere Now Live .....................................................................................................................:.. 61
LocationAifributes ....................................................................................................................63
Value of Preferred Locafion .....:................................................................................................ 65
RENTERPREFERENCES ...................................................................................................................66
HOMEOWNERSHIP............................................................................:...............................................69
UNIT T1PE AND SIZE PREFERENCES ....................................:............................................................70
HOUSINGCOST PREFERENCES ........................................................................................................72
DEEDRESIRICTIONS .......................................................................................................................75
AMENITIES.......................................................................................................................................76
SENIORHOU51N� ............................................................................................................................Tl
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. TQC
1"
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
SEC'fION 8- HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS ...............................................................................................80
CATCH-UP NEEDS ...........................................................................................................................80
Demand from Unfilled Jobs in 2007 .........................................................................................80
IN-COMMUTERS (CATCH-UP� ........................................:..................................................................81
Units Needed to Address Overcrowding ..................................................................................82
KEEPUP NEEDS ..............................................................................................................................83
Hausing Demand from Job Growth .............................:....................................:................:......83 .
Demand from Replacement of Retirees ....................................:..............................................83
TOTAL NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING ...........................................................................................84
DEt�at�� aY AMI ..............................................................................................................................85
FREE-MARfCE r AvA►lAB►��lY .................................................................................:..........................86
GAPS..............................................................................................................................................87
APPENDIXA - AMI PROFILES ....................................................................................................................89
APPENDIX B- CENSUS PROFI�E AND TRENDS ......................................................................................97
APPENDIX C- EMPLOYER SURVEY FORM AND OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS .....................................113
APPENDIX D- HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FORM AND OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS ....................:.............119
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. TOC
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the siudy is to provide incorporafed Eagle Couniy with baseline informa6on about cuRent
and future housing needs and the available supply of housing to address these needs. The information in
this report will be useful in evaluating and targeGng the housing needs'of local residents and workers. The
information cari also be used to discuss housing needs and opportunities with the DepartmenYof Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and various other federal, state, local and other public agencies and non-
profit and private interests involved in projects far the community.
The Eagle County Housing Department commissioned this sfudy to address the co�nty as a whole.
However, the departmenf made a special effort to obtain suffiaent data for each individual town to further
assess their spec�c circumstances. The analysis contained in this report does not spec'�'ically address the
towns within fhe county butsuch analysis could be undettaken based on the survey data that has been
collected. .
This information may be used to:
• Evaluafe and potentialiy modify public policies and housing programs including land use regulations,
affordabie housing incentives and development codes;
• Facilitate partnerships beiween public- and private-sector organizations to create developments that
include housing that is suitabie and affordable to different population groups;
� Obtain financing for housing projects. Most private, federal and state lending institutions require
demographic and housing cost information to support loan or grant applications. Often information
presented in a housing needs assessment may be used fo support a proposed development with
different funding agencies. This informafion can also be used when a financial institution requires
market studies (for example, rentai units financed with Low-income Housing Tax Credits);
• Assess the distribution paiterns of housing throughout Eagie County, particularfy in the context of
employment;
• Establish baseline information from which progress foward meeting agreed upon goais can be
evaluated;
o Plan for future housing needs connected with an#iapated growth in jobs and households in Eagle
County;
e Understand economic, housing cost and demographic trends in the area; and
• Support various other planning-related projects that can benefit from the availability of up-to-date
demographic data including transportation studies, environmental impact statements, school
expansions and parksirecreation pianning.
RRC AS50CIATES, INC.; REES CONSUCTING, INC. 1
FINA� - EAGLE COUNTY HOUS►NG NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
CONTEXT
Addressing housing needs, concems, issues and opportunities is a compiex and often emotional issue. A
Housing Needs Assessment provides baseline information from which policy decisions, local housing goals
and objectives and program options can be evaluated. This information is intended to inform decisions, as
well as suggest program and policy options for local govemments to consider when addressing communify
housing needs and opportunities. Ideally, Eagle Counry wiil have a mix and balance of housing that
supports current and future residents as their housing needs and conditions change to support not only
changing life pattems of residents, but also to support the con6nued economic development of the area by
ensuring local employees can find and afford housing.
Affordable housing is generally defined as a housing paymeht that does not exceed 30 percent of gross
monthiy income and a home that is of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the household. The types of
homes fhat are made available under local housing initiatives vary depending on the housing needs in
different communities and the policies and goals established by these communities to support these goals.
Customiz�ng p�licies, goals and programs to local conditions is an important component of any successful
housing strategy.
sa�zo°� anm
Max Income $87,600
Matt Rent $2,19D �
Max Purchase Price $288,086
80°� AAAI
56-80% �41V0 �
MaX Inwme §53,850
Mau Re�t $'1,346
Max Purchase Price $180,238
50% AMI . _
<=SOy, qM1
Ma�c Income S3G,500
Ma�c Rent 5913
Max Purchase Price S71A,796
�zaiao% aiw
Ma�c Income 5109,500
Max Rent $2,738
1�,� � Maz Purchase Price $334,741
,��:;�z _�%'`�.`..w 140°h AMI
Eagte County Househoids
Over 140% AMl
Max Income Over 5109,500
Max Rent over 5�,738
Max Purchase Price Over �334,741
`Doilar emounis represent the HUD AMI defined for an average sized &pe�son family household in Eagie County.
"Assumes no more than 30 per�ent of household incnme is used ior ren�
"'Assumes $10,000 down; 6%30-year loan; appmwmately 20%of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 2'
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSE55MENT 2007
METHODOLOGY
Area Covered
This study covers Eagle County and inciudes information on workers that in-commute to Eagle County for
jobs. A mix of primary research and available public information sources was used to generate information
for fhe counfy and in-commuting households.
Eagle County, Area Covered by fhe Needs Assessment
Source: Eagie County GIS Deparfment, RRC Associates, inc.
Primary Research ,
Primary research was conducted to generate information beyond that available from e�sting public sources.
This research included a household survey (distributed to Eagle County househoids), an employee sunrey,
and local realtor and proper[y �manager interviews.
Household Survey. The Househoid Survey was mailed to 8,000 random homes in Eagle County. A total of
1,526 completed household surveys were retumed, for a response rate of about 19 percent.
Responses from the household survey represent a total of 1,526 households, 4,210 total persons in
households and 2,766 employed adults. The primary purpose of the sunrey was to generate information on
housing needs and preferences; opinions on potential housing issues, programs and solutions; and
employment and commuting pattems among Eagle County residents. While the survey targeted Eagle
County households as a whole, sufficient data was collected to allow future analysis af the individual
community IeveL
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTWG, {NC. 3
FINAL - F�IGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
In-Commuting Empioyee Survey. The 50 largest businesses in Eagle County were contacted to engage
their assistance in delivering surveys to their employees that live outside of the County. The survey was
designed to primarily reach in-commufing empioyees; however, given the nature of most businesses having
only PO Box address information for employees, some businesses distributed surveys to a mix of in- �
commuting and County resident employees. Survey responses included 35 county resident employees and
43 in-commuting employees.
Employer Surveys. 50 of the largest employers in the county were contacted by phone, of which 34
completed the survey. Another 500 businesses were randomly mailed a survey to reach a variety of
business types, sizes and locatioms in the city. In toial, we received about 133 responses, for an average
response rate of about 24 percent. Responding businesses together account for an average of 7,021 jobs,
or 17 percent of jobs in Eagle County.
The intent of the surveys was to determine where employees live; changes in employment over time; to
what extent employee housing is perceived to be an issue by employers; whether empioyers feel housing
programs for employees are needed; and their associated level of support for housing assistance.
Realfor and Properfy Managemenf lnferviews. Ten realtors, each representing different companies, and
tweive property managers (22 totai) were interviewed to supplement the surveys to leam what households
are seeking when looking to purchase or rent a unit. Trends in real estate sales and preferences and
changes and the rental market were also discussed.
Statistical Validity
The margin of error for househoid survey tabulations is generally within 3.5 percent at the 95 percent
confidence level. This means that, for tabulations involving the entire sample, there is 95 percent
confidence that any given percent reported is no more than plus or minus 3 to 4 percentage points from
what is actually the case. When estimates are provided for sub-groups, such as household type, owne�s
and renters, etc., the sample size is reduced causing the tabulations to be less prease.
Ofher Sources of Information
A variety of sources of published information were used in the preparafion of this report, including:
• 1990 and 2000 US Census data, induding CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strafegy)
special tabulation data;
• Employment information from the Colorado Departrnent of Labor and Emplbyment (2000), the U.S
Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Center for Business and Economic Forecasting (CBEF� and
Business Pattem data from the Economic Census;
• Employment and populati�n projections from the Department of Loca� Affairs;
• Northwest Colorado Council of Govemments for home ownership trends;
• 2007 Area Median Income for Eagle County from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development;
• Eagle County Housing Department rent vacancy surveys; and
� Eagie County Assessor data for homeownership and sales information and Eagle County MLS for
cuRent sales listings.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 4
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20D7
Definifions
The following definitions are applicable for the terms used in this report.
Affordabie Housing—when the amount spent on rent or morfgage payments (excluding ufilities) does not
exceed 30 percent of the combined gross income of all household members. There is no single amount that
is "affordable.° The term is not synonymous with low-income housing, where, under most Federai programs
for low-income housing, occupants pay 30 percent of their gross income for renf and utilities.
Area Median Income (AMIJ Limifs— most communities esfablish income limits for the programs they
administer based on the area median income (AMI} for the area according to household size, which are
adjusted annualiy by the Department �f Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Four different income
categories are defined for various programs and policies:
1. Extremely low-income, which is less than 30 percent of the median family income;
2. Very low-rncome, which is between 30 and 50 percent of the median family income;
3. Low-income, which is between 50 and 80 percent of fhe median family income;
4. Middle income, which is between 80 and 120 percent of fhe median family income; and
5. Above middle income, which is over 120 percent of fhe median family income.
Cosf Burdened — when a household or individual spends more than 30 percent of gross income on rent or
mortgage payments. Households paying 50 percent or more of fheir income for rent or mortgage are said to
be severely cost-burdened. '
lnclusionary Zoning — requires a minimum percentage of residential development be provided at below-
rnarket rates to serve lower income households as part of new residential developmenfs (30 percent in
Eagle County). Inclusionary zoning is a housirig production obligation based on the cAmmunity's need for
affordabie housing as related to many facto�s, including a decreasing developable supply of land, rising
home values, insu�cient provision of housing affordable to residents by the market, etc., in addifion to any
direct employee generation impacts of development.
Low Income Housing Tax Cred'rt— a tax credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 42) available to investors in
rental housing projects focused on renters eaming less than 60 percent of the AMI. This ptogram
encourages investment that helps finance construction and rehabilitation of housing for lower income
renters.
Mean —the average of a group of numbers, which is the sum of all the data values divided by tlie number of
items.
Median — the middle point in a data set.
Section 8 Renf Subsidy- the 5ection 8 Nousing Assistance Paymenf program is offered through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program pays the difference beiween 30
percent of monthly household income and the Fair Ma�Cet Rent (FMR) estabiished by HUD for Eagle
C�unty. There are iwo types of Section 8 essistance: 1) project based where vouchers are attached to
specific properties, or 2) vouchers — households using Section 8 assistance find market rate housing where
the landlord is wiliing to parficipate in the program.
Substandard Housing — a unit that lacks complete kitchen and /or plumbing facilities.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 5
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Levets of Homeownership— When discussing affordability of properties by Area Median Income (AMI) levei
(defined above) and the types of homes households among different AMI groups are seeking, reference is
made to a couple different stages of homeowne�ship. This indudes: •
1. Enfrylevel ownership/firsf-fime homebuyers: These are households typically eaming in the lower to
middle income range. In Eagle County, these are households eaming 50 to 100 percent of the AMI.
These include households that currently rent (or otherwise do not own a home) and are looking to
purchase their first home.
2. Move-up buyers: These are households eaming in the middle to upper income range (about 100 to 120
percent AMI or higher) that may currently own a home and are looking to purchase a new or different
home for a variety of reasons (relocating, growing family (e.g.; having children), shrinking family (e.g.,
empty-neste�s), etc.).
Catch-Up Housing— Housing needed to catch-up to current defiaent housing conditions. In this report,
catch-up housing needs are defined by current resident households repo�ing housing problems
(overcrowded, cost-burdened andlor living in substandard housing conditions), current renters and awners
looking to purchase a home and in-commuters that would like to move to the city. Catch-up housing is
generally addressed through local city development ini6atives, non-profits and housing groups and
publidprivate partnerships.
Keep-Up Housing — Housing units needed to keep-up with future demand for housing. In this report, keep-
up housing needs focuses on new housing units needed as a result of job growth in the city and new
empioyees fiiling those jobs,. Keep-up housing is often addressed by the existing free-market, as weil as
regulatory requirements or incentives to produce housing that is needed and priced below the current
market.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULl'ING, INC. � 6
FINA� - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
QVERVIEVIt OF THE EAG�E COUNTY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Eagle County has long recognized that there is a growing disconnect between fhe market driven cost of
housing and what local employees and residents can afford to pay for housing. The purpose of the study is
to provide Eagle County with baseline information about current and future housing needs and the available
supply of housing to address these needs.
The Eagle County Housing Department commissioned this study to address the county as a whole.
However, the depar[ment made a special effort to obtain sufficienf data for each individual town to furfher
assess their specific circumstances. While regional solutions are encouraged, it is also expected that the
towns will continue to address �ssues of affordable housing. The analysis contained in this report does not
specifically address fhe towns within Eagle County but such analysis could be undertaken at a lafer date
based on the survey data that fias been collected.
This overview highlights the primary gaps identified in the Eagle County housing market as compared to
local resident and employee incomes, trends leading fo orstemming from these gaps and primary
households affected. The foilowing discussion identifies a series of key findings that address housing needs
as measured through surveys and othe� sources of Eagie Couniy specific data.
Needs Quanf�ed
Approximately 12,500 additional primary resident housing units are needed to provide existing employers
with an adequafe work force and to sustain growth for the ne� five years. This would include a mix of
ownership and rental housing choices at various price poinfs. This estimate is a measurement of fhe need
for primary residences (i.e. homes for local residents as distinguished from second home owners) at all
price ranges that are now or wiil be needed in the next five years, not just affordable wor{cforce housing.
This estimation does not acmunt for what the free market will provide. To the extent the free market
provides housing, the primary resident housing units needed will reduce accardingly.
The needs assessment quantifies primary resident housing needs in terms of °cafch up° and °keep up°
needs. Cafch up needs represent current deficiencies in housing related to falling behind with housing
needs in the past. Keep up needs will be generated in the future by new jobs and residents not yet in the
county. .
Catch-Up Needs, based on current deficienaes in housing, are as follows:
• 1,420 additional housing units are needed to attract employees to fill the over 4,000 jobs that are
now vacant.
• Empioyees who commute in from homes in neighboring counties for jobs in Eagle County and
would like to move io be closer to work generafe demand for 2,469 additional housing units.
e Appro�amately 557 housing units are needed to address overc�owding of homes in Eagle County.
As of April, roughfy 1,050 residential units were listed for sale in Eagle County. These free-market units
naROw the current catch-up gap to approximately 3,400 units, a number which is ciose to previous
estimates for workforce housing recently derived by the Eagle County Housing Department and the
Urban Land Institute.
Keep-Up Needs, defined as the number of units needed to keep up with future demand for housing based
on projected employment and popula6on growth and the requirement to replace retiring employees, include:
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, ING. 7
FINAL - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
4,776 additional units to accommodate growth in the labor force through in-migration to sustain
business expansion and start ups, and
• 3,284 units for employees are needed to fill positions that will be vacated by retiring workers.
Gap Ana/ysis
There is a significant gap beiween the current demand for uniis (c�tch-up) and the number of homes
available as of April, 2007. The difference of 3,398 units between current demand for 4,446 uriits and 1,048
current listings represents the magnitude of the gap between what residents and in-commuting employees
want for housing and what the iree market is providing. The difference for each AMI category represenis
the net demand between what residents and in-commuters can afFord and the free market price of units.
The gap is largest in the 81 to 120 percent AMI range ($53,850 -$73,000 for a 3-person household). Since
federal and state housing programs only serve households with incomes equal to or less than 80 percent
AMI (Low Income Housing Tax Credits and several grant programs have even lower income eligibility
standards) addressing the gap in the 81 to 120 percent AMI range wili require pa�tnering with private
developers and other local solutions that do not rely on funding from outside of Eagie County.
Proporfaonately, the free market best serves households with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI; units
available as of April could potentially meet appro�umately 64 percent of cafch-up demand in the upper
income category. 'fhese figures are dynamic; additional units will be placed on the market during 2007 that
will siightly lower fhe gap. With 97 percent of the current listings affordable only for households with
incomes greater than 140 percent AMI, the change should not significantly impact planning for solutions to
address catch-up demand.
� Net Demand for Housing
Gap (diff.
Maximum between
Affordable % CuRent # Current listings
Purchase Eis6ngs %.Current Listings # Current and
AMI Range Price (MLS) Demand MLS Demand demand)
50% AMI or less $124,796 0.2% 5.4% 2 242 -240
60%AMI $148,123 0.0% 7.4% 0 327 -327
80% AMI $180,238 0.0% 8.6% 0 384 -384
100%AMI $241,432 0.4% 15.4% 4 683 -679
120% AMI $288,086 0.4%a 15.2% 4 678 -674
140% AMI $334,741 1 J% 12.3% 18 545 -527
Over 140°/o AMI Over $334,741 97.3°l0 35.7%
Total - 10D% 100.0%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, INC. $
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Demographic, Economic and MarketCondifions
Some key demographic and economic trends in Eagle County are highlighted below.
• The Department of Loca) Affairs projects thaf Eagle County's population will increase by 27 percent
between 2007 (52,236) and 2015 (66,113), adding an estimated 13,887 residents.
• The average household size is 2.74 indicafing there are currently 18,924 households in Eagle
County (69.6 percent own and 30.4 percent rent). _
• Results from the Household survey indicate that � cost-a��ae�ea Ho�senoias, zoo�
28 percent of households (about 5,299
househoids) are cost burdened, meaning tney Under 20 %�����`~�'�� =' a5.� °�
are paying 30 percent or more of their income for � '�` ""' `""��' •
m m s �. .;>;a ;�7- �. '. 30.1 %
rent or mortgage (exduding utilities and HOA). m W 20-30% ,;,;;,;,,,, ;,, �.:;,. •.•,,. 3.9°�
This is an increase of 8 percent since the 1999 � 0 30-35qo `�,�8 D�,
Housing Needs Assessment. s �
.. . ._ .,=.: ana. r.�n.....
• Household survey resuits also indicate that 9.8 � w ao-so ro ", s s% I
percent of households in Eagle County live in �-
overcrowded conditions (defined by having m�re Over 50% �`p 5.,9�13 s�
........�
than 1.5 residents per bedroom). This equates o� zo�� ao� so �
fo about 1,855 households in 2007. Residents Percent of Households
who are nof willing to tolerate living in
overcrowded condifions, particularly as they
grow oider, often leave theirjobs and the community.
� The median sale price of market-priced homes in Eagie County increased by 60 percent beiween .'
20D0 ($325,000 median) and 2006 ($519,300). The median household income during this same
time period increased by about 28 percent.
ssoo,000
$SOO,ODO
5400,000
ssoo,000
$200,000
$'100,�00
$0
Change in Median Sales Prices and Median Household
Incomes
Median sales price (atl iaits) 60% increase �19 3�
25,OOD
Median hoisehold incoma 28% increase
SBO,OOD
562.662
200D 2006
Year
. . _..._ .. . ... . .... . _.... ..
• The percent of residential sales priced below $300,000 decreased significantly from about 46 percent
in 2003 to 18 percent in 2006.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTWG, INC. 9
FINAL — EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
• Overali, it is estimated thai rents increased about 21 percent since 2000, outpaang local renter
incomes (about a 15 percent increase based on 2007 survey resultsj.
Based on vacancy rental information collected by the Eagle County Housing DePartment, vacancy
rates have decteased since the 2000 census, with current vacancy rates being near zero.
• May 2007 County Assessor data indicates that about 51 percent of unifs in Eagle Counfy are owned
by local residents.
O Eagle County Resident B Out of Area Resident
TOTAL
ManufacturedlNbbile
Single Family
Tov✓nhom elDup�e�Jfriplez
Condo
0% 20 % 40% 60 % 80 % 100°6
Pe�cenl of Ownership Un'its
As of the 2000 Census, about 69 percent of all housing units in Eagle County were occupied by
residents, with 31 percent reported as vacant, primarily because of seasonal/recreationai use. The
Department of Local Affairs estimates that the occupancy rate in 2006 was about 64 percent,
indicating a dedine of nearly 8% in the proportion of units that actually serve as housing with the
relative number of vacation homes on the rise.
• Concem for housing issues is widely identified by employe►s. Employer survey results indicai2 that
40 percent of employers lost at least one employee over the last two years due to a lack of housing.
Addifionally, tumover within the past few of years due to a lack of housing equals about 6.1 percent
of currently available positions. Overall, 81 percent of empioyers feel that the availability of
workforce housing is °one of the more serious probiems° or "the most critical problem in the count�.
"Do yuu feel that the availability of woridorce housing is:"
3�� � °� 15%
28% �_
b p
� ��'J. «
?;•�•�,s{u
•_�„�,:����.:�t;z"i`tt:�:::qri;�il�li;�li� .,�:.4;�:
.I.�;��[yu- I�t,� j�l��li; i:t;ii ��;���iililli4
: {-!'l�`L.j',ijli i.�i���iilll�.l.i .
53%
0 Not a problem
■ One oF the region's lesser
prablems
� A moderate probiem
❑ One of the more serious pro6lems
�The most critical problem in the
• In total, about 30 percent of responding employers indicated they currently provide some sort of
housing assistance to their employees including down payment assistance, interest free loans, home
search assistance and rent assistance.
• Jobs are expected to grow about 25 percent between 2007 and 2015, adding about 10,300 jobs and
needing about 8,600 employees to fill these positions.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 1 O
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Eagle County currently has a low ratio of households to jobs (0.45 households per job in 2007). This
indicates that Eagie Couniy must rely on fiousing being availabie in other communities to meet the
needs of the county's workforce. As estimated by DOLA, about 18.3 percent of Eagle County's
workforce commufes inio the wunty for work.
Housing Preferences
Locafion: Edwards is the number one choice among both homeowners and renters of where to live in
Eagle County. Locations up and down valley are desired; there is nof a�strong preference for living in up-
valley communities.
Differences beiween renters who want to continue to rent and residents who want fo buy suggest fhat rental
units should be developed up-valley while homeownership housing should be concentrated more in mid-
and down-valley communifies.
Residents tend to live in the community where they most want to reside; however, in some communities
(Avon, DotserolGypsum and Eagle-Vail), the majority of residents surveyed would rafher live elsewhere.
When looking for a place to live, cost of housing followed by type of housing are the most imporfant
considerafions. Communify character (family oriented, neighborhoods, etc) is next, ouiweighing proximity to
employment for many. The cost of housing, availability of transportation and proximity to employment are
more important to renters than to owners while homeowners place higher value on communify character
and housing type.
Aboui half (47 percent) of the potentiai home buyers sunreyed would pay more for a home that is located in
fheir first choice community — an average of nearly $195,000 for homeowners interesting in buying a
different home and roughly $88,000 for renfers who want to move into ownership.
Rental Housing: While most of the renters living in Eagle Counfy (65 percent) would like to buy a hom�, the
top choice for unit fype among the 35 percent of renters who would like to confinue to rent are townhomes
and duplexes. Renfers, however, appear to be willing to compromise if they can not live in the type of unit
thatthey most prefer. �
Approximately 44 percent of the renter households who want fo continue renting have incomes equal to or
less than 60 percent AMI, which suggests that Low Income Housing Tax Credits could be used again in
Eagle County to address a portion of the need for rental housing. The majorify (56 percent), however, have
incomes higher fhan the maximum aliowed for tax credits, which means that altemative financing sources
will aiso be needed.
Homeownership: Rent�rs who want to move into ownership, owners who want to buy a new or different
home and in-commufers who want to move into Eagle County all generate demand for housing units. To
"find a larger home° to live in was the single reason most frequently cited for wanting to buy.
Nearly three-fourths indicafed that a single-family house is their first choice with most wanting three or four
bedrooms.
Unit type preferences vary according to where potential buyers most want to live. Residents who want to
buy in or near Vail have relatively higher preferences for condominiums while preferences for single family
homes are higher in down valley communities.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 11
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Nome Prices: Potential home buyers indicated they were interested in purchasing homes in a wide range of
prices, with a concentrafion (55 percent) in the $150,000 to $400,000 range. The incomes of residents wh�
want to buy also indicate that a wide range of pricing is needed. This indicates there are opportunities for
mixed-income housing developments serving low through middie income residents with prices between
about $150,000 and $400,000.
Renters who want to move into ownership have signi6cantly lower incomes than owners who want to buy a
new or different home. The pricing of units developed for sale would vary depending upon policies
established. If moving renters into homeownership is given priority over moving owners up into larger
homes, prices will need to be much lower. While some renters who want to buy have little if any funds
saved for a down payment, over half (52.3 percent) responded that they have between $10,000 and
$50,000 available.
Deed Resfriciions: Deed restrictions that would limit appreciation in value to a maximum rate of 3.5
percent per year on homes priced below market appear to be acceptable to approximately 39 percent of the
county's residents who are interested in buying a home.
The acceptability of deed restrictions varies between owners and rentets. Neariy 63 percent af rer�ters who
wouid like to move into ownership would consider purchasing a deed-restricted residence compared wifh
only 19 percent of residents who already own a home and are interested in buying a different home.
About half of the potential homebuyers who indicafed that deed restrictions would be acceptable if priced
lower than market indicated the price should be $50,000 lower.
This suggests that there is a somewhat widely held perception that deed restrictions with appreciation caps
reduce the price of homes by $50,000.
Amenities: From a long list with numerous features identified, both owners and renters in Eagle County
rate in-unit washers and dryers as their most important amenity. Two of the top four amenities — sunlight
and energy efficiency, are fied to Eagle County's mountain climate. Eagie County's residents also highly
vafue having private outdoor space and pets.
Senior Housing: Upon retirement, more seniors will coniinue to live in Eagie County (44 percent overali)
than will move out of the region (27 percent). Seniors were asked to indicate if they would utilize various
fypes of senior housing and housing-related services. Seniors who are undecided or have a moderate to
high likelihood are outnumbered by those who indicated they would not use any of the options offered for
consideration.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 12
FINAL - EAGLE COUNIY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
SECTION 1- CURRENT HOUSEHOLD TRENDS AND CHARACTERIS7ICS
This section provides an ovenriew of current househoid demographics and characteristics as determined by
the 2007 Nousehold Survey. If presents current estimates and projecfions of the population and number of
households in Eagle County from the year 2000 through 2015. It also provides a profile of current Eagle
County househoids and residents, indicates potenfial changes in the demographics since the 2000 Census
and serves as a basis for other sec6ons of the report and analysis.
CounfyPopulafion andHouseho/ds
According to fhe US Census Bureau, Eagle County's population in 2000 was 41,659. The Department of
Local Affairs projects that the population in Eagle County will increase by about 34 percent between 2005
and 2015, or just under 3 percent per year on average. It is estimafed that 52,236 residents reside in Eagie
County in 2007, increasing to 57,881 by 2010 and 66,113 by 2D15.
Qf the communities within Eagle County, Avon's population is projected to increase by the largest
percentage between 2005 and 2015 (39.6 percent), followed by Gypsuin (38.4 percenf), Basalt (36.3
percent) and Vaii (35.5 percent).
Eagle Couniy Population: 2000 to 2015
% Change
200D 2005 2Q07 20'10 2015 (20U5•2015)
EAGLE COUNTY 41,659 49,375 52,236 57,861 66,113 33.9% .•
AVO� 5,561 6,753 7,451 . 8,256 9,430 39.6%
Basalt 1,952 2,247 2,420 2,681 3,062 36.3%
Eaqle 3 032 4 387 4 247 4,705 5,375 22.5%
Gypsum 3 654 5,125 5,602 6,208 7,091 38.4%
Mintum 1,068 1,138 1,184 1,312 1,499 . 31.7%
Red Ciiff 289 � 312 327 363 414 32.8%
Vail 4,531 4,785 5,124 5,678 6,486 35.5%
Unincorporated 21,572 24,628 25,929 28,732 32,818 33.3%
Source: 200D U5 Census; Deparfment of Looai AfFairs; RRC Associates
Housing Unif Esfimefes
Beiween 1990 and 2D00, housing units in Eagle Gounty increased about 452 percent. The Department of
�ocai Affairs (DOIA) estimates fhat the number of total housing units will increase by 33 percent between
2000 and 2010, which is a slower rate of growth than the previous time period. DOIA estimates there are
29,774 housing units in 2007, increasing to 33,023 in 2010 and 37,719 by 2015.
Eagle Couniy Change in Housing Units: 1990 to 2015
� °lo Change % Change
1990 2000 2D05 2007 2010 2015 (1990-2000i (200U-2010)
Eagle County,_ 15 226 22,911 28,169 29,774 33,023 37,719 452% 33.0%
Source: Depariment of local Afiairs; RRC Associates, inc.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 13
FINAL - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Household Esfimafes
According to DOLA, the average household size in 2005 was 2.74. Assuming the household size remains
constant, Eagle County will add approximately 16,738 persons, 9,544 housing units and about 6,067
households� to the county beiween 20D5 and 2015.
It is important to note that the percentage of units occupied by Eagle County residents has beeh decreasing
according to Department of Local Affairs estimates, from about 69 percent in 2000 (based on the Census) to
63.6 percent in 2005. This indicates that the percent of out-of-area owners increased slightly between 2000
and 2D05.
Eagle County Population, Households and Housing Units: 2000 to 2015
2000 2005 2007 2010 2015
Population 41,659 49,375 52,236 57,8B1 66,113
Population in households (Census} 49,306 49,023 51,853 57,456 65,628
Household size (Census, DOLA) 2.73 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74
Housinq units 22,111 28,140 29,774 32,992 37,684
Percent occupied (Census, DOLA) 68.5% 63.6% 63.6% 63.6% 63.6%
Department of Local Affairs; Colorado Demography SecGon; 2000 US Census; RRC Associates, Inc.
HouseF►old Demographics
The 2000 US Census provides the primary baseline from which household demographics in Eagle County
can best be understood. This survey is based on a 100 percent sampie of households so is generally the
best available data on househoid characteristics in an area. However, this information is also seven years
old. The below section identifies household demographics as determined from a current Household Survey
administered by RRC Associates, Inc., in March of 2007. This data has beeri weighted on key demographic
variables based on the 2000 Census to ensure responses are representative of the population as a whole.
Other pubiicly available data is also used in this section to supplement the survey data. The below
demographic rela6onships are used in other sections of this report, as needed.
Tenure
As of 2007 there are an estimated 18,924 households in Eagle County. DOIA estimates for region 12 show
that about 69.6 percent own (12,074 households) and 30.4 pement rent their homes (6,850 households).
This represents a slightiy higher owner occupancy than reported in the 2000 Census (63.7 percenf owner
households).
Households by Tenure: 2007
Total
Totai # DOLA %
Total households: 18,924 100%
Own 13,171 69.6%
Rent 5,753 30.4%
Source: 2007 Household survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
� Househoids were estimated by assuming (1) 99 percent of residents reside in households (DOLA, 2005�, (2)1he average
household s¢e wiil remain consistent with that reported by DOLA in 2005 (2.74) and (3) residents wili occupy about 63.6 per�ent of
housing units, as reported by DOLA 20D5 estimates. .
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, iNC. 14
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Household Type
About 27 percent of households in Eagie County ate comprised of coupies with no children, inciuding 33
percent of owners and 18 percent of renters. Another 27 percent of households in Eagle County are
coupies with children, including 35 percent of owner households and 14 percent of renter househoids. Of
other types of households, about 23 percent are aduits living alone,10 percent are unrelated roommates, 8
percent are single parents with children at home, 3 percent have family members and unrelated roommates
and 2 percent have immediate and extended family members.
Households by Type: Eagle Couniy, 20D7
Totai % Own % Rent %
Couple, no child(ren) 27 33 18
Couple with child(ren) 27 35 14
Aduit livinq alone 23 19 29
Unrelated roommates 10 3 20
Sinqie parent with child(ren) 8 5 13
Family members and unrelated roommates 3 2 4
Immediate and exterided family members 2 2 1
Other 1 1 0
Total 100% 100°l0 100%
5ource: 2D07 Househoid Survey; RRC Associales, Inc.
Households wifh Chiidren
As shown above, abouf 35 percent of households have children, including about 40 percent of owner
households and 27 percenf of renter households. Persons residing in EaglelBrush Creek (48 percent),
DotserolGypsum (43 percent) and Avon (40 percent) are more likely to have children in their household than
fhose residing in other areas of the County. Households with pe�sons under 18 have an average of about
1.94 kids, with an average of 1.75 children per household residing in owner household and 2.32 children per
household in renter households.
Change in Households Over Next 5 Years
Survey respondents were asked how their household is likely to change over the next 5 yea�s. As shown
below, about 50 percent of households do not expect their household to change. This includes 53 percent
of owners and 43 perceni of renters. Of households that will change:
Owner households are likely to have children leaving their home (16 percent), will have
childrenlmore children (13 percent) or will move out of Eagle County (11 percent).
■ A re(a6vely similar percentage of renfer households stated they are most likely to have
childrenlmore chiidren (12 percent) within 5 years. The highest percenfage reported they will move
out of Eagie County (21 percent) foilowed by the °othe�' category (16 percent). About 8 percent of
renters stated they will no longer have roommates.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTWG, �NC. 15
FINAL - EAGLE COUNI'Y HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
"Now is your household likely fo change over the next 5 years?"
Eagle County Households, 2007
Household unlikely to change
Wili move out of Eagie County
Children will leave home
Will have children(more children
Other
Will retire
Will no longer have roommates
Eiderly parent will move i�
Residence Type and Size
0% 10°/a 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Respondents
Source: 2007 Household; RRC Associates, Inc.
Sorted in descending order of owner households.
About 42 percent of survey respondents axupy single-family homes/cabins, induding 54 percent of owners
and 21 percent of renters. Another 37 percent of respondents occupy condos/townhomes/dupVexes,13
percent occupy apartments and 5 percent oax�py mobile homes. °dther' types of homes listed (3 percent),
included lock-off, ranch, rental cabin and triplex.
Occupied Residence Type by Tenure: Eagle County Households, 200�
Type of Residence Total % Own % Rent %
Single-family homelcabin 42 54 21
Condoltownhouse/duplex 37 39 33
Apartment 13 1 34
Mobile home 5 ' 4 5
Other(lock-off,ranch etc) 3 1 6
Tofai 100% 100% 100%
5ource: 2d07 Household; RRC Associates, inc.
Residences on average have about 2.9 bedrooms — 3.2 in owner households and 2.3 in renter househoids.
Renter households are likely to have 2-or-fewer bedrooms (58 percent), with about 42 percent of owner
households having 3-bedrooms.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. �6
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20D7
Number of Bedrooms by Tenure: Eagle County Households, 20D7
None
1
z
3
4
5
D°h 5% '10% � 15� 20� 25h 30°h 35% 40k 45h
Percentof Respondents
Source: 2007 Household; RRC Associates, Inc.
Lengfh of Residency '
About 94.9 percent of survey respondents indicated they reside in Eagle County year-round. This varied
slightly by tenure, with 94 percent of owners residing in the area year-round compared to 97 percent of
renters.z .
Yearly Residency in the County: 2007
3 to 6 months pe� yea�
1.6 %
Less ttian 3 mo�ths per 7 M �� months peryear
' year 3.1Y
0.4 %
i
C�., •
' ' .' i �iliill �i Ij.iil� i 7 ��?.� . .
I� �����li '�i i���I �Ii�� ��i�; �j��li�� �4. i� j;a.:r.i
, , �'!ii �'!�.i.�..;�:!tli�ifll����i .liia. ��t 4�r;_..:L i
All year -12 months
94.9%
5ource: 2007 Househoid Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Survey respondents were asked how long they have lived in Eagle County. About 60 percent have lived in
Eagle County for 10 or more years, including about 69 percent of owners and 44 percent of renters. ,
2 it is important to note that the househoid survey was mailed to primary residents of Eagie County oniy and intentionally did not get •
mailed to second homeowners.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTWG, INC. 17
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Length of Time in Eagle County, 2007
Total Tenure
Households °/a Own % Renf %
Less than 6 months 0 0 1
6 months to 1 year 5 2 12 �
1 up to 2 years 5 3 9
2 up to 3 years 6 3 11
3 up to 5 years g 7 g
5 up to 10 years 15 16 14
10 years or more 60 69 44
Total 1 DD% 100°l0 100%
Source: 2007 Nousehold 5urvey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Household tncome
Survey results indicate about a 27.6 percent increase in median household incomes beiween 1999 and
2007. The median household ineome reported on the surveys is about $80,000. The median income of
owner households is about 64 percent higher ($90,000) than renter households ($55,018).
Median Household Income by Tenure: Eagle County,1999 and 2007
1999 (census) 2007 (survey) °/a change
All Households $62,682 $80,000 27.6%
Owner $73,138 . $9D,Q00 23.1°l0
Renter $47,743 $55,018 15.2%
Source: 2000 Census; 2007 Household Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Household incomes are highest in Edwards ($125,832 average), Vail ($119,893 average) and
Bums/McCoylBondJWolcott ($117,716 average). .
Average and Median Household Income by Eagie County Region
Average Median
EAGLE COUNTY $100,804 $80,000
Edwards $125,832 $100,000
Vail � $119,893 $75,000
Bums/McCoylBondNVolcott $117,716 $96,098
Basait/El Jebel/Fryinq Pan $104,746 $75,565
Eagle-Vaii $98,254 $90,000
Avon $94,039 $65,000
EaglelBrush Creek $90,377 $80,00�
DotseroiGypsum $85,109 $70,141
Other $72,475 $41,728
Mintum/Red Ciiff $66,176 $50,000
Soutce: 20D7 Household Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Income distributions show that about 33.8 percent of renter househoids eam less than $40,000 per year,
compared tQ only about 10.9 percent of owner househoids. In general, a higher percentage of owner
households eam over $80,000 per year than renter households, with significant differences seen in the
RRCASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. �$
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
$100,000 to $199,999 ranges. About 47 percent of owner households eam over $100,000 per year
compared to about 24 percent of renter households.
Annual Nousehold Income: Eagle County, 2007
Less than $20,000
$2D,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $59,999
$60,ODD - $79,999
$80,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,OOD - $199,999
$20D,000 or more
Nousing Cosfs
0% 5% 10°/ 15% 20% 25% � 30 %
Percent of Respondents
Source: 2007 Household Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Median rents increased about 21 percent beiween 1999 ($952 Census) and 2007 ($1,1.50 Household
survey). Median mo�tgage payments decreased an estimated -5.15 percent beiween 1999 ($1,791) and
2006 ($1,700).
Median Housing Costs by Tenure: Eagle Counfy,1999 to 2007
2DOD 2007 % change
(census) (survey) (2000 fo 2007)
Mortqaqe $1,791 $1,70D -5.1%
Rent (contract) $952 $1,150 20.8%
Sour�e: 2000 Census; 2D07 Household Survey; RRC Asso�iafes, Inc.
Nouseho/dArea Median income (AMI)
Tfie following table shows 2007 income limits for households eaming 3D percent AMI, 50.percent AMI, 60
percent AMI, 80 percent AMI,100 percenf AMI,120 percent AMI and 150 percent AMI. Limifs are based on
the median family income for Eagle County, which is $81,100 in 20D7, as determined by the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). "Low-Income" families, as defined by HUD, have incames that
do not exceed 80 percent of the AMi. "Very Low-Income" families are defined as having incomes that do
not exceed 50 percent of the AMI.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 19
FINAL - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Typically, these income guidelines are used to estabiish housing fargets and thresholds for locai housing
efforts, as well as for Private Activity Bond allocations, !�w-income Housing Tax Credits, Section 8 Rent
Subsidy and related housing programs. The income limits are adjusted annually.
Area Median Income Limits By Household Size, 2007
Shading denofes median family income.
1-person 2-persons 3-persons 4persons 5-persons
50°/a AMI $28,400 $32,450 $36,500 $40,550 $43,800
60% AMI $34,080 $38,940 � $43,800 $48,660 $52,560
80% AMI $41,900 $47,900 $53,850 $59,850 $64,650
100%AMI $56,800 $64,900 $73,000 '`;'i��;.$81;10Q;;�"';"; $87,600
120% AMI $68,160 $77,880 $87,600 $97,320 . $105,120
140°/a AMI $79,520 $90,860 $102,200 $113,540 $122,640
Source: Deparfmeni of Housing and Urban Developmeni; RRC Associates, Inc.
Special tabulations of the 2000 US Census data (CHAS) were used to determine the number and
pe�centage of Eagle County househoids within each AMI category shown above. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that the percentage distribution of households in 2007 across all AMI categories
remained the same as that in 2000. The percentages in the ta61e below were used to weight the 2007
survey data results to ensure representation of the population as a whole.
As shown in the following table, about 28.3 percent of Eagie County's households eam less than 80 percent
AMI (5,355 households), 28.8 percent eam between 80 and 120 percent AMI (5,440 households) and 43
percent eam over 120 percent AMI (8,129 households). This varies by tenure, where renters are more likely
than owners to eam less than 8D percent AMI (45 percent of renters; 21 percent of owners).
Income Distribution Of Eagle County Households By Tenure: 2007 Estimates
Renters Owners Total •
# % # % # %
50%AMIorLess 1,471 25.56% 1,383 10.50% 2,854 15.08%
50.1 -80%AMI 1,141 19.83% 1,360 10.33% 2,501 13.22%
80.1-120%AMI 1,677 29.15% 3,763 28.57% 5,440 28.75%
120.1-140%AMI 484 8.41% 1,312 9.96% 1,796 9.49%
Over 140% AMI 978 17.05%a 5,352 40.64% 6,333 33.47%
TOTAL 5,753 100.00% 13,171 100.00% 18,924 100.00%
Sou�e: Department of Local Affairs; Colorado Demography Section; CHAS; RRC Associates, Inc.
The area median income (100 percent AM) indicates that about 50 percent of the households should make
below the median, and 50 percent should make above the median. The distribution of households above
and below the median, however, varies by area. As show in the chart below, Eagle County's distribu6on of
households by AMI varies from Colorado's as a whole, with a larger percent of households making beiween
80 and 120 percent AMI (28.7 vs. 22.3 percent) and households making over 120 percent AMI (43 vs. 38.6
percent) than in Colorad� as a whole.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES GONSULTING, INC. 20
FINAL - EAGL.E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Eagie Couniy
Colorado
Z000 Household AMI Distribution: Eagte Couniy and Colorado
�<=30% F'a130-50% p 5D-80°/n � 80-140% � Ove(' 140%
j i'.I:� ��
,�;,i.�i'';ni':;.(.
`�33.5%0 :;" �
i ' �
,,
�;; `�' ,:I:< � � '��'�� i
� �� . � �. �. .� ':u
0% 10% 2D% 3D% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10D%
Source: Deparfment of Housing and Urban Development; RRC Associates, Inc.; CHAS
Housing Affordability
The following table calculafes the maximum affordabie purchase price for an average 3-person household in
Eagle County and the ma�cimum affordable rent by AMI range for Eagle County households. Purchase
prices assume $10,000 down, 6 percent 30-year fixed-rate loan, 20 percent of the monthly payment is used
for insurance, taxes, PMI and NOA and no more than 30 percenf of gross housetiold income is used toward
housing payments. Affordable rentals assume no more than 30 percent.of gross household income is paid
foward rent.
4 The largest percentage of renter households (45.4 percent) eam 80 percent or less of the AMi.
These households can afford up to $1,346 a month for rent for a 3-person household (e.g. woutd
need a iwo- to three-bedroom unit). Renter households eaming between 80 and 100 percent AMI
(16.7 percent) can afford up to $1,825 a month for rent and renter households beiween 100 and
120 percent AMI (12.5 percent) can afford to pay up to $2,109.
m A larger percent of owners (49 percenf) make between 80 and 140 percent AMI. The maximum
affordable purchase price for these househoids is $241,432 (100 percent AMI) and $334,741 (140 �
percent AMI). The largest percentage of owner households in Eagle Counfy (�2.1 percent) make
over 140 percent of the AMI. These househoids can afford fo purchase units over $109,500.
Ma�cimum Affordable Purchase Price and Rent by AMI; Eagie County 2007
Maximum Maximum
% Renier Affordable °!o Owner Affordable
AMI Range Max incame* Households. Rent`* Households Purchase Price***
80% AMI o1' Less $53,850 45.4 $1,346 24.3 $180,238
80.1-120%AMI $87,600 29.2 $2,190 28.6 ' $286,086
120.1-140% AMI $109,500 8.4 $2,738 9.4 $334,741
Over 140% AMI Over $109,500 17.0 Over $2,738 32.1 $334,741 or more
Tofal - 100% - 100% -
`Calculated for a 3-person househoid.
"Assumes no more than 3D percent of household income is used for rent.
"*`Assumes $10,OD0 down; 6%36-year ioan; appro�mately 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, H�A.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 21
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
At the lowest income levels, homelessness and the threat of homelessness are important issues.
Additionally, speaal populations who are unable to work (E.g., seniors and fhe disabled) may require
assistance at the lower income levels. Affordability problems, especially for renters,. may also be present
among the working poor. As shown, about 15 percent of households in Eagle County eam less than 50
percent of the AMI.
As incomes near the median, households are often looking to buy their first home. In Eagle County,
homebuyer programs are targeted at 80 to 140 percent of the AMI (about 38 percent of households eam
within this range). Policies at this level are typically designed io help bring homeownership within reach;
including down payment assistance, first-time homebuyer loans and deed-restricted housing. Finally, at the
highest levels, upperincome groups fuel the market for step-up and high-end housing. About 34 percent of
Eagle County households earn over 140 percent AMI.
80.120% AMI
Mau Income 567,600
Max Rent $2,190
Max Purchase Price 5288,086
80% AMI
50-80 % AMI
Max (ncome $53,850
Max Rent S'f.346 �
Max Purchase Price $180,236 �"
50°% AMt . _..
<=50% AMI
Max Income $36,500
Max Rent 5913
M� Purchase Price 51?A,796
'120.140°h AMI
Max Income $109,500
Max Rent §2,738
�2D,� �� Max Purchase Price §334,741
z�' y r.�� 140°h AMI
Eagle County Households
Over 140% AMI
Ma�c income Over $109,500
Nfatt Rent Over $2,738
Purchase Price Over $334,�41
`Dollar amounts represent the HUD AMI defined for an average s¢ed 3-person family househoid in Eagle County.
"Assumes no more than 3D percent of househoid income is used for �ent
"`Assumes $10,OD0 dovm; 6°k 30-year loan; approximately 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA.
RRC ASSOGIATES, INC.; REES CONSUL7ING, INC. 22
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
SECTION 2- HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYER PROBLEMS
This section addresses househoid and empl�yer problems. Households with housing problems are
ident�ed by either being cost-burdened by their housing payment (paying 30 percent oc more of their
househoid income.for rent or mortgage), living in overcrowded conditions (more than 1.5 persons per
bedroom) or living in unsatisfactory conditions (poor home condition) as reported on fhe 2007 househoid
survey.
A sign�cant purpose of the 2007 Employer Survey was to urtderstand employer problems and perceptions
related to hiring and refaining employees, anticipated changes in employment and empioyee housing
issues. Employer problems include unfilled posi8ons, and issues relafed to transp�rtation, daycare and cosf
of living. �
Nouseho/ds wif6 "Housing Problems"
Overali, about 37 percent of households report housing problems (7,002 households), including 27 percent
of owners (3,556 households) and 55 percent of renters (3,164 households). As shown in the following
chart, the percentage of households in each AMI category with "housing problems° generaliy decreases as
the income of the household increases.
Eagle County Households wifh "Housing Probiems"
30 % or less AMI
30.7%-50% AMI
50.� - 80 % AMI
80.1%-120% AMI
Over12o% AMI
Cosf-Surdened
700.0%
0% � ZO% 40% 60°h 8D% 100%
Petcent of Households
Source: 20D7 Househoid 5urvey
About 28 percent of households reported being °cosf-burdened° by their housing payment, meaning they
are paying 30 percent or more of their househoid income for rent or mortgage (excluding u6lities and HOA).
Cost burdened households include 25 percent of owners (3,293 households) and 32 percent of renters
(1,841 househoids).
In comparison, surveys conducted by RRC Associates for Eagle County in 1990 and 1999 indicated fhat 16
percent of households in 1990 were cost burdened and 20 percent of households in 1999 were cost
RRC AS50CIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 23
FIhtAL - FAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
burdened. The percent of cost burdened households is estimated to have increased by about 8 percent
since the 1999 survey was conducted3.
Cost burden varies by inwme level, where about 76 percent of households eaming under 50 percent of the
AMI were cost-burdened, and oniy 14 percent of households eaming over 80 percent AMI were cost
burdened. Lower income households typically pay for their housing first, often foregoing food, dothing,
utilities and needed medication when cost-burdened.
Many of the higher income owner households (those eaming over 180 percent AMI) may be cost-burdened
by choice, where higher incomes are generally (though not always) more able to afford to pay over 30
percent of their income for housing without sacrificing other needs (food, dothing, medicai, etc.). About 15
percent of owners reported having housing problems in this higher income range. Also, lower income owner
households (less than 50 percent AMI) are often senior and retired households, where household income
may be low compared to housing costs, but other assets can be substanfiai.
Cost-Burdened Households by Tenure: Eagie County, 20D7
Under 20%
m
w
m
�
r
� 20-30%
a
c
m
�
0 30-35%
a
m
m
�
E 35-40°�
0
�
�
`o
� 40-50 �
m
u
m
a
Over 50%
Overcrowding
0% 'f 0% ZO% 30% 40 ro 50 %
Percent of Househoids
Source: 2007 Househoid Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Results from the 2007 Household Survey indicate that about 9.8 percent of households in Eagle County live
in overcrowded conditions (defined by having more than 1.5 residents per bedroom). This equates to about
1,855 households in 2007. Residents who are not willing to tolerate living in overcrowded conditions,
particularly as they grow older, often leave theirjobs and the community.
3 U.S. Census esfimates for the per�ent of household income spent on housing in 200D indicaie 34 pe�ent of household were cost
buNened. For the Census estimate, housing costs inciude monthiy mortgage or rent payments and u81i8es. �The 1990,1999 and
2007 survey compuiations include oniy rent or mortgage payments, not u6lities. Addi6onally, Census estimates reflect households
that speni 30% or more of their income on housing, whereas the 1990,1999 and 2007 survey results report those households that
paid over 30% of their income toward housing. These two factors expiairt, in pari, why the Census 20D0 figures show a much higher
percentage of'cost-burclened° households overall.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 24
FINAL - EAGLE GOUNTY NOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Overcrowded Units by Tenure: Eagte Gounty, 2007
# %
TOTAL 1,855 9.8%
Own 356 2.7%
Rent 408 7.1 %
Sou�e: 2007 Househoid 5urvey; RRC Associates, inc.
Poor Cond'rfion
Respondents fo the 2007 Household Survey were asked to rate the condition of their home on a scale of °1-
Poor" to °5-Excellent° As shown below, about 3 percent of households reporfed the condifion of their home
to be °1-Poor,° or about 568 households in 2007. Less than one percent of owners (0.6 percent) and about
6.7 percent of renters felt their home condition was "1-Poor.°
Condition of Home: Eagle Gounty, 2007
� - Poo�
Z.a � a
7.3 %
�
E ��� y �., � ,�f� �..,� r
fir qNt�i y� �aFi. (� .,
: y� �� .. tv c � ..i��?,kt� ��. . .
: 4 '1' {�,L t��%i �'
� � � s
° �$�,`';� ,.x{`s7�.�;�,�£sz.���y1 �S:tz'�iJ�.�,u-�
& ���<:.c!� �� 5'iz;:,:±?!•:.°il.��-.`'�''^%�:� ,.
�.
. 11 . ' . � .
•�. -. �..� .
Employer Rroblems
Workforce Housing Perceptions
Empioyers were asked the extent to which they feei the availability of affordable workforce housing in Eagle
County is a problem. About 53 percent of respondents felt that workforce housing is °one of the more
serious problems° in the county, with anofher Z8 percent indica6ng it is the °most critical° problem. About 15
percent feel it is a moderate problem,1 percent feel it is one of the lesser problems in the County and 3
percent feel it is not a problem.
"Do you feel fhaf the availabilify of afforda6le workforce housing is:"
r �� ��
i '
� � tt i
x, � F
�, ,
' w'i �' -� � „.�, k t �
E �:. � t.
� � �, �.
��i.r+- T�,§'rz� tr3' J:� v^'4 1��,."R� f.�*a���
-2'�z.��,'»,t� r. "�ti:� 5;„ �'k�' S f i SPI ,`.,JsU�^`x.r"
� ,.�.
...,,..aw:..J?'��?_h_............. _,
Not a probiem
� One of the region's lesser
probtems
�A moderate problem
❑ One of the more serious
problems
�The mosE critical probiem in
the county
5ource: 2D07 Employer Survey
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, WC. 25
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Unfilled Positions
About 61 percent of responding employers indicated that they presentiy have at least one year-round full
6me unfilled position and 32 percent indicated having at least one year round part time unfilied position.
Applied to the seasonal workforce, 40 percent indicate having at least one winter seasonal unfilled position
(79 percent full time and 63 percent part fime).
A sampie of the comments given by respondents on unfiiled positions is in the table below.
Why you have unfilled positions
• Beiween seasons
• Can't find laborers
• Cost of housing
• Cost of living too high - cannot attract qualified people
• Di�iculty finding qualified professionals �
° Green card, CDL licence, speak English
• Hiring freeze
• Just became available (7)
* Just became availabie or lack of quai�ed candidates
• Lack of applicants and affordable housing
• Lack of applicants and people say it is too expensive to live up here
• Lack of applicants due to high housing costs
• Lack of applicants that have flexible hours because people have 2 jobs
� Lack of applicants, lack of people willing to relocate
• Lack of applicants; cannot find 6-month leases in Eagle County
° Mostly summer seasonal openings; visas expiring
° New position
• No skilled labor available in this area, no afFordable housing available
• Not looking to fill
• Nof needed un61 summer
Problems Due to Housing, Transporfafion, Day Care and Cosf of Living
Respondents were asked how many employees they have lost in the last two years due to a lack of
housing, transportation, day care or cost of living. About 65 percent of employers indicated they lost at least
one employee over the last iwo years due to a lack of housing, transportation, daycare andlor the cost of
living. This includes 37.6 percent of employers that lost af least one employee due to a lack of housing,
16.5 percent due to a lack of transportation,15.0 percent due to a lack of chiidcare and'S5.6 percenf due to
the cost of living in Eagle County. '
Survey responses indicate that tumover within the past coupie of years due to a lack of housing equals
about 6.1 percent of curren8y available positions. Tumover due to a lack of transportation equals about 2.2
percent of current jobs, tumover due to a lack of day care equals about 0.8 percent of current jobs and
tumover of current jobs due to the cost of living in Eagle County represented about 7.7 percent of jobs.
RRC ASSOGIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 26
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Employee Tumover Related to Housing,
Transporta6on, Day Care and Cost of Living: Eagle County, 2QD6
Lacked l.acked �acked Cost of living
Reason for leaving employment 3 housing transportation day care was foo high
% of businesses that lost at least one 37.6% 16.5% 15.0% 55.6%
employee (65 percenf total)
# of employees that left positions within 427 157 58 544
the past two years (survey)`
% of all employment�* 6.1 % 2.2% 0.8% 7.7%
Source: 2007 Eagie County Employer Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
' Because some employees may have left lheir position due to a combinaGon of housing, transpo�tation and day care issues, it is
not appropriafe to sum 1he number of employment posiUons vacated due to each individual measure to amve at a total.
"%of empioyees is based on ihe assumed average employment for the year as reported by all survey respondents (7,021).
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 27
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
SECTION 3— EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUTING
This secfion evaluates employment and commuting trends, including estimates of total jobs and projected
growth in jobs, seasonality of empioyment, commuting, and selected workforce characteristics. Selected
results from the 2007 Employer survey that refleci on the economic status of the community are also
summarized here, inciuding expected changes (increases or decreases) in employment, currenf job
vacancies and issues filiing positions (if any), and estimates of employee tenure and fumover. This
information is useful for understanding the impact that locally available housing has on the local economy
and employers, and gaining insight into bow fhe needs of local businesses and future employees (based on
anticipated changes in employmenf} can best be met.
Jo6 Estimafes and Projecfions
Based on estimates from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) — State Demography Office,
there are currentiy 41,727jobs in Eagle County in 2007. Looking to the future, it is projected there will be
46,173 jobs by 2010 and 52,043 jobs by 2015, as illustrated in the table below.
Yearly Average Total Jobs; Eagle County
% Change
2000 2005 2007 2010 2015 2005to 2015 �
Eaqfe County Totai Jobs 34,505 39,390 41,727 46,173 52,043 32.1%
�abor Force 27,244 28,018 29,353 33,001 38,173 36.2%
Source: Colorado Depariment of Locai Affairs (DOLA)
The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) estimates that the current (March 2007)
unemployment rate among Eagle Couniy residents is a very low 2.6 percent, significantiy lower than the
statewide unemployment rate of 3.6 percent. Employer survey results show that any unfllled jobs are
primarily a result of a lack of applicants, further indicating that Eagie County is a lab�r shortage area.
Employers' Anticipafed Change in Employmenf
Respondents to the 2007 Employer Survey were asked whether they expect to increase or deaease
employment over the next five years. Employers were also asked if they have any employees retiring
during this period and how many will be refiring.
■ About 47 percent of employers expect to keep their employment leveis steady over the next five
years, while 41 percent expect to increase their employment,1 percent expect to reduce their
number of employees, and 6 percent are uncertain. On balance, these resuits suggest a likelihood
of significant employment growth in the next five years.
About 23 percent of empioyers wili have employees retire within the next two years, acxounting for
about 1.6 percent of total jobs, or about 109 positions among survey respondents (648 jobs when
projected to the entire emptoyment base). Refilling jobs from retirees can often be challenging in
areas where the cost of housing has increased faster fhan local, wages, given that many retirees
may have been established in the community before recent housing price inaeases, whereas
many new employees do not have the same advantage.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 2$
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007 •
Refiring Employees: Eagle Counfy 20U7
Survey 2007 Toial
Averaqe yearly employment 7,021 41,727
Jobs available due to retiring employees
�over the next two years) � 09 648
% of jobs available due fo retirinq 1.6% 1.6%
Jobs per employee 1.2 1.2
Persons needed to fill refiree jobs — 2 yrs 91 540
Source: 2007 Eagie Couniy Employer 5orvey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Jobs per Employee and Emp►oyees per Household
The household and employee survey asked workers how many jobs they hold during the summer and the
winter and how many adults (age 18 and over) in fheir household are empioyed. These responses can be
used fo translate the estimated increase in jobs in the county into households demarrded by workers needed
to fill new jobs (see Section —9, Housing Needs and Gaps, for projections of future housing demand).
The average number of jobs held by workers empioyed in Eagle Counfy is 1.2 (2007 househoid
survey}.
■ Households in Eagle County that have at least one working adult average about 1.8 workers per
househoid (20D7 Household Survey).
Average Jobs Per Employee and Employees Per Household:
Eagle County, 2007
Overall
Jobs per employee 12
Employees per household (in households
with at least one workinq adult) 1.8
Source: 20D7 Household Survey
Household:Jobs Ratio
In any housing needs analysis, it is important to understand the relative balance (or imbalance) of resident
housing and jobs in fhe affected area. This is expressed in the below tabie as the rati� �f households to
jobs, as reported by the US Census and the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) — State Demography .
Offlce. The equilibrium ratio of households to jobs can vary somewhat by area depending on local
demographic and economic factors (e.g. percentage of refiree househoids, extent of m�l6pie jobholding,
unemployment rate, etc.). As a point of reference, the state of Colorado as a whole had a ratio of
approximately 0.66 househoids per job in 20D5 (a rough indicator of a"balanced° ralio). In communities that
are largely °bedroom° communities — or net suppliers of housing to the regional workforce — this ratio will
typically be higher, pofentially approaching or exceeding a value of one (1). In communities that supply jobs
to much of the region's workforce, the ratio of households to jobs wiii tend to be lower. '
By comparing the ratio of households to jobs in Eagle County, if is apparent that Eagle County is a net
supplier of jobs to the area, or conversely, that if depends on other communities to house a pofion of its
workforce. As shown below:
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSl1LTING, �NC. 29
FINAL - EAGIE CCIUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Eagle County currenUy has a low ratio of households to jobs at (0.45 households per job in 2007).
This indicates that Eagle County must rely on housing being available in other communities to
meet the needs of its workforce. Conversely, Eagle County suppiies many jobs for woricers living
in the region.
■ Beiween 1990 and 2000, the ratio of househoids to jobs declined siightly, from 0.47 to 0.44,
suggesting fhat Eagle County slighUy increased its role as a net supplier of jobs (and importer of
woricers) to the broader region on a propo�tionate basis. Since 2000, the housing:jobs �atio has
risen very slightly to 0.45, and the ratio is projected to hold steady at 0.45 through 2015.
Ratio of Households:Jobs, 2000 thru 2015
199Q 2000 2005 2007 (est) 2010 (est) 2015 (est)
Households 8,354 15,148 17,885 18,924 20,970 23,952
Jobs 17,917 34,505 39,390 41,727. 46,176 52,043
Ratio of .
Households:Jobs 0.47 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
5ource: 2000 Census; DOLA; RRC Associates, Inc.
For additionai context, the figure below uses a combinafion of US Census data and estimates provided by
DOLA to compare the household:jobs ratio of Eagie County to the surrounding counties �f Lake, Garfieid,
Grand, Routt, Summit and Pitkin. As shown, Lake County is a net supplier of housing, with a 2005 ratio of
1.12 households per job. Garfield and Grand counties have the next highest ratios, with Pitkin and Eagle .
counfies showing the lowest households:jobs ratios.
1.40
1.20
� 1.00
0
�
�
v
0 0.80
t
m
H
�
s 0.60
�
0
0
� 0.40
0.20
0.00
Regional Household:Jobs Ratios
1990 2000 2005
5ource: 20�0 Census; DOLA; RRC Associales
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 30
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Jobs 6ylndusfry
The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEVV) reporfs there were an average of 29,584 jobs in
Eagle County in 2006; thru September, This data inciudes workers covered by unemployment insurance
and, therefore, does not generally include self-empl�yed proprietors and many agricultural labo�ers.
However, QCEW provides useful estimates of the types of industries that suppfy jobs in a region. In 2006,
accommodation and food services supplied the largest percentage of jobs in Eagle County (23.8 percent),
foliowed by consiruction (13.8 percent), arfs and ente�tainment (12.4 percent) and ihe retaii trade (10.2
percent).
Share of Eagle County QCEW Jobs By Industry: 2006 ihru September
Accommodation & food svcs
ConsWction
Arts, Ent, Rec
Retail Trade
Finance, lnsurance, real estate, rental & leasing
Nealth care & social assistance
Administrative & waste svcs
Prof & Tech services
Govemment
Educational svcs
Olher svcs
Trans & Warehousing
Information
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Mgt of companies & enterprises
UtiliGes
Ag, ForesUy, Fishing, Hunting
Wages
.":.�1.;.1 �fi,:.=.t`�+x^.t ::;;�rsa��:"''�S':"�'.`,"�`,-<�:r'�'�`r�' x * _" 3',:.=z;'r>m. Z .S°Io
,'�.5'.�•�..�:�"v.Se-"t��'�w"� .8% M
�i���i�� �u���.ui £s� �"� 12.4 /o
aZv.n.z..4vn.. y.., �r.ln'''4j
���:,.,.,?..;��.=:�.,<�i�_.: . 1 D.2°/a
k.t�U."�..�, �".'.`+�...�4;i:i %.% o , .
�;�..� �� 5.4%
:!t.:.s;l?i.xi-v .7% -
.r_�;�-,s:^, .4%
�`.�r."v-:..= 0% . .
:ti=;�sd1 3. %
'�.'�.H.E 3. %
— - 1.8%
� '�.4%
:-��; 1.3%
.:� 1.1%
a 0.6% ,
0.5%
0.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
% of Jobs in Eagle County
Source: 5ource: Quariedy Census of Employment and Wages (QCEIA�
The QCEW also reports average wages paid by indust'ry. In 2006 (through Sepfember), the average wage
eamed by Eagle County workers was $36,306, a 21.3 percent increase from $31,583 in 2001.
Change in Average Yearly Wage: Eagle County, 2001 ta 200fr
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . 2006(thru % change
September�) 07-06
Average annual pay $31,583 $32,102 $33,345 $34,433 $36,427 $36,306 21.3%
5our�e: Quaflerfy Census of Empioyment and Wages (QCEVJ)
4 The 2DD6 average yearly wage is esGmated from the average weekiy wage reported by the Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages for the first, second and ihitti quarier of 2006.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 31
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSINC� NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
The highest average wages are eamed in management of companies and enterprises ($146;7$2), followed
by professionai and technical services ($56,199) and healthcare and social assistance ($53,361), which
together comprise about 10 percent of empioyment in the Counfy. The five lowest paying industries,
accommodation and food services ($24,427}, agriculture, forestry, fishing and hun6ng ($27,800j,
administrative and waste services ($27,863), retail trade ($31,509) and fransportaiion and warehousing
($32,350) provide 40.7 percent of the employment in the county.
s�so,000
$14D,000
$120,000
$100,OOG
$80,000
$60,D00
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Average Wage by Industry: 2006
c� � 5 5 ti z m � o A 0 ey 5 c°- .�
�ey ��o� ti.o a�,• �u �� �m eo ��� y�c ;�o c a z �e 'v �c
� � a�a a . . . a ��� �a c�. �c �o
y�,c� � ��� �� aca �5� �� �� �o� �� Q<` .co`� <<oa ao �� �e�R J�` ar �
o°a O°����a�� �e`����`a m��y�ay���'���yG�a� ��\� ^�a�� �c�� �°J� o��y� sec . 0�
aca� 0��'� a�a� 5°G` oa� tierc o°a~`� aca ��r e�ac �c5r�c
oaa`\o� e �c� \ �i�,�cP���a``�c ��a �a �a~�o� cp�QmQ` o�y~�.
� a
co c'`� �a� r �5� �° yQ� � '�`
G�� � 0 G� ��0m a���`o��yy ,`�o ��i0 J`�JC2.
Q- P� c P Q �� ca
ca`c5a�`D ��c�,� Q.�
m
�cv�
��c
Source: Quarteriy Census of Employment and Wages (QCE41�; Sorted in descending ortier of average wage paid in
Eagle County.
Sorted in descending order of % of Eagie County Workforce.
Seasunality of Employment
The following graph compares employment by month from 2001 through the third quarter of 2006. As
shown in the graph, there is a seasonal fluctuation of empioyment by monih in Eagle County. The winter
months (December through March) have historically been the peak employment months in Eagle Gounty,
while the lowest employment levels occur in May and October of each year. in the past five years,
empioyment during the peak winter season has been an average of 19 percent higher fhan employment
during the May/October °trough° monfhs, with the difference primarily attributable to seasonal jobs.
��
?S%
20°.6
15°.5
10%
5%
0%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 32
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Monthly Employment, 2001 ihrough September 2006
aa,00a
az,000
ao,oao
,.._._., _,�,
� ..x_
E 28,000 --�_Z006
0
E . � -e-2005
W ��20D4
- 26,000
F�•�tt�-2003
�-2ao2
za,000 tzoo�
zz,000
20,000
/ ,,,,,�-----K, �
Montb
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarteriy Census of Empioyment and Wages (QCEV�
Based on the difPerence between winter and shoulder season employment, there were an estimated 4,863
winter seasonal jobs for Eagie County in 2005. Using this estimation methodology, the number of.seasonal
jobs has heid relatively steady over the 2003 — 2005 period at 4,800 — 4,900 seasorial jobs, down somewhat
from almost 5,20D seasonal jobs in 20D2.
Eagle County Esfimated Winter Seasonal Empioyment: 2005
Estimated
Average Year- Average Winter Winter
Round Jobs Jobs Seasonal
Year (May and Oct) (Dec. through Mar.) Jobs
2005 26,359 31,221 4,853
20D4 24,964 29,830 4,866
2003 24,235 29,049 4,814
2002 24,713 29,891 5,178
2001 25,570 30,491 4,922
Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Empioyment (QCEVt�; RRC Assosiates, Inc.
The 2007 Eagle County Employer survey asked employers to provide their total year round, winter seasonal
and summer seasonal employment. In totai, during the winter months, about 28 percent of all employees
are considered seasonal workers. A slightly lower percentage of employees during the summer are
seasonal workers (22 percent). While there is a larger percentage of seasonal employees in winter than
summer, the total share of businesses reporting seasonal employment is actually higher in summer (44
percent) fhan winter (33 percent).
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, �NC. • 33
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20p7
Employer surveys further asked employers to es6mafe the percentage of seasonal employees which retum
to work for them from past seasons. Empfoyers reporied that an average of 42 percenf of winter seasonal
employees and 46 percent of summer seasonal employees refum fo work for them from previous seasons,
meaning that the majority of seasonal employees must`be newly recruited each year.
Commufing Patterns
The 2007 household and employer surveys conducted as part of this research also asked where
Eagle County residents work and where personsemployed in Eagle Coun,ty live. This information is
useful in understanding employee and resident commuting and distribution pattems.
Where Workers Live
Survey results indicate that about 12 percent of respondents working in Eagle County are in-commuters.
This estimate, however, is low due in pa�t to the low response rate of construction industries. The
Department of Locai Affairs (DOLA) estimates Uiat the percent of in-commu6ng workers is about 18.3 �
percent, which is up slightiy from the 2000 Census,17 percent. The US Census provides longitudinal
employer-household dynamics, which,estimate labor sheds from county to county for 2004. This data,
however, does not appear to be accurate, indicating that only 36 percent of Eagle County's wor�force
actually lives in the County. The household:jobs ratio discussed previously, coupled with additional data,
indicates that the percent of in-commuting employees has inaeased siightly, since 2000. For these. _
reasons, DOU�'s estimate of 18.3 percent will be usedT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. - Deleted: (DB- I DONT UNDERSTAND
HOW 18.3%WAS �ERIVED. RATID MI6HT
Where Eagle County Workers Live: 2007 Survey Results Su��tt�n.�v si� Z000 P� sucEPrr
Piace of Residence % WCREASE IN HH:JOBS RATIO, OR HELD
ROUGHLY STEADY.)
Eaqle 18.8%
Avon 17.0%
EdwardslHomesteadlSingle Tree 16.5°/a
Gypsum 15.7%
Vail 10.1 %
Eagle-Vail 7.2%
Lake County/Leadville 4.3%
Garfield County 4.0%
Mintum/Redcl'rff 2.6%
Other - outside of Eagle County � 1.8%
Summit Couniy 1.2%
Rural Areas 0.6%
Beaver CreeklArrowhead 0.4%
Total Workers 100%
Source: 2D07 Employer Survey
Where Residenfs Work
Based on 20D7 Household survey results, about 88 percent of employed persons residing within Eagle
County also work within the county. Resident rente�s and owners are about equally likely to work within the
County (86 percent of rente�s, 88 percent of owners). Other areas of employment include �arfield County
(1.7 percent), Summit County (0.5 percent), Lake County (02 percent), and other areas (9.7 percent,
including Pitkin County).
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC, 84
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Survey results show a slightly higher percenfage of Eagle Gounty residents being employed within the
county than in 2000 per the US Census (88 percent versus 85 percent, respectively).
Where Eagle County Residents Work: 2007
• 2007 Househo/d Suroey
/ #
Vail 20.6% 5,833
Avon 14.3% � 4,049
Edwards 13.6% 3,851
Eaqle 12.0% 3,398
Other - Outside of Eaqle Counfy 9.7% 2,747
Beaver Creek 9.0% 2,549
�YPsum 6.1% 1,727
Other Eaqle Counfy 3.9% 1,104
Garfieid County 1.7% 481
Summit County 0.5% 142
' Lake County ��2% 57
Total Employed Residents 100.0% 28,317
Source: Colorado Departrnent of Local Affairs (DOLA), 2007 Househoid Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
Methods of Commuting
As shown below, the vast majoriiy of local resident workers in the counfy typically drive their own car to work
(85 percent).
Primary Mode of Travel to Work: Eagie County, 2007
. Live in Eagle
County %
Car (one person) 85.3
Carpool/vanpo�l 4.5
Bus 3.9
Walk 2.7
Other 1.9
Bicycle 0.9
Telecommute 0.9
Total 100%
Sour�e: 20D7 Househoid surveys; RRC Associates, Inc.
Regarding commute assistance from Eagle County employers, about 57 percent of resp�ndents to the 2007
Employer Sunrey stated that they provide at least one type of commute option to employees. Of those
employers providing commute options, 42.1 percent have on-site company vehicles for employee errands,
31.6 percent offer bus passes, 27.6 percent offer travei stipends, 22.4 percent have carpooling or van
pooling services, 21.1 percent offer "other" services,11.8 percent support telecommuting, and 3.9 percent
operate a bus or shuttle business.
RRC A550CIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 35
_
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
"EMPLOYERS: Do you provide emptoyees with any of the foUowing work commute options?"
On-site company vehiGe „;-la.r�'��.�s� �•
Por employee errands �� f��s +�����i. `��� -- ���&:. ' 42 � .
Bus passes/coupons
v
m
� Travei sdpend (i.e., Vavei
� time compensaUon, etc.)
a
m
0
—° Car pooling/van poofing
c
O
m
�
E Other
0
V
Telecommuting
8us/shutlle service
(operated by your
business)
Tenure of Employmenf
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 259'0 30% 35% 40% 45%
% of Respondents
Source: 20D7 Employer Survey
Household sunrey respondents were asked how long they have been empioyed in Eagle County. As shown
below, a large majority of respondents have woriced in Eagle County for more than 10 years (59.9 percent).
"How long have you worked in Eagle County," 2007
Live in Eagle
County %
Less than 6 months 1�.6
6 monihs up to 1 year 4.6
1 up to 2 years 5.4
2 up to 3 years 7.0
3 up to 5 years 8.2
5 up to 10 years 16.5 .
10 years or more 59.9
Totai 100%
Source: 2D07 Household Sunreys; RRC Assosiates, Inc.
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, wc. 36
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Housing Assrsfance
Employer Housing Assisfance - Current
About 30 percent of empioyers indicated they currenUy provide some sort of housing assisfance to
employees. In totai, survey respondents assist about 436 employees. The types of assistance provided by
employers include down payment assistance, interest free loans, home search assisfance and renf
assistance.
Employer Housing Assistance — Future
Employers were asked whefher they would be willing to assist their empioyees with housing through a
variety of inethods. As shown in the following chart, about 27 percent of employers would support master
leasing rental unifs, 21 percent would support security deposits, 20 percent would support purchasing
existing housing,18 percent would support down payment loans, and 17 percent would support rent
subsidies.
"In the fuiure, woufd you be willing to assist your employees with housing through one or more of
the following methods?"
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
4D%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Maste� Security Purchasing Dovm Renl Buildng Buildng Mortgage Morlgage
Leasing Deposils e�dsling payment Subsidies housing on housing oR g�arantees subsides
Rental Un'AS housing loanslgrenls � sife si(e
Source: 2007 Employer Survey
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, INC. 37
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Respondents were also asked if they would support a regional, countywide approach to produce affordable
employee housing through a variety of programs. As shown in the chart below, abouf 64 pe�cent of
employers would support incentives for housing, 52 percent would support deed resfric6ons, 48 percent
would support development requirements, 43 percent would support the adminisfration of the Housing
Department and 27 percent would support feesltaxes for housing.
"Do you support a regional, couniywide approach to produce affordab(e employee housing through
any of the following?"
�oi
so �
50%
40 %
30%
20%
10h
Oh
Incentives for Deed restricfions Oevelopmenl Administration oF ihe Feesltaxes for
housing . Requirements Housing Authority housing
SourGe: 20D7 Employer 5urvey
RRG ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, WC. 3$
FINAL - FAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
SECTION 4— HOUSING INVENTORY
!t is important to understand fhe physical characferistics and ownership of units in Eagle County. This
section analyzes data from the County Assessor (May 2007) property records to evaluate current ownership
housing inventory.
Type of Unifs
Based on the County Assessor property records, about 45 percent of units in Eagie County are
condominiums and 40 percent are singie-family. Another 9 percent are townhomes, dupiexes or triplexes
and 6 percenf are classified as manufactured and mobile homes.
Residential Unifs by Type; Eagle County 2007
Townhome/
Duplex/ Triplex
9%
tYi—y'
, " �i= �„. � ;,�..� ry� CAo�ndo
]Fa�.� L "14'Y� �'6:� VJIO
1, �.... � ��i`'i try+�Ji4� v.:y.5.*,�. °
Z�,�,��� d'
I,t � �i ��(���[�,.�;. . ���, : �^
Singie Family
40%
Manufactured!
Mobile
6%
Sour�e: Eagle County Assessor Data (May 2007); Excludes Apartments
Construction since 2000 shows a slightly different mix of units by type then currently exists in the
community. In particular, about 56 percenf of units constructed since 2000 were single-family homes;
whereas only about 40 percent of unifs in the County are single-family homes. Condominiums, townhomes
and manufactured/m�bile homes represent a lower percentage of units constructed since 2000 compared to
the existing mix in the region. This has implications for affordability since multi-family homes are generaliy
more affordable.
Housing Uniis Constructed Between 2000 and May 2007: Eagie County
Townhome/
Dupiex! Tripiex Condo
�5% 2$%
..., yr„ �"t�' ����'x
�t � a�'�u��
1 a"w�,
� i
�L'i�1���1.,� i�i��Eii�ill;���ii(;J;;ii�;I � Manufactured!
Mobile
�i%
Single Family
56%
5ource: Eagie Couniy Assessor Data (May 200�
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, wc. 3g
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Condifion of Housing Stock
Respondents to the 2007 Nousehold Survey were asked to rate the condifion of their home, the adequacy of
heating, its' exterior appearance and yardAot size on a scale of "1-Poor to °5-Excellent" As shown below,
about 4.8 percent of households reported the wndition of their home to be "1-Poor.° The vast majority of
owners feif their homes were in good or exceilent condition (73 percent rated 4 or 5-"excellenY). About 70.9
percent rated the adequacy of heating 4 or 5-"excellent° and 76.5 rated the exterior appearance a 4 or 5-
°excellenf°. The lowest rating was the yardAot size (54.4 percent rated 4 or 5= excellent°).
Condiiion of Owned Home: Eagle County, 2007
• 80.0%
70.0%
so.o w
�
� 50.0%
0
a
� 40.0%
m 30.0%
n
so.a w
'10.0%
O.U%
Age of Units
CondHion of Adequary ot E#erior YaM/lot size
home heating Appeerance .
Source: 2007 Household Survey; RRC Associates, Inc.
"Rated on a scale of'1-poor' to °5-exceilenP
42
4.1
4.0
3.9
c
3.8 �
a
3.7 �
<
3.6
3.5
3.4
3,3
The age of units can be a factor in the suitabi(ity of housing for residents. As demonstrated in the table
below, the majority of structures (69.4 percent) in Eagle County were built beiween 1980 and the present,
with 16.3 percent constructed since 2000. About 25.5 percent of e�as6ng units were built prior to 1980 (over
27 years ago}.
Year Structures Built in Eagle County
TOTAL
Year Buiit Units* Tofal %
Before 1970 2,258 8.3
1970 to 1979 4,652 17.2
1980 to 1989 6,425 23.7
1990 to 1999 7,964 29.4
2000 or later 4,426 16.3
Unknown 1,378 5.1
Total 27,103 100%
Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (May 20D�
'Residentiai propefies only, exciudes apartments.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. ' 40
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Ownership of Unifs
The percent of Eagle County uniis owned by persons with a local Eagie�County address increased slighfly
between 20D1 and 2007, from 50.5 percent to 51.2 percent. During the same time period, owners from
other areas of Colorado increased from 5.3 percent to 5.6 percent, wifh owners from the Colorado Front
Range decreasing slightly from 12.9 percent fo 12.2 percenf. Owners from other States or Countries also
decreased slightly from 31.2 percent to 31.0 percent.
Ownership of Residential Units: 2001 and 2007
so r .-,
so�io
ao��
30%
20 %
10�
0%
Eagle Couniy CO Front Range Other CO Other
State/Country
• Primary Residence of Owner
5ource: Eagie County Assessor Data (2001 and 20D7�
As shown on the foilowing chart, ownership of units by locals varies by type of unit. Individuals with a�
Eagle County addr�ss own about 78 percent of the mobilelmanufactured homes. Over 50 percent of single-
family.homes and townhomes are aiso owned by Eagle County Residents. Condominiums have fhe lowest
local ownership rate of 36 percent.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 41
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Type of Property by Owner Residency Status: Eagle Couniy 2007
TOTA�
Manufactured/Mobile
Single Family
T ownhome/Dupiex/Triplex
Condo
O Eagle County Resident � Out of Area Resident
0% 20% 40� 60% 80% 700%
Percent of Ownership Units.
Source: Eagie County Assessor Dafa (May 200�
Evaluated another way, about 48 percent of units owned by Eagle County residents are single-family
residences, 32 percent are condominiums,11 percent are townhome, duplexes or tripiexes, and 9 percent
are mobile/manufactured homes. A higher percentage of out-of-area househoids own condominiums (59
percent) and a lower percentage own single-family homes (31 percent), townhomes, duplexes or triplexes (7
percent) or manufactured/mobile homes (3 percent) than resident owners.
Ownership Residency by 7ype of Property: Eagle County 2007
Eagle County Out-of-Area
owners % owners °/o
Singie-family 48.0 31.4
Condo 31.7 58.5
Townhome/Duplex(friplex 10.9 7.2
Manufactured/Mobile 9.4 2.8
TOTAL 100% 100%
TOTAL # 13,857 13,188
Sour�e: Eagle County Assessor Data (May 2D0�
To determine the total square footage of improved�residentiai properties owned by Eagie County residents
and out-of-area owners, the Eagle County assessor database was used (last updated in May, 200�. All
residenfial parcels identified as single family, condominium and townhome improved properties were
identified. The total finished square footage of all property types were summed for local residents and out-
of-area owners. All mobile homes were assumed to be occupied by Eagle County residents.
Addi6onally, large apartment rental properties were identified. Square footages were estimated ftom a
combination of assessor data and informafion gathered on room sizes. AI( units in major apartment
properiies were assumed to be occupied by Eagle County residents, since most have occupancy
restrictions.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TWG, INC. 42
FINAL - EAGLE COUN7Y NOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
it is important to note t�at the total square foot of improved residential units does not include all units; not ali
properties in the assessor database had square footage information. The sample is su�ciently large,
however, for fhe percentages to well represent all tinits.
Eagle Couniy Improved Residential Square Foofage Breakdown
Local (Sgft) 2nd Nome (5qft} Totaf (Sq Ft)
Condo 4,707,221 9;514,714 14,221,935
Mobile Home 1,851,890 0 1,851,890
Sinqle Family 18,014,477 14,431,487 32,445,964
Town Home 3,176,895 2,699,349 5,876,244
Larqe Apartment Properties# 1,063,362 0 1,063,362
Total 28,813,845 26,645,550 55,459,395
Total % � 52.0% 48.0% 100%
*Includes esUmatesforLake Creek Uilage, Middle Creek, River Run, River Edge, Sopris Vew, Tames, Eagle Ullas,
Golden Eagle, Kayak Crossing, Buffalo Ridge, Eagle Bend, Holiy Cross �Ilage
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, �NC. 43
FINA� - EAGLE GOUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
RRG ASSOCIATES, INC:; REES CONSULTING, INC. 44
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20D7
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, wc. 45
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Occupancy
The relationship beiween primary homes and vacation homes is shifting with propo�ionately fewer units
occupied by residents of Eagle County. This has implications on fhe demand and availability of workforce
housing. Homes that are not occupied but rather function as vacation accommodations generafe demand
for workforce housing through fheir upkeep and maintenance. If the mix changes beiween homes occupied
by the workforce and units that generate demand for housing, it is an indica6on fhat the imbalance is
increasing and availability of housing for employees will become even more limited.
As of the 2000 Census, about 69 percent of all housing units in Eagle County were occupied by residents,
with 31 percent reported as vacant, primarily because of seasonaVrecreational use. The Department of
Locai Affairs esfimates that the occupancy rate in 2006 was about 64 percent, indicating a dedine of nearly
8% in the proportion of units that actually serve as housing with the relative number of vacation homes on
the rise. While the shift has not been as great wifhin rural, unincorporated areas of the county, the trend is
in the same direction, which does not bode weil for the future availability of workforce housing:
Occupancy Trends
% OccupiedlPrimary Homes 20D0 2006 Change
_ Eagle County Total � 68.5% 63.7% -7.5 %
Unincorporated Eagle Counry 69.0% 66.5% -3.8%
Sourses; 2000 Census; Departrnent of local Affairs
Since Eagle County is contemplating a revision to their Local Resident Housing 6uidelines that would base
requirements on square footage rather than the number of units, availabie informa6on has been examined
to calculate the percentage of actua{ space measured in square feet occupied by locais. While ownership of
units does not teli us whether the unit is occupied or vacant, it can serve as a proxy to generate a rough
estimate of the minimum percentage of occupied residential square footage. It can be assumed that Eagle
County residents occupy all units in major apartment properties, since most have occupancy resfrictions.
Additionally, it can be assumed that residents ocxupy all mobile homes since they are rarely used for
vacation homes. Where the difficulty lies is determining occupancy of individuai properties. Some of these
units are investment properties and are rented out long-term to locals. The table below assumes that all
properties with out-of-county owners are vacation homes, and all that locally-owned properties are
occupied. Making this assumption underestimates the percentage of occupied residential square footage in
the county, but provides a minimum estimafe.,
To determine the total square footage of improved residen6al propefies owned by Eagle County residents
and out-of-area owners, the Eagie County assessor database was used (last upd'ated in May, 2007). The
total finished square footage of all property types were summed for local residents and out-of-area owners.
It is important fo note that the total square foot of improved residential units does notindude all units; nat all
prope�ties.in the assessor database had square footage information. The sample is sufficiently large,
however, for the perrentages to well represent all units.
As shown in the table below, at least 52 percent of fhe total residential square footage in Eagle County is
within homes occupied as primary residences.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 46
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Ea�le Counfy Improved Residential Square Foofage Bre�kdown
Local (5qft) 2nd Home (Sqftj Total (Sq Fi)
Condo 4,707,221 9,514,714 14,221,935
Mobile Home 1,851,890 0 1,851,890 �
Single Family 18,014,4TI 14,431,487 32,445,964
Town Home 3,176,895 2,699,349 5,876,244
LargeAparfinentProperfies* 1,063,362 0 1,063,362
Total 28;813,845 26,645,550 55,459,395
TOtel % 52.D%. 48.0% 100%
*inciudes esfimates for Lake Creek Ullage, Middle Creek, River Run, River Edge, Sopris Uew, Tames, Eagle Uilas,
Golden Eagie, Kayak Crossing, Buffalo Ridge, Eagle Bend, Holly Cross Vllage
Based on residential sales in 2007, it appears that fhe trend beiween 2000 and 2006 is continuing. Locals
are buying relatively fewer units causing the relationship beiween primary and vacation homes to shift
furfher. Even with deed restricted units, the 64 percent loca1:36 percent vacation home mix is not being
maintained. In 2007, locals purchased 52 percenfage of ail units sold. Of these 54 were deed restricted.
�acals purchased oniy 49 percent of free market units.
Deed-Resfricted Housing
Deed-res�icted units are scaflered throughout the County. 5ome of the larger developments are lisied
below. Addifional units are integrated within other developments throughout the county. Comments from
the 2007 Household Sunrey on other deed-restricted housing locations and respondents' feelings on deed-
restricted housing are provided in Appendix C.
Deed-Restricted Oumership Units in Eagle County
TOTAL units
Wildwood Townhomes South - Avon
Mountain �sta Condos - Avon 20
Miller Ranch - Edwards 280
Eagie Ranch - Eaqle 152 (est.)
Vail Commons - Vail 53
Red Sandstone Creek - Vail 18
Uilas at Brett Ranch - Edwards 158
Riyerwalk at Edwards 57
Source: Eagie Couniy Housing Depariment; Eagie County Assessor (200�; Town of Avon
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 47
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
SECTION 5 — OWNERSHIP MARKET
This section identifies trends in sales of homes by fype of unit, price and ownership. Informa6on from the
Eagle County Assessor database and fhe multiple listing service (M�S), along with realtor interviews, are
examined to identify sales frends over time and units cuRenUy available to buyers:
Value of Owned Uniis
Eagle Counfy assessor records report the total actual value of residentiai units. The value of owned units
reported in this seciion represent the assessed value as reported by the Eagle County Assessors' o�ce.
Two approaches for appraising residential property are the market approach and the cost approach. The
market approach looks at the price the property would bring if sold in the open ma�ket. The cost approach
looks at the cost of replacing the building with a similar one. °After the properfies have been appraised, the
properties are analyzed to ensure adequate and equitable assessmentss".
Based on these figures:
• About 5.4 percent of units in Eagle County are valued under $100,000, or about 1,608 units total
(less than 80 percent AMI). However, of the 1,608 units in this value range,1,560 are
manufactured/mobile homes. Condominiums in this value range are sized between 210 square
feet and 230 square feet with either zero or one-bedroom.
• Entry-level ownership homes (80 to 120 percent AMI), between about $100,000 and $200,000,
comprise about 4.1 percent of units. These inciude condominiums and some single-family
residences.
• Move-up housing (over 120 percent AMI) priced beiween about $200,000 and $350,OOD comprise
about 11.9 percent of existing units in Eagle County. These are primarily condominiums and
singie-family homes. The median square foot of singie family units in this price category is 1,092
square feet, with an average of two bedrooms.
� The remaining 78.6 percent of units are valued over $350,000.
5 Eagle County Assessor, httpJ/www.eaglecouniy.us/assessodtanes.cfrn
RRC A550CIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, INC. 4$
t
FINAL-EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Value of Owned Units, Single-family, Condominium and ManufacturedlMobile, 2007
Under 550,0�0
55�K fo $99,999
$100K fo $149,999
S15oK to 5199,999
�G
� $200K to $249,999
a
m
� $250K to 5299,999
O
� 5300K to $349,999
m
� $350K to 5399,999
?
S400K to 5499,999
$500K to $649,999
5650K to $799,999
5800K or more
;"-.;uwy=�e,_, 39°/a
tt��,•a_`rF„-
s,:.."``'; '�.5%
55�"m.:: 2.3%
��;� 1.8%
�;r::7, 2.1 %
�';°.a,,,::�::g aai s. 4.9%
�>:,..�i::y?>:�?
".�.`a:.��'L:�.=�_ 4.9%
�ir�_����K:�-
G;��c�;�:� ��' 7.1%
;'i�.-`�"'"Cn'.'-.'•`:�`"'-�u:.t�','r..�^_ ':z��•:tf": 12. %
s�:.>�:i.,-�,���"v�a-_..���;�"�x� `,!9i:
��-��;� ,h-�_: t;-"�'_ .
.,,r�_,,:.�s:> �-1,_=3 �i5� ��l�i?;:� 13 °/a
e=: � �-r,�r�-: e�=� �'m�=. 9 1%
eti�C_.Yn :�_::'�..�:, =1..t���-
��4, "saz�.p. i�`4.;,��+'is,�,4� r,ctn.���� ..iilv`� d �` �:?' ,�.�1 ti t� .;;``�r�.�reY""j � 36.�°/n
_a._-ss�^.__ , s.�r. .r__�e.L�_ ��.r=na!�.�t .�.o.��. -;f 4�. �,±�:.c�_�..__�ti. �::
D%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30°/a 35%
Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (May 20D�; RRC Associates, Inc.
Distribution of Owned Units by Type and Value
Under$50,pD�
$SOK to $99,999
$100K to $149,999
$150K to $199,999
$20DK to �249,999
$250K to $299,999
$3DDK to $349,999
$350K to $399,999
$400K to $499,999
$SDOK to $649,999
$65DK to $799,999
$BOOK or more
40%
D% 10% 20 % 30 % 40 % 50% 6D% 7D% 80 % 90°h 1 DD°h
Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (May 200�; RRC Associates, In�.
__
As indicated below, generally as the value of homes increases, the percentage of out of area ownership
also increases. One excepfion is ownership of units valued between $50,000 and $99,999. About 39
percent of units in this range are owned by out-of-area owners. Taking a.closer look, 52 percent of tiie units
owned by out-of-area owners in this price range (162 units) are condominiums. Of those condominiums,
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 49
FINAL - EAGLE COUNIY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20D7
103 are located at the Tames at Beaver Creek and are owned by either the Tames at Beaver Creek LLG or
the Vail Corpora6on.
Of units valued over $800,000, about 71 percent are owned by out of area residents.
Value of bwned Units by Residency of Owner: 2007
Under $50,000 ';13.3°6:
$50K to $98,999 +.,1;i�,'38.6:k;;;j;�lii�j�;�:
$100K to $� 49,999 : . • . +�' 7 7.4°6 � i?`
$150K to $199,999 : � � • . ;°;:1,9,6�.;i!.;;
� $200KtoS249,999 "95:2%;�
..._ . . _
a
� $250Kto$299,999 ;ii"�22:1%�'!<;ji.
O
o $300Kfo$349,999 �• �;t'.i��27.0%r;l��.!ii�
m
,-�� $350Kto$399,999 i•.i ��:;;:.;;;i36.•1%i('list::t;'ti�`
>
$400K to $499,999 ���, �i i�;'; 38,6 ti'; �;,'i': i'' %j! j �' �
$SOOK to $649.999 ' : �.; � ' 43.2%,-� . �' `. ; j'. ; iE� i � i,
$650Kto $799,999 .`� ,:;' :"53J%'�''i;�!::'::!: �i;i�i�
$BDOKormore `'�� .�.70.9%�": , ,;:.� i ' ���.'�`�. :;
0% 10% 20% 30% 40 h 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (May 20U�; RRC Associates, Inc.
Residential Sa/es by Year
The following tabie shows sales between 2000 and 2006, by iype of units sold. in total, about 42 percent of
sales during this time period were single-family h�mes, with another 40 peicent being condominiums. On
average, condo sales have been decreasing, with a high of 42.6 percent of all sales in 2001. The percent of
townhome sales by year varies between 10.1 percent in 2002 and 15.5 percent in 2006. The average
percent of sales for mobile/manufactured homes is 5.4 percent with a yeady individual deaease from 8.6
percent of all sales in 2000 to 4.6 percent in 2006. •
Sales by Year. 2000 fo April, 2007
20D0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Sinple-family 42.5% 39.3% 40.8% 42.5% 42.5% 42.1% 44.3%
Co�do 36.9% 42.6% 42.0% 41.5% 41.0% 41.4% 35.6%
Townhome/Duple�J'friplex 12.0% 11.1% 10.1% 11.1% 12.3% 12.8% 15.5°l0
Manufactured/Mobile 8.6% 7.0% 7.2% 4.9% 4.2% 3.8% 4.6%
Totaf% 10�% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Totai Sales 2,144 1,913 2,1
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 5O
FINAL - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Residenfial Sa/e Prices
The following chart shows the general trend of increasing sales prices in Eagie County over the past 5
years. Overall: .
• The percentage of sales priced below $150,000 declined from about 37 percent of sales in 2000 to
11 percent of sales in 2006. The percenf of sales above $400,000 increased from 42 percent in
� 2000 to 68 percent in 2006.
Residenfial Unit Sales, 2000 to Z006: Average Sales Price, Eagle County
35 �
30%
25°6
N
m
v� 2� �
`o
c
� 15h
m
a
10%
5%
0%
Under $100K
$10�K $149,9!
000 �o.s� s.oi
�D3 9.0% 4.6%
❑20DD �2003 020D6
$150Kto S200Kto $ZSOKto $300Kto $350Kto $40�Kto $SOOKto $650Kto $BOOKc
$199,999 $249,999 $299,999 5349,999 $399,999 $499,999 $649,999 $799,999 more
8.4% 11.8% 8.1% 6.4h 6.9% 8.1% 7.3% 5.0% 21.2%
7.8% 14.8% 9.7°6 7.3 % 6.6% 6.7% 9.3% 4.9% 17.4%
20°5 3.2°h 62°% 7.3% 7.4% 14.Oh 14.3% 8.4% 312%
Sales price �
Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (Aprii 200�; RRC Associates, Inc.
The foliowing chart shows the median sales price for all units over the last six years. Based on these
figures: ,
� The median sale price of markef-priced homes in Eagle County (including sales of single-family
homes, townhomes, condominiums, mobilelmanufactured homes and other muiti-family homes)
increased by 60 percent beiween 2000 ($325,000 median) and 2006 ($519,300). This includes a
67 percent increase in condominium median sate prices, a 56 percent increase in townhomes,
duplexes and triple7ces, a 48 percent increase in single-family home sale prices and a 9 percent
increase in mobile/manufactured sale prices.
• The median price of single-family home sales increased by 30 percent between 2005 and 2QD6.
Of the sales in 2006,'30 percent were priced over $800,ODD (700 sales). The majority of these
sales were located in Edwards (241 sales), the Vail area (186 sales) and Beaver Creek (148
sales).
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES GONSULTING, WC. 51
FINAL - EAGLE COUNN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Median Sale Price for Ali Units
$700,000 .�i � � � t I � �, t � � t
� i' � �� � � �i �f� f t� ��1 1�7�l-7 i��.ii�iF� (. 4� 3� �r{'7 ���tiEj ���
������� � � � � � ' . E �� � � � ._ 11 jf� 1�� .i!I��jly' i? �} i I�.' l� ���� { 'I(�.
$600 �00 .I ' i ii i� i i� �i� �II i � I i1 �4 i��{ i.� � H-� �L:� . �� r i r.
��i � �ii� I� �I 11� i �� a� i� i i ��j � ��i� t i�i 'i ��. �j.
i' l ��I �i �iPit ui,a�.���i� �.j+ i.��F
$500000 �i� � i i��� i I� E(l���i�a i I a li� t �.I ai i .4� I�M i{1� ii�� i a.�
'_i
m .�;� EF �i �i�3�.��i � ��iln. ��i l�1� f�0 i{3t.�.'i I� � i �r '�� �� i� �� ;. i �.
+ i�l I� kl� �� i I �,� �'
_ :...I . ' t � '.�. i i I��- i� il ���� i t� � . 4,ii
a $40� 000 .�� � . �i i I �i ! � 7 i � + ��i ii . : f � , . ..,i� I �t ! i'
m i: .i � � � .�i�ii� �Irr � �� ��d t. ��I -•� � �� { I� � (t y ��.
y if , ' �._.... i�. i� i.� I '�{� i�i�i � t i'�i � �.
� $300000 �i s � i ,� ��,� i ni �n� �i ��� �� �� ryi
`v .�. i � � i�.� � i�, i��' � 1 1� � �I�� � �� � � i �� i���i.
� $20D000 it. i i i�l �� I 'I� ��.;+F'i i� F�ii Iji��� li ����dl�i I�i iI i �p�i
� � � � ���ti � j i � t �I� ��E ii i. i� i- i i (� I i� i� ��
-.I j t�.�� i�i � FC . ii i P���: � ��� i� i��!. �� tii .� �� 1i4 i ���`�� �
� 4 I t i- i i r � �� �. -.`� �.
� $100,ODD ''` � i�i i� i i� � j:�i � i {. i i� i� i i l �li l�I I� i i. .
.i: I.i. �{: t ii�, fi �� �.. j , r +�i � I ' i �� � � ����t�.
�;� i n. � �.�i . . .) � ..� i i t�. . { ..
� ;:: I �� !.: �.:. � ._;.I��.� .� ..IS. _..�.. i.:. . ...__J.. � �� .._....��.,! ,{�ia ,'.'iti�.�.1�... �.. �i�.
20D0 2001 20D2 2003 2004 2005 2006
-P-Single Family $439,250 $430,ODD $445,OOD $439,500 $450,000 $499,000 $648,400
-�-Condo $279,000 $254,500 '$270,000 $270,000 $297,000 $355,000 $465,000
-�4-TownhomelDupiex/Triplex $295,OOD $285,OD0 $317,000 $318,750 $325,000 $360,SOD $460,000
-3E-Manufactured/Mobile $45,000 $48,200 $41,050 $3D,806 $37,000 $39,900 $49,000
�Q-Totai 5325,600 $320.OD0 $329,0�0 $327,400 $350,000 $400,000 $519,300
Sourrz: Eagle County Assessor Dala (May 200�; RRC Associates, Inc.
The median sale price per square foot offers more insight on actual increases in housing prices. The
median sale price per square foot of a11 residences increased by about 56 percent between 2000 and 2006.
Individually, the median per square foot sale price of condos increased the most, 77.3 percent, with single-
family homes increasing by 45.4 percent and townhomes increasing by 38.9 percent.
Median Sales Price per Square Foot: Eagie County 2000 to September 19, 2006 .
� °/a Change
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200Dto 2006
Condo $238 $224 $241 $246 $268 $327 $422 77.3%
Sinole-familv $186 $185 $190 $193 $2D1 $217 $270 45.4%
94 $213
County Assessor Data (April 200'�; RRC Associates, Inc.
New and Existing Sales
18.4%
New unit sales are defined as housing units sold within one year of their construction. The price per square
foot of sales for new consfruction varies from that of previously owned units. In 2000, the price per square
foot for new units ($173 median) was 17 percent lower than for existing units ($203 median). 7his paflem
continued to 2003 and to 2006 with the price per square foot of new units being lower fhan for existing units.
In 2006, 61 percent of newly constructed units (301 units) were single-family residences. The majority of
the new single�'amily residences are in Eagle (135 units) and �ypsum (68 units).
RRC ASSOGIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 52
�
4 i
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Median Price per Square Foot Sales of New and ExisEing Unifs:
Eagle County 5ales in 2000, 2003 and 2006
�aoo
$aso
$30D
0
0
�- $250
m
`m
�
y $200
`m
a
� $150
a`
$1DD
$50
$D
2000 2003 2D06
Year
Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (April 200�
An average of 74 percent of new unit sales between 2000 and 2006 were to Eagle County residents, where
about 26 percent were to out of area owners. Distribution of existing �sales.is siightly more even, with 54
percent of existing sales being to new residents and 46 percent to out of area owners.
New and Exisiing Sales by Residency: Eagle County 2006
Sales 2006
New Exisiing
Eaqle Counry 74°/a 54% .
Out of Area 26% 46%
Totai' 100% 100%
5ource: Eagle County Assessor (May 200�
Sa/e Prices and toca/ /ncomes
As shown below, median family inwmes (as defined by the Department of Housing and llrban Developmeht
for Eagle County) increased about 17.5 percent beiween 2000 and 2006, compared to a much higher 59.8
percent increase in median sales prices in Eagle County. The median price of a home in 2000 was about
477 percent higher than the median family income, and this has increased to a 649 percent difference in
2006.
A household eaming $80,000 in 2006 could generally afford a home priced at about $263,8006, or 330
percent more than fhe income. As noted in a number of previous sfudies, incomes in Eagie Countyare not
keeping pace with rising home prices.
6 AfFordabie purchase price for an average s¢ed 3-person household. Assumes 30-year, 6 percent loan wifh $10,000, no more fhan
30 percent of household income peid fowarti housing payments, 0.49% property tax and 0.50% home insurance.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, �NC. 53
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Median Price of Homes vs. Median Family Income: 2001 thru 2006
Median Price Median Family Income* Median price as a% of
Year of Sale (sales) (HUD - Eagle County) median income
2000 $325,000 $68,100 477%
2001 $320,000 $70,500 454%
2002 $329,000 $74,900 439%
2003 $327,400 $73,600 445%
2004 $350,000 $76,700 456%
2005 $400,000 $79,950 500%
2006 $519,300 $80,000 649%
% increase (2000 to 2006} 59.8% 17.5% -
Source: Eagie County Assessor recorrls; Depar6nent of Housing and Urban Development; RRC Associates, Inc.
'Median Income re8ects the 100�o area median income (AMI) for a 4person family househoid in Eagie County, or what is
commoniy referred to as the median family income for an area
Sales to Locals
The table below shows sales to locals in Eagle County over the last year by AMI range.
• Of the units sold in 2006 that are priced affordably to households eaming 80 percent or less of the
AMI (below about $180,238), 72 percent were sold to local Eagle County residents.
• About 30 percent of Eagle County residents are in the first-time homebuyedentry levei market
housing range (80.1 to 120 percent AMI). These residents can afford to purchase a housing unit
priced between about $180,239 and $241,432. There is some competition for these units, with
Eagle County residents purchasing 88 percent of available units.
• Of units sold in price ranges affordable to households eaming between 120 and 140 percent of the
AMI (generally the move-up housing range), about 79 percent were sold to persons with a local
Eagle County address. These are units priced between about $288,087 and $334,741.
� Of units priced over $334,741, which is the higher-end ownership market, 50.9 percent were sold
to local Eagle County residents.
Sales 2006 to Locals by Affordability L' evels
Max Affordable Mobile Single- % of Sales fo
Purchase Price* Condo hor�e family Townhome l.ocals
Less than 50°/a AMI $124,796. 0 57 16 4 69.4% �
50 to 60% AMI $148,123 10 0 5 1 76.2%
60 to 80% AMI $180,238 10 1 4 0 83.3%
80 to 100%AMI $241,432 62 2 16 14 94.9%
100 to 120% AMI $288,086 37 1 37 33 82.4%
120 to 140% AMI $334,741 66 1 46 30 78.6%
dver 140% AMI Over $334,741 212 0 536 167 50.9%
Total - 397 62 660 249 58.0%
`Afiordable p�rchase price for an average sized 3-person household. Assumes 30-year, 6 perceni loan with $10,000, no more than
30 per�ent of household income paid toward housing paymenis, 0.49%property tax and 0.50% home insurance.
RRC ASSOGIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. rj4
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Muffiple Lisfing Service
The multiple listing service, as of April 2007, lists 1,048 relevant units for sale in Eagle County. The median
sales price across all product types is $1,195,000. The table below shows median, maximum and minimum
prices across all units and by product type.
MLS Listings, April 200T, Eagle County .
Total Percent
PropertyType Median Minimum Maximum Number of_Uniis
TOTAL $1,195,000 $70,000 $21,000,000 1,048 100.0%
Condominium $1,050,000 $70,000 $18,860,000 487 46.5%
Sinqle-family $1,500,000 $194,999 $21,000,000 �81 36.4%
Townhome/ Duplex/Triplex $894,000 � $295,000 $14,950,000 180 17.2%
5ource: Eagie County MLS '
Further tliscussion of the current MLS listings is included in the demand and gap analysis, Section 8, of fhis
report.
Rea/for lnterviews
Ten local realtors were interviewed to better understand trends and needs in the local real estate market.
Generally, the reaifors interviewed feel that second homeownership is increasing, more retirees are moving
to the area and locals are having to move farfher and farther down valley to afford adequate housing. There
is an undersupply valiey wide for homes seiling less than $500k.
• Currently, it is estimated that about 50 percent of the purchasers are second homebuyers. Second
homebuyers are starting to create competition down valley, especially in Avon and Edwards. It is
estimated that about 30-40 p�rcent of second homeowners are from the Front Range. Fractibnal
ownership has seen an inaease recently and more projects are underway.
• The locals that are purchasing homes generaily have dual incomes and are young_ buyers looking for
anything under $500k. When they have kids they move down valley to flnd more space that is
affordable.
v Frst-time homebuyers have the most difficulty finding housing because of the rapidly increasing
housing prices and condo conversions. Urtually anyone fhat cannot get significant assistance or �
cannot get a down payment wiil have a hard time buying a property.
� Opinions on deed restrictions were mixed. Several of the realtors poinied out that Miller Ranch has
. been a very successfui development, proving that deed restrictiorns do work. Others were
proponents of the free ma�Cet, feeling that there is a need for creativity on the part of developers and
govemment to make housing attainabie at opening price points.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, �NC. 55
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Seciion 6 - RENTAL MARKET
This section evaluates the curzent rental ma�ket by exploring changes in rent rates and vacancy rates since
the 2000 Census. The section concludes with a discussion of comments from properry manager interviews
regarding their observations of the current rental market and Uends. This section helps identify the relative
health of the rental market and availability of housing choice for renters in Eagie County.
Rent
The average cantract rent as of the 200D Census was $952 per month.. As shown below, rents have shown
a steady increase through 2007 based on periodic surveys and interviews with local rental properties and
2007 Household survey results. Overail, it is estimated that rents have inaease about 21 percent since
2000, outpacing locai renter incomes (about a 15 percent increase basetl on 2007 s�rvey results).
Interviews with property managers in May 2007 indicate that average rents are about $867 per month,
which is within 2 percent of the 2007 Household survey results.
Average rent
Source: 2000 U5 Census;
Change in Average Rent: 2000 to 2007
� % chattge:
2000 2005 2007 Household 2000to
�Census) (DOLA) Survey 2007
150 21%
20D7 Household survey; RRC
The following table compares average rents for market rate rental properties and income-restricted units.
This shows that market rate rents exceed affordable rents only for 1 and 2 bedroom units (between 15 and
23 percent higher). One explanation for the income-restricted studios having a higher average rent than the
market rate studios is ihe physical location of the properties. Middle Creek Apartments in Vail, which are
income-restricted units, range from $681 to $823 for a 395 square foot studio apartment. Middle Creek
Apartments also has comparatively higher rents for 3-bedroom apartments.
Evaluating the average rent per square foot, except for studios, all income restricted unit types have a lower
average rent per square foot than the market rentals (between 3 and 26 percent).
Avera e Rent b Unit T e, March 2007: Market Rate and Income Restricted Un'�ts
Average Rent Average Rent per Square Foot
Market Income % Market Income %
Rate Restricted difference Rate Restricted , differenc
Studio $595 $706 187% $1.70 $1.83 7.6%
1-b $943 $723 -23.3% $1.61 $1.20 -25.5%
2-b $1,171 $1,001 -14.5% $1.48 $1.23 -16.9%
3-b $1,335 $1,409 5.5% $1.50 $1.45 -3.3%
4-b $1,624 - - $1.76 - -
5-b $1,920 - - $1,68 - -
Total units
re resented 1,098 503 - 1,098 503 -
Source: Apartment property manager interviews, RRC Assceiates, inc., May 2007.
The distribution of rents aaoss AMI affordability was aiso analyzed based on 2007 Househoid survey
responses. Affordabil'�ty levels are for a 3-person household, paying no more than 30 percent of their
monthly income on rent.� Distribution of rents are for units with at least iwo bedrooms. This shows that
about 31 percent of rentai units are affbrdable to a 3-person household making 50 percent AMI or less.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES GONSULTWG, INC. 56
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
About 20.0 percent are affordable to households making between 50 and 80 percent AMI, 38 percent are
affordable to households making beiween 80 and 120 percent AMI and 12 percent are affordable to
households making over 120 percent AMI.
AMI Distribution of Rents: Eagle County, 2007 •
MaxAffordable Renf Distribution of Renfs Distribufion of Renfer
AMI affordability (2007J* 2007 S�rvey % Households %
5D% orless $1,461 30.5 25.6
50-8D% $2;441 20.0 19.8
80 to 120% $4,015 37.8 29.1
Over 120% Over 2,190 11.8 25.4
Total - 10D% 100%
Source: 20D7 Household and Empioyee survey, 2000 US Census; RRC Associates, Inc.
'Based on a 3-person househoid eaming within each AMI range.
Vacancy Rafes
Vacancy rates provide another measure of the health of the rentai market. Typically, vacancy raies around
5 percent suggest some equilibrium in the market, meaning that there is sufficient supply to provide renters
with a choice of product. Vacancy rates below this threshold indicate under-supply, whereas rates above
this level suggesi over-suppiy of housing. Based on vacancy rental informafion collected by fhe Eagie
Counfy Hoosing Department on 1,470 to 1,587 units, the Couniy's vacancy rates vary by season, with the
summer months having ihe highest number of vacancies. Overall, vacancy rates have decreased since the
2000 census, with cuRent vacancy rates being near zero. Property manager interviews, conducted in May,
2007, indicafe that fhe vacancy rate in May remains near zero.
' Vacancy Rates, 2000 to 2007: Eagle County
2000 2Q03 2003 2005 2005 200�
(Census) (Summer) (Winter) (Summer) (Winter) (April)
Vacancy rate 6.6% 10% 5% 4% 2% .07%.
Source: Eagle County Housing Department, 2000 US Census; RRC Associates, Ino.
Vacancy rates by unit fype show that in the summer of 2005, studios had the highest vacancy rate (10
percent), followed by 4-bedroom units (6 percent). During the winter months, 2-bedroom units have the
highest vacancy rates, followed by 5-bedroom and 3-bedroom units (3 percent each).
Vacancy Rates by Unit Type: 2005 to 2007
ApartmentT e 2005 2005 2007 (April)
yP (5ummer) (Winter) % vacanf # represenied
Studio 10% 1% �% 110
1-bedroom 2% 1% 0% 280
2-bedroom 2% 2% 0% 721
3-bedroom 5% 3% .07% 328
4-bedroom 6% 4% 0% 21
5-bedroom 5% 3% . 0% 10
Sou�e: Source: Eagle County Housing Deparimeni, 20D0 US Census
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CQNSULTING, INC. 57
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Rentai Manager interviews
Additional comments on unit occupancies and demand for units were provided �irough interviews with eighf
{8) marlcet-rate apartment property managers and seven (7) incom�restricted apartment prope�ies:
■ Most properties indicated that vacancy rates have been decreasing since Buffalo Ridge and Middle
Creek were initially rented out. Tumover is also very low among all of ihe properties. �
■� Most properties currently have a waitlist. One incom�restricted property reported a total of 46 people
on the waitlist, including 12 for a 1-bedroom, 22 people for a 2-bedroom and 22 people for a 3-bedroom
unit. One market rate property reported that in January they usually have about 100 people on the
waitlist.
■ All of the property, managers indicated that there is higher competition for rental unifs in the winter. The
units in most demand vary by property, with 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units being in most
demand. Overcrowding is not a problem for most properties, although some have d'rfficulty with °couch
surfers" in the winter months.
� Income requirements for restricted units require the renter to make no more than 60 percent AMI, with
one property Fequiring the renter to make no more than 50 percent AMI. For market rate units,
requirements range from an income of at least 2.5 times the cost of rent to at least 3 times the cost of
rent.
■ Generally, all of the property manager interviews indicated that there is an increasing level of demand
for rental housing, which is not being met. Tumover is low and vacancy rates are near zero. Large
construction projects in the area are being held up because of a lack of housing for their workers.
RRG ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 5$
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Secfion 7 - HOUSIN6 PREFERENCES
This section of the report provides information for use in fhe planning, design and development of Affordable
Housing. It considers the preferences of Eagie County's residents in terms of where they want to live, the
type and size of homes they want to live in, the amount they want to pay and the ameni6es fhey want
provided. Specifically, it:
�. Analyzes location considerations including where residents want fo live and the importance they
place on various location attributes, like proximiiy to woric;
o assesses the marketability of deed resfrictions;
• provides information to aid in the development of rental housing including the type of units desired
and lease terms,
• examines the market for homeownership housing comprised of both renters who want to 6uy and
owners who are interested in purchasing a different home; provides information on the type of unit
and number of bedrooms
v examines ihe preferences of the county's residents regarding the amenities fhey seek in their
home and neighborhood; and,
• contains information specific to the design and development of housing for seniors.
Locafion
One of the most commoniy posed questions when contempiating how to address employee housing needs
is: "Where should housing be built?" To answer this question, muitiple facfors should be faken into
considerafion including where residents most want to live, where they currently live, where they work and
how fhey value various location attributes.
Where Wanf to Live
In total, Edwards is considered the number one choice of where to live above any other town or niral area in
Eagle County. This mid-county community is particulady attractive to residents who already own their
ho�nes — a siz�ble percentage (23 percent) indicated it was their first choice.
There is no longer a preference for living in up-valley communities. The EaglelBrush Creek erea received
more first choice responses than did Vail. Rural communities fo the north of I-70 appeal to the fewest
residents. �
While there is some variation between owne�s and renters, their location preferences are similar with the
same four communities topping the first choice list. The greatest difference is how they rate living in the
Mintum/Red Cliff area; renters are more interested in living there than are homeowners.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, wc. 59
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Where Want io Live -15� Choice
1st Choice Overatl Owners Renters
Edwards 21.6 23.2 19.0
Eagle/Brush Creek 17.1 18.3 15.1
Vail 14.7 15.1 14.1
Basalt/EI Jebel/Fryinq Pan 9.3 8.1 11.3
Avon 8,4 8.8 7.9
Eagle-Vail 6.7 5.8 8.3
DotserolGypsum 6.3 6.6 5.8
Other 5.6 6.1 4.8
Burns/McCoy/Bond/Wolcott 5.4 5.8 4.6
Mintum/Red Cliff 4.9 2.3 9.1
100% 100% 100%
Sour�e: 2007 Household 5urvey •
There are decided differences, however, between renters who want to con6nue to rent and residents who
want to buy a home (both renters who want io buy and owners who want to buy a different home): This
finding suggesks that rental opportunities should be developed up vailey while homeownership housing
should be concentrated more in mid- and down-valley communities.
Awn
BasalUEl JebeUFrying Pan
BumslMcCoy/BondlWolcotl
Dotsero/Gypsum
Edwards
Eagle/Brush CteeN
Eagle-Vai'
MfntumlRed Ciifl
VaB
Othei
o.oi
1� Choice Location by Want to Buy or Rent
5.0% 10.0% 15.0� 20.0°� 25.D%
Source: 2007 Household Survey
Both home buyers and renters are often unable to live in the communiiy that is there first ch�ice and must
make trade offs involving housing costs, commuting distances, home fype and size and other factors.
Survey partiapants were therefore aiso asked to indicate their second choice for where they most want to
live. A comparison of first to second choice responses does not reflect an up valley/down valley shift but
rather an in increase in preferences for rurai, unincorporated locations.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 6O
m
(
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Edwards
Eaglei8rush Creek
Va8-Incorporated
BasaIllEl JebeUFrying Pan
Eag1�Va�
GypsumlGypsum Creek
Olhe�
Avon
MintumlRed C8Fl
Beaver Creek/Arrawhead
Vail�Unincorpoiatee
WoicottlBeilyache Ridge
BumslCalorado River Roa�
Bond/McCoyMghway 131
Dotrert
Where Now Live
Where Want to Live,1� and 2^d Choices Compared
D.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Sour�e: 2007 Househoid Survey
As shown on the following table by shading, residents tend to live in cammunities where they most want to
live. This is not fhe case in ail communities, however, Less than half of Avon's residents who were
surveyed consider Avon their firsf choice place to live; nearly one-third would prefer to live in Edwards. Only
40 percent now living in the Dotsero/Gypsum area prefer it; over 26 percent who wouid like to live slightly up
va�ley in the Eagle area. Addifionaily, most residents of the Eagle-Vail area (45 percent) wouid rather live
elsewhere (40 percent would rather live down valiey,14 percent would like to live in Vail). Vail and the
Basal/EI JebellFrying Pan area in the Roaring Fork Valley are fhe iwo areas with the highest percentage of
residents who are currently living in their first choice community.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, iNC. 61
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2DD7
Where Want ta Avon
Live -1�
Choice
Avon ;%r„���,-�° ``
Basalt/EI Jebel 0.6%
Bums etc 2.9%
Dotsero/Gypsum D.0%
Edwards 31.6%
EaglelBnlsh C!k 2.9%
Eaale-Vail 10.5%
Where Live Compared with Where Wantto Live
Where Now Live
BasattlEl Burns, Dofserol
JebeilFrying etc 6ypsum
Pan
3.4% 2.6% 4.3%
�.ar.`,�'�i6��' D.0% 1.1 %
0.0% ���� 10.6%
0.0% 2.6% �' � � _�°.o
Edwards EagieJ Eagle- Minfuml
Brush Vail Redcliff
Crk
6.0% 2.3% 15.8% 1.9%
3.4%
1.5%
0.7% 20.5% 26.1% 6.0%
2.0% 0.0°!0 1.1% 6.4%
4.2% 2.1% 1.9%
5.0% O.D% 2.8%
3.5% 8.4% 17.9%
��3� 5.3% 0.9%
1.9% . `�",�����'`3330� 0.9%
Vail
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.�%
6.�%
3.6%
Vail 6.4°/n 1.3°/u 2.6% 27% 6.7°/u 3.1% 13.7°/u 12.3°/n �,�6,;�
Othef 0.0% 16.1% 5.1% 5.3% 4.5% 4.6% 4.2% 8.5% 1.5%
100.0% t00.0% 100.0% 100.0% 140.0% 100.0°/u 100.0% 100.0°/u 100.0°/u
Sour�e: 2007 Househoid 5urvey
There appears to be a slight correlation between age and location preferences.
• Households with at least one member in the 18 through 25 age range are more interested in living
in Vail than members of other age groups.
• Households with children under the age of 18 and adults in the 26 to 45 age group are more likely
to indicate Edwards as their first choice�of where to live.
• The Eagle(Brush Creek area has relatively high appeal among households with children and senior
households.
First Choice Community to Live
Age
15t Choice < 18 18 - 25 26-45 46-65 Over 65
Avon/Beaver C�C 9.8 10.3 7.8 10.9 8.0
BasalflEl JebeUFrying Pan 10.2 7.6 9.7 9.1 9.6
Bond/McCoyBumsNVolwtt 3.5 2.7 0.8 1.4 0.8
Edwards 23.7 21.2 25.5 18.6 17.6
Eagle/Brush Creek 25.9 19.0 18.0 16.5 27.2
Eagie-Vail 4.1 . 4.3 10.2 3.4 4.8
Gypsum/Dotsero 7.7 7.6 6.8 8.2 8.0
Mintum/Red Cliff 1.7 4.9 4.4 6.6 1.6
Vail 10.0 19.6 13.3 16.0 ' 15.2
Other 3.5 2.7 3.6 9.2 7.2
Totai 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: 2007 Household Survey '
There is also a correlation beiween where employees work and where they want to live although it is not as .
strong as some might expect. In the employment centers of Vail, Edwards and Eagle, approximately 40
percent of the employees who work there would like to live there (1� choice). The majority would like to live
elsewhere. Less fhan 15 percent of the empioyees w�rking in the Avon and Beaver Creek area want to live
� there, most would like to live down valley although some would rather commute up valley.
RRC ASSOCIATES, tNC.; REES CONSU�TING, WC. 62
FINA� - FAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Where Want fo Live by Where Work
Where Work �
Where Want Vail Avon Beaver Edwards Eagie Gypsum Various
to Live Crk sites
Avon/Beaver Crk. 8.5 ��;';h:�;0�fi ������ ����:�9'� 9.6 6.1 2.2 3.9
Basalt Areas 0.6 0,4 1.8 1.4 5.5 1.1 4.9
Bums, etc. 3.4 4.9 6 32 4.4 14 11.8
DotserofGypsum 2.3 3.4 4.8 3.2 10.5 ��ti:`;`;::,�F':�� 9.8
Edwards 19.8 36.6 29.8 �h�;�<<��-'4�n7� 13.3 5,4 26.5
Eaqle/Brush Crk 113 14 15.5 15.1 ��-�:;+3,8€��iT� 24.7 12.7
Eaqle-Vail 6 5 12.8 9.5 7.3 2.8 3.2 8.8
Mintum/Red Cliff 4.0 4.9 5.4 3.2 1.7 0 2.9
Vail [`��Ft� "�6�5`a . 7.5 7.7 9.6 9.9 4.3 10.8
' t V:.':_4'-j-""
Other 5.1 4.9 4.8 5.5 7.7 8,6 7.8
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: 2007 Household 5urvey
Locafion Aftributes
Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of nine characteristics associated with locafion when
selecting where they want to five. Cost of housing foilowed by the fype of housing are the most important
considerations. Community character (family orienfed, neighborhoods, etc) is next, ouiweighing proximity to
empioyment for many. '
Importance of Location Atfributes
1-NotAt 5- �
Average All Exfremely
Ratinq important 2 3 4 importani 7ofa1
Cost of Housitiq 4 3 2.7% 2.8% 12.1 % 26.2% 56.2% 100%
Type of HoUSittg 4 0 3.9% 4.0% 19.6% 31.4% 41.1 % 100%
CommunityCharacter 38 6.9% 5.2% 25.1% ' 31.1% 31,7% 100%
Proximity to Employment 3.5 11.6% 7.4% 29.1 % 27.7% 24.1 % 100%
CommunityAmenities 34 107% 8.5% 29.6% 30.5% 20.6% 100%
Proximity to Services 3 2 10.7% 12.7 33.3% 30.6% 12.6% 100%
Employment of Others 2.8 30.7% 8.9% 23.9% 20.3% 16.2% 100%
Quality of Schools 2 6 46,7% 4.5% 12.2% 15.4% 21.2% 100%
Proximity to Daycare 1.6 72.4% 7.3% 10.1 % 5.9% 4.3% 100%
5ource: 2007 Household Survey
- Pror�mity to daycare received the lowest average rating, which is often the situation where relatively few ,
households (27 percent) have children. The quality of schools, however, rated moderately high, almost
equal with pro�omity to the employment of other household members. Closer examination of ratings for
proximity to daycare and qualify of schools reveais clear differences between households with and without
young and schooi-age children. Households with children under the age of five gave being clase to daycare
an average rating of 2.9, which is higher than other households but low relafive to the average ratings given
other location attributes.
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, iNC. 63
FINAL - FAGLE GOUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Ratings for Daycare and Quality of Schools by Children in the Household
Averaqe Ratinq:l= not impodant, 5= very important
Proximity to Daycare
Children in Household Under 5 5 to 11 11 to 17
No 1.4 1.5 1.6
Yes 2.9 2.6 1.7
Quality of 5chools
Children in Household Under 5 5 to 11 11 to 17
No 2.4 2.4 2.5
Yes � 4.2 4.3 3.7
Sour�e: 2007 Household Survey
Quality of schools rated very high among households with elementary school age children and moderately
high among househoids with children in middle and high schools. Quality of schools is much more
important overail that is pro�mity to daycare.
Owners and renters place similar values on location attributes. The cost of housing is even more important
to renters than to owners, however. Renters rafe availability of transportation and proximity to employment
somewhat higher than owners, as is often the case in high-cost mountain communities. Owners value
community character and the type of housing that is available more so than renters.
Location Attributes by OwnlRent
COST OF HOUSING TO BUY/ RENT
7YPE OF RESIDENCE
COMMUNffY CHARACTER
PROXIMfTY TO MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT
COMMUNITY AMENfIlES
PROXIMITY TO SKIINGI OUTDOOR RECREA710�
PROXIMffYTO SERVIGEE
PROXIM(fY 70 PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT FOR OTHEF
QUALITY OF SCHOOLE
PROXIMITY TO BUS/ SHUIII.E SERVICE
PROXIMITY TO DAYCARE
0.0 U.5 1.0 1.5 20 25 3.0 3.5 "4.D 4.5 5.0
Average Rating
�ra6 �Own ❑Rem
Source: 20D7 Househoid Survey
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTiNG, INC. 64
FINAL - EAGLE COUNT`( HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
�enerally, residenfs place similar values on location attributes regardless of where fhey want to live. There
are exceptions, however. Specifically:
■ Residents who rate proximiiy to skiing and outdoor recreation relafively high are more interested in
living in Vail and ofher up-vailey communities.
� Proximity to empl�yment is rated particularly high by residents who want to five in fhe Mintuml Red
Ciiff area, as is proximity to buslshuttle service.
� Residenis who want to live in Gypsum or potsero place a relatively lower value on proximity to
services.
� The quality of schools is less important to residents who want to live in Vail, Mintum or Red Cliff.
■ Residents wtio indicated that Bums, McCoy, Bond or Wolcott is their first choice of place to live,
value community character less than residents who prefer otherlocations.
Value of Locafion Attributes by Where Want io Live
Average Rafing� 1= nof impodant 5= extremely importanf
� 76� Choice Where Want to Live
' Basalf Burns, Dotserol Eagle! Minturnl
Proximity to� Avon Area etc Gypsum Edwards Brush Crk Eagfe-Vail Red Ciiff . Vail
My Employment 3.7 3.5 2.9 3..1 3.4 3.3 3.6 4.3 3.7
Employment of 3.1 3.3 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.6 2.6
Others
Senrices 3.5 3.3 2.3 2.6 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.4
Davcare 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4
--_
Skiingi0utdoor 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.3 3.5 2.6 3.8 3. .
Recreation
OEher FacEors:
Qual'dy of 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.6 1.9 2.0
Schools ,
Community 3.3 3.6 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.6
Amenities
Communiiy 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.7
Chaiacter
Cost of Nousing 4.4 4A 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.3
Twe of 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0
Source:20D7
Vatue of Preferred Locafion
Potential home buyers (renters who want to buy and owners who are interesfed in b�ying a different home)
are spiit regarding their wiliingness to pay more for a home that is located in their firs# choice community -
47 percent would and 53 percent would not.
RRC ASSOCIATES, 1NG.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 65
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Witlingness to Pay More
for Nome in First Choice Community
Owners Reniers Totai
Yes 47.5% 47.0% 47.3%
NO 52.5% 53.0% 52.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
. Source: 2007 Househokl Survey
Respondents who indicated they wouid pay more were asked how much. The additional amounts they are
willing to pay for homes in their first choice community are significant— averages of neariy $193,000 for
homeowners interes#ed in buying a different home and roughly $87,000 for renters who want to move into
ownership,
Price Premium for Location
Overali dwn Rent
Up to $25,000 16.1 5.9 25.2
$25,000 to $50,000 37.3 31.0 43.0 .
$50,000 to $100,000 25.0 29.1 21.4
$100,000 to $200,000 7.7 14.0 2.0
Over $200,000 13.8 20.0 8.4
Total 100°/a 100% 100%
Average $136,582 $192,796 � $86,594
Source: 2007 Household Survey
Renter Preferences
Most of the renters living in Eagle County (65 percent) would like to buy a home. This finding tracks with
suNey results in other high-cost mountain west communities where employees are interested in living long-
term but are forced to rent long after they are suffiaently committed for homeownership. Of the renters who
would like to continue to rent, abouf half would like to stay where they now live while the others would prefer
to rent a new or different unit.
Preferences to Rent or Own
�� ��
� ��£ �� `�
a , a�s�� ���- ;' ^�.
�-,-µ-� � ;t F x'�"�` ��
; x. t .� ra �,.�.. . . �r .�
„"�� v_ t t� -
' " - " - , ; `., f .. ':'
,� i .� _
,. �,.w s
- •- - , , ,
Source: 20D7 Household Survey
Of the 18,924 households current living in Eagle County, 30.4 percent or 5,753 households are renters
(DOIA). Approximately 35 percent of these households (2,014 households) would like to continue to rent.
These renters are almost evenly spiit beiween wanting to stay where they currently live and wanting to
move to a new or different residence.
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 66
- EAGLE COUNIY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Renter Preferences to Confinue Renfing
2007
Households 18,924
% Renter Occupied 30.4%
# Renter Occupied 5,753
% Want to Con6nue Rentinq 35%
# Want to Con6nue Rentinq 2,014
Sour�es: DOLA; 2007 Househoid 5urvey
Renters who want to coniinue fo rent would like to do so up valley in Avon and Vail, and in the Roaring Fork
poriion of Eagle County.
Avon
Basalt/EI JebeUFrying Pan
Bums/McCoylBond! Wolcatl
Dotsero/Gypsum
Edward�
Eagle/Brush CreeV
Eagle-Vai
Mintum/Redci'rf
Va'
Othe
Where Wani to Rent
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.Oh 8.0% 10.Oh 12.0% 14.0% �ti.U% �c.uro tu.u/
Source: 20�7 Household Survey
The top choice for unit type among renters who would like to continue to rent are townhomes and duplexes.
Singie-family detached houses received the second highest number of flrst choice responses but dropped to
five out of seven when all three choices were combined. The combination.of the top three choices signals
that renters are realistic and willing to compromise 'rf they,can not live in fhe type of unit thai they mosf
prefer. .
RRC ASSOGIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 67
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Type of Unit Desired by Renters who Want to Gonfinue Renting
1st Top 3
Choice Choices*
Townhouse/duplex 32.1 71.8
Single-family detached house 24.5 68,1
Caretaker unit 14.7 62.8
Apartment 14.4 36.8
Condominium 12.3 23.8
Mobile home 2.1 11.6
Private room & bath, shared kitchen & living room 0.0 5.4
Total 100% 280%
' MulGple choice quesGon; response totais exceed 1DO�o.
Sour�e: 2007 Household Survey
More renters would prefer to live in apartments than condominiums although condominiums received the
highest number of responses for the top three choices in combination. While caretaker units were ranked
third among flrst choice responses, there is almost no interest in renting private rooms/bathroom with shared
kitchens and living rooms.
Renters who want to continue to rent were asked to indicate their preferences for four variabies associated
with renting. Renters have a strong preference for the affordability of rents as compared to the cost of
ownership. They also prefer the fle�bility that renting gives them to change their living situation but are
much more interested in long-term as opposed to short-term leases.
Rent-Relaied Preferences
Long-term Short-term
Lease Lease Aifordability Flexibility
1- Low Preference 12.1 43.9 0 8.6
2 1.8 30.0 0 207
3 10.5 11.5 2.2 11.8
4 6.7 5.3 8.4 9.6
5- High Preference 68.8 9.2 89.4 49.2
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average 4.2 2.1 4.9 3.7
Source: 2007 Household 5urvey
Approximately 44 percent of the renter households who want to continue renting have incomes equal to or
less than 60 percent AMI, which suggests that Low Income Housing Tax Credits could be used in Eagle
County to address a portion of the demand for rental housing. The majority of renters, however, have
incomes higher than the maximum allowed for tax credits. Survey findings suggest that altemative financing
sources will be needed since roughly 56 percent of new rentai units shouid have higher income restriciions.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, WC. 68
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
AMI of Renters Who Wanf to Rent
AMI % HH's Want Affordable
to Renf Rent — Max.
120.1 to 150% 3.1 % $2,738
150.1 to 18D% 8.1% $3,285
Over 180°l0 8.1 % Over 3,285
5ource: 2D07 Household Survey
Homeownership
Current demand for ownership of homes in Eagle County that will be used as primary residences is largely
generated by:
■ renters who want to move into homeownership:
■ owners who are interested in owning a'different home; and,
■ in-commuters who want to move to Eagle County if they can own a home.
Market for Homeownership in Eagle Coanty, 2007
# households
2007 Households 18,924
Renter Households 5,753
Renters Who Want to Buy a Home (65%) 3,739
qwner Households 13,171
Owners Who Want to Buy Different Home (35%) 4,610 •
in Commufers 6,351
In commuters Who Want to Buy in Eaqle Co. (70%) 4,445
Total 2007 Market for Primary Home Ownership 12,794
Sour�es: DOLA, 20D7 Househotd Survey and RRGRees calculafions.
To find a larger home to live in was the singie reason most ftequently cited by renters who want to buy (cited
by 33 percent of respondenfs) and owners who are interested in buying a different home (48 percent of
respondents). Far fewer owners are interesied in down siang. Living in a more rural setting far outweighed
interest in living closer to senrices. To be closer to work rated relatively low among reasons to buy a home.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, iNC. 6g
FINA� - FAGLE COUNIY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Reasons for Buying a Home
� Overall Oumers Renfers
To find a larger home 41.0 47.7 33.2
Other 33.5 19.1 50.4
To live in a more rural setting 15.4 16.7 13.9
To find a less expensive home 14:1 . 14.3 13.8
To live in a different cor�munity 10:4 13.6 6.6
To be closer to work 10.2 10.8 9.4
To find a smaller home � 5.7 10.5 0.0
To live closer to cityltown senrices 4.3 4.0 4.7
Total � 134% 137% 132%
MuiGple choice ques6on; responses exceed 100%. .
5our�e: 2007 Househoid Survey
Edwards is the community most preferred by residents who would like to buy, foilowed by the Eagie/Brush
Creek area with Vaii ranking third among first choice locations.
Avon
Basalt/El JebeUFrying Pan
Bums/McC oylBond/UUofwtt
Dotsero/Gypsum
Edwards
Eagle/Brush Creek
Eag�e-Vail
Mintum/RedcliH
Vail
Othei
Where Want to Buy
0.0% 5.0% 10.0 % 15.0% 20.0% 25.0 %
Source: 2007 Nousehoid Survey
Unit Type and Size Preferences
The household survey asked potentiai buyers to indicate their first and second choices for the type of
residence they would like to buy and the number of bedrooms they would need.
Nearly three-fourths indicated that a single-family house is their first choice with most of ihese wanting three
or four bedrooms. Combined, these two options received 47.5 percent of responses, far higher than any of
the other possibie design combinations. The next most popular option was a single-family house with an
unspecified number of bedrooms.
Townhomes were the second most selected type of residence (11 percent) followed by duplexes then
condominiums, which ranked only slightly higher than manufactured homes. No one indicated a mobile
home would be their first choice.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, WC. 70
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
While mosf residents would prefer a three or four bedroom home, 22 percent indicated they most preferred
two bedrooms.
Nearly 16 percent did nof specify the number of bedrooms they need, which suggests flexibility in the
number of bedrooms fhat would be acceptable. This relafively high percenfage of no response could also
be due in part to confusion about the question.
Preferred Unif Type and Number of Bedrooms
Shading indicafes top fwo design �fions.
Bedrooms
Bdrms Not
1� Choice One Two Three Four Five+ Specified Total
Condo 0.2 3.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.6
Townhome 0.0 5.3 3.7 0.4 0.0 1.8 11.1
Duplex 0.4 3.0 1.9 0,6 0.0 0.7 6.6
��. _.-...._HT.�, ..�x,_.n- '.1, .1
Sinqle-family House 0.0 9.6 ��'��2�2 ���5�0��"�: 3.1 14.2 74.5
Manufacfured home 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.1
�.6% `�.�% 35.4% 2�.3% 3.�% �7.5% ���%
Bdrms Not
2^a Choice One Two Three Four Five+ Specified Total
Condo 0.2 5.6 3.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 9.5
Townhome 0:4 �ia��1;���:�;t��� 8.9 2.1 0.1 1.5 232
_ ���- �:
Duplex 0.0 5.3 �,�,�;,,,.:;1�G�1;,�,.�';' 9.3 0.6 7.5 37.8
Sinqle-family 0.0 0.8 . 4.3 4.3 0.3 5.3 14.9
Manufacfured home 0.0 4.9 3.7 1.4 0.2 2.9 13.2
Mobile home 0:0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,4
0.6% 26.7% 36.8% 17.2% 1.2% 17.5% 100%
5our�e: 20D7 Household Survey '
An analysis of secand choice options for type of residence and number of bedrooms revealed a shift toward
smaller units, from single-family homes to duplexes and townhomes, and from three or four bedrooms to
iwo or three bedrooms. Those interested in purchasing a one-bedroom residence remained low, however,
at 0.6 percent.
Owners who want to buy a different home, and rente�s who want to own, differ with respect to their
preferences. Renters are more interesfed in muiti-family attached product than are owners, 84 percent of
whom indicated that their first choice is a single-family home. Far more renters than owners are interested
in purchasing iwo-bedroom units.
RRC ASSOGIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 7�
_ _
a
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY t=10USING NEERS ASSESSMENT 2007
1� Choice by OwniRent
Type Owners Renters
Condo 2.6 7.0
Townhome 7.4 15.3
Duplex 5.1 8.4
Single-family 84.0 63.6
Manufactured Home 0.9 5.7
Total 100% 10D%
Bedrooms
One 0.3 0.8
Two 7.4 39.0
Three 38.1 32.3
Four 28.3 13.3
Fve+ 5.8 0.0
Not Specified 20.0 14.5
Total 100% 100%
Sour�e: 2007 Housefiold Survey
Unit type preferences vary according to where potentiai buyers most want to live. Residents who want to
buy in or near Vail have relatively higher preferences for condominiums whiie 94 percent to 97 percent of
those who would like fo own in the rurai communities north of I-70, Dotsero, Gypsum and the Mintum/Red
Cliff area prefer single-family homes.
1� Choice Unit Type by Locafion
Single- Manu.
1� Choice Location Condo Townhome Duplex family hame Total
Avon 2.2 13.3 8.9 71.1 4.4 100.0%
Basalt/El Jebel/Fryinq Pan 2.3 14A 0.0 79.1 47 100.0%
BumslMcCoyiBond/Wolcott 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.8 3.2 100.0%
Edwards
0.0 6.3 0.0 93.8 0.0 1
8.8 18.2 9.4 60.0 3.5 100.0%
Creek 0.9 14.4 0.9 76.6 7.2 100.0%
0.0 7.7 19.2 73.1 0.0 100.0%
Mintum/Red Ciiff 0.0 2.6 2.6 94.9 0.0 100.0%
Vail 12.6 � 9.7 11.7 66.0 0.0 100.0%
Other � � 3.4 O.d 3.4 86.2 6.9 100.0%
Source: 2007 Househoid Survey
Housing Cost Preferences
The household survey asked residents who want to buy a home to indicate what they °would be willing to
pay° for their first and secand housing choices. These responses suggest fhat housing at a wide variety of
prices is desired. The $60D,000 or more price category received 16.7 percent of the responses, the largesf
percentage of any single price increment. The distribution of responses was wide with a concentration (55
percent) in the $150,000 to $400,000 range.
RRC ASSOCIATES, ING.; REES CONSULTWG, INC. 72
FINAL - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
T ry�e of Residence Desired,15� Choice, by Price Willing fo Pay
Single- Manufactured
Conda Townhame Duplex femily Home Tofai
Less than $95,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
$95,000 -$124,999 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.3
$125,000 -$149,999 0.6 0.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 5.1
$15�,000 -$199,999 0.3 2.3 1.1 6.8 1.6 12.2
$200,000 -$249,999 0.9 ' 1.4 0.4 7.7 0.3 10.6
$250,000 -$299,999 0.3 2:2 1.3 5.5 1.2 10.5
$300,000 -$349,999 0.7 1.0 1.3 7.1 0.0 10.1 �
���n nnn _�399,999 0.8 1.2 0.3 9.3 0.0 11.6
- $499,999 0.0 1.4 0.7 7.4
- $599,999 0.1 0.4 1.5 9.1
or more 0.7 0.2 0.2 15.6
4.7% 11.2% 6.8% 74.1 °�
_
0.0 9.5
0.0 11.0
0.0 16.7
3.2% 1 UU.U%
. Sour�e: 2007 Househoid Survey
it appears, however, thaf many potential homebuyers will not be'able to qualify for the prices they want to
pay. Overail, approximately 44 percent of potential homebuyers selected a price that appears to be
affordable given their household income. The percentage was much lower (23 percent) among households
with incomes equal to or less than 80 percent AMI.
Affordabilify of 1� Choice Prices
Shading denofes afforda6le price.
AMI
Household Income 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% >160% Totai
6 `�' �S�'�" "t Y"�` � ` -`a�'F�� s�.�r�' �` urm �"r'�a-�.�-�'P j`�it'�'` 1':r� 'r�
Less than $95,000 �,"�A,�:.� �;��.:�,.'�'� �-,��:�D. �,s�� ���,,��.� �9�'� �.��-�,���a 3
� p:�,�. %'� r � Za Y�- ^w: p�F �6�n 4 h':� ,,.�L''�}"�-L,F�,�4:-�:�:�.
$95,000 to $124,999 f nn����'�r�4�- �.u��lpr,� �r���,�:�-���.z1�..,��.���1� �4
� n � 3a-"J'„7:" i+ vx.ir ',��'..1. � b,+v�N �hw �
$125,000 to $149,999 € �;�a�fl� � ����5�,�'..����1 :�.�' ,�-,�'�- �. �z� � -�a � s 32
�,�:-�.,�,.�� �,:1„�.���_ �:� � �
$150,000 to $199,999 ��` 4.�'.�.fl���';;�2��ri����,�:'�`_��� �: ` ��,1���`��.,�`��. i=�r�������s� 68
$20Q,000 to $249,999 17 �"��3�� �`����'���.9T,,� -�� a�'��'�.�_r,.�� � '"�..�.°,�' 65
a.v..�,��
$250,000 to $299,999 8 12 ��-�.�:� 9,`�'���'.° � �,��:;�z�,�, $�,' �-��r8= �; � 69
�. . .-��i::.. . r� 'v�k�
$3D0,000 fo $349,999 6 9 10 �(���7����G�,�,:;� ��8�.-_�;. `- ��.;�."7��.� 57
Q350 000 to 399 999 5 8 11 11 4'�'.�`8�` �2:�=�,,.� 73
Y' I � �+�f?l' °�a..��} 7�u�
$400,000 to $499,999 4 5 6 11 . 7 �;�3�"�;� 57
$500,000 to $599,999 4 5 9 9 4 34 65
$600,000 or more 3 6 15 8 64 98
Total 57 87 66 92 57 164 601
Affordable Price ��- �2 8°��.'�. t��;:��a, ���35�%�,� �45Q D� � y'�fibii%� � uiA�`�% �_� 94-4°0�'�
Unaffordable Price 77.2% 48.3% 63.6% 50.0% 33.3% 59.8% 55.6%
Sour�e: 2007 Nousehoid Survey
Since buyers often hope they can afford more than they can, it is pragmatic to base pricing decisions on �ie
AMI distribution of residents who want buy rather than on what they say they would be wiliing to pay. The
wide distribution of incomes iridicates that a wide range of pricing is needed. Renters who want to move
into ownership have sign�cantiy lower incomes than owners who want to buy a new or different home. .
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTiNG, INC. 73
FINAL - EAGCE GOUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
AMI - Potential Homeowners
Max. Affordable Renters Who Owners Who
AMI Price Want io Buy Want to Buy Different Total
50% AMI or less $124,796 13.8 � 8.2 12.0
50.1- 80% $180,238 11.7 7.9 10.5
80.1 °/a -100% $241,432 14.3 12.0 13.6
100 -120% $288,086 10.9 11.7 11.2
120% -140% $3�
Over140% Over;
14.5 14.6 14.5
100% 100%
Source: 2007 Nousehoid Survey
38.3
The affordability calculations assumed a down payment of $10,000. If buyers already own a home, they
may be able to provide a larger down payment the�eby increasing fhe amount they can afFord to pay. On
average, residents who are interested in buying a home indicated they would have appro�maiely $126,700
available for a down payment. There is a significant difference in down payment availability between
owners who have a home to sell and renters who want to move into home ownership. Owners who have a
home to sell indicated they have on average $218,600 available for down payments with roughiy 28 percent
indiceting they would have $300,000 or more available.
In sharp contrast, renters who want to buy a home have an average of less than $26,300 available for down
payments. Approximately 14 percenf indicated they have no funds for a down payment. Over half (52.3
percent) however; responded that they have between $10,000 and $50,000 for a down payment, which is in
the range often targeted by affordable homeownershiP programs.
Down Payment Availahility by OwnlRent
Overall Owners Renfers
None 8.6. 3.2 14.4
$1 - $4,999 1.5 1.3 1.7
$5,000 - $9,999 8.2 1.4 15.5
$10,000 - $14,999 9.2 2.5 16.5
$15,000 - $19,999 6.2 0.3 12.6
$20,000 - $24,999 7.3 2.7 12.4
$25,000 - $49,999 8.1 5.6 10.8
$50,000 - $74,999 7.2 8.0 6.3
$75,000 - $99,999 32 3.7 2.7
$100,000 - $124,999 10.0 15.6 3.9
$125,000 - $149,999 0.6 1.1 0.0
$150,000 - $199,999 . 3.8 6.3 1.0
$200,000 - $224,999 7.8 13.9 1.2
$225,000 - $249,999 0.1 0.3 0.0
$250,000 - $274,999 3.4 5.5 1.0
$275,000 - $299,999 0.4 0.8 0.0
$300,000 or more 14.6 27.9 0.0
� 100% 100% 100%
Average $126,696 $218,631 $26,276
Source: 2007 Household 5urvey
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, INC. 74
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY NOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2D07
Deed Res6-icfions
Deed restrictions that wouid limit appreciafion in value to a maximum rate of 3.5 percent per year on
residences initially priced below market, appear to be acceptabie to approximately 39 percent of the
counfy's residents who are interested in buying a home. Deed resfrictions would be acceptabie to 21.3
percenf if priced below the amounts they indicated they would be willing to pay for their preferred housing
opfions in their first choice community. Another 17.9 percent would accept deed restrictions for the amounts
they previously indicated they would be willing to pay.
Nearly 10 percent are uncertain about deed restrictions with price caps, while 5� percent indicated they
would not consider purchasing a deed-restricted residence.
Acceptability of Deed Restrictions
Overail Owners Renters
Yes if I could pay less than the am�unt above 21.3 12.1 32.3
Yes for the amount reported above � 17.9 7.1 30.8
No ' 51.4 71.8 27.1
Uncertain 9.4 9.0 9.8
Total � 100% 100% 100%
Source: 2007 Household Survey
Of no surprise, the acceptability of deed restrictions varies beiween owners and renters. About 63 percent
of renters who wouid like to move into ownership would consider purchasing a deed-restricted residence
compared with only 19 percent of residents who already own a home and are interested in buying a different
home. �
Potentiai home buyers who indicated they would consider purchasing a home with a deed restriction if it was
priced lower than what they would be willing to pay otherwise responded that the amount lower would need
to average around $74,344. The average is affected, however, by a few responses of $150,OOD and over.
The majority of the responses were in the $50,000 range. This suggests fhat there is a somewhat widely
held perception that deed restrictions with appreciation caps reduce the price of homes by about $50,000.
Adjusiment for Deed Restriction
Amount Less Overall Owners Renters
$150 3.6 0.0 4.7
$20,000 1.7 7.4 OA
$25,000 3.0 • 3.8
$30,000 3A 3.7 2.8
.,. �"m tr�,� ^",��',� "� i F" F r � ' ,, '' w"""�r ,, ���`' _
��JI��OO�""-`,.„,�,"'-;-,�,�"�„;,+,`�'�,'�'-�`_.� .rJ;l��'',�"--,�'!?l�t�il".,�,� r�,j '
__r_�,� -� ,. �--� � ._ ,..:
$75,000 7.6 7.7 7.6
$99,999 p,9 4.0 0.0
$100,OOD 15.7 14.7 16.0
$150,OD0 6.7 3.7 7.6
$175,000 0.9 4.0 0.0
$200,000 2.7 11.8 0.0
$250,000 3.0 0.0 3.8
Total 100% 100% 100%.
Average $74,344 $84,675 $71,336
So�r�e: 2007 Household 5urvey
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 75
FINAL - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Amenifies
All sunrey partiapants were asked to rate the importance af nine potential home amenities and seven
features often assoaated with neighborhoods. The top rated amenity is in-unit washers and dryers. Two of
the top four amenities are tied to Eagie County's mountain climate — sunlight and energy efficiency.
Amenities, Average Ratings
1= not at all imporfant and 5= extremely important
In-unit WasherlDryer
Sunlight
Extra Siorage
Energy Efficiency
Multiple Bathrooms
C,arage/Covered Parki�g
On-site l.aundry Facilities
Workshop Space
Office Space for Business
Use
0.0 D.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Avetage Rating
Sout�e: 2007 Househoid Survey
Owners generally tend to rate amenities higher than renters. Energy effiaency scored high overall and even
higher among renters than owners, which could stem from the high cost of heating rentai units. Most
renters are responsibie for their utilities; heating costs and other utilities are rarely included with rent.
Eagle County's residents highly value having private outdoor space and pets. Shared common areas
received a much lower mid-range rating of 2.5. More residents value living where wood buming is allowed
than where it is prohibited. Renters and owners generally place similar leveis of importance on
neighborhood features. Renters, however, rated `wood buming allowed° higher than owners, which is in
line with the higher rafing they placed on energy effiaency.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 76
i
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Private YardlOutdoor
Space
Pets Allowed
Garden Space
Woodbuming Ailowed
Shared Common Areas
Woodbuming Prohibitec
Livestock Aliowec
Senior Housing
Neighborhood Features, Average Ratings
1= nof at all imporfant and 5= exiremely important
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4:5
Average Rating
Source: 2007 Nousehoid Survey
Survey responses indicate that, upon retirement, more residents will continue to live in Eagle County (44
percent overall) than will move out of the region (27 percenf). Homeowners are more likely to stay ihan are
renfers. Many residents, however, chose a neutrai rating of three indicafing indecision on this question.
Likelihood of Sfayin� in Region upon Retirement
OveraU Owners Renters
1- NQt At All Likely 16.6 12.3 24.7
2 � 10.4 9.4 12.0
3 29.4 28.7 30.7
4 22.0 23.3 19.6
5- Extremely Likely 21.7 26.3 13.5
Total � 100% 100% 100%
Averaqe Rafinq 3.2 3.4 2.9
Sou�ce: 2007 Househoid 5urvey
Househoids with at least one member age 65 or older were asked to indicate the likelihood they would use
five types of senior housing. Seniors who are undecided, or have a moderate to high likefihood, are
outnumbered by those who indicated they would not use any of the options offered for consideration.
■ Between 19 percent and 27 percent indicated they did not know if they were likely to use the
opfions provided.
■ Affordable rental housing received the highest percenfage of °definitely would use° ratings (20
percent) and the lowest percentage of "don't know" responses.
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, WC. 77
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Assistance to make their homes more accessible received the average highest rating and the
lowest percentage of °would not use° responses.
�ikelihood of Using Senior Housing Opfiions
� Assistance
Affordable Rental ta Make
. Rental Housingl Reverse Home Living in 65+
Housing Services Mortgage Accessible Community
1- Would Not Use 50.1 44.6 � 50J 41.9 44.0
2 3.3 2.6 2.7 3.3 5.6
3 3.0 9.9 5.6 10.5 10.8
4 4.2 6.5 4.2 7.1 7.5
5- Definitely Would 20.0 12.6 10.0 14.8 9.0
Use
Don't know 19.4 23.$ 26.8 22.3 23.1
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Averaqe 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 `
Sour�e: 20�7 Household Survey
Seniors who rent have more interest in using all of the five opfions offered than do seniors who now own
their homes. Renters and owners are most sirnilar in their interest regarding assistance to make homes
more accessible.
Interest in Senior Housing Options
Average Rating: 1= wou�d not use, 5= definitely wouid use
Overall Own RenE
Affordable Rental Housing 3.0 2.4 4.3
Rental Housinq w/ Services 3.1 2.7 4.0
Reverse Mortqaqe 3.0 2.5 4.0
Assistance to Make Home Accessible 3.2 3.0 3.5
Living in 65+Community 3.0 2.8 3.4
Source: 2007 Household Survey ,
Residents who own free-marlcet homes in Eagle County were asked to indicate if they plan to sell iheir
homes when they retire. Responses were divided and indecision predominated. One-third indicated 8�ey
would not sell, which is relevant when considering housing demand generated by employees needed to
replace retirees.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 7$
FINA� - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Will Sell Home upon Retirement
No �, ,
33% _. �ii�i� ����i-.k��l�� � f ��� �� �3'u.''�is� ��'p'��;�„t�,I, �Oli�t kOOW
��I;�. i t� t (� � �� ly d�� .�`�"�r �.,>�4 �i� '}1%
� i� •a �, r 7.:.r�, f��-" w G;.frS'�.�rak��""`�' ,�. 7`{,.3�a }'s`,
� I'i�li i.t.�fi, I..,...., ;�. b+��.,��+k-1� C:y..
I:1 � �� ���# i��
"�i5?a;z:r'-�r::.=
Yes
26%
Source: 20D7 Nousehold 5urvey
Of respondenfs who indicated they would seil their homes upon retirement, most (84 pe�cent) plan to move
out of Eagle County. Housing which is typically smaller, lower maintenance and possibly involves subsidies
andlor services, wili be needed for the 17.5 percent of reGring seniors who wili sell free-market homes but
want to stay in the same community or elsewhere in Eagle County.
Where Retiring Home Sellers will Move
% Will Sell
Siay in fhe same community 9.4
Move elsewhere in Eaqle County 8.1
Move out of Eaqle County 82.4
Total 100%
Source: 2D07 Household Survey
RRC AS50CIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 79
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEOS ASSESSMENT 2007
SECTION 8- HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS
This section of the report estimates the total number of housing units needed by employees in Eagie Couniy
both to fill existing gaps in fhe market and to accommodafe future needs based on population and
employment growth projections. through 2015. The need for addifional employee housing is es6mated using
a combination of factors — growth in jobs, in-commuting, unfilled jobs, replacement of retiring employees and
new jobs.
Estimates are provided on the number of housing units that are needed to support job growth and sustain
employers. Two categories of need are quanfified:
■ Catch-Up Needs — the number of housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing
calculated by considering overcrowding, unfilled jobs and in-commuting employees who want to
live in Eagle County; and, '
� Keep-Up Needs — the number of units needed to keep up with future demand for housing based on
projected employment and population growth and the requirement to replace retiring employees.
The quantita6ve estimates of need in this section of the report represenf the number of addi6onal housing
units for which demand is directly generated by jobs. The development of these addifional uniis will not,
however, address all e�sting housing problems, such as lack of affordability. In theory, if the balance
between demand/need and supply is brought into greater balance, housing affordability and other problems
will improve. If the development of additional units for employees continues to lag behind job growth, other
non-development measures for addressing problems will be needed.
This section condudes with an analysis of the °gaps° in housing and compares total needs to units provided
by the ma�Cet to better understand af what pric� points housing is needed to meet resident and local worker
needs.
Catch=Up Needs
Demand from Unfilled Jobs in 2007
The number of unifs needed to attract empfoyees to fill vacant positions is part of the equation for the total
catch-up demand for additional empioyee housing units in 2007. Based on a combination of assumptions
conceming the number of unfiiled jobs and the number of empioyees now living in Eagle County and
available for work, approximately 1,420 additional housing units are needed to enable additional employees
to move into Eagle County to fill jobs that are currently vacant. Approximately 61 percent of employers
surveyed indicated they had at least one unfilled year round or seasonal position. Year-round positions that
are part time appear to be fhe easiest to fill while year-round full time positions are mosi likely to be varant.
Employers Reporting Unfilled Jobs, by Type
Year Round Winter Seasonal Total
Unfilled Jobs Fi' PT FT PT Current
None 9.1 68.2 21.1 36.8 39.1
At least one 90.9 31.8 78.9 63.2 60.9
Total 100°la 100% 100% 100% 100°l0
Sour�e: 200� Employer Survey
A total of 716 unfilled positions were reported by employers who were surveyed. This equates to a ratio of
.098 unfllled jobs for every job held by an employee. The ratio beiween filled and unfilled positions is similar
for year-round and winter seasonal employment.
RRC ASSOCtATES, INC.; REES GONSULTING, INC. $Q
FINAI - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Rafio of Fiiled to Unfifled Jobs
Year Winter Toial Peak
Round Seasonal 5eason
# Employees — Surveyed Employers 5,258 2,031 7,289
Unfilled Jobs 507 209 716
Ratio total:unfilled jobs 1:0.096 1:0.103 1:0.098
Source: 2007 Empioyer Survey
Applying. this ratio to total jobs results in an estimate of 4,089 unfilied jobs as of the peak 2006/2007 ski
season. Flling all of the over 4,000 positions that are vacant will require in-migration of workers into the
county. Of the 35 employers who elabarated on the reasons why they have unfilled positions, the vast
majority (75 percent) cited lack of appiicants and/or high housing costs as the reasons (see Employer
Survey commenfs in the appendix to this report).
The Colorado Department of Labor reports that Eagle County's March 2007 unemployment rate was 2.6
percent. It had been 3.1 percent in January and 2.8 percent in February. In comparison, the average for
Colorado was 3.6 percent in March, a full percentage point higher than in Eagle County. Eagle County's
average for 2006 was 3.4 percent, varying between 2.8 percent in December and 4.8 percent in May.
Unemployment levels are so low that Eagie County should be considered a labor shortage area where there
are fewer residents looking for jobs than there are open positions. As such, it will be assumed that in-
migration will be required to fill 75 percenf of the vacant positions. This estimate is conservative; with an
unemployment rate less than 3 percent it may be optimistic to assume that 25 percent of vacant jobs can be
filled by employees who already reside in Eagle Counfy.
Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill Vacant Jobs
Eagie County
Total Jobs, 2007 41,727
Jobs to Unfilled Jobs Ratio 1:.098
Total Unfilled Jobs 4,089
Jobs per employee 12
Totai empioyees needed 3,408
In-migration of Employees (75%) 2,556
Empioyees/Housing Unit 1.8
Housing Demand Generated 1,420
5ources: 2D07 Employer and Househoid Surveys, RRC/Rees
calculations.
/n-Commufers (Cafch-Up)
Demand from in-commuters represenfs a catch-up housing need. This is estimated by examining the
percentage of in-commuters that would prefer fo live in Eagle County over their present community if
suitable t�ousing within their price range was available.
As of the 2000 US Census,l7 percent of workers commuted into Eagle County for wotk. Based on the
relatively stable household:jobs ratio over time, fhe percent of workers commuting into Eagle County is
estimated to have sh'rffed at most only slightiy since the US Census. In light of this, for purposes of
estimating potenfial housing demand associated with commute�s, DOLA's esfimate of 18.3 percent will be
used.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. . $'I
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Eagte County In-Commuters, 2007 (esf)
200T
Eagle County Total Jobs 41,727
Avg jobs per employee 1.2
Totai employees 34,773�
Jobs Held by Residents 34,106
Avg jobs per employees 1.2
Total employees living in Eagle Co. 28,422
In-commuters 6,351
% In-commuters 18.3%
Resident Employment 28,317
�abor Force 29,353
Sour�e: Departrnent of �ocal Affairs (DOLA), 2007 Nousehold Survey
As shown above, about 18 peroent of workers (approximately 6,351 total empl�yees) commute into Eagie
County from homes outside of the county. in-commuter survey responses indicate that 70 percent or 4,445
of these workers would prefer to live in Eagle County if affordable ownership and/or rental housing were
available. �iven the increasingiy tight housing conditions in the counties where many commuters now live
due to oil/gas expioration in Garfield County and reopening of the Climax mine in Lake County, it is not
surprising that the percentage of commuters who would like to move to Eagle County is high. With an
average of 1.8 employees per household, in commuters generaie a catch-up need for roughly 2,469
housing units.
,Catch-Up Housing Needs Generated,by in-Commuting Employees
Eagle County
Total Jobs 41,727
Avg. Jobs per Employee 12
Total Employees 34,773
In-commuters (18.3%) 6,351
# that wouid move to Eagle County (70%) 4,445
Employees per household 1.8
Total housing units needed 2,469
Sources: DOLA, 2007 In-commuter survey and RRC/Rees calculations.
Most of the in-commuters inferested in living in Eagie County wouid like to own; demand for rental units is
low. If affordable ownership units are not developed in Eagle Counfy, in-commuters will likely remain living
where they now reside and may change jobs to eliminate commuting since employment opportunities in
their home counties are increasing.
Units Needed to Address Overcrawding
While some of the housing problems now existing in Eagle County can be addressed through non-
construction methods (i.e. monthly subsidies for cost burdened renters, rehabil'�tation loans for repairs, etc)
overcrowding can oniy be addressed by building additional units. The 2007 Household Survey found that
9.8 percent of households in Eagle County live in overaowded conditions (defined by having more than 1.5
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES GONSULTING, INC. $2
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMEN7 2007 �
residents per bedroom). This equates to about 1,855 households in 20D7 (9.8 percent of 18,924 tofal
households in Eagle Counfy in 2007). Typically, an increase in the supply of worlcforce housing equal to
abouf 30 percent of the number of overcrowded units will largely address overcrowding to the e�ent
practical, given cost consciousness and cuitural preferences.
Units Needed fo Address Overcrowding
Units
Total Households 18,924 �
# Overcrowded Units 1,855
% Needed to Reduce Overcrowding 30%,
Housin� units needed 557
5our�e: 20D7 Household Survey and RRCIRees caiculaGons.
Keep Up Needs
Housing Demand from Job Growth
According to employment forecasts developed by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Eagle County
will have a net gain of over 4,400 jobs in the next three years and appro�omately 10,300 additional jobs by
2015. Job g�owth in Eagle County will be the result of expansion by existing employers, new residentiai
development and new commercialrndustrial development. Of employers surveyed, 41 percent indicated
they pian a net increase in jo�s in the ne� iwo years.
Given employmenf growth over the seven-year period beiween 2000 and 2007 of 7,222 jobs (1,032 per
year), the estimated increase of 10,316 jobs in the eight years beiween now and 2015 (1,290 per year) may
be slightly ovet stafed. The 4,776 additional housing units needed to accommodate new jobs by 2015
should, therefore, be viewed as the maximum number likely to be needed solely to support employment
growth.
Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill New Jobs, 2007 — 2D15
2007 2010 2015
Totai Projected Jobs 41,727 46,173 52,043
Increase in Jobs over 2007 - 4,446 10,316
Jobs per Employee 12 1.2 1.2
New Empioyees Needed
1.8 1.8 1.8
Housing Demand �enerated - 2,056 4,776
Sources: DOLA, 2007 Household Survey and RRC/Rees calculations.
Demand from Repiacemenf of Retirees
Approximately 23 percent of employers surveyed now employ a combined total of 109 persons who will
retire within iwo years and will need to be replaced. The new employees who are needed to fill the positions
vacated by the retiring employees will generate demand for additional housing units; few of the housing
unifs fhe retirees now occupy will be available for their replacements.
By 2015, there will likely be a surge in the number of employees who will retire based on the age distribution
of employed persons. Nearly 35 percent of employees are in the 46 to 65 age range. Employees who are
now 57 will reach the typical retirement age of 65 by the year 2015. Therefore, an estimated 40 percent of
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. $3
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
these employees will be refiring during the forecast period. This equates to approximately 5,900 employees
who wiil (ikely retire by 2015, or 738 employees per year.
Age Distribution, Adults in Employee Households
Age # Empioyees % Employees
18-25 4,625 13.3
26-45 16,482 47.4
46-65 12,136 34.9
65+ 1,530 4.4
Total 34,773 100.0%
Source: 2007 Househoid Survey
Employees needed to replace retirees will generate demand for approximately 3,284 additional units by
2015.
Estimate of Housing Needed to Fiil Jobs Vacated by Retirees, 2007 - 2015
� Eagle
County
Total Estimated Employees, 2007 34,773
% Employees Reiiring by 2015 17%
Replacement Employees Needed 5,911
Employees/Housing Unit 1.8
Housing Demand Generated 3,284
Source: 2007 Household 5urvey, RRGRees caiculalions.
The number of employees was not adjusted for in-commuting since housing opportunities in areas where
commuters now live (Lake and Garfield Counties) will become increasingly limited with few units available
for replacement employees.
Tofal Need f.orAdditional Housing
At present, there is catch-up demand for approximately 4,446 housing units needed to:
■ attract employees to fili vacant positions (1,420 unifs);
■ aa;ornmodate in-commuters who want to move into Eagle County (2,469 units); and,
■ address overcrowding (557 units).
By 2015, keep-up demand for 8,060 units will be generated for approximately:
■ 4,776 additional units to accommodate growth in the labor force through in-migration to sustain
business expansion and start ups, and
■ 3,284 units for employees needed to fill positions that wiil be vacafed by retiring workers.
In total, approximately 12,506 units of housing will be needed to address catch-up and keep-up needs by
2015. These estimates represent all housing needed at all income leyels and price ranges, not just
affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households.
RRC ASSOCIATES, fNG.; REES CONSULTING, INC. $4
F(NAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20D7
Summary of Housing Demand
Units
Source of Demand Needed
Cafch-Up Needs
Unfiiled Jobs, 2007 1,420
In Commuters 2,469
Overcrowded Unifs '• 557
Total Catch-Up Demand 4,446
Keep-Up Needs
New Jobs, 2007 - 2015 4,776
Replacement of Retirees, 2007 - 2015 3,284
Total Keep-Up Demand 8,060
Tofal Demand for Addi6onal Units by 2015 12,506
It should be noted that the above estimates do not'rnclude the demand for retirement/senior housing. If
refiring employees do not stay in the homes fhey now own but cash out to supporf their expenses, units will
be needed for those who wish to remain in Eagle County. Since the homes they now own are largely free-
market units, few if any will be affordable for the employees who must move in to fill vacated positions.
Demand byAMl
The following tabie spec�es the demand for units by income category expressed as a percentage of the
AMI. These estimates by AMI were derived by applying the income distribution shown in fhe current
househoid trends section of this report to total demand generated by new jobs. It is appropriate to assume
that the income of the region's households wiil �be similar in the foreseeable future to the current distribufion
by AMI. No significant shifts in the composition of fhe region's economy are anticipated that couid cause a
majar change in fhe distribution of incomes.
Workforce Housing Demand by AMF
Maximum
, Affordable Maximum Units Needed to .
Max Purchase Affordable % of Demand Accommodate
AMI Range Income* Price*** Rent from NewJobs NewJobs
50% AMI or less �$36,50D NA $913 15.1 % 721
60%AMI $43,80D NA $1,095 2.9% 139
80%AMI $53,850 $180,238 $1,346 10.3% 492
100%AMI $73,000 $247,432 $1,825 15.9% 759 .
120%AMI $87,600 $288,086 $2,190 12.9% 616
140°/n AMI $109,50D $334,741 $2,738 9.5% 454
Over Over
Over 140%AMI $109,5d0 $334,741 or more $2,738 33.5% 1,600 �
Total - - - 100.0% 4,776
5ource: �epartmenYof Locai Afrairs; Colorado Demography 5ec8on; CHAS; RRC Associaies, Inc:
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. $5
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Free-Markef Availability
As of April, 2007, the median price for a singl�family home listed for sale in Eagie County was $1.5 miilion.
The median price far condominiums aiso exceeded $1 million. Prices for townhomes, duplexes and
tripiexes were siightly lower but relatively few were available (17 percent of tofal listings).
MLS Residentiai Lisfings, April 2007
Total Percent
Property Type Median Minimum Maximum Number of Units
TOTAL $1,195,000 $70,000 $21,000,000 1,048 100.00%
Condominium $1,050,000 $70,000 $18,860,000 � 487 46.50%
Sinqle-family $1,500,000 $194,999 $21,000,000 381 36.40%
Townhomel Duple�l'riplex $894,000 $295,000 $14,950,000 180 17.20%
Souree: Eagle County MLS
Nearly half of the units on the market are condominiums. The percentage increases to 55 percent for units
priced under $350,000.
MLS Listings by Price Range and Type
Townhomel Single-
Condo Duple�clTriplex family Tofal
� Under$100K 1 1
$100K to $149,999 1 1
$150K to $199,999 1 1 2
to $299,999 4 1 4 9
to $349,999 12 3 7 22
to �399.999 33 $ 8 49
to $499,999 73 19 24 116
to �649.999 57 29 39 125
$650K to $799,999 32 13 28 73
$800K or more 272 107 269 648
487 180 381 1,048
5ource: Eagie County ML5
Very few housing units are available for purchase in Eagle County by households with low, moderate and
middie incomes. As of Aprif, only 28 residential units were listed for sale through the MLS for prices that
were potentiaily affordable for households with incomes equal to or less than 140 percent AMI. The number
that was truly affordable was likely lower, however, due to high HOA dues that reduce the amount that
househoids can afford to pay.
Availability of units that are affordable for househoids wifh incomes less than 140 percent AMI is declining.
In 2006, 24 percent of sales were at prices affordable for buyers with incomes under 140 percent AMI. As
of April, only 2.7 percent of listings were priced to be affordable for the same AMl/price range. Over 97
percent of MLS lisfings were attainable only by upper income households.
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. $s
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Availability by AMI, Apri12007
• Maximum % Gurrenf # Current 2006 °/a
Affordable Maximum Income Listings Listings Sales 2006 # Sales
AMI Range Purchase Price (3•person HH) (MLS) MLS (Assessor) (Assessor) _
50% AMI ot' less $124,796 $36,500 0.2% • 2 5% 1�11
60%AMI $148,123 $43,800 0.0% � 0 1% 21
80%AMI $180,238. $53,850 0.0% 0 1% 19
100%AMI $241,432 $73,000 0.4% 4 4% 99
120% AMI $288,086 $87,600 0.4% 4 6% 131
140% AMI $334,741 $109,50� 1.7% ' 18 8% 182
Over 140% AMI Over $334,741 Over $1Q9,500 97.3% 1,020 76% 1,801
Total - - 100% 1,048 100°l0 2,364
Source: Eagie County Assessor's Office, Eagle County MLS, RRC Associates, Inc.
Of the 28 units listed for sale at prices potentially affordable for households with incomes equal to or less
than 140 percent AMI, haif were condominiums.
Availability by Unit Type and AMI, April 2007
Townhomel
Condo Duple�i'riplex Single-family Tofal
Less fhan 50% AMI 2 0 0 2
80 to 100% AMI 2 0 2 4
100 to 120% AMI 2 0 2 4
120 Lo 140% AMI 8 3 7 18
Over 14� AMI 473 177 37D 1,020
� 487 180 381 1,048
Source: Eagle County MLS •
In 2006, 2,364 units sold, which equated to 197 units per month. As of April, the 1,048 MLS listings
represented a 5.3 month inventory. This represents a moderately tight market but April is not historically an
active month; listings could increase during the summer months.
Gaps
There is a significanf gap beiween the current demand (catch-up) units and the number of units available as
of April, 2007. The difFerence of 3,398 units beiween current demand for 4,446 units and current listings of
1,048 units represenfs the magnifude of the gap between what residents and in-commuting employees want
for housing and what the free market is providing. The difference for each AMI category represents the net
demand between what residents and in-commuters can afford and the free market price of units.
The gap is largest in the 81 to 120 percent AMI range. Since federal and state housing programs only serve
households with incomes equal to or less than 80 percent AMI (Low Income Housing Tax Credits and
several grant programs have even lower income eligibility standards) addressing the gap in the 81 to 120
percent AMI range will require partnering with private developers and other local solutions that do not rely
on funding f�om outside of Eagle County.
Propo�ionately, households with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI are the best served by the free
market, wifh units available to meet approximately 64 percent of current demand. These figures are
dynamic; additional units will be piaced on the market during 2007 that will slightly lower the gap. With 97
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, WC. $7
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
percent of the current listings afifordabie oniy for househoids with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI, fhe
change should not significantiy impact planning for solutions to address catch-up demand.
Net Demand for Housing
Maximum
Affordabie % Current % Currenf # Curzeni Listings # Currenf
AMI Range Purchase Price Listings (MLS) Demand MLS Demand Gap
50%AMI or(ess $124,796 0.20% 5.4% 2 242 -240
60%AMI $148,123 0.00% 7.4% 0 327 -327
80%AMI $180,238 0.00% 8.6% 0 384 -384
100%AMI $241,432 0.40% 15.4% 4 683 $79
120%AMI $288,086 0.40% 15.2% 4 678 -674
140%AMI $334,741 1.70°/a 12.3% 18 545 -527
Qver 140%AMI Over $334,741 97.30°/a 35.7% 1,020 1,588 -568
Tot31 - 100% 100.0% 1;048 4,446 -3,398
Sour�e: Eagle County MLS; RRC/Rees Calculations
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. $$
- EAGLE COUNTY HOUSlNG NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Appendix A - AMI Profiles
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. $9
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
This appendix coniains demographic and housing preference profiles of Eagle County households based on
their income level: 50 percent AMI or below, 50.1 to 80 percent AMI, 80.1 to 100 percent AMI, 100.1 to 120
percent AM1,120.1 to 140 perc�nt AMI and over 140 percent AMI. This information was compifed from the
2007 Household Sunrey distributed as part of this study. A comparative summary is presented below,
followed by individuai profiles for each income group.
• Homeownership: The ownership rate increased wifh household income. Only 40 percent of
household eaming 50 percent of less AMI own their home, rising to 78 percent of househ�lds
eaming over 140 percent AMI. '
Unit Type: Househoids eaming 50 percent or less are more likely to be residing in an apartment (37
percent) than other income groups. The percentage of households in apartments decreases as
househoid income inaeases, where only 3 percent of households eaming over 150 percent AMI
reside in an apartment. Conversely, households eaming over 140 percent AMI are most likely to live
in a singie-family home-cabin (52 percent) dropping to 27 percent of household eaming 50 percent or
less AMI. The income group which is most likely to own a condo eams beiween 100 and 120
percent of the AMI.
• Household Tvpe: About 33 percent of households earning 50 percent of less AMI are single parents
with children - dropping to 6eiween 1 and 14 percent of households at other AMI ranges. Beiween
31 and 39 percent of households eaming over 80 percent AMI are couples wifh chifdren.
• Households with Seniors: Nouseholds with seniors (age 65 or over) comprise the lowest percentage
of households eaming between 120 and 140 percent AMI (7 percent). Households eaming 50
percent AMI or less are more likely than other AMI groups to have a senior in their household (12
percent}.
• Cost-Burdened: The percentage of cost-burdened households decreases as income increases.
Household eaming 50 percent AMI or less had the highest percentage of cost-burdened households
(75 percent), followed by 50 to 80 percent AMI households (49 percent), 80 to 100 percent AMI
households (29 percent), dropping to 19 percent for households eaming beiween 100 and 120
percent AMI, and to beiween 11 and 7 percent for househo(ds eaming over 120 percent AMI.
• Residence Ratinqs: Households eaming 50 percent or less AMI were likely to rate certain
characterisfics of where they live (candition of home, exterior appearance, yardliof size, adequacy of
heating, safety/security and quality of neighborhood) lower than higher income households, eaming
over 140 perc�n# AMI generally �ating their home highest in most aspects. For income groups over
50 percent AMI, the quality of neighbo�hood and safetylsecurity were rated the highest on average.
For all income groups, the yard/lot size received the lowest average rating.
• Emplovment Status: Households eaming 50 percent or less AMI or more likely ta be retired (13
percent) than other income groups while households eaming over 140 percent AMI are the most
likely fo be self-employed. Househoid eaming beiween 120 and 140 percent AMI were most likely to
leave their employment to work closer to home if similarlsuitable housing was available (77 percent).
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES GONSULTING, INC. 9�
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Profile (50% AMI or bebw}
Households # %
Total Households
Cost Burden
Under 20% 6%
20-3D% 18°/u
30-35% 17%
35-5Q% 16%
Over 50% 42%
Type of Residence
Sinqle-family homeJcabin 27%
Cond�/townhouse/duplex 23%
Aparfment 37%
Mobile home 8%
Other 4%
Househoid Composition
Coupie with child(ren) 11%
Couple, no child(ren) 9%
Aduit livinq alone 37%
Unrelated roommates 7%
Sinqle parent with child(ren) 33%
Family members and unrelated roommates . 2%
Immediate and extended family members 1°/a
Oifier 0%
%with at least one 65+person 12%
Averaqe number of people in household 2.4
p Currem Residence � Frst Choiee of 1Miere fo Live
Awno ................._a,.._,,.,......_.,.....
BasalUElJebei/FryingPan "_ ` � q�o
BumslMcCoy/BondMblcott o%
Dotsero/Gypsum "' —°• 7D%
Edwards " - ' 2� %
FagleBrush Creek " � 9%
Eagle-Vail '.'_ 6%
MintumiRed Cl'rff " o ' "' 76 %
Val ..:,.,_... o
Other "' ' ° �
0% 5% 10% l5% 2D% 25% 30%
Rate where you currently live (rafed 4 or 5; scale 1
"poor" - 5 "excellenY') % 4,5
Average Exceilen4
Condition of home 3.2 40%
Exterior appearance 3.5 42%
� Yard/lot s¢e � 2.8 24%
Adequacy of hea6ng 3.4 42%
5afety/security 3.2 33%
Quality of neiqhborhood 3.3 39%
Tenure %
Own 40%
Renf 60%
Would like to buy a new/different home
p� 30%
Rant ' S0%
Employment Sfatus
Self-employed 21 %
Employed by others 62%
Unemployed and lookinq forwork 1%
Unemployed not IookincZfor work 0%
Full-fime homemaker 0%
Retired 13%
Full-time student �%
Other 2%
Averaqe number of employed adults 1.1
Work Location Winter Summer
Vail 27% 20%
Avon 23% 31%
Edwards 23% 27%
Eaqie 15% 14%
BeaverCreek 20% 27%
Gypsum 2°!0 0%
Other Eaqle County 2% D%
Other 30% 42%
10 years or more ,�.;.,,��;� ;�x�;;;c4�,a�.�•s,,.v-, `
5 up to 10 years �,,;.:. -�1 °6 ��d in Eagie County
� 3 up to 5 years �,r,,,�,,� �� � Worked in Eagie Courrty
2 up to 3 years ,.-„:;,,�. �0 j
1 up to 2 years ���
6 months up to 1 year ;suu;: �
Less Ihafi 6 monihs ,� i
0% 1D% 20� 30°6 40% 5D% 60h 7D%
Wouid you leave your employment to work cioser
to home if similarlsuitable employment was -
available to you? %
Yes - I wouid leave my empioyment 72%
No - I would not leave my employment 28%
Do you: _ _
Receive housinq assistance 24%
Live in a deed-restricted residence 7%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSU�TING, INC. 91
FINAL - EAGLE COUNIY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Profile (50 fo 80% AMIj
Househoids # %
Totai Households
Cost Burden
Under20% 19%
20-30% 32%
30-35% 20%
35-50% 14%
OVet' 50% 15%
Type of Residence
Sinql�family home/cabin 20%
Condo/townhouse/duplex 35%
Aparfinent 26%
Mobile home 10%
Other 8%
Household Composifion •
Couple with child(ren) 18%
Couple no chiid(ren) 16%
Adult livinq alone 41%
Unrelated roommates 8%
Sinqle parent with chiid(ren) 14°/a
Family memhers and unrefated roommates 1%
Immediate and extended family members 0%
Other 0%
% with at least one 65+ person 8%
Average number of people in household 2.1
pCurteM Residence sFirst Choice ot Whetc fo Li�e
Awn
BasalUEl JebeUFrying Pan
BumslMcCoy/BondMbicott
Dotsero/Gypsum
Edwards
EaglelBrush Creek
Eagle-Val "^°•, ,•. 10°h
Mntum/Red Giff ""` 10%
Vail
Other
0% 5°/ 10 % 15% 20 % 25%
RaEe where you currently live (rated 4 or 5; scale 1
"poor" - 5 "excellenY'} % 4,5
Average F�ccellent
Condition of home 3.6 53%
Exterior appearance 3.4 49%
YardAot s¢e 3.1 42%
Adequacy of heatinq 3.7 55%
Safety/security 3.7 53%
Quality of neighbo�hood 3.8 65%
Tenure �a
Own 47%
Rent 53%
Would like to buy a dewldifferent home
ONm 35%
Rent 61%
Employment Staius
Self-employed 15%a
Empioyed by ofhers 76%
Unemployed, and lookinq for worlc 0%
Unemployed, not lookinq for work 0%
Full-time homemaker 3%
Retired 6%
Fuli-time student 0%
Ofhef 0%
Averaqe number of employed adults 1.3
Work Location Winfer Summer
Vaii 37% 29%
Avon 20% 13%
Edwards 10% 14%
Eaqle 7% 8%
Beaver Creek 10% 10%
Gypsum 6% 7%
Other Eaqie County T5% 19%
Other 22% 26%
10 years or more �•r.��.b �xice�risxa;e,u c�asr.�e:rr,� �r,
5 up to 10 years Fwr.�c /0 0�d in Eagie couny
3 up to 5 years x,;;� � 0 Worked in Eagle Caunty
2 up to 3 years �,,, %
� up to 2 years �:,;�,5 p�
6 months up to 1 year -�„ �� %
�ess than 6 months ; �jJ,�
0°6 10% 20% 30% 4D% 50% 60% 70%
Wouid you leave your empfoyment to work closer
to home if similarlsuitable employmeni was '
available to you? %
Yes - I wouid leave my empioyment 61 %
No - I wouid not leave my employment 39%
uo you:
Receive housinq assistance � 6%
Live in a deed-rnstricted residence 4%
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES GONSULTING, INC. 92
FINAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Profile (80 fo 100% AMI)
Nouseholds # %
Total Households
Cosi Burden �
Under 20% 2� %
20-30% 50%
3Q-35% 10%
0
35-50% 15 0
Over50% 4%
�pe of Residence
Sinqle-family homelcabin 40°/a
Condoltownhouseldupiex 37%
Apartment �4%
Mobile home 6%
Ot�er 3%
Household Composition
Couple with child(ren) 32%
Coupie no child(ren) �$%
Adult living alone 30%
Unrelated roommates 8°!0
5inqle parent with child(ren) 8%
Family members and unrelated roommates 1%
Immediate and extended family members 4%
Other
%with at least one 65+person 77%
� Avarana ni�mharnf nannle in household 2.4
pCurrent Residence pFirst Choice of Where to Li�e
Awn _..�.�_� �,�,
BasalUE1 JebeVFrying Pan ""' """ " 11'Yo
Bums/McCoy/BondMblcori . q
Dotsero/Gypsum
Edvrards
Eagle/Brush Creek
Eagle-Vaii
�ntumlRed Giff
Vail
Other
0% 5% 1D% 15% 20% 25%
Rate where jrou currenHy live {rated 4 or 5; scale 1
"poor" - 5 "exceilenY') . . % 4,5
Average F�cceilent
Condition of home 3.8 60%
Exterior appearance 3.6 54%
Yardllot s¢e 3.2 40%
Adequacy of heatinq 3.7 53%
Safetylsecurity 3.8 67%
Qualiiy of neighborhood 4.0 71 %
Tenure %
pWn 63%
Rent ... 37%
Wouid like fo buy a new/different fiome
Own 33%
Ront 8�%
Employment Status
Self-employed �go�a
Emp►oyed by others 75%
Unemployed and lookinq fotwork � 2%
Unemployed notiookinqforwork 0%
Fui�-time homemaker 2%
Retired 3%
Full-time student �%
Other 0%
Averaqe num6er of employed adults 1.7
Work Locafion Winter Surnmer
Vaii 30°!0 20%
Avon 19% 18%
Edwards 12% 16%
Eaqle 14% 20%
Beaver Creek a% �%
GVpsum 12% 12%
Other Eaqle Counfy 3% 6%
�lEf � 28% Z8%
1D years or more
5 up io 10 years
3 up to 5 years
2 up to 3 years
1 up to 2 years
6 months up to 1 year
Less than 6 monihs
0% 20°h 4D % 60% BD%
Would you leave your employment fo work closer
to home if similar/suitable emp(oyment was
available to you? %
Yes - I wouid leave my employment 67°/a
No -1 wouid not leave my empioyment 33%
Do you•
Receive housinq assistance 3%
Live in a deed-restricted residence 7%
RRC ASSOGIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTWG, wc. 93
FINA� - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20p7
Profile (100 to 120% AMI)
Househofds # %
Total Households
Cosi Burden
Under 20% 34°�a
20-30% 47%
30-35% 10%
35-50°/a 8%
Over 50% 1 %
Type of Residence
Sinqle-family home%abin 39%
Condo/townhouselduplex 47%
Aparfment 8%
Mobile home 4%
Olher 2%
Household Composition
Couple with child(ren) 33%
Couple, no chiid(ren) 28%
Adult livinq alone 22%
Unrelafed roommates 5%
Sinqie parent with child(ren) 5%
Family members and unrelated roommates 4%
Immediate and extended family members 1%
Other 1%
%with at least one 65+person 9%
Average num6er of peopie in hoasehoid 2.5
pCurteM Residence ■Frst Chofce of Whe2 to Li�e
Awn :.,.,�.�.,, ��
BasafUEl JebeVFrying Pan '" - ,. 1 4%
BumslMcCoy/BondMbicori ° 6%,
DotserdGypsum "'° , -� 16%
Edwattls
Eeglel8rush Creek
Eagie-Vail
Mintum/Red Giiff
Vail
Other
0% 5% 10% 15 % 20°h 25%
Rate where you currentfy I'rve (rated 4 or 5; scate 1
"poor" - 5 "excellenY') • % 4,5
Average Excellent
Condition of home 3.8 62%
Exteriorappearance 3.8 61%
Yardllot size 3.4 53%
Adequacy of heatioq 3.9 67%
Safety/security 4.0 73%
Quality of neighborhood 4.0 75%
Tenure °�
Own 67%
Rent 33%
Wouid like fo buy a pew(different home
Own 36%
Rent 63%
Employment Siatus
Self-emp�oyed 30°/a
Employed by others 58%
Unemployed, and lookinq forwork 1%
Unemployed, not lookinq for work 0%
Full-time homemaker 0%
Retired 8%
Fui{-time student 3%
Q�1@f �%
Averaqe number of employed aduits 1.8
Work Location Winter Summer
Vail 25% 24%
Avoo 19% 18%
Edwards 18% 20%
Eaqle 18% 17%
Beaver Creek 13% 12%
Gypsum 9% 6%
Other Eaqle County 7% 9°/a
Other 19% 24%
10 years or more
5 up to '10 Yedrs 3:,;� .wt:�„�.,...:�. z4 �
3 up to 5 years �;.,�. % ■�ved in Eagle CouMy
� Worked in Eagle Cair
2 up to 3 years ��'
1 up to 2 years
6 months up to 1 year
Less than 6 months � �
0% 10% 20 h 30% 40% 5D% 60 %
Would you leave your employment to work cioser
to home if similar/suitable employment was
available to you7 °�
Yes - I would leave my empioyment 40%
No - I wouid not leave my employment 60%
Do you:
Receive housing assistance 4%
Live in a deed-restricted residence 5%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 94
FItJAL - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Profile (120 io 140% AMIj
Households # % Tenure %
Total HouSeholds Ouvn 69%
Cosfi Burden
Under20% 41%
20-30% 47%
30.35% 4%
35-50% 7%
Over 50% 0%
Type of Residence '
5ingle-family home/cabin 46%
Condo/townhouse/dupiex 42%
Apattment 10°/a
Mobile home • 2%
Oiher 0%
Hausehold Composifion
Couple with child(ren) 39%
Couple, no child(ren) 33%
Adult living alone 72%
Unr�lated roommates 13%
Singie parent with child(ren) • 2%
Family members and unrelated roommates 2%
immediate and extended family members �%
Other
%with at least one 65+person 7%
Average number of people in household . 2.7
pCurtent Residence �Rrsi Cboice of Where fo U�e
Avon
Basalt/F� JebeUFrying Pan
Bums/McCoy/BondMblcott
poisero/Gypsum
EdNrards
EaglelBrush Creek
Eagie-Vail
MintumlRed CI'rff
Vaii
Other
p% 5% '10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Raie where you currently live (raied 4 or 5; scale 1
"poor" - 5 "exceilenY') % 4,5
Average Excelient
Condition of home 3.8 64%
Exterior appearance 3.6 58%
Yard/lot size 3.1 37%
Adequacy of heating 3.8 63%
Safety/securiiy 4.0 73%
Quality of neighborhood 4.1 79% .
Wou(d like fo buy a newldifferenf home
Urm 40%
Empioyment SEaius
Self-empioyed 30%
Employed by others 62%
Unemployed, and lookinq forwork 0%
Unemployed, not looking for work 0%
Fuil-time homemaker 5%
Retired 3%
Full-6me student 0%
Other 0%
Average number of employed adults 1.9
Work Location Wint�r Summer
Vail 29% 28%
Avon 17% 14%
Edwards 16°/a 18%
Eaqle 14% 17%
BeaverCreek 10% 11°!0
Gypsam 10% 70%
Other Eagie Couniy 7% 7%
Other 26% 26%
'10 years or more
5 up to 10 years
3 up to 5 years
2 up to 3 years
1 up to 2 years
6 months up to 1 year
Less than 6 monlhs
0% 20h 40°6 60% BOh
Would you leave your employment to work cioser
fo home if similar/suitable employment was
availabte fo you? %
Yes - i would leave my empioyment 77°!0
No -1 wouid not leave my employment 23%
po you: _..
Receive housing assistance 2%
Live in a deed-restricted residence 11%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, �NC. g5
FINAL - FJ�GLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Profile (Over 140°/a AMI)
Households # %
Total Households
Cost Burden
Under20% 70%
20-30% 23%
30-35% 3%
35-50% 3%
Over 50% 1 %
Type of Residence
Sinqle-family home/cabin 52°/a
COndo/townh0use/dupleX 42%
Apartrnent 3%
Mobile home 2%
Other 1 %
Household Composition
Couple with child(ren) 31%
Couple, no chiid(ren) 40%
Aduit livinq alone 12%
Unrelated roommates 10%
Single parentwith child(ren) 1%
Family members and unrelated roommates 4%
Immediate and extended family members 2%
Other ' 1 %
%with at least one 65+person 8%
Average number of peoPle in household 2.7
pCurteM Residence ■Rrst Choice of Whefe fo Li�e
Awn
BasalUEl JebeVFrying Pan
Bums/McCoy/BondMblcott
DotseroiGypsum
Edwartis
EaglelBrush Geek
Eagle-Vail
Minlum7Red Clifr
Vail
Oiher
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Raie where you curreofiy live (rated 4 or 5; scale 1
"poor" - 5 "excellent") % 4,5
A�erage F�ccellent
Condition of home 4.2 76%
Exterior appearance 4.1 71 %
Yardliot s¢e 3.7 57%
Adequacy of heating � 4.1 74%
Safeiy/security 4.8 8�%
Quality of neighbofiood 4.4 84%
Tenure %
Own 78%
Rent 22%
Woui.d like to buy a new/different home
p�nm 37°/a
Rent 75%
Emptoyment Status
Self-employed 38%
Employed by others 53%
Unemployed, and lookinq forworic 0%
Unemployed, not lookinq for work 0%
Fuil-time homemaker 1%
Retired 7%
Full-time student
Other 0%
Averaqe number of employed aduits 1.9
Work Location Winter Summer
Vail 25% 25%
Avon 21% 23%
Edwalds 18% 18%
Eaple 14°/a 15%
Beaver Creek 12% 10%
Gypsum 5% 6%
Other Eaqle County 4°/a 3%
Qther 26% 30%
10 years or more
5 up to 10 years ,�,,p„� _ 8%
3 up to 5 years -_ �� �■ Vved in Eagle CouMy
� Worked in Eagle Cour
2 up to 3 years w, qo
1 up to 2 years
6 manths up to 'i year �
Less lhan 6 months , ��'�
0% 10°5 20% 30% 40% 50% 6D%
Would you leave your empioymenf to work closer
to fiome if similar/su"dable employmeni was
available to you? °�
Yes - I wouid leave my empioyment 51 %
No - I wouid not leave my employment 49%
Do you:
Receive housinq assistance 1%
Live in a deed-restricted residence 8%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, �NC. 96
Appendix B- Census Profile and Trends
_
DRAFT - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Information from the 2000 Census wes reviewed for Eagle County as well as for each of the incorporated
cities covered by this study. Decennial U.S. Census figures are based an actual counts of persons dwelling
in U.S, residential stn�cfures. They include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-c�tizen long-term
visitors, and illegal aliens. In recent censuses, estimates of uncounfed housed, homeless, and migratory
pe�sons have been added to the directly reported figures. Census information provides a benchmark from
which ofher information can be evaluated, in addifion to providing insights as to cammunity characteris6cs at
the time of the census.
2000 Census Profile - Eagie Counfy
For Eagle County, an evaluation of the Census information revealed the following:
• 5easonaVrecreational use of homes in Eagle Counfy was about 27 percent, compared to the State at
4.0 percent. Overall, residents occupied about 69 percent of units in Eagle County.
• As of the 2000 Census, roughly 59 percent of homes in Eagle County were multi-family units
(condominiums, townhomes, apartments and duplex/tri-plexes). Only about 33 percent of the homes
were single-family detached structures. Another 9 percent of units were comprised of
mobilelmanufactured homes.
• At the time of the Census, 64 percent of homes occupied as primary residences were owner-
occupied. Owners have slightly larger househoids (2.8 auerage household size) compared 10 renters
(2.7 persons). Not surprisingly, most owner-occupied homes in Eagle County were occupied by
families (70 percent). In the US Census, families are defined as a householder living with one or
more people related to him or her by birfh, marriage, or adoption. A relaGvely high percentage of
renter occupied hornes (41 percent) are also occupied by families.
• Residential development increased sign�canUyfrom 1970 to 1980, in keeping with the overail
growth cycle of the state and has continued. Roughiy 22 percent of homes were built during this
time and an estimated 41 percent of homes have been built from 1990 to 2000.
• Tumover in the'county was fairiy high, wiih 30 percent of residents no6ng they had moved into their
current residence in the 15 months preceding the 2000 Census. Due to the timing of the US Census
(April 2000), it is expected the high tumover is partially due to seasonal woricforce condifions.
• Eagle County has a sligh8y higher percentage of one-person renter households (25 percent) than
owner households (19 percent).
• At the time of the Census, the largest householder age group in Eagle County was 25 to 44 yrs (55
percent). A small percentage of households (5 percent) were headed by seniors (age 65+). This is
low compared the State (16 percent).
• About 7.3 percent of households were overcrowded in Eagle County as of the Census (defined as
having 1.01 persons or more per room). This includes 11.5 percent of rentec households and 4.9
percent of owner households. Overcrowding may be slightly inflafed due to peak season
employment periods.
• The median income of owne�s at the time of the census was 1.5 times more ($73,138) than renters
($47,743). Renters were only slightly more likely to pay 30 percent or more of their income for
housing (35 perceni) than owners (33 percent), Cost burden is generaliy a growing problem, as the
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, ING 98
DRAFT- EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
number of households paying more than 30 percent of their monfhly income for housing more than
doubled beiween 1990 and 2000. In addition the percentage of casf-burdened households
increased from 29 percent in 1990 to 34 percent in 2000.
p Af the fime of the Census, the median value of single-family, owner-occupied homes was $369,100,
an increase of over 170 percenf since 199D ($135,90D). Median contract rent increased 75 percent,
from $544 in 1990 to $952 in 2000. in comparison, fhe median household income increased only 70
percent. These figures, along with increasing incidence of cost-burden, indicate that homes are
confinuing to become less affordable to Eagle County households.
• The median family income (as reported by HUD) increased 24 percent beiween 1999 ($64,33) and
2006 ($80,000).
• Some importanf comparisons beiween Eagle and the State of Colorado are aiso worth noting:
o The median value of all single-family homes in Eagle Counfy in 2000 ($363,100) was
about 2.3 times higher fhan the state of Colorado as a whole ($160,100);
o The median rent in Eagle County ($952) was 1.6 times higher than in the stafe of
Colorado as a whole ($611) in 2000.
o The median household income of Eagle County residents ($62,682) was only 1.3 times
higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($47,203).
Eagle County Compared to the State of Colorado; 2000 Census
Times Higher
than the State
M�an Value Median Median � Me�an M�an Famiiy
- Owner Mortgage Contract Rent Household Income
Occupied (SF) income
Source: 2000 Census
On the foliowing pages, tabular summaries of US Census data are presented for reference purposes.
Although dated, since the county is now seven yea�s beyond the census, fhe results provide a relative
measure of demographics and household conditions at the tim� of the census.
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 99
�� 1 (
DRAFT- EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
RRC ASSOCIATES, WC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 100
DRAFT' - FAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2D07
Population and Househoid Profile (2000)
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSUL7ING, INC: 101
, �
DRAFf - EAGLE COUNTY.HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Eagle County, CO — Pop. 41,659
Housing Unit Estimates and Physical Characteristics
RRC.ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 102
DRAFI"- EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
UselTenure
# %
Housing Units 22,111 100.0%
Occupied as primary home 15,148 66.5%
Owneroccupied • 9,649 63.7%
Renter occupied 5,499 36.3%
Vacant ' 6,963 31.5%
SeasonaUrecreational use 5,932 26.8%
` Percent oF occupied uniLs, not total uniLs.
Occupancy
Vacant
31% . ^'�:; :i;, 4��yi�;�.�_� .Owneroccupied
ji:' �.� ���I'C!�;�� �3�:.-.tr"t''cvs.. 44%
��,iil'',�.�..� � �-�,-� "f'�
, .`�,�.��.2 '= -'5�,�'.'°•,-
'�4'�+`�.
Renter occupied
25 %
Overcrowding/Occupanfs per Room
# %
1.00 or less 14,042 92.7%
1.01 to 1.50 552 3.6%
1.51 or more 554 3.7%
Over�rowded 1,106 7.3%
Kitchen and Plumbing Facil'�ies - Occupied Un'rfs
# %
Complete IGtchen 15,072 99.5%
Compiete Plumbing 15,064 99.4%
Incompiete K�tchen 76 0.5%
Incomplete Piumbing 84 0.6"/0
Subsfandard Unifs 160 1.1 %
Type of Neaf - Occupied Unifs
# %
Utility gas � 9,817 64.8%
Bottled, tank, or LP gas 784 5.2%
EleCtriCity 3,998 26.4%
Wood 419 2.8%
OtherfueVnone 130 0.9%
Tvne of 5tructure
# %
Sing�e-Family 7,209 32.6%
Multi-Family 12,842 56.1%
Mobile Homes 2,045 9.2%
Units in Struciure
# %
1-unit, defached 7,209 32.6%
1-unit, attached 3,507 15.9%
2 unifs 694 3.1%
3 or4 uniLs 1,763 8.0%
5 to 9 units 2,3D7 10.4%
10 to 19 un�.s 1,765 8.0°/0
20 or more unifs 2,806 12.7°/a
Mobile home 2,045 92%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 15 �.1 %
Year Structure Bui1t
# °�a
1999 t0 MalCft 2000 1�446 6.5%
1995 to 199$ ; 3,781 17.1 %
1990 fo 1994 3,760 17.0%
1980 to 1989 5,9D6 26.7%
1970 to 1979 4,950 22.4%
1960 to 1969 1,176 5.3%
1940 to 1959 418 1.9%
1939 or eariier 674 3.0%
Built since 1990 8,987 40.6%
Year Moved Into Currenf Residence
# %
1999 to Ma�Clt 2000 ' 4,508 29.8%
1995 to 1998 5,855 38.7%
199D to 1994 2,526 16.7%
1980 t01989 1�513 10.0%
1970 -1979 566 3.7%
1969 or earlier 180 1.2%
RRC ASSOCIATES�INC.; REES CONSULTING, ItJC. 103
i(
DRAFt - EAGLE GOUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 104
DRAFT - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Household demographics
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, ItJC. 105
h �
DRAF('- EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 20D7
Household 5ize
'Fotai Owners Renfcrs
Avg. Persons/Unit 2.73 2.76 2.67
• Persons Per Unif
Ovmers Renters
# % � %
1-Person 1,810 18.8% 1,358 24.7%
2-person 3,402 35.3% 1,757 32.0%
3-person 1,697 17.6% 1,006 18.3%
4-person 1,663 17.2% 744 13.5%
5-person 647 6.7% 305 5.5%
6-person 225 2.3% 178 3.2%
7+person 205 2.1% 151 2.7°l0
Total 9,649 100.0% 5,499 100.0%
Bedmoms Per Housin,q Unit
# %
No bedroom 547 2.5%
1 bedroom 2,157 9.8%
2 bedrooms 6,449 29.2%
3 bedrnoms 8,081 36.5°�
4 bedtooms 3,770 17.1%
5 or more bedrooms 1,107 5.0%
Senior Househoids
Age of Householder Owners � Renters Total
65 to 74 years 471 91 562
75 fo 84 years 162 41 203
85 years and over 28 12 40
Total 661 144 805
% of Households 6.9% 2.6% 5.3%
Households with Chiidren
# %
Tot�l Households 15,148 100.0%
With one or more persons <18 5,254 34.7%
Married-coupie famity 4,144 27.4%
Single parent family 1,031 6.8%
Nonfamily househoids 79 0.5%
Race/Ethnicity
# %
White 13,665 90.2%
Black or Afican Amer. 35 02°/a
Am. IndianlAlaska Native 87 0.6%
Asian 108 0.7%
Hawaiianl Pacific Islander 6 0.0°/a
Some other race 1,002 6.6%
Two or more �aces 245 1.6%
Hispanic or Latino 2,181 14.4%
Household Type
Owners Renters Total %
Total 9,649 5,499 15,148 100.0°/v
FamBy households 6,740 2,280 9,020 59.5%
Married-coupie , 5,960 1,621 7,581 50.0%
Male householded no wife 301 297 598 3.9%
Female householded no 479 362 841 5.6%
husband
Nonfamily households 2,909 3,219 6,128 40.5%
Male householder 1,723 2,088 3,811 25.2%
Living alone 1,053 848 1,901 125%
Not living alone 670 1,24D 1,910 72.6%
Female househoider 1,186 1,131 2,317 15.3%
Living alone 757 510 1,267 8.4%
Not living alone 429 621 1,05D 6.9°/p
Age Distribution
Age of Householder Owners Renters Total %
15 to 24 years 189 918 1,107 7.3%
25 to 34 years 1,843 2,221 4,D64 26.8°%
35 to 44 years 3,035 1,220 4,255 28.1%
45 to 54 years 2,641 763 3,404 22.5%
55 to 64 years 1,280 233 1,513 10.0°/a
65 to 74 years 471 91 562' 37%
75 to 84 years 162 41 203 1.3°k
85 years and over 28 12 AO 0.3%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 106
; ,
DRAFT- EAGLE COUN'fl' HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT2007
tncome, Housing Costs and Affordability
1999 Median /ncomes
Median in 9999
Household Income $62,6B2
Owner Households $73,138
Renter Househoids $47,743
Family Income $66,226
Per Capita Income $32,011
Chan,qe - Median Family Income, 1999 -2006 (HUD)
1999 2006 % Change
$64,333 $80,000 24.4%
lncome Distribution
Owners Renter Total %
Less than $5,000 77 165 242 1.6°/a
$5,000 t0 $9,999' 121 147 268 1.8%
$10,OOD to $14,999 144 ?20 364 2.4%
$15,000 to $19,999 1Tl 184 361 2.4%
$2D,000 to $24,999 279 362 641 42%
$25,ODD tD $34,999 545 813 1358 9.0%
$35,000 to $49,999 1290 953 2243 14.8%
$5D,ODD fo $74,999 2333 14�7 3740 24.7%
$75,000 to $99,999 1718 652 237D 15.6%
$100,OOD-$149,999 1657 407 2064 13.6%
$150,000 or more 1314 183 1497 9.9%
Percent oflncome Spent on Housing
Owners Rerders Total
<15%a 1646 938 2,584
15 f019% 6$9 763 1,452
20 to 24% 771 900 1,671
25 to 29% 649 623 1,272
3D to 34% 491 369 88D
35+% 1,387 1,478 2,865
Not computed 8 311 319
°!o Cast Burclened 33.3% 34.6% 33.9%
# Gost Burdened 1,878 1,867 3,745
Median Nousing PriceslCosis
2000
Value - Owner Occupied (Sh� $369,100
Value - Owner Occupied (all) $300,900
MorEgage $1;791
6ross Rent $1,D07
Confracf Rent $952
Value of Owner-Occupied Units
SF # SF %
Less than $50,ODD 21 0.4°/0
$50,000 to $99,999 79 1.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 113 2.0%
$150,000 to $199,999 274 4.9%
$200,000 to $299,999 1329 23.6%
$300,000 to $499,999 2333 41.4%
$500,000 to $999,999 1054 18.7%
$7,00O,OOD or more 438 7.8%
Mortgage Amount
SF # Sf %
Less than $3D0 0 0.0%
$3QD to $499 25 0.4%
$50D to $699 65 1.2%
$700 fo $999 341 6.0%
$1,OOD to $1,499 1,213 21.5%
$1,500 to $1,999 1,181 20.9%
$2,000 or more 1,837 32.6%
With a mortgage 4,662 82.6%
Not morfgaged 979 17.4%
Gross Rerit
# %
Less than $200 49 0.9%
$20D to $299 8D 1.5%
$300 to $499 � 413 7.6%
$50D to $749 1,034 19.1%
$750 to $999 965 17.9%
$1,OD0 to $1,499 . 1,831 33.9%
$1,500 0� mofe 774 14.3%
No cash rent 256 4.7%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 107
�:; , �. �
DRAFf - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Trends and Comparisons
199D 2000 % Chattge
Populafion 21,928 41,659 90.0%
Housing Units & Househoids
# Housing Units 15,226 22,111 45.2%
# Occupied Housing Units 8,354 15,148 81.3%
RecreationaVOccasional 5,138 5,932 15.5%
Total Vacant 6,872 6,963 1.3%
Homeownership Rate 57.5%a . 63.7% 10.8%
Household Size
Renters 2.42 2.67 10.3%
Uwners 2.75 2.76 0.4%
Overcrowded Unifs 411 1,106 169.1%
Affordabil'�ty •
Cost Burdene8 Househalds # 1,755 3,745 113.4%
Cost Burdened Households % 29.2% 33.9% 16.1%
Average incomes
Household Income $36,931 $62,682 69.7%
Family Income $41,183 $68,226 65.7%
Per Capita income $18,202 $32,011 75.9%
Average Nousing Cosis
Contract Rent $544 $952 75.0%
Value—OumerOccupied $135,900 $369,100 171.6%
Martgage Pmi $1,031 $1,791 73.7%
Owner Occupied Un'�ts
RenterUccapied Units
Median Value— Owner Occupied (S� '
Median Mortgage (SF)
Median Contract Rent
Median Household Income
Median Family Income
Change in Household lncome, 1990 - 2000
% Cost Burdened
8pry,+
m si-eo%
�
m
�
�
a si-so%
aso%
o% 20% 40% so% eosc
� Peroent ot Households
Eagle Caunfy % /ncrease,1990 & 2000
to State of Colorado
State of (
32.7%
1
Household CantradRe�rt Value— Mortgage
�ncome Owner Pmt
Ocwpfed
100
Growth Rate,199D - 20D0 22.4% 45.2%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 108
DRAFT - FAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
2000 Census-Community Highlights
A comparison of the housing characteristics and demographics for each community was prepared using the
2000 Census. Notable observations among the communities inciude:
■ The three communities with the highest percentage of single family structures are Redcliff (78
percent), Gypsum (63 percent) and EI Jebel (59 percent). Correspondingly, the two communities
with fhe lowest percentage of singie-family sfructures are Avon (9 percent) and Vail (12 percent),
which also have the highest percentage of mulfi-family structures (83 and 88 percent respectively).
■ The communities with the largest percentage of units constructed between 1995 and March 2000
are Edwards (42 percent), Gypsum (36 percent) and Eagle (34 percent). Red Ciiff (3 percent) and
Vail (8 percent) had the lowest percentage of units consfnicted during that same time period.
Significantly, Vail, between 1990 and 2000, saw a decrease in housing units from 6,102 in 1990 to
5,389 in 2000 (-11.7 percent). One explanation for this decrease is the conversion of large multi-
unit sUuctures, generally 20 units or more, into single-family residences and structures with
between 3 and 9 units.
� The'communifies with the largest percentage of units consfructed beiween 1995 and March 2000
are Edwards (42 percent), Gypsum (36 percent) and Eagle (34 percent). Red Ciiff (3 percent) and
Vail (8 percent) had the lowest percentage of units constructed during that same time period.
■ The largest percentage of owner occupied homes were in EI Jebel (80.3 percenf), Gypsum (75.7
percent) and Edwards (72.5 percent). On the other hand, the communities with the highest
percentage of renfer occupied units were Avon (52:7 percent}, Mintum (48.6 percent) and Vail
.(47.7 percent}. Vail, by a large margin, also had the highest percentage of vacation/second
• homeowner units (59.8 percent). The next closest in percentage to Vail is Edwards at 27.9 perceni
vacati�nlsecond homeowner units.
� The communities with the largest percentage of married coupies with children were Gypsum (44
percent), EI Jebel (40 percent) and Eagie (37 percent). Vail (32 percent) and Avon (27 percent)
had the highest percentage of households living with non-related roommates.
■ The communities with the highest median household income are Edwards ($70,869), Basalt
($67,200) and Eagle ($62,750). These do not necessarily correspond to the median single-family
home prices, where Eagle's is among the three lowest median home prices ($278,400). Vail has
the highesf inedian home price ($575,000) with Edwards ($487,900) and Eagle ($417,400j
following.
■ Avon, of ail the communities, has the highest percentage of overcrowded units (16 percent) and
the highest percentage of cost-burdened househoids (42 percent).
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSUL.TING, INC. 109
J � .. li
DRAFT - EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Description Eagle Avon BasafE Eagle Edwa�ds EI Jebel Gypsum Mintum Red Cliff Vail
County
PopulaEion 41,659 5,561 2,681 3,032 8,257 4,488 3,654 1,068 289. 4,531
Housing Un'rts
Wousing Units 1990 15,226 1,344 507 624 N/A 921 642 434 98 6,102
Housing Units 2000 22,111 2,557 1,218 1,116 3,953 1,483 1,210 448 122 5,386
%Change 1990 to 45.2% 90.3% 140.2% 78.8% N/A 61.1% 88.5% 3.2% 24.5% -11.7%
2000
Tenure
Occupied as primary 15,148 1,890 1,052 1,064 2,852 1,433 1,15D 399 1�9 2,165
Home
Owner Occupied 63.7% 47.3% 67.5% 63.4°/a 72.5°/a 80.3%0 75.7% 51.4% 67.9% 52.3%
Reote!' OCCUpied 36.3% 52.7% 32.5% 36.6% 27.5% 19.7% 24.3% 48.6% 32.1 % 47.7%
Vacant 31.5% 26.1% 13.6% 4.7% 27.9% 3.4% 5.0% 10.9% 10.7% 59.8%
Type
Single-family 33% 9% 45% 49% 37% 59% 63% 57% 78% 12% .
Multi-family 58% 83% 49% 44% 51% 9% 18% 20% 8% 88%
Mobilehomes 9% 8% 5% 7% 11% 33% 19% 22% 14% 0%
QfhE(' 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Year Structure Built
Total Units
1995 to Match 2000 24% 29% 30% 34% 42% 20% 36% , 15% 3% 8%
1990 to 1994 17°/n 27% 25% 12% 28% 25% 12% 6% 2% 6%
1980to1989 27% 29% 23% 17% 22% 31% 23% 6% 5% 26%
1970to1979 22% 14% 7% 15% 5% 19% 15% 18% 26% 49%
1960to1969 5% 1% 7% 5% 3% 4% 3% 14% 5% 10%
1940 to 1959 2% 0°/a 4%. 8% 0% 1% 2% 17% 7% 0%
• 1939 or eatlier 3% 0% 4% 9% 0% 0% 8% . 24% 52% 0%
Year Moved to �
Current Residence .
1995 to March 2000 68% 81% 72% 67% 77% 51% 67% 59% 47% 64% .
1990to1994 17% 15% 18% 14% 16% 26% 15% 10% 5% 18%
1980 to 1989 10% 4% 7% 9"/0 5% 17% 13% 12% 8% 11%
1970to1979 4% 0% 2% 7.% 2% 5% 3% 8% 15% 6%
1969oreadier 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 11% 24% 1°/n
Avg. Persons per Unit
Total 2.73 2.81 2.55 280 2.89 3.12 3.17 2.68 2.65 2.09
Owner househoids 2.76 2.64 2.61 2.89 2.89 3.06 . 3.15 2.80 2.45 2.07
Renter househoids 2.67 2.95 2.42 2.66 2.91 3.36 3.23 2.55 3.09 211
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. 110,
DRAFT - EAG�E COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Descrip�ion Eagle Avon Basalt Eagle Edwards EI Jebel Gypsum Minturn Red Cliff Vaii
County .
Persons per Units '
1-person 21% 21% 24% 21% 18% 14% 12% 20% 23% 33%
2-pet5ons 34% 32% 34% 3D% 35% 29% 29% 36% 29% 41%
3-persons 18% 18% 18% 17% 17% 20% 20% 17% 22% 14%
4persons 16°/a 14% 16% 20% 16% 20% 21% 15% 1"5% 8°/a
5+pet50ltS 11% 14% 8% 12% 14% 16% 17% 12% 11% 3%
Bedrooms per Unit �
None 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% D% 5% 2% 4%
1-bedroom 10% 17% 9% 13% 4% 4% 0% 9% 11% 13%
2-bedrooms 29% 41% 33% 18% 24% 18% 0% 31% 41% 37%
3-bedrooms 37% 27% 34% 48% 37% 55% 0% 40% 37% 28%
4+bedrooms 22% . 13% 21% 19°/a 33% 21% 0% 14% 10% . 18%
Household Type
5enior Headed
HOUSeholds (ege 65+) 5% 3% 5% 9% 5% 5% 4% 8% 18% 7%
Married coupie with
chlld�ell . 27% 22% 27% 37% 31% 40% 44% 25% 24% 10%
Married couple without
childre� 23% 18% 23% 22% 26% 21% 25% 24% 26% 20%
Singleparent 9% 12% 11% 11% 10% 13% 11% 13% 14% 5%
Living alone . 21% 21% 24% 21% 18% 14% 12°/a 2D% 23% 33%
Othernon-family 20% 27% 15% 9% 16% 11% 8% 19% 14% 32%
House6old Income
Median Household
Income $62,682 $56,921 $67,2D0 $62,750 $70,869 $60,685 $59,671 $51,736 $50,104 $56,680
Home Vafue
Median Value (Own, �
SF) $369,100 $373,000 $417,400 $278,400 $487,900 $335,600 $234,500 $312,700 $180,40D $575,000
Median (Uwn, ALL) $3D0,900 $230,200 $379,900 $265,500 $373,8DD $263,400 $222,40D $289,000 $170,800 $340,900
MorEgage
Median Morfgage $1,791 $2,037 $1,750 $1,551 $2,300 $1,657 $1,401 $1,635 $967 $1,901
Contraci Rent
Median $952 $954 $1,159 $738 $1,057 $1,027 $785 $734 $1,053 $9D4
RacelEthnicity
Whlte 902% 80.3% 94.6% 91.0% 89.7% 92.2% $6.1% 87.2% 66.1% 95.4%
Biack or African Amer. 02% 0.7% 0.1 % D.3% 0.2% �0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1 %
Hispanic or Latino 14.4% 26.2% 7.1% 11.7% 14.7% 18.7% 22.9% 36.3% 51.4% 4.2%
Some other tace 9.6% 19.0% 5.3% 8.7% 10.1 % 7.8% 13.7% 12.5% 33.0% 4.5%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC: 111
�i'1. �� �''�! r
DRAFf - EAGLE COUNTY HOU5ING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2007
Qescription Eagle Avon Basaft Eagls Edwards EI Jebel Gypsum Minturn Red Cliff Vail
County
Percent AMI
<3D% 7% 10% 7°to 4% 4% 7% 5% 9% 12% 7%
30 to 50% 9% 13% 7% . 7% 10% 9% 10% 16% 6% 10%
50.1 to SO% 14% 14% 14% 7% 12°l0 18% 15% 19% 22% 14%
80.1 to 100% 16% 15% 13% 16% 12% 20% 25% 14% 20% 17%
100.1 to 120% 13% 14% 9% 17% 12% 12% 13% , 11% 25% 13%
120.1%to 140% 9% 6% 14% 12% 10% 10% 12% 8% 6% 8%
Over140% 32% 27% 37% 37% 40% 24% 20% 22°/a 9% 32%
Housing Probiems
Overcrowded units (#) 1,106
Overcrowded units (%) 7%
Substandard un�ts (� 160
Substanda�d units (°la) 1%
Cost-burdened (30%or
more for housing) (#) 3,745
Cost-bu�lened (30%or '
more for housing) (%) 34%
285 65
�6% 6%
9 9
0°/a 1%
552 314
42% 39%
72
7%
5
�%
218
25%
181
6%
10
�%
731
36%
129
9%
0
�%
345
36%
108
9%
19
2%
305
34%
30
7°/Q
4
1%
101
30%
7 82
6% 4%
10 28
9% 1%
24 517
25% 33%
RRC ASSOCIATES, INC.; REES CONSULTING, INC. • ��2
Eagle County
Housing Needs Assessment
July, 1999
Sponsored by:
Eagle County
Town of Eagle
Town of Vail
Vail Resorts, lnc.
Prepared by:
Rees Consuiting, Inc.
� Attacromen� � �
`I
i�
i_ ;
I
,,,
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................
................................... i
PURPOSEOF THE STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 1
ORGAN12A770N OF THE R.EPORT .................................................................................................................. 2
METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES USED .......................................................................................................... 3
Household Survey — Distribution, Response Rate and Representation .................................................. 3
EmployerSurvey ..................................................................................................................................... S
CommuterSurvey ................................................................................................................................... 6
OtherData Sources ................................................................................................................................ 6
DEFINITIONSUSED ...................................................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 1-- POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................... 8
NUMBER OF PERSONS AND HOUSEHOLDS .................................................................................................... S
POPULA7'ION DIS?RIBU7"ION ........................................................................................................................ 9
POPULATION TRENDS .................................................................................................................................. 9
COMMUNI7YCOMPARISONS ...................................................................................................................... 12
AGE................................................... ............................................................................. ........................... 13
GEtaDER........................................................................................................................................ ............. I 3
H011SEHOLDSlZE .....................................................................................................•••.............................. 14
HOUSEHOLDCOMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 14
CHILDREN ITJ HOUSEHOLDS ....................................................................................................................... 18
INCOMES................................................................................................................................................... 18
NouseholdIncome ................................................................................................................................ 18
IndividualIncomes ............................................................................................................................... 22
LENGTHOF RESIDENCY ............................................................................................................................. 24
Years Lived/Worked in Counry ...................•••....................................................................................... 24
SECTION 2 — EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................................................... 27
EMPLOYMENTSTATUS .............................................................................................................................. 27
NUMBER OF JOBS AND EMPLOYEES ........................................................................................................... 29
JOB GROWTH COMPARED TO POPULA?ION GROWTH ................................................................................ 30
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUS'fRJAL SECTOR ..................................................................................................... 3 I
NUMBER OF JOBS HELD BY EMPLOYEES .........................................................:......................................... 33
HOURS WORKED PER WEEK ..........................................................................................................•.•••...... 35
SEASONAL FLUCTUA'I70N IN EMPLOYMENT .............................................................................................. 35
LOCAT1oNoF WOrtx ...................:............................................................................................................. 36
LENGTH OF T[ME tN BUSTNESS .................................................................................................................. 3$
EMPLOYER PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROBLEMS ................................................................... 38
UNFILLEDJOBS ......................................................................................................................................... 39
10BGROWTH OVER T7ME .......................................................................................................................... 41
PROJECTED GROWTH ............................................................:....................:............................................... 43
JoB:SPACE RATIOS .................................................................................................................................... 43
SECTION 3 — COMMtJTING .................................................................................................................. 45.
IrrrER•Cotn,rrY Co�uTrNC .................................................................................................................... 45
IMO-COUN7Y COMMUTING ...................................................................................................................... 47
WHERECOMMUTERS LIVE ........................................................................................................................ 48
WHE1tECOMMUTERS WORK ..................................................................................................................... 49
WHERE COMMUTERS WOltic ..................................................................................................................... 49
DESCRIPTION OF COMiv1U'tER HOUSING ........................................................:............................................ 50
UnitType .............................................................................................................................................. SO
'I`YPE OF HOUSING IN WHICH COMMU7'ERS LIVE ....................................................................................... 50
Housing Costs and Number of Bedrooms .................................................................:........................... SO
Rees Consulting, Inc.
__
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
i�:��
T�•rur� ..................................................................................................................................................... st
HOUSEHOLDCOMPOSiTION ....................................................................................................................... 51
HOUSEHOLDCOMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 52
COMMUTINGPATTERN3 ............................................................................................................................ 54
SOURCES OF INCOME ................................................................................................................................. 55
PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME - ON-SITE AND LEADVILLE COMPARED .................................................... 56
CoMMtITERJOSS ....................................................................................................................................... 56
TYPE OF JOB •- COMMUTERS OVERALL ..................................................................................................... 56
SECTION 4-- HOUSING INVENTORY AND MARKET CONDITIONS .......................................... 59
NUMBEROF UNITS .................................................................................................................................... 59
'I'ENURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 60
UNITTYPE ................................................................................................................................................. 61
UNIT TYPE AND OCCUPANCY COMPARED ................................................................................................. 63
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ............................................................................................................................ 64
BAT}iKOOM3 .............................................................................................................................................. 65
Hous1NGCosTS ........................................................................................................................................ 66
LOCAT�oN ................................................................................................................................................. 69
SECTION 5-- HOUSING PROBLEMS ................................................................................................... �2
AFFORDAB]LI7Y ........................................................................................................................................ 72
Avn1t,ABILI7Y ........................................................................................................................................... 74
Rentals.••.-••••••-•• .....................................................................................................................••••-••........ 74
ForSale ........................:.......................................�---............................................................................ 76
SATISFACTION........................................................................................................................................... 77
OVERCROWDING....................................................••-................................................................................ 82
PROBLEMS FACING RENTERS .................................................................................................................... 82
Rentalsfor Sale ..................................................................................................................................... 82
LeaseTerms .......................................................................................................................................... 83
IMPEDIMENTS TO OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................... 84
SECTION 6- SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................... 86
HOMEOWNERSki1P OPPORTUNt7'IES ............................................................................................................ 86
Renters.................................................................................................................................................. &6
CurrentHomeowners ............................................................................................................................ 88
DEEDRESTRICTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 89
TItADEOFFS .............................................................................................................................................. 93
EMPLOYEE HOUSING ALTERNATlVES .............................................................................................••-........ 96
WHERE NOUSING SNOULD BE BllILT ........................................................................................................ 97
RESPONSIBILITY fiOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................................................................... 98
EMPLOYER PAR"T7CIPA770N IN HOUSING SOLIJ'I10NS ................................................................................. 99
EMPLOYERS' SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ....................................................... 99
EMPLOYER SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL, COIJNTY-W1DE APPROACHES ....................................................... 100
SECTION7 — DESIGN ...........................................................................................................................102
UNtT1't'PE ............................................................................................................................................:.. 102
NUMBEROF BEDROOMS .......................................................................................................................... 104
AMENIT1ES.............................................................................................................................................. 104
NEIGHBORHOODS.................................................................................................................................... 1 OS
LOCATlON CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................................................................:...... 105
SiteIssues ..............:...........:................:............................................................................................... 105
NeighborIssues .................................:................................................................................................ 106
VALUEOF DESIGN OPTIONS .........................................................................................••••-••.................... 107
Rees Consulting, Inc.
__
i
�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
i
SECTION8— TRENDS ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 108
INCOMELEVELS ...................................................................................................................................... 108
HOUSINGCOSTS ...................................................................................................................................... 108
AGE......................................................................................................................................................... ] 09
CHILDREN............................................................................................................................................... 109
SATISFAC'TION WITH HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 109
H011SINGAFFORDABILITY ....................................................................................................................... 1 10
SECTION 9-- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ll2
POPULATION............................................................................................................................................ 1 12
EMPLOYMEM......................................................................................................................................... I l2
COMMUTtNG............................................................................................................................................ i I3
H011SINGSUPPLY AND COSTS ................................................................................................................. 1 I 3
HOUSINGAFFORDABILITY ....................................................................................................................... ] l4
Av,�I t.AB t L tTY ......................................................................... ................................................................ 1 I 4
RENTERPROBLEMS ................................................................................................................................. l 14
OVERCROWDING..................................................................................................................................... 1 I S
SA7ISFACTION......................................................................................................................................... 115
SUGGESTIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 1 15
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
r�� •
Purpose of the Study
, � Local governments in Eagie County sponsored this county-wide Housing Needs
Assessment in order to better understand current housing probiems and to provide
; � information that can be used to address identified needs. This is the first study of its
; , type undertaken since 1990.
This report provides information on the demographics of the county's population, their
housing needs, the impact that housing has on employers, and the opinions that both
employers and residents have about housing. This information may be used to:
• Develop new public policies and programs related to housing;
• Facilitate the private sector's development of affordable community housing by the
provision of market data that can be used to appropriately design, and acquire
financing for, residential projects;
e Develop recommendations for the allocation of public resources for housing
development;
• Plan for future housing impacts connected with anticipated growth;
• Monitor the effectiveness of housing programs and projecfs that mighf be initiafed;
and,
• Undertake various other planning-related projects that can benefit frorn the
availability of up-to-date demographic data.
...
While there are many uses for this report, it does not address all of the potential needs
� for information at a level that is sufficiently detailed and specific for certain uses. The
I!
' data generated by the surveys used in this study can be utilized in the future, however,
;
when more in-depth information is required than is presented herein. For example, this
i', repo�t identifies and quant'ifies housing problems. It provides guidance needed to
conceptually plan housing projects and programs to address these identified needs. It
i; does not, hawever, provide all of the information that would be desirable to have when
, � finalizing designs for the construction of specific projects. When residential projects are
being planned in the future, data generated as part of this study can be extrapolated to
prepare site- and project-specific market analysis reports with detailed design
� � recommendations.
, Rees Consulting, �nc. Page 1
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Organization of the Report
This report is divided into nine sections. Each section begins with an introduction to the
items covered as presented below:
• Population and Demographics - Items covered include household and individual
population estimates, population distribution throughout the county, age, gender,
marital status, household size, household composition, and income.
• Employment tnformation - Information an the number of jobs in Eagle County, job
growth over the past four years, seasonality in employment, occupations, work
patterns, and job generation ratios is provided.
� Commuting — Focus is given to place of employment and commuting patterns to
understand the demand on housing generated by persons currently living outside of
Eagle County.
• Housing lnventory and Markef Conditions - This section includes estimates of the
total number of residential units by area, the number of housing units occupied by
local residents, types of unit, location, occupancy (owner as compared to renter), and
costs.
• Housing Problems — Quantitative estimates on housing problems are provided
including number of persons dissatisfied with their current housing, number of
households who are burdened by high housing costs, number of units that are
overcrowded, and availability of for-sale and for-rent units.
• Solufions and Opportunities — Findings from questions on who should be responsible
for housing, where it should be built and what type of units should be developed are
provided. Opinions about alternative housing aRangements including co-housing
and shared housing opportunities are presented.
• Housing Design - This section Provides information on amenities, design features,
location, number of bedrooms, and unit type desired.
• Trends Analysis — A comparison of key findings from the current study to the 1990
Housing Needs Assessment prepared by RRC Associates.
a Conclusions and Recommendations.
The study covers all of Eagle County except the portion in the Roaring Fork Valley.
When the term "Eagle County" is used in tables, graphs and text in this report, it refers to
the study area exclusive of Basalt and adjacent areas in the Roaring Fork Valley. Some
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 2
i
� Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
of the secondary information referenced in this report, such as employment data, covers
the entire county, however. When this information is referenced, it is so indicated by use
of the term "Eagie County as a whole°.
Information on all tapics is provided for the entire portion of Eagle County covered by the
study and for three sub-areas or regions. These areas are:
1. The Vail area;
2. Mid valley which encompasses Red Cliff, Minturn, Eagle-Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek,
Edwards, Singletree and adjacent rural areas; and,
3. Down valley which includes Eagle, Gypsum, Dotsero, Wolcott and adjacent rural
areas.
� Several times in this report the term "naral" is used to denote unincorporated areas not
within defined communities. Though the entire county could be considered rural in
comparison to metropolitan areas, the term rural as used in this report refers only to
I areas outside of incorporated and unincorporated communities.
Methodology and Sources Used
Surveys were used as the principal source of information on housing conditions and
needs. This project involved surveys of households and both private and public-sector
employers. Unless otherwise referenced, all information presented in this report is
generated from survey responses. Sunrey responses are presented in tables and
graphs. These responses may occasionally total 99% or 101 % due to rounding.
Household Survey— Distribufion, Response Rate and Representation
The household survey was distributed to 3,600 homes in the county that are occupied by
residents of Eagle County. Distribution was based on estimates of the number of units
occupied as primary residences generated by staff in each of the involved jurisdictions.
The surveys were distributed by hanging them on the doors of individual housing units
over a pe�iod of five days from February 25 through March 2, 1999. With extensive local
publicity about the survey, a total of 794 valid surveys were returned for a response rate
of 22%.
The survey was designed to obtain descriptive information on each household and
demographic information on up to three adult members of each household. Complete
information was received on 1,046 adults.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 3
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Overall, surveys were obtained from 7.46% of the study area's households. The sample �
generated from these surveys is adequate for statisticaily valid tabulations on a county-
wide basis and for the three sub-areas in which the study area has been divided (Vail, ,
mid vailey and down valley). �
Representation of each community in the sample is similar to the distribution of
households. The Town of Eagle is slightly over-represented while the unincorporated
area is somewhat under-represented yet the discrepancy is not sufficient to be of
concern.
Survey Distribution and Response Rate
Y^�vtkR" ..A'^.vC"�'f""^""ci , � . m Jz' �}s. . _ _ ..... ...,;:- [ . . ..�,. ._. . , ._ . . ., .
�����`���:� �F �� � � � �w; � Pnmary '" ' % Sunieys � % Sunreys � # Returned
� �'e,^,�� � _ �' r ' :
. .
�,�,,,.. :.�� .��.��'��.r �" ��,,,.��.. ���;�_Homes�y`.�: �" , Distr►buted Returned . _..... ` .. .._� .. _
_,i.., k..- .. ... . .... . .. �.. ........._..... .....� _ .... 5:....
Vail 2,048 19.2 16.1 128
a�a.v�r�-•r+-.ri � v� i. .tuxg
t.�i,�tulNRed ClrFf �. � , 406 s._ .._ _ ...__.�. 4:7.....,... . __..._ ._. _.5.�.�,.�_. ._....�.....,..41....�....
...�.
, .,,,�._�...�;,,.�.: i:::.j�.:::e,,..�...�._....__.. . .•.. ._
Avon 1,462 13.7 14.2 113
�r�Eagle ��'�.�t�.�..�.w.,.:..,� ���,: ' .�.,�.,060.. r. _.. ._....�>10.0..�..�.. .__,18.6 ._ ._ ..._.__ 148... :.
Gypsum 1,175 11.0 10.8 86
��lJnincorporatedtt��� �� �,��'5 _ � .4 399 � ' r 41.4 � �' . 35 0 ;,r^.' �, _ . _ 278 . ; .
.� .:..�. _...x....,,.__ _�� �,.� ..�f . . �
Total — Study Area 10,649 100% 100% 794
It appears that renters are under-represented in the survey sample. Of the 794 surveys
returned, 79% were from homeowners who reside in their homes, 1% were from persons
who live in units owned by their parents, and 20% were from renters. It is very unlikely
that the homeownership rate in the market area increased from 54.2% in 1990 (Census
estimate) to 79% by 1999. The homeownership rate increased state wide during this
period but not to the degree that the sunrey data suggest.
In order to compensate for the under-representation of renters, the following steps have
been taken:
• The estimate of the number of renter-occupied and owner-occupied units within the
study area has been based on a homeownership rate of 60%. This figure was
derived by applying the state wide increase in the homeownership rate to the 1990
Census estimate; and,
• Statistical tabulations have been presented separately for owners and renters; when
overall findings appear to be skewed because responses differ between owners and
renters, it has been so noted in the report.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 4
�
�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment � 999
Employer Sunrey
Employers were surveyed to determine the extent to which housing availability and high
costs of housing are impacting empioyment. The survey covered current and projected
employment, the willingness to assist with the provision of housing for their employees,
the design of employer-assisted housing programs, and the number of jobs associated
with new development.
Forty-two employers were surveyed in March to obtain a representative sample of both
private and public-sector employers. The employers interviewed employ 3,763 year-
round employees and 5,788 winter seasonal employees for a total of 9,551 employees
at peak season.
Persons Employed by Participating Employers
c..f-f,-, .�x.: '-�=,�' ��� � �- ` Full Time
(rsa&,�y:'�"'�'���' �{, �aJ �1 r,- N���� F �' .
C}��!.:f'Lf'ii�.'+��'....tF _G..'.�s'..N� �.�.,,.,.'�.'t'.:s� r-..�.i?Cw.:•w:.YL_a��:...;,... .. .. . .... . ..
Year Round 3,422
�Summer Seasonal�;�„a.� . '_ , , � 1,052
Winter Seasonal 4,060
};E'±eak Pyeriod Total„(Yrr1 Round &_ Winter) „ 7,482
Part Time ` �='Tofa1.-.'.�
. . . . ... .. .. .......
341 3,763
310 : ` - 1,362
1,728 5,788
' 2,069 .�:. �::.9,551 .
As shown by the following graph, all major types of businesses are represented by the
survey.
Constdtrades
27%
Rees Consulting, lnc.
Types of Businesses Surveyed
ear/restaurant
10%
R eGattradions/amuse.
. . . .
•
.
�, ,�,,� �, �;, - ....-,...
x����'�`-"'.�}�~..:.��,� ��,��� - ..
_ A
2% — GoVt
Real estate 12%
5%
__ _
Commercial services
2%
Profl senrices
14%
Page 5
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Commuter Survey
Information about commuters was obtained through two intercept surveys, one of
commuters working in Eagle County conducted at their place of employment (referred to
in this report as °On-site Commuters") and the other of commuters living in Leadvilie. A
total of 313 responses were received from 66 persons on their job sites in Eagle County
and 247 Leadville �esidents who commute to work in Eagle County.
Ofher Data Sources
Multiple sources of published information were used in the preparation of this report
including:
• Population and housing unit estimates for July 1997 from the State Demographer's
Office;
• Apartment vacancy rates from the Colorado Division of Housing and the Eagle
County Housing Division;
• Employment estimates from the Colo�ado Department of Labor and Employment and
the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (1990 through 1996); and,
• Real estate sales and listings from the Vail Board of Realtors Multiple Listing
Service.
When these sources are references, it is so noted in the text or adjacent to the table or
graph containing the referenced information. If no notation appears, the source is one of
the surveys conducted as part of this study.
Definitions Used
Housing Supply - units that are occupied by local residents or, if currently vacant, likely
to be leased or sold to local residents. Differs from the inventory of total residential units
in that it excludes units used for occasional or recreational use.
Cost Burden - when a housek�old or individual spends more than 30% of gross income
on rent or mortgage payments.
Affordable Comrnunity Housing - when housing is occupied by local residents and the
amount they spend on rent or mortgage payments (excluding utilities) does not exceed
30% of their income. There is no single amount that is "affordable°. The term is not
synonymous with low-income housing; households in lower through middle-income
ranges tend to have affordability problems in high-cost communities. Under most
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 6
,
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Federal rental programs for low-income housing, occupanfs pay 30% of their gross
income for rent and utilities.
Primary Homes - residential units that are occupied the majority of the year and serve as
the occupanYs primary residence, and are thus cansidered pa�t of the housing supply
;; (see previous definition). Units can be occupied by different households during the year
if, for example, they are lived in by seasonal employees.
! Substandard Housing - a unit fhat lacks complete kitchen and/or plumbing facilities.
' Mean - the average of a group of numbers. It is obtained by adding all the data values
'' and dividing by the number of items.
i j Median — the middle point in a data set.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 7
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
� ..�. � � ,�, •
This section of the report provides the context for informaiion presented later in this
document on housing conditions and needs. it describes the residents of the study area
portion of Eagle County, including their numbers and characteristics. The foilowing
specific topics are covered:
• Number of persons and households;
• Population trends and community comparisons;
• Age distribution;
• Gender;
• Household size and composition;
• Children in households;
• Household and individual incomes; and,
o Length of residency.
Number of Persons and Households
Approximately 28,436 people now live in 10,649 households in the portion of Eagle
County that is the subject of this report. Estimated population figures were derived by
multiplying locally-generated and Sta►e Demographer estimates of the number of
housing units occupied as primary residences by the average number of persons per
household obtained from the household sunrey.
Study Area Population, 1999
Vail _
�Mint�rt�'Re„�,�Clr ��`��. ,��
Avon
,u„���8:.,`"`' �3r,�.��;� �''���,':�,�; ,°"'"-,;�
�.. .
�, y.:�� .�� r-r�� � �.,�, R ,.^=�.s��,%:�~,��,�,•.
� Prm ary�� Avg�# P�,��ers�o�J �� �s�t��#��-�
��,,.�i,�ames;:��� per.hlouse�iotd; � � �o �la#ion . � �
2�048 2.4 _ 4,g15
��',+..' � r� ,� f+rc-'�.' C�'^`—"`��.4 '�n +, '°.?'�'' .'a : � J r
,�, -��:�� 5: ��� �� ��� ��rga� '� �����"`� 4�,�6,������
�..� �.�..�,�e:��� �-��. .�� M
1,462 2.3 3,363
Gypsum 1,175 2.9 3,408
��nco �� u, �],�,i?�rea ?0�,.�.�y� ���4� ��.~� � �'��'��.�:B�'�� �'�', ����„31�
�.�.�.,��. .� .�.,._..�.� . . ��. � t
Total 10,649 2.7 28,436
* All estimates are based on current information provided by local planners except for the
unincorporated area figure, which is a derivative of the State Demographe�'s Jufy 1997 estimate.
Rees Consulting, Inc.
.�`�
Eagle Counry Housing Needs Assessment 1999
According to the State Demographer, 32,099 persons resided in 12,649 housing units in
Eagle County as of July 1, 1997. According to 1990 census data, 80.085% of Eagie
County residents lived in the study area portion of the county. By applying this
percentage to the 1997 county population estimate, it is estimated that approximately
25,706 Eagle County residents lived in 10,130 households in the study area as of July 1,
1997. The estimated current population of 28,436 represents a 10.6% increase from
the July 1, 1997 population estimate. This increase (around 7% per year} is consistent
with growth rates in Eagle County in the 1990's, as described below.
Population Distribution
Acco�ding to the survey responses, the largest percentage of Eagle County residents �'
live in the unincorporated Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area, followed by Eagle and
Vail. This distribution is largely consistent with locally-generated population estimates. '4�
l.
Eagle
19%
EdWB�u�nvu�sicaui
Singettree
23°k
Household Population Distribution
Gypsum Rural areas Vail
11 % �'�° 16%
Population Trends
� 74%
; Beaver
— Creek/Arrowhead
0%
IinturNRed CIiN
5%
Eagle-Vail
11%
Population estimates at the community level from the State Demographer are available
through July 1997. The State estimated that Eagle County as a whole had a population
of 32,099 in 1997. It should be noted that the State Demographer's Office routinely
updates and amends their population estimates. The estimates provided in this report
were listed on the State Demographer's web site on June 1, 1999. There are slightly
different than previously published estimates.
Rees Co�sulting, Inc.
Page 9
,I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Eagle County Population, 7/91 — 7/97
��'�""_>°�iT��-r>x;. � r .�r--.rs,^„.�•n; ' -�• 'c�at;� ��R--�^x+--� - � � ---�^•;r` h 1 '"�-^^"'�zr .a�arr�� -•�-� ���*--m.;�-•
v.���+t�y,i+� 4n a� �} � t t^r. �,y`;;i y�i. . l�i s^�'-, r^�. L� � �'.
-�� � ���. �._.a � ��.�..�7191 �� �.��/92� �7/93 _ , _ _ 7/94-wz, �_�7195: - � ���7/96 ,�! n ti-��7l97�a�:
- • ---w :.�i. c^' �..,�. .....�.�...
Avon 1,858 1,950 2,374 2,446 2,505 2,728 2,787
^2r�if ,��:!'^�+ � ^.s -wy � a� . -+r,�;o _ . ..-.• . r-� ... .n py,.�,,v„ —,z:. '
{ �4 rx � � � +�Yv`T.. �,�er i:i;;����LlU`t k"t�� �� 'r 5 '� p5.:
.. � i�e��^ �� ��a� ,fiO3� �.� 682 x 5�, 'i �65.3 . �'1 724':,: �:��._, �' ��:.�.,2�2F.. ���z`� .�,�
i`i-�,v�.=.ibH=�a N�.,� ' J a✓:�i e+�� y �:3' ., + . f r,e 7 �V,•^
Gypsum 1,811 1,901 1,953 2,151 2,229 2,388 2,758
,�'^�yT"^s�i�'���'��-`."y'z� c`"'+'' *�'�',�'hi7: e"p,':E°-"� ' y '+-.z„� Z4,� N .I'3�,'pY " ,� ��y„y'^i�.rt�XCT+.f.��,�1.:
�%ntu .nw�� � � ��.,�9� ��fi�y� 50 � ��' �.:138 . _:.1.�:'! 40 � r:.;..:��� �� �,3. � � 171 Q8. �.��,143'.';
Red Cliff 298 313 303 304 297 299 310
.�•�;;�� .; :C : �� _ :,.- . . .. �
. _ <.� ,�, ,>, ; ,. -�; ' � - . r .::'x;. - -�-"ti*; .�•_«: �°,,::
�; �l � �;,�����; �,�3 743 ; �3 928µ �3,882 . _ 4a442': Y:.:,�4,381 ���„4,409_ ��„F 4 454,�'
Unincorp. 11, 533 12,102 13,209 14, 007 14, 881 15,686 16, 511
��ta�t ��R'`��<�* `°��3 073� 24,213 �;,25,716 27,468� � ,28,860,7 M 30,392�� �:�,32,;099�
�,�� ..,�:,� .�.,: �.. :, � . .
Source: Colorado Division of Locai Govemment Demography Section
Eagle County's population experienced a cumu►ative increase of about 34% between
1991 and 1997. The rate of growth was steady with annual increases ranging from
slightiy below 5%. to slightly below 7%.
Rates of Growth in Population, 1991 —1997
�� , ,,s,,r P.^.. �--- .-.,.� ,..,:-�•-.,.� _� . . � ... _ .... „,<.—,:..-.-;
Years ��-�;:'�991 92�:1992 93 1993 94 199495 1996 96,1996"�97-
�......>�,,...Y._,..�.....a....._..�.___...�_...Y.�_,.._._..._..�__..�.. _ . _ .�
Growth rate 4.9% 6.2% 6.8% 5.1 % 5.3% 5.6%
Source: Colorado Divisiori of Local Govemment Demography Section (data),
Rees Consulting (computations)
1999
A comparison of growth rates for the various communities is shown in the following
graph. Eagle, Gypsum, Avon, and the unincorporated portions of the county had the
largest cumulative increases during this period. Growth in Vail spiked in 1993-94 at 14%
but has remained almost flat since then. Growth in Minturn and Red Cliff totaled only
5% during this period. There was no clear pattern from year to year, however. Most of
the growth in 1996-97 occurred in Gypsum and Eagle. From 1995 to 1996, the greatest
amount of growth occurred in Avon. The year before that, almost all of the growth
occurred in Eagle.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 10
�
�
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Population Growth Rates by Community
0 Avon •
■ �9�e
; p Gypsum
p Mintum
; ■ Red Giff
�� Vail
■ Unincorp.
, .
1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97
Source: Colorado Division of Locai Govemment Demography Section (data), Rees Consutting
Growth rates for each community over the 1991-92 through 1996-97 time period are
shown in the foilowing graph. Growth rates were erratic for most areas except the
unincorporated portion of Eagle County. Avan, Gypsum, and the unincorporated area
had positive growth rate5 throughout the period, while Eag(e, Minturn, Red Cliff, and Vail
experienced losses some of the years. What appears to be a decline in population may
be the result of variations in estimates published by the State Demographer, however,
rather than an actual decrease in the number of person residing in each community.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 11
' i
i
i I
I �
0
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Population Growth Rates in Each Community
...
�,ss�-s2:
s �ss2-ss;
o i ssa-sa
❑1994-95.
■ 1995-96?
� 1996-97'
Avon Eagie Gypsum Minturn Red Ciiff Vail Unincorp.
Source: Colorado Division of Locai Govemment Demography Section.(data), Rees Cansuiting
Community Comparisons
Eagle County grew at a cumulative �ate more than double that of the state of Colorado
b�tween 1991-92 and 1996-97. Counties with comparable cumulative growth rates
inciude San Miguei, where the Telluride ski area is located, and Summit, where the
Keystone, Arapahoe Basin, Copper Mountain, and Qreckenridge ski areas are located.
None of the ski counties had growth rates anywhere near that of Douglas or Elbert
Counties, however, which are the fastest growing counties in the nation.
Growth Comparison
_ . . .. "•^—.�C"�' „^T � �"S � 5.lM .^+, ^Y�+. yXkY . ..,....... .._�..
_�'��� "����„�"`��;�,,- -� `,,.,�' , 1991 92 ihrough,1996:97.,�
w � 'K"�'t �. �. t�ti=\ �y .� .y. . .._. .. . ... . . .. _. . .... .
State of Colorado 16%
�.�NY." �Y'?��� : ; -Mri,s-ar .r7 �Ty r y,�(^ r *c.. , yy, � , t . )- r +nK,-r4xa ,,,,; � fi'�, �r h
�C�untiesa:�.��_�,�. k� �.,� r �� �-�„� ��, „ ,� , ,
,
�..�..,�.._:...�,..M..s...,.:.�..ar�..�_�.�>.:... ... _... , .. ..�... . _ ... . .�5:r_,,�M. . _.�.�.,_
r�1"�,,-`e�."t�:,T��? ;:L„ ,�,�,-•.-m+�„E- t-,..; G r-^ --•: ,-+ ;-� s ,r .
��i DOU,g�eS �`�::� �"�,..r. �.. � . , � -_ __ ,.,,:70%_..�.�': �`....a_ .. ._��.....
Elbet't 56%
�,�,.,,,��. � •'^"„ZOY cr"� .... � . . ....
L Yxyayy
��"� Summ�t ,;�, ,.� r 37°!0;
t...�,.�r.. , ��c � ...:� .........: .. . �., W.....� . ..W._._
San Miguel 34%
,Kj�•-•;,f,?:��. :T�n:^ ;;.. _' i,4". . .✓ .. ' 1 _ ,
�� �Eagle ��`�_'� .��.�� '., 34%4; .. .�.:��._:
Source: Colorado Division of Local�Govemment Demography Section
� Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 12
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Age
The average age of residents, according to survey responses,. is 42.4 years. This may
be somewhat high because of the overrepresentation of owners in the survey sample.
Distinct differences befween the three areas studied are evident, as shown in the
following graph:
• Vail has a higher percentage of younger adults in the 25 to 34 age category than the
mid- and down-vailey areas;
• Vail also has a higher percentage of older adults in the 55-64 and 65 and over age
categories; and,
• The mid-valley and down-valley areas have higher percentages of adults in the 35-
44 and 45-54 age categories than Vail.
a
�
0
t9
m
�
Q
�
m
�
4
�
0
c
u
`m
a
Gender
Age Distribution
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and over
According to the survey responses about 52% of Eagle County residents are women.
This gender mix was found in all three areas. It is not typical of Colorado mountain
Rees Consulting, lnc,
Page 13
I
(1
�
1
t
II
I
Eag(e County Housing Needs Assessment �g99
resort communities, however, where men tend to outnumber women because
construction work and jobs in the outdoor recreation industry tend to attract more men
than women.
Gender by Area
a��'�';`'�: xtOvera '':� aii
1�:�7 �' �i� , v
.�� �:�: _ .
Male 48% 48%
Female } ���2%;�° `° 52°h
�...._..�_...�,..� �. ��� �_. .
Househoid Size
. ,. �- ....:,-.._...:--,..::�...
;Mid ValleyY �,Down;Valley,'�`
4$% 47%
S. T7 ' .r� .'4. 'fi .
52°!oF � '�53% ��:,'
_ .... ._ .. �_ _ M �.��.,,.:
Overail, 40% of Eagie County's househoids consist of fwo persons, while 38% consist of
three or four persons. Vail has a gceater percentage of singie and two-person
households than the mid- and down-valley areas, while down valley has a somewhat
higher percentage of three- and four-person househoids than the other two areas or the
study area as a whole. Househoid size in the mid-valley area most closely approximates
the county-wide household size, while Vail households tend to be somewhat smaller and
down-valley households tend to be somewhat larger.
Household Size by Area
,�� � F, �
�;�:Pers,ans m"� �, �verall ° ' � � � -'� "' `��`
�x ,�,,.,,��, ,a��, ,1, /� a Va�l /o Mid Valley Down Valley
x
�."��H'OUS►P.f1��C�ti..�'1�`�,�,�� �':�.;.F,,.=„_.,�' .._...�,...'j�t'� �°� r.r� ` ;�,,,. ��O ' � �'�' ` r� .IQ �.a'�ut,T � ��.�
�,,,�,._, ,,:_,.._.�.._.��...�_ ..� .,:.:�... '....�a�.._ :r.r..�:..::.s.,�:�, :�.._��-�,,:
1 14 20 14 11
Y���� ���j �y�..r��.ATs� �a f �z E w� .. . ;, �' Y .�: � �'.�, Q� , i . , r,�( � � . f� s �4�''� ,S'"^ v...s a ..
�i3�'S.!..,wiGC.Y3,.L�fR.$�,.;5�'�r.il t�:,!.cw.:i+.�..-o. �0.�'f( F.. ;t 41,j ... yK }'�Y''�� cI� �.,. p Y�k T• .f-',�, 3'y�'3? h;5,`�x.� .
• :�.e..:. �:�t........, . -.....�.. .». ....;..n3...�....a, ;�:.:,� r,�,s=;11'2,d..;:�:��'r.......=•.cxi:x s�:
3 19 17 19 2�
�R S � i'P� �� [ .+'%^�*'. ..' /'( ^ii'P.T� .. `T;2?^T' S�' M`i M' .>�`.nv 1 _ •'�1�.�
��`i SL ! �I"a i,,,� w..`, t ti 1- -t�, ,�,yc a�-..,r,G .�^. z.qm . �x �..�., „� �'Y' i'' t�'p�°`i'�. �c .S^.�
�7�, �4r.4, � , �.� Y ,�.� a g �. �.. �, .� � 2 � .�� �t� �, `F'9 9 ?.. �x �� �� ��:� 22 r�`�
_��.a,��.�t.�:.a ��usr.d,.� .,�,a:.-��:>. ��.�... . _..,��t!._. c..�...�.,r�.ti._.:A+t'�t:;r�. s..,:.t�.t.. �md:....�.�c-'"�
5 5 1 6 6
,,.:�'i+"r����� , ��;�£�r��' '�'!"�>i--,:�?� `„'� y.°y,`,, "s�'�as�'� �'' s'�'��"`'"'�,�''.,�„�j.
�-,,.��3� ��- +�n.4�`s�' .'��r�nv""._`�-,�,`�r.',`�,� r �z � 1. �` 4y''^ [. '�"''' 1' !� dr�:u
'���Y�ae`sS � s.7asS�_.5..�� .�e...�^ `L...'+"-' tri.�;'x,t ......;,:X..LT.� Cs,:�.l",.+��"�.,;�ir�:.C'�_.<�' ` r�t L~`i�j,�+,r�i. A. ��^��S`.�',k''Lxa.�",F Y�
7+ 1 3 0 �
Household Composition
In the area as a whole:
• Families comprise a majority of overall households; couples, couples with children,
and single parents with children constitute about 71 % of all households;
• Only 14% of primary residences overall are occupied by an adult living alone; and,
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 14
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
1999
• Househoids comprised of roommates living with other unrelated individuals or with
family members constitute only 13% of the population.
Househofd Composition
Other
2% —
Family members and
unrelated roommates—
4% Aduit living alone
Unrelated roommates 14% Single parent with child
9% — "�` +�-='.� *F- 5%
Couple with
34 %
JL /O
Household composition varies depending on whether one owns or rents. Specifically:
• About 35% of homeowners are coupies without chiidren; 40% are couples with
children;
• Approximately 50% of renters are either couples or couples with children;
o About 20% of renter households consist of unrelated roommates; and,
• Adults living alone and single parents with children constitute a larger percentage of
renters tF�an owners.
Household Composition by Own/Rent
Olhe
Family members an<
unrelated roommate:
Unrelated roommate:
Couple with childrer
Coupte
Single parent wlth children
Adult liviny alone
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Percent ot OwnerslRentets
Page 15
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment � ggg
' The following table furthe� breaks down household compasition according to who owns
, the property or frorn whom it is rented.
I
,;
Household Cornposition by OwnerlRenter Status
� �'fSrM1i:�T'j�'5�:�:'�� �!v..:.Y�C.i..�....�_ �. afy�:.... .. .. . — r• Vi�:���MK'v;��.Y�.Ya� t:vi
�' ���`� �, �iDwned by Owned Rented_ � �...,,,...,. .�,.
�;�`�� � r�� u�'; t r'� r f _ �Provided FQwned byr Uther.
� ������ � : � �;� `�; M; residents . by parent , from - �>� b � �� � ` � � ti , .
� y._-y,,, ,member
,�� �'.'�1e'rK'�.t �i; �`C.h`nw�7 �� �r^�. i� ' i � . � � . r .. ,' � . . t� ;� � y 4 + t ¢ � � � �
't� X�',��''�,,,,,,,�_1�uJ'N�� ��t� � " tf }�� ` � rK F landlord employer'and.rented. �,� xg � �i��
. ��.,tGu ! ' a.u.....s.r.a, m'.+a;��=:�r.....lw�..a—.. c:t.:. �. . .. _
.. n .. . .... ..:....._._ .. :._ -..: G:
Adult living alone 13% 20% 17% 23% , 33%
�,-'"^-".k}.t�"'":��Q"?,��;.� ..:,�,�. .�.',�,"i"�im4'��`s': ::i:� . . .... . .� ' .i.,:. ' ' ' '
�Sin�te arent with � .�, h r 4% � -. 8% � :, t � �r � ^
�y,,�"' ` k �
!FY7i 3��',� 7�v �r��� .�..� fA . . , t , ,.
�hildre,r,�,++�rn�{�-+�- ....�:R,r_+.rG>a�......�.yt..d:.. �., ,
�.iss.�< _�.. � �.
. . . . . ...,. .. . ., ...._... .,. . � �.�...r°�.�.._..[tx— s....: . . ..
Couple 35% 20% 26% .." 14% 4% 67%
r . � rn-- �:+;;,.w�..;...Y.,.
..._...� -'c: . .. ..
IGau �le with ciaildren,,; �w.,Y:�_. ..y :39% 50% , 24% � , 27% �< %;
�.;�.,..P_.._.., ..... .. . .. � . _..�,. . . �.. ,. _.:4� ...w.. .,.. _
Unrelated roommates 4% 10% 19% 32% 52%
�--;=' i ^ ' � "' r . ...
;Family members and 3% . ._ � 5%0 - 5°/a . : 30°l0 ; �
�`,M» ` � _r. .,
�unrelated,roommatess.�� ..... _.�. .. ._. ,. ... ......... .._.....�. ...._. .
�. .._.,. _ . ., r
Other 1 % 2% 9%
Househoid composition aiso varies depending on where one lives:
• Down valiey has the largesf percentages of coupies with chiid�en (48%) and single
parents with children (7%); Vail has the smailest percentages (19% and 3%,
respectively);
• Vail has the largest percentage of households consisting of unrelated roomma#es
(17%); and,
o Vail has the largest percentage of househoids consisting of adulfs living alone (19%).
Rees Consuiting, Inc. Page 16
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Othe
Family members anc
unrelated roommate:
Unrelated roommate:
Couple with children
Couple
Singie parent with
chiidren
Adult living alone
Household Composition by Area
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 4'5% 50%
Percent of Area with Household Composition
f� . .
Finally, household composition can be analyzed according to whether one owns or rents
and where one lives. Vail has the largest percentage of homeowners who are couples
while down valley has the largest percentage of homeowners who are coup(es with
children. Vail has the largest percentage of renters who are unrelated roommates, while
down valley has the largest percentage of renters who are couples with children.
Household Camposition by Area and Own/Rent
��_.
�..
. �-r-,g-.r.k.. ..°-t�,:,... _ __....,.,.,.r+S'. �. ,r•�srv.,s..�. . _ .
� �; VAIL � � � "- .;�'; :MID VALLEY ^1 �a,:DOWN VALLEY� `�N
����t` �' .t� ,�,.A_ � '' . ,�. t ..-, s t �y F,.�. ..x s i �h,
aa;`! ai: ..:...F�l.., r ..�r-:.ei .. .,Aw .., x.:.}. 4rYa Y..,�an.�.-�rn..i:�.�it+.!.r..,��.,f..'..;.::.�-J
OWN RENT OWN RENT OWN RENT
- .,.�'� ., . �'�'-:" '��':�;�.� c����-�..� � -- -v:-: t,: ; ;�>r ° �..,...,.� .. .� • ;r-.,,:; ;,...
m ClLil �'1���t�ig`'�t�tae�' � � �� ����:20°�' ��X� 16% .. .. _"�s,.F• 13% �� _,:23% _:,�� �k 9�°l0 ���,F�;10%;
y:.
.. . . _ ... .... . . � . .Z:.!>Sv':1,-.�..
Single parent w/ children 2% 4% 4% 5% 6% 12%
'��s'.�'�"3'.���,- '�'-°'s �" � r_.»^'"p...p'°r�„ :,�� �LS`'. .p � � ; r`,�,-,.. .. .0 "n-'g""'"'' v +�:K�,t o *" .%'^ .� � As ^f.
!Lh�-�►'�' ' "ii��,�:r.:rSF.� �' "%" ?��`5,!] V....a.J..,O �,•�,�;? �Ss +2 V ��0 ��'. � ��"'�% a�.t' r � rt:. � p : � ry. 0
,=J : 34 /o � 24 /o �. � r,� 30 f, .��,,..,;�',��24 ,/o �
.7+:. i1.4........t3s A : 6.�#.lfh.�<r.�Y. 'b.w.
Couple with children 21 % 8% 36% 19% 50% 43%
.. .�, ., � rap ,.+„�:. m'2'. j-"-'�:. , �;^ar... ; 4,:t.."' i.^LNl� ��w:,�,;. .y�: : - ,.,.,.. r:r. � r•%a
I���OTlit�!`�8S � ����`�.,,'-���� lo � , `�36%:.�..�....�.`�"� 6°/a ;.,;� _� 23% E "�``''"`; k ;3°,/ >� t�x o
- - ,.��.. . z� _ � :;�w _., . . � , � � ; o � 7l0
.,µ.rX...:�"v,..:t... �v�.r,£.�.a.
Family 8 roommates 4% 8% 6% 5% 1% 2%
"'*�j��, f `tt�� r"w��{�"°.e'� , �a}'ta �� . G :J'a:� `i5 , .. . :�„� ^r , , .< .:. �i1�i' '
,�3�. �P.�ri� �. ��"�'�:�� `���`?,� 3 R,..��.,3°l0 �,;� ��. ,���% � � �9 % � r �;,,-��-�_�% �� ;� 2°lfl
LT�� +— �.:�. �.. �,.:�.. :W ., l�._ �.�. �..�:, ..��. .�_
�b%��'•a'�7�5` 4!1�1���l�ii%?F1'7�� ,F -: � ! �: lti K � A� -..�' t _ ..� . i � ..: ' `,�wy . c. . -y�n+.Vn C�, .r�•4 � {•��w+',��.('•
��„�a� ��.� �-F�"-.��,,. �;� � � 100% � ,�� 100.°l0 �:t .:,��:.� 00% :�, _ ,_ 9 00% `.;...� M 100°l0 -��:1.!�a%
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 17
{
�
��
�
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Children in Households
Eagie County has an average of .7 children under the age of 18 per household. Vaii has
a lower average (.3) while down vailey has a higher average (.9). Approximately 63% of
households overall do not have a member under the age of 181iving in the home. Vail is
the least likely of the three areas to have children under 18 living at home. Only 17% of
Vail households have one or more children living at hame compared to about 37% mid
valley and 50% down valley.
�
4
m
�
�
m
a
c
�3
c
m
v`
t
U
`0 2
m
.c
E
'
z
1
0
Children in Home by Area
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percent of Area
Incomes _ __ _ _
Household tncome
_
According to the survey, the average household income in Eagle County is $85,889; the
median household income is $65,000. The median is very close to the Department of
Housing and U�ban Development's 1999 median family income estimate of $64,300 for
Eagle County. While HUD's median is for family income and the survey median includes
households consisting of unrelafed individuals, the similarity of the two figures is
evidence of the survey's validity.
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Page 18
_ _ ,
�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999 �
Nousehold income varies by area. Median household incomes are highest in the � �
EdwardslHomestead/Singletree area and lowest in Minturn/Red Ciiff. ,
Annual Househoid Income by Area
,�,,,�,.,f ,.f�.��.�i?;:'',°x2:F��i7^"'T-^;C,�ze.�,,,.ic;, r • "'.^r;,. . � ..>r.�- ^':7v {.x„�.. c.:z� :r;5,:' - sG.7•+'�'i,;a.-ie�.,,Y. .-2n.y.
'�� � '� Avera� e Median� "�NI"��:: � �
���������c�;.� r��:,3-.ta�::�v�"�_�,..�.;..._�_ _.. 9 ,... ��- mimum�:y,,.;�"�Maximum���
. ���
Vail $106,423 $65,000 $1,800 $1,500,000
- , _.:.,,. .�:..,:
� 't.'�'C�Ps.�� :, �. 1w�'tt ' ,..-�.",.. . ' . ,':5� •:rj��'..',"� RF',Y�i:t.,�.x., ' " ' '
I�llin#uRUR+�C1aCi1fF� k ° � ' S8„137 ✓ 55 . � � , � �:: �;;
��,- _�; � �x -� � $ _, �_�,�� OOO�A ��� $10 800 r �' $185 a00�
�._..:�..,r..'+u..+. �� v .� .: °lt'ci:y. : � Tf 7 7, . �t� i.tt�.-, � n �:._n,u.:.::,.�-
. . +w.r._+: t:
Eagle-Vail $90,009 $70,000 $8,000 $500,000
';�;°�`'n' _?� � ��"k � .� ; ,�, . _: $9f 989 $64 800 E�.4.;".$2 500 `°$T 500 ODO:
�..�,.W.;..�..,..,� ..� x�. . �..: _ _a . ..� � . . . . �. . . .. .... __ a . .....� . .... w
Edwa�ds/Homestd/Singletree $97,021 $80,000 $12,000 $400,000
. . .., . _.. .:
�.,.a91e�.�� :�'Y��' � f�, �
,.� . .:.. ...�. ,� ......._ : , :. ...$63,360 $60,Q00 "�:.. .._. $1,200 ;. , $400,000,:
Gypsum $66,760 $58,667 $1,700 $230,000
,��>,-- � �-r-�«�� - _ _ ._ . ..:. .. . .. .._
�,,R�t�ralareas��.M.�=:., ...,�?: .., ,'� _. ,�a.$119,375 _ $60,000 .. .�$40,Q04 _.,. .$500,000:
The income levels of households in Eagle County are dispiayed in the foliowing graph.
The largest segment has household incomes of $75,000 and above. The distribution is
somewhat skewed, however, toward the higher income levels because of the
overrepresentation of owners in the sample.
45°.S
40%
35%
30°�
25%
20°k
i 5°k
10°%
5%
0°k
Household Income Distribution
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn a�
rn rn rn o� m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn >
o� a> o� rn a, rn rn rn o� rn rn rn rn o
� ai v ai v' rn v rn v rn v m v �
N N c? � V�' s�' t[� tt� cp tD h
O O O O O O O O O� O O O O C
69 O O O O O O O O O O O O �p
O O O p O O O O O O O O 0
tq O � O tfJ O tf,> O tl') O tf! O p
N N (") C") Q sf � tl') fD t0 t� p
FA tA t9 19 V3 dl fH M tA fA (A fA �
h-
�
4
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 19 �
��
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
While the overal( pattern of household income distribution is similar in the three areas,
there are some differences. Vail has a higher percentage of incomes in the $25,000 to
$29,999 and $30,000 to $34,999 categories than the other two areas. Mid valley has the
greatest percentage of household incomes in the $75,000 and above range; almost half
of the household incomes mid valley are at this level. Down valley has the lowest
percentage of incomes in the range of $75,000 and above. It has the highest
percentage of household incomes in the $50,000 to $54,999 range of the three areas.
�o i
45%
40%
'm
>
� 35%
d
E
� 30%
c
�
'° 25%
�a
m
�
w 20%
0
..
v 15%
�
m
a 10%
5%
0%
Household Income Distribution by Area
rn rn
rn rn
v' ai
e— r-
O O
� O
tf)
tfl
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
N N t'�7 c+�7 'C V�' t� � t�D
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
f!i fA b9 V� � di Ef3 69� (fi
rn rn >
rn rn o
.L]
� ti @
O O C
Q O �
�A O p
� � �
�
ti
E!�
Distribuiion of household income by area is further broken down according to whether
;! one owns or rents. As can be seen from the following table, owners in all three areas
�� are much more likely than renters to have incomes at the $75,000 and above level. In
, I Vail, 56% of renters have annual household incomes below $55,000, while 56% of
j; owners have annual household incomes of $70,000 and above. In mid valley, 54% of
renters have incomes below $55,000; 56% of owners have incomes of $75,000 and
i� above. Down valley, 52% of renters have incomes below $50,000 while 57% of owners
� � have incomes of $60,000 or above. Down valley has the highest percentage of renters
i
i �I Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 20
i
(
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
at the lowest income level. in Vail, average househoid income for renters is less than
half that of owners.
Household Income by Area and OwnlRent
��"�,�,-..,�� �, - _ _ :- - -
ry..�. r.,,;,;r��: ,.:r �x�'`i�-�r" �-� M"�-�°3,,r; �
'�" ;;VAIL� � MID,�VALL � �"� � �� �� ���`�`�
� � � �. �:;. �
.������:� as R.��::.� �.�r��....�.�,�_�= .��:�._� t.: _ EY.���x � DOWN�ACLEI�E,���
:�....... ,..:�..�v.,� ,�. _
Household income OWN RENT OWN RENT OWN RENT
J.��+'"^?cJ��^?�y+xu�9y.v�rci,n�',r�. 1 »�ri ri:- - � fi•• ;�M ^_x7�r.� u
'�`' ' � i�H4�SC�.Y.'.l,�t!'.7�<c � �ii'r'..+:.t��t� � Y^iXt..�. :�':' / �it.}:...:� C.:: iR:��i,�;j^7?�.-�t.L'?7.:?,y�! 'rff'N!'1•'.0
� �;'�.v�9�'��''...��'�.���'%�r:i S �`'�.�,�0 `::.�:;�...:4% � �. �� .. ° ��a.+. N.......�.w 0""•.�ta`.� � � '�.y ��+� �r,` o
�"�:�:.i:"._�: �� � ia2��5::t:.,._ � ,a��._ . : i�.. �z10 K,'Y�0 �?�t^ .et .x�.y �.7Q�0. ��y�.7��0;
$15,000 —19,999 4% 1% 1% 2% 2%
��� ,.�...��.�r. �. _„ .. . . . ..: . _ . _., ..:.. �,... _ _ . .. ,.. ..M ...,.,,,,�. .. . �-,G c_,x <:. � ..i
t � �' " r o _;�;. .° ...... .,�_ �%f��:;;�;;K; .��° . __ w...�' _�„3°l0 3.t"`3��5%:
$2{� DDt�=�`24 999 1 !a ; �� 9 /o = � ! -�' ��`" '�-�.
u.:.�k�, :,7-..� :�a�.,,. ..,s�...,�. w ..�..,.,�.;.:.._. . . :.u..,r _ _ 4 _..> ,. � a,_,tw s%:.._ �.�._.�.
$25,000 — 29,999 6% 4% 2% $% 2% 2%
T.�-�,,;...�:�-:M.:::�x �---,�: -
�$��OCI,�—; w34, 999,�._ , .. "�_`�w..:..�..°� . ... .., w 9°l0 � _ '.4% ' �- ` 4%, �,��t � 7 x �
3 . ._ . .. .. . . Ive..-�.,.,....J.._' c,�4... .. . w....� �U i:v.....��+..� I��r
$35,000 — 39,999 1% 4% 2% 10% 4% 7%
j�.?�g.'� ry 'L C"sv„+5 '" fi•J � . C � . / i i ' ..Y ... .
�40i � 00 `�44 J99 , .t�..._ _.:;.�.... �°I4 ` _ ,410 s��.,�.w... �: � � % ' . ..� .�.. `....�.,.�b� 7%u � ��. .�7°la=
._ • .u.:W.. ��: :� . _ �.,, � . .. __. � . :. .... ,, _ , w
$45,000 — 49,999 1% 4% 4% 4% 6% 7%
�$50 fi?00� �4,999 �.,-1: '-c.�- �6�10 ,�.. _9°/0 . 4% 7% 10% 15%0
�::_ ._ . . . .. _. _ , . __. � .,_� __
$55,000 — 59,999 2% 17% 3% 7% 6% 5%
L"''� .'T"S�' °e ZF'f ' . . . . . , . . .. -. .
�$6(�`�,,�r00,',� 64a999 ,. . 7 5% 4% ' 7°l0 �; 8% - 11 °lo ?°lo
$65,000 — 69,999 2% 9% 3% 5% �y .._ ~�.~ 3% �.. �".' ....
F..�a?: � r`+s"aGw �t �xi'a . .�x . �. r .. -r k . � . . .r r .. . . . . 4x. �+�s . , .
�,�.(JO.,,a-�4;,999.�..,j.�'; ,s. �'�, �% � : 4% , fi°lo �� r ,. 4% � �-;.�;�� =r s 9°/'0 � � 2%
�....,_..�_..�..,_ �_u..� �_.,._. ..;_.., _�..� ._..... _.w�.._._.��._.�_. �...,�._.��� Y_�,�.�.. .�_.._.. . .
$75,000/ above 47% 9% 56% 23% 34% 17%
� ,
�� r-- �- ��.-
� ; �;� �'.�;���` i � .� ` `�= `� rr >�`�' ; 100% �- 1 QO% 1R 104°l0 ,�� 3 � .100% �� `z�' " � 00°lo h :�1 D.0%
�. at"�� �Mta..T'z.'�,`'f'��.2(nU>,is..ur..f:xu.' cS�-G....+.. _. c .:�1-.,. . _ L.' ..,. � . _ . .. i._...._.�..a..... .. - ._.ti., : 3'�� w..v
. . .,.3 F� ct:"Sr.w - U._��.. .... -. , _
Average $123,815 $46,165 $103,319 $54,130 $70,321 $49,022
�''� d a.'.n����������; $7p 000;$50;000 �°_�_$80�,00(1 ���$50}400 :�� �7� $fi0�D00 �,�45;OQ0;
.� �.�r� .:�..,_._._1..�,s. .,_. ,
The following table shows distribution of household income by town.
Edwards/Homestead/Singietree has the highest percentage at the upper income level.
Eagie has the greatest percentage of persons with household incomes below $20,000,
followed by Minturn/Red Ciiff and Avon. Note: There was oniy one response fram the
Beaver Creek area, therefore, valid conciusions could not 6e drawn about that area.
Rees Consulting, inc. Page 21 f �
�
i
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
Household Income Distribution by Community
.t��7
� F-�. �G-,�a-�—,--�.is�,..� ..� . ,.,- _ _ T.,-.���„�. _..:....7,., r">-.-^•^�-;�•,""--"�r(.--i'��,Y � ;:tnw . � x:
';F H,%E.��^. �y j4~�� I�i^' +s'�..=P<._�,
�' �:��_�,���,�;� �� Va�i� rrnturnl : E Eagie;� ; Avon y'Edwards/ rEagie �Gypsum ' Rurai
.����� �>� ���� , �'< ,��r t , . S �. - � : ..: ��: � �� .- ° �,K°`' < �- :b �' aceas., <.
�: l �.-�.� �.���x �:�.�:�::. �.Red Cirff t Vail �r� :.. ..� �::�.. �::. Hstd/ST .,� �:.�,�:�.. � }� tiFtt a ` � �
_,
�'�e, r.��a:�s�.. �.:i....:.`...�a.��.:.si,
` � $0 - 94,999 3% 6% 1% 4% 1% 7% 1%
C ...y,�.,..,?s�r.; '*>a,.•... _ .�:c!>�i�.°.,'y.r ar�;a -- . . .. .r.c,..�. . snrz:;Y'
I �'�i2' i E '�°;+$' a i .. . ,.._...�y:.... r � .4 . r ,t.;n.��;,;.• �•- ^�r,�+? ,
; ��n�DO�� z99;999 � , 7 %o f , � �- ,' � ;.` * o , ,
�..�,.�.�:x:....f��w,....�..�,-a ,�:ix:�.�,., ��:.3.�.>� :��; � r; .�4. �..% �. . _ 1 °lo r�;;<��r..? °�� �� ��2% �... ���a�� G_;�,� ���:...,_
$20,000 - 24,999 3% 1% 7% 2% 3% 4%
I$� 00, 29 999:. � �.._6.°!o t::..___...�.9% � � , _.1% 5% �-. �% :: _<n.�.3%' _r . :1.% s ... � ..{�_ -
t� 1:.. , . .. . .... .. , Yi.::� ..... .�.
$30,000 - 34,999 7% 9% 7% 4% 4% 3% 1%
I , 35,0,00'�`�,39�,999 . _. _2°la � ........._.�9.% ..��_... 2%. _s°/a ... �. .,,.,?.°�9 :_.,t,��4% ....._. _ ..7°.�u R ..,.,._..........�,
$40,000 - 44,999 2% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6% 13%
z,-�,s� � --,,:.:-.'..,�, ... , . .. _.
. .. .
: •.:, :: ,-.
��� �4b;�,5,000 49�999_ . 2% 3% 5% . 3% .5% 6% '� �. 5% 13%
, _ .. . ..,_. . ,_. , . _ _ . ._... ._._. . .. .. . ... . ... . . : ..
:' $50,000 - 54,999 7% 9% 5% 4%
..�^47,-..:^'� rsJ. k ri-f%' ' . . . .
, ` �55�000:� 59,999 ;. i._♦:_ 6% €'.. . 11.% .:. ,,: . � 4% 3% , , ,
j � $60,000 - 64,999 12% 11 % 7% 9%
H .,..,,�xrna'_... ,.. . ..
�$6�,4U00,,,:;69;999 � __.,_ 4% �.� .�� �%o � . 2% , �%
I � $70,000 - 74,999 8% - .....9% . 6% �% .. ..
i
, _ . .
E$75,000?±„�.�,.st,�w,.z ._._ 44.°.�o r``..._w�.:� 14°l0 � _ , _ 49% � 40°l0 _ � .
'I 100% 100% 100% 100%
,I
,i
lndividual lncomes
5% 8% 17%
. .2%;..��._6% � . _.. .. 6% ,_ _ .. .. .. ; . .
5% 9% 9% 38%
2% ' .2% ' - 2% r
4% 6% 11%
60% � 33% ; . _ .28% , , : : 38%
100% 100% 100% 10�%
The average annual income of individuais in Eagie County, according to the survey, is
$55,424; the median is $40,000. Again, this is somewhat high because of the
overrepresenfation of owners in the sample. Residents of Vail have the highest average
individual incomes; however, residents of the Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area have
the highest median income. Minturn/Red Cliff residents have the lowest average and
median incomes.
Individual Incomes by Community
Vail
Eagle-Vail
Edwards/Homestead/Singletree
Gypsum
Rees Gonsulting, Inc.
ta£'":',�='."�� "- �,;,rnr���r_-,;,,;:�'^,>�» y,. ,„,..••. �,y„ �
'J.' :SG 4 t� ji*ti'.. :ti: ' ti�-Y�i'._F7'^*' S
��1ve.rage�� z,IVfetliani�_��M�nimqr�;iJ�
$75,079 $40,000 $1,600
�-��.,�-.� � � ��
��::$38,07 �3�. D00� �'�'�¢.�0�
$59,883 $41,000 0
i" 4"' Y� Jti`P,�-:.�iy�): p': >� IRex✓"� �y'S �Z—cG! �' �„�i'o �'Fe v"�
���$56,v97� ���36,000.� s�,�� �`�� ����3a
$62,353 $45,000 0
�;�aYaA'.fiY�Y':�"'rs.5 c�.-.m-c.s:,trt� mr�-Aar.� �4:�«b"=c-�+x;'St,a
?3: :ii 'b�'` `� �� 5'itt :Dt�Y+�' � 7Y
� .. . . .
��-�$4'l. 34`��.� F;;�r$38`950� �, a���:�.:���U�
n'SLa..:w...Ma.,'��i a...4���:s.xw.,Z:u_..:a.c�... _.c..sa�:x'..,7C+is:AS��;�:., •
$40,155 $35,000 $1,500
x�j-t-r:•...,:�-„-�,�r� :t �4 'i;s�+rn-�+.vz �y�„ r �r�c"'*��''r`«+7"�"..i �,
�, <�64 C1D0 �:;�,�35,D00=;� � ,.„$'10 ,�00, � I
$1,500,000
$500,000
,�- ^:�,-.�,:
�'�;;�,.0;00„�
$400,000
�, �� ���
Page 22
��r..
Eagle County Nousing Needs Assessment 1999
The distribution of individual incomes overall is shown in the following graph. Similar
percentages of people have annual individual incomes at the levels between $20,000
and $44,999. The percentage with annual incomes at higher levels drops off until the
$75,000 and above level. About 18% of residents have annual incomes at this level.
The distribution is somewhat skewed toward the higher income levels because of the
overrepresentation of owners in the sample.
1 a �io
� s ��
� a ��
� s �io
i o �io
s �io
s °io
a ��o
2%
0%
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn n�
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn >
rn rn rn a, m rn rn rn rn a� rn rn rn o
v rn v ai v rn v ai v rn c ai v �°
N N f"') t") '� iT' 1n tA fD (D t� �
O O O O O O O O O O O O O C
fA O O O O O O O O O O O O �p �
O O O O O O O O O O O O �
� O tn O � O � O tl� O t[') O p
N N M M tT V tn u) �p tp h• p
Ui V1 Vf Hl 69 IA 49 ffi fR fA b9 V� �
n
�v
Individual (ncome Distribution
The differences in the distribution of individual incomes between the three areas are
shown in the following graph. Vail has more residents with individual incomes at the
$25,000 to $29,999 and $75,000 and above levels, although the mid-valley area has
almost as many ai the $75,000 and above level. The down-valley area has the highest
percentage of individuals at the lowest income level and the lowest percentage of
individuals with annual incomes of $75,000 and a6ove.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 23
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
30%
25%
d
>
d
�
d 20%
E
0
n
c
w
�+ 15 %
�
d
�
a
w
0
� 1 O °ID
d
a
�
a�
a
5%
0%
Individual Income Distribution by Area
,' rn rn rn rn rn c� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn a�
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn >
� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o
' v vi c m v m c ai v m v oi v �
� � � N N � � v v �n �n co cfl r- a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �
efl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, o 0 0
, i ui o �ri ci u�i o �ri o u�i co �ri o 0
N N t7 C7 C C' � t'!) tD tD t� p
bi 69 69 E!i (A E!i EA t� Efl 69 Ef3 U3 �
�
�
Length of Residency
Years Lived/Worked in County
There is a relatively high degree of stability in the population of the study area overall.
Based on survey results, nearly half of the population has lived or been employed in the
area for more than 10 years. This may be somewhat high because of the
overrepresentation of owners in the sample, however, as owners tend to have lived or
worked in the area longer than renters.
_ _ _ ._ _
, According to the survey, only 6°/a of residents have lived or been employed in the area
! i for one year or less and about 3°/a live in the area only during the ski season. The
,�
percentage .of seasonal employees should not be confused with seasonal ernployment,
, � however. Year-round residents often hold different jobs in different seasons to enable
�,_ I them to find sufficient employmenf to live in the area on a year-round basis.
Experience in other communities as well as Eagle County has demonstrated that
I;i seasonal residents are consistently under-represented in surveys, however. Developing
a firm estimate of the number of seasonal workers is made difficult by a combination of
factors including their lifestyles and employment patterns.
;
!l
;
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 24
i
Eagle County Nousing Needs Assessment 1999
>10 years
49%
Length of Residency
<6 months
— 3%
6 months-lyear
— 3%
�" '� ' years
/o
>b to iu years
17%
>3 to 6 years
17%
Vail has the largest percentage of residents who have lived or worked in the area more
than 10 years and the smallest percentage of persons who have lived or worked in the
area less than one year. Mid valiey has the largest percentage of persons who have
lived or worked in the area one year or less.
Length of Residency by Area
�o
�
�
a
�
0
c
m
u
�
m
a
<6 months 6 months- >1 to 3 years >3 to 6 years >6 to 10 years >10 years
�year
Rees Consulting, inc. Page 25
I
f
i
I.
Eagle Counry Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Length of residency varies by whether one owns or rents. In general, owners have lived
or worked in the community longer than �enters. About 55% of homeowners have lived
or worked in the area more than 10 years, while 41 % of renters have lived or worked in
the area less than three years.
so,c
so �
E 40%
m
c
m
�
C
a
� 30%
`o
c
0
m 20%
a
�0%
0%
Length of Residency by Own/Rent
< 6 months 6 months - 1 >t up to 3 >3 up to 6 >6 up 10 10 >10 years
year years years years
Length of residency also varies by where one lives. The largest percentage of owners in
all three areas have lived or worked in the area for more than 10 years, as shown in the
following table. While 63% of Vail owners have lived or worked in the area for over 10
years, 66% of Vail �enters have lived or worked in the area for less than six years. Ove�
half of mid-valley owners have lived/worked in the area over 10 years while almost half
of its renters have lived/worked in the area less than three years.
Length of Residency by Area and Own/Rent
�� 5r,p�'�°�-������.��`r�1��� VAIL ���� .�MID VALLEY: Y� r� D011VN ALLEYr� �
� L ... . ..3�7Xi.d.m.re� �6ie�^^-FSr�-..� .�,xt.ua�^r:: c;w�=.i'aws�._ . . ._ �.a.. .. . ....: .... . . uy�a.. :� -.,._ ..k.,... . .... . . . ....
OWN RENT OWN RENT OWN RENT
ii ?+ 2�3�`.,�"{'a'c'"�"�5'.:��� =a:,,y�` � '?� �.:r.� w'rT- .�, : r.%3'w:..4,�"^.TMy r �,., �.^'J,. y: ;� " ;c%�.�,. � � ��C�'.,�`-",:?c+ ""° �'`ri.'� i : -s '-?,�"r`t
I 1•��f. ; �, l y ...�,.� •.. {, €,y tl Yn is 4' � d Y� � � K 4x 1 4 E7 �
i �SS� a fi f110 �i1S-�� �.�°lo �' m���� „r.-.,:�-:� 2.%�',;.�:.E,12% ��4 �Y^�� ,t ��-0✓o ��....-���w$�;
�.-'^�,G� .-?'.E, _.. .�s i:�r��2� _:.a•,.°•,;:s;.. ._....e E'Ti.i:G:..* .�.'.:..5'S.��i� 4
6 months -1 year 1% 7% 3% 11 % 2% 2%
! ,,.,�»_ ,."','�v;" ..:.c'+'7,�;: f�'w'a-e:.yc,^;y^g.-� • {.iL�ir�.y4:'r,7+,'.^�ev �fY1.:—ys,;;j".°•:,.s',�':�>� i7.:�;�s-p;,�c;,,-. �x.�......,.�..f� gr_�"-<r+�t:n':i,� � ".^x.:+:C
E9''�p�n�L �O� eBiS x ;� < -r�;�� tit .;: fiolo :�' �.�.� "38% =r 3.$% ;�` .-��5% ' f � w12%o ��' �`12-°�0�
's+�'a�"��S.a+u:��t�.1I. '^ . c.r�.t.:i• ._.. �wi�Y..b::.��-. , e.,z..�.� .a_._ , ..., ... .._. .�..J x.�s� J,.i_........:..�, n"�.,L.a..r ..� �..t
`' 3 up to 6 years 12% 21 % 16% 24% 14% 35%
��.. L
. �,. . . . r �-. �-c�-�, n �s�s...y� �c.*.r.... ... � crrw n�� :,�.�. ...:r: �n:. - sr.s,:,;. tt.�..»;�:G• �. r �., • �*t-• F,?�r: �, ;:<".n .
,�F,,.. rt�T T'�i/^'�Y` .±��:. ��t���:N x-v O:. �y 0 � ..r�"� 0 t E{'�' p r I . r. r 'f� 0 F. p
,: � Q.����L7f�Q.t���.- ?�^+'T � 3" t Y���O °r�f ��/0 �.:� ...u191o.� ...��.,=.:8.1� ��tf_;�:.:: �,n ��0. �".tx,.�, ��1�.�6
:w�+ua. A...rrwu�+rH.✓41G�w.:iir....1Y.:�w.:...� !:{x�t1GiD�W�r�.�..•
More than 10 years 63% 24% 52% 21 % 56% 18%
- -.. .�;:�N�;�^ -
��'�^'w,��vY^�� �^ ,y:,h,l'°''� r � -e- . _. „„ . ,. .. .�.__ .. . .-.,. .. � c s,:
I s`�,-^�`';�..�� °���„�.�`�`,��„�:..:� w�,��:,��;�X _ .. 9,00°l0 � , 9 DO% .' . 1,OQ% . ,�� 00% _. _ _ . _ 100%0 ,� ,�1 O,O�o;
'i
!i
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 26
_ _ _ _ _
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
!•1 .' • r►'_.
This section of the report examines employment patterns in Eagle County since jobs
primarily drive demand for housing. The following topics are covered:
• Employment status
• Number of jobs and employees;
• Job and population growth;
• Employment by industrial sector;
• Average number of jobs held by employees;
• Number of hours worked per week;
• Seasona( fluctuations in employment;
• Working at home;
• Employer perception of emplayee housing problems;
o Unfilled jobs;
o Irnpact of housing and transpo�tation on employment;
• Language barriers;
• Seasonal employment;
• Job growth over time;
• Projected changes in employment; and,
• Job:space ratios.
Employment Status
Approximately 90% of Eagle County's adult population work:
• About 68% work for employers;
_ .
0 23% a�e self ernployed; and,
• 9% are not employed (retired persons, homemakers, students, persons seeking
work, etc.).
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 27
_ __ . _ _
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Self Employed
23%
Employment Status
Not Employed
9%
for Employer
68°/a
There is little variation in this pattern among the three areas examined. Vaii and mid
valiey have equivalent percentages of self-ernployed persons; Vail and down valiey have
higher percentages of unemployed persons than mid valley; and mid and down valley
have higher percentages of people working for employers than Vail. The differences are
no greater than three percentage points, however.
Ernployment Status by Area
Not Employec
Self Employec
Work for Employe[
0% i0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent of Area
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 28
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
' Number of Jobs and Employees
There are now approximately 38,140 fuli- and part-time jobs in Eagle County as a whole.
This estimafe was derived by inflating the 1996 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
estimate of 30,286 full- and part-time jobs in Eagle County as a whole by 8% per year,
the average annual rate of growth in wage and salary jobs reported by fhe Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment for Eagle County for the 1994-95 through 1996-
97 time period.
This estimate is significantly higher than estimates often quoted frorn the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment. The State's estimates include wage and salary
positions covered by unemployment compensation insurance, referred to as ES 202
jobs. ES 202 jobs do not include exempt wage and salary positions (i.e. jobs with
ce�tain utilities and non-profit organizations including churches) or sole proprietors (self-
employed persons and jobs on commission such as real estate agents). The State
estimated there were 24,729 wage and salary jobs in Eagle County on average in 1997.
The following graph shows the relative growth in total full-time and part-time
employment, wage and salary positions, and proprietars' employment between 1990 and
1996 in Eagle County as a whole. Wage and salary employment rose steadily during
this time period while growth was much slower for sole proprietors.
ae000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Employment Estimates, 1990 - 1996
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Source: U.S. 8ureau of Economic Analysis
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 29
Eagle Counry Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Empioyment estimates represent the number of fuii-time and part-time jobs in an area.
They should not be confused with estimates of the number of employees. In most
mountain resort communities, multipie job holding is typicai due to low wages, seasonal
and/or part-time work, and a high cost of living.
It is estimated there are currently 31,785 employees in all of Eagle County. This
estimate was made by:
� Taking the total employment estimate generated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis for 1996 (the most recent year available) of 30,286;
• Inflating it by 8% per year to reach an estimate of 38,141 jobs in 1999; and,
• Dividing the number of jobs by 1.2, the average number of jobs held by each
employee during ski season.
This estimate is for the county as a whole. The Bureau of Economic Analysis does not
provide data at the town IeveL
Job Growth Compared to Population Growth
Eagle County's population increased at an average annual rate of 5.7% between 1991
and 199i. During that sarne time period, it is estimated that jobs grew at an average
annual rate of 7.6%. The average job grov✓th rate is almost 2% higher than the
population growth rate, indicating that the number of locally available employees needed
to fill jobs has not kept pace with the growth in employment; commuters are filling jobs or
jobs are being left unfilled.
Population and Job Growth Compared
4 ''a� x_i a.*'�'•••?'.f'!{v�-� . -5,� .,�,�..;.._�,..:�y �v—K ,; ,,,k.,'i,�y'S'ya �,''t'g}",4.t�&e�, c�'1'^r°?:�s.: .xr . T
�����;�,��.,� � opulation �.� � ate�o# Cha .nge �� �„�YTota obs,�� ��Rate.�of Change �
1991 23, 073 21,103 '
�.wa��'y'�Ty:+�z" � ti �r� z,r��tl�'�',°`-,�g C adYtS�'�"x=�'g2"a•,,a.rer5-ze�,? r<cnfi' ..j�" �a'
.99� � e�`� 4w2�:3'��" �9%0��.� _���.�����` .u� �° }���
�� ���.,.w...rus�se� '.^ 'r �-" K'*` rs � � � IO':', �s awex
1993 25,716 6.2% 24,212 $.9%
J94.��� � ��..�6$"� �- ��'`�".� "fi:8�°lA �`��"`�• %'r � "` �,�6 �`� ;: ' '' r, r�.��"°o,�`;��
..�,��. a �;::,d:��.,:�. .� .�.,,�..., .�.
1995 2$,860., ,. 5.1 %, 28,517 6.7%
Z(w�% 1� �+�+�w��i 'Y'v'6P}�TiM� �'.E°^t�j1�'^�Y �'T�.�z�r�a+�� R �: -�,
���� � . ����.�._.... Z�r,�'�r''�.�f�`,.�.�.�.'�'�O> "'��.a� �...�'fis,,, ���� ��V�� �, p..�'�}S7 L��p�� _�TT��� c
.�1'�eSw..�.� � �4'S,.
1997 32,099 5.6% 32,706. 8.0%
(projected) (projected)
Source: Colorado Division of �ocal Govemment Demography Section, U.5. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 30
,
1
��
�_ J
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Employment by Industrial Sector
Approximately 58% of the wage and salary jobs in Eagle County are in the retail trade
and services sectors. As reported by the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment, the ave�age 199? wages for these jobs in Eagie County were $19,492 and
$24,921, respectively.
Services
36%
Wage and Salary Jobs by Industriai Sector
Transportation and
pubiic utilities -0ther (mining, ag,
3% wholesale)
Government 3%
Construction
15%
�anufacturing
2%
Finance, insurance, real
estate
12%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
etail trade
22%
BEA reports that 15% of wage and salary jobs are in the construction sector. According
to the survey, construction and trade jobs are the primary source of income for 13% of
Eagle County residents.
The following table lists the primary source of income foc individuals, as well as the
average annual wages by type of employment. The average incomes may be somewhat
high because of the overrepresentation of owners in the survey sample.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 31
_
i
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Average )ndividual income by Type of Empioyment
�.?�,`"-'r,;�;i't�roM�°cw;�""f,�„�..+�n;gn,a�.��r--��,.�rY i.,-cr-...; ;_..�.. ..,.�,.— .,� c�n .h,„� '�C r �
��rimar.,y�ource:�of:income` _ Indiv�iival income fOla lnd�v�duals�
_. .. _. .... _ _.._ W ...�„ r ......,._._.r..._..... .
Professional services $73,136 27%
_����{tx';�a,�t'..''..,`�_^��,;�„y�f:,,Fi;t,'w�..'"-'L;?.:'="� _ . : 'T:bT��.-�^- -�r,.^-' Li-S:r'a�tt'_.. L•'w.�-r1,+°•� ��-..r.zn� P ;;'sF4s.
�r��ctioNtrade ������„ �.:..��...w. .. .. a.s_��62,025:�,,�., � . �;� ?¢�',�,3��.�.� 7'� (
- s.,. :...��,'�.�r�
Retirement $63,134 10%
�` �' ,f�:n s�'Z4�':�"c`"+�"�+a^",ri"`",,,,-- �-'F^�* r= -r R'r. : a:=a-, .. , , � „-+« �,� r f,C, a n-^a3�:�;�^:
r���rem erii- .�,.�'� � , - .,�:.�' °� �� I
�.:�,-� ���� � 1 .�.._......__ ..,L� . , ���,584�._.���. �� � �9°l0 � isF=�:��
• •..•.7F:l.u�.�..<. '�..Caw.....'.-l�w
Service $39,315 8%
�'Y od1 � }lhofel/B&B �,�, .._:.. � ; ��3,840 ��t.� ;u �� _Y�..,.° .,�.� ��
.� >�.�..�,..�.�,.........��y��--��- � 6✓0-� ;-
School district $32,622 5% �
-�,�:---� *.z--,�.-y �.^r.x.,��.-__� _ �.,_ . �. . _- - �
(
�eta�ilgrocery/I�quor � ? :;::�� �56,436 5°l0
�.,�x.. �...�.. �.. ._ ._�...,_�,�.._.._ . _ . .... _._ _, ... ... .�._ ._.. _... .... ... _...
Bar/restaurant
,,,:� Y:�- _-._x.�. .:: ,.�;,-:w.,.
$37,678 5% I
Recr�eation/att�actions ��.,,,_...�..__. ._.._��:,�.�.$36,053 �_...�,� 5°10 , ��;
.n.«sw.��..n «r.n .wa . .. _.�..._ r . . .. v. a.r�.�.. r....r....�..-L.Y ..�.
Real estate sales $82,548 3% �
i?roPe.��Y�.management��4 ��_,,. �::_ . . Yw.. �9,933.,_ ,. ._........ . 2°�0�. �,. ..;.
Utilities $44,488 1 %
1Ulaniifacturing� w4',�Ff, t,., .�ry $51,050 F� r_0% �
...,..,�:. -�.x.: , ,, r. . . .. .. �._. . ,.., ._ . a ..... �., ...�.
ParenUinheritance $71,667 0%
r''��""�`Tlyr��.:a, s .+.- -'. � . i yr . . 1 � d. � � . "�� . "'r;. �
�V'ar�etiouse/storage �-�'��y�. ,_ . _ �, � A � ;
- _ _ _ . .��,�.:x. ��.:_.. _ f�.�, �2,500.�:� . __ �:_..��.�.�0°l0���:_.�:
100% _
Variations between the three areas exist; mid valley has the largest percentage of
professionals while Vail has the largest percentage of retired persans. Down va(ley has
the greatest percentages of persons wo�king in construcfion/trades and in government.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 32 �i
t,
i.
i
�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Primary Source of income by Area
! ' S�,""�"' �`r'.Sh-t�.�,+•—•� tKi „'i'{1 +krt x - - � a?^_ ,.;,.*- •:.,-.- ., ..�� � y.,...s..�, =.arvL.,,�w,�,d .
� '. ���;�'��'�3�'�;�_,�w:��,� •' � �; ��.�„ i/A1L _ r � _, �MtD. VALLEY= eUOWN VALL ��
.� - ...�:�,......�....._El��
Professional services 24% 31 % 21 %
-a. �-� � �:;�� . �: -; —�;,-.—r:.. �.. 1. ;,;�;••-.�-s� .�-� .�
� zorts'tr �tiotiltraties„��� �:�� �.. ��g°� :... wF � �: � ;92°l0 ��.-� �R � ; <� 810�..��` �
�
- ,.�.��. �.�.,.-�,.
Retirement 12% 9% 10%
��"��.��;����.�.��.*� .. .� ;_ .. � , ,
t.. ,.,,, 1x .n, fi,+�Fy'sy�.:� 1 r' . �x' 0 r�', ''�x 4 r:ti^""'4 � � y. 'jY"aw. T,
� �:7Cii/i'.rt'lflaGnt_...Y..r.:y�;::`n ''�t.. . u�...,.,.._...._��4 _,....... r.,..�"1....._..m, rJ �0.'�.� ✓ r:,!sa�-..,."�'t+:,..,...�'.�..,,'x � V°!O_�'"r �.._
; Service � 9% 7% 9%
��-.�,�;gPr:f'-r,.:�::,,"c .._.�.,..,,,",.� ,.m`,�.:�. r,.�, v,,. ;, . �-.r,� _ _ .,..,,s.,.._,,, �,+e✓?,'C;''� �:=',x'"��'r'';'...: �n.• �r,.,«�r� .
�L�o�gir�g/hoteUB8�6 . � .. o "' 1 a } ,� 1� f .� 5
,�,_ �,.is...,,.�� :.,�.....�;�;..rJ' �o ,.:.r. � �, �%�a�,.:�"--�,� _,''�'�7t�l,,+ti..fp,5.'�b+.:
. . . .. .. . . , u ia.. ....,w...>..'I i:4� .
' j School disfrict 6% 4% 7%
E'�� "'�%`Y';?' ,,� � , zi �+ ."1'u'�' }.xt'"c' . � F'- .-^t -. � , . . �u4 tz " c
�ftetail/g�ocery/liguoc � �� r: � . ._: 7°fa._ . ' °` '`� .�r� 6%' < „� t � _ � � 3°lo r ��
�
. .. ... ..,- �....:_. .. _.�.:. �� e:,...,w v... ,�.�.. .
� i Barlrestaurant 6% 6% 2%
`: ��'�,:rr�.F;.::,�:.':`Ti�!;.'tt'.etr.ifs�.+�t:p �. (;. .-'r �.r,. }° . . RF �.++'�j'�4...r �i . �. Sr ,�fi .ya
�f�ecreaticinlattractions;�� F� :7% , �5°l0 }f,: �;� t �r �;4% ``
... 6_;.�..._w . ,.r,. ..�.,.-- -., . _�s?.'• �.1..�_..__._...�_ __.....�
i I Real estate sales 4% 3% , 4%
��n • � 1�v�-r,� . . � . -+r^^, rv • .
�Rropert�y management<.m .. ._., .. . 1_% .... ..,�., 3%�.: �� °:._..� . .. _,._�°�a . ..
�,
Utilities 0% 1 % 1 %
��y � >�c- o � � .
� �N1an�ifactunng H ��' ` � � ` 1 % � L ` � '--�' : �
. . I . z..��.x,�.�i:�w 4....� :_ ...,. _..,�,. .. . . ....s. ._ _...,.i 0 /o.��-�,«��-`r: �w._ .:...'�,..t:":�._.: �..%� � . _..c�u
ParenUinheritance 1 % 0% 0%
�ehouselstorage�`�,�������' �:1%��� Y�r�.,� o-,����� , s ����`p%^,�`�i�:
.��.. w.,....� ,�.:,. _ . _:;:.,.E �.:,�:.w�_..�.�? �:r�F . �....�.�.:�.�;_ � . ._ ..,.,...
100% 100% � oa�io
Nurr�ber of Jobs Held by Employees
1999
The estimated 31,785 employees in Eagle County hold 38,140 jobs on average during
the ski season when about 23% of county residents hold two or more jobs. Only 14%
hold two or more jobs during the summer and 12% hold finro or more jobs during the fall
and spring seasons. Greater percentages of Vail residents hold two or more jobs in.the
summer and winter seasons. Only 4% of county residents do not hold a job in the
winter; almost everyone living in Vail holds a job during ski season.
_ _ __ __ _
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 33
.
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Number of Jobs Held by Season
��;��y "���,� # of Jobs `OVERALL �;. VAIL r , �MID i .;� �:� DOWN i .
����..Y.. .�«.. t� � E �
-�.`�:r�'.`'�"�"'r ;�.::. k :.y�.:...: _� ' �,_...:r�.::.... . ._ .. :, VALLEY . . ,.VAI.LEY
SUmmer 0 9% 1 Q% 9% 8%
_... __. __ � �._..: .. . _ . ,._.. _,76°k � _ . .72%. ; � �76%0� , ��:'. ::�;79°fo`-;
�:�
2 12% 17% 12% 10%
:_.... ;� ..., ... .
;;; : :;; _'. 3 .:.. ,., ...;�� 2% 1% 2% 2°10
Average 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Y� i ��i.'�n' .f,�)' S tt ' ' .:
`�:S��t'����SOtI�. '� ,�;.� '.M "�..4%. ... .._ 1°l0 ; ...: .4% .. _ 4%;.
������"`�` ��=`w 1 74% 73% 72% 78%
�'�''�Y��;'� .�
��, .,�-� x �,�
?%� �rF�kA*.�js { � � r , , ,. O ' 0 0 O
� ,�;,�'�,.�,r„� �,k . 2 . . 18 Jo 20 /0 19 /0 14 /o
"5��,� �a`•�,�j,�'4:"?;'.:':: •r:� 0
�•` ���;� -.3:- 3 5% 6% 4% 4%
-���:.�,� ...�;;::.
���,:'� s�te'�t�t..�,. ,. `::-_: ", _...,
Ave;cage� �; A, _. 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
Spring/Fall 0 10% 8% 13% 6%
. .
: ...:. .. � . ,. , ; 7$% $0°10 74% 83%
2 10% 11% 12% 8%
'',: , ..,.;.3 . , ._ _ . _ .. �:;.2°�u .' 2% 2°10 3%..
Average 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Most Eagle County residents have the same primary job in the summer and in the
winter. Vail residents are somewhat more likely to have a different job in the summer
and wi�ter seasons.
,oc
sa
eo
�o
so
°,6 so
ao
30
20
10
0
Seasonal Job Changes
Same DiNerent
Rees Consulting, lnc. Page 34
I�
�
� ,
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment '1999
Hours Worked Per Week
On average, employees in Eagle County worked 43.5 hours per week during ski season,
40.3 hours per week in the summer, and 37.2 hours per week in the spring and fall.
Residents of all three areas worked the most hours per week during the ski season and
the least hours per week in the spring and fall seasons.
Average Number of Hours Worked Per Week
x
�
m
3
�
m
a
v
m
�
`o
3
�
_
0
x
m
�
A
�
m
>
Q
Vail Mid-val�ey Down valley Overall
Seasonal Fluctuation in Employment
Eagle County's seasonal fluctuation in employment is typical of patterns in other
_
counties where destination ski resorts are located. The number of jobs peaks around
December and drops sharply in May. In 1997, for example, there were 6,659 fewer jobs
reported by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment for May than for
December. Using a standard of 1.2 jobs per person, this means there were 5,549 fewer
employees in May than in December. The seasonal pattern of ES 202 employment in
1997 is illusfrated in the following graph.
i
,i,,
�
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 35
I
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
30,000
25,000
c
E 20,000
�
a
n
E
w
m i5,000
m
�
a
c
R
N
�
>� ����00
7
5,00�
0
Jan. Feb. March Aprii May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Empioyment, Labor Market Information
ES 202 1997 Employment by Month
Location of Work
The vast majority of Eagle County empioyees work at the empioyer's piace of business.
Only 12% work primarily out of a home office or in a vacation home.
Where Emptoyees Work
Primarily servicing
second homes
5%
Primarity in vacation
home
�% �-,
At employer's place of
business
83%
Primarily in home office
11%
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 36
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Siightly more Vail residents work out of a home office than mid-vailey or down-valley
residents, and slightly less work at the empioyer's place of business.
Where Empioyees Wo�k by Area
Primarity servicing
second homes
Primarily in vacation
home
At employer's piace of
business
Rrimarily in home office
D 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percent oi Area
About 29% of Eagie County residents have their primary winter jobs in Vail, with the
same percentage having their primary winter employment in Avon/Beaver
Creek/Arrowhead. Very few residents have their primary winter jobs in Gypsum or
Minturn/Red Cliff.
Location of Primary Winter Employment
MintuMRed Cliff
3%
Gypsum 1
3°� . � I _ Olher
Eagle-Vail i �°�°
6% ' ':i�::
.'u_,:;,
Eagle
12%
Rees Consulting, Inc.
AvoNBeaver
Creek/Arrowhead
29%
Vail
�.,_ 29°h
Singletree
11%
Page 37
I.
Eagle County Nousing Needs Assessment 1999
,)
i
Length of Time in Business �
The employers responding to the survey are, for the most part, well established. Almost
haif have been operating more than 20 years, and almost three-fourths have been
operating 10 years or more.
How Long Employer Has Been in Operation
> 20 years
45%
2 - 5 years
14%
1 V � GU YCtlfS
29%
5 - 1 o years
12%
Employer Perception of Employee Housing Problems
The employers surveyed were asked to indicate which of various categories of
employees have a f�ousing problem, then to rank the housing problems on a scale of
one to five (one = no pro6lem, three = moderate problem, five = major problem).
Overall, employers thought entry-level professionals have the most serious housing
problems, followed by general laborers and seasonal workers. Upper management
employees were perceived as being the least likely to have problems with housing.
..s
.
�.5
�
2 .5
2
1 .5
1
Employer Perception of Employee Housing Problems
ae��ona� cnvymve� M�a-mpmt Uppermpmt KcbiUservice Gcnllabor
workets proletsionala olerks
Rees Consutting, Inc. Page 38
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Employers were also asked which is a bigger problem for their business, employees
being unable to find affordable rental units or employees being unabie to purchase
homes. Over twice as many empioyers thought the bigger problem was that empioyees
are unable to purchase homes.
Unabie to
horr
68%
Unfilled Jobs
Bigger Probiem
Unabie to find
^u^rdable renta! units
32%
The empioyers responding to the survey reported they currently have a totai of 229
�, unfilled full-time and 196 unfilled part-tirne jobs for a total of 425 unfilled jobs. These
same employers reporfed that they had 7,482 year-round and winter full-time jobs and
, � 2,069 year-round and winter part-time jobs, or a total of 9,551 peak season employees.
� Applying these findings to fhe area work force as a whole, there are currently an
estimated 1,678 unfilled jobs. These estimates were arrived at by taking the ratios of
unfilled jobs to total jobs reported by the employers surveyed, then multiplying by the
estimated total number of jobs in Eagle County in 1999 (38,140).
The employe�s reported_they.had a_total of_1OS unfilled full-time and-102-unfilled-part--
time jobs this past summer (210 total jobs). They had a total of 4,474 year-round and
summer full-time jobs and 651 year-round and summer part-time jobs, for a tofal of
5,125 employees during the summer. Applying these findings and using the above-
described methodology, there were an estimated 1,564 unfilled full-time and part-time
jobs last summer in the wo�k force as a whole.
The bar and restaurant industry reported the highest average numbers of currently
unfilled full- and part-time jobs. Government had fhe highest average numbers of
unfilled full- and part-time jobs this past summer. It should be noted, however, that
, Rees Consulting, Inc. Page
;j
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment � 99g
�
i
these findings may not be representative of all empioyers in the study area due to the
size of the sample. ,
Average Number af Un�lled Jobs by Type of Business
_ .,;�_� h�.��� .�;r�:. �,,,: ._ _ .._ .,,- - -- _ ,-.r..w..�....
� � .. . ^ . ,,,,._,,, •�..::=��•*a�. � ,, �,-�T,�,,��
�� ���Type�of Busmess ��, ,Current . ; ., Current;r � Sumrner,. � Summe`r� r
� :.;�`���' �� �t ? � �. �.L_s �'�._:_.�_�,..�,, .�` fuli. time � . P..art, t�me � � Yfxill-time �` � � ��
_ . ..� . .�y, �,:Part::time.c�.:
Bar/restaurant 2g 2� 7 6
�4' a�cra."'� 71'^T' h r'F P,.�"'!'rs� ,� ."' s. .. ,
� e:crea£ioNattractions/amusem ` tl ' �
; D;
, 9Q ��10 � � 1
�`��z(��i��� � ��"r l' �'��t�'�f r,'` ' �-�r `3�
� �t.a�.,.c..�tve+,E,Frw..�.Y...�r:.�:�...<�Li....,.__......�.w�� �. _..,,_..., ... . , .. _ . . ,. .. _.. �. �..<.._....i.wr.s.. ...,..,.. _..... 4 „��.._�..Y, .�"�t S t r i�+
SC_ _ ..
Retail/grocerylliquor 0 0 0 0
�.:��.�R�. ; �.� �-.-.� x .� - - -
��Qte��. ' �j
. a _ .
, �+ .
.r__ {��.r, ��cxR�iY.,�.�....�.y .... . ,_ _. � . .. ,. ... .__... . v . .. .. . � _. ., ' O ... . .. . .. ... . 37..' _ ._
Property management 0 0 0 0
Fii�..:a.snis`Yt''A _ :� . . ��- . . . .. . . .. ...
�. .
�;.CornmerciaLsernces � � p � p � '
...�...�.�._,.__.._.. .W.....� ....... �,.. ...��._. .,�.._ .. _. _ . ... _. . _. � .,....� � _..�.,.. ,,._. _..,.�?�w.....,..
Professional services 0 0 1 0
T �
;` Govemment Y 12 .19, . _ _ _
.
12
,.
.....�..�,..,...._. � _.._...�..,, ._ :.,w. � ...: �.. ... _ , ; _. ..: . . �
. : �,._. . �. .
.
..
.. . .
.. .
.. . . . ....... .. ... : : 14 .: , ".; __ "-
Real estate 6 2 0 3
a .
F lJt�iit�es'x � ; , 1 0 _
�..:_�.y....,.,..h...,�_ .....��,_r .. ' � 2
,.�.__ .. .... _... _ :
�,-
_....._� . .... �....,_. ... .. 0......-..
Construction/trades 3 0 1 0
� ���.-�� _ _'�.�'_ a._�_, f � ._4;:,. . .��.._ . � _. �.�., _ 3. � , 1 2 1
_... .. .. _.._�..y ..,. . ........
Irnpacts on Employment
The employers surveyed were asked how many peopie were not hired or left their
employment last year because they lacked housing, transportation, day care, or parking.
On average, about four persons per business were not hired or left because they lacked
housing; much smalier numbers were not hired or left for the other reasons.
Housing, Transportation, Day Care and Parking impacts
�"'�'-`,�," ;�.c'y.� i'"'�r� .`'�,r 5�'4-. �y �'Y ^�+a�*.r.r^...,F m�r•�. Yr�''R'S'�^r� s*�r rA �s�. y-"" rr t�'�,�"rivf�-�r`�'°�
�,x��.,�� � ,� ,;` ,,� �� �� ��.� # Peopte ,�;��'� F� �a�People b �`
�' �' �� � r '�'� 4 � �Q. 'n r .s�X� �. f y �c t r,�� �"�'��y'
,�, �s �-t�"�� r�� � G � , � � ��,��NOt� H�red/Left��- � � ;1 ������ t����.�`�
2 -3+ RF'� , � �� J, �ra
..�..��_.�.�� � .�:��.. �w�.�.s.,�....,r...� .�� :Not:Hire . Left,����`
�
Lacked housing 139 3.86
�����._, �l•,"•�im�2fi�...�'�',�''fi°71 vY�""�'t �'rz` z °s�%'�;;,} �+�:t,�q,yr,a,�a.�:. ; � xC:Sre=' � ^'���y�r' s'� �5� � "�""",v%' Q
F, :F� .ti/ ���p �.j ,t i t,�r t4 :�" � ^J ,7ea„ �G7�
VI\fr�i'.tr,ans;�rtafion3� �'s� L �q��, e�'i .l +ry,%-�;'� /��f_�q'�L�I�iw" r,� tG'a.t, vte (i !t
::..:s:��.:_u.a.a�w.�c.wLawr,_.:5�_ .as<a�r.w.�xif.�so-�;.u.�+..i���s.. �.:�,"�,u,iLr.x..�':i.u.:.�r'L'A�b...��ui'_�"ib..�C� : ,�' '�LU�"�-.Y'�t1 ��.kr������
Lacked day care 7 ' .26
�i�ac"�.�"'e",-�"'��r«".s"T`H°"t.�wk."..„�:'-,�', } _"+�,'� 6�5Y"Cr�s �-��.-',,i�,�"�»�� G��i,,'t"�'"�'i -5 � �s Y '�
ed �i3�� � :��at� YaEE r, ; � �. { r ,,:r r ,, 1�^.,s a' �' �i,h ,r".r+.,�'. .�x nt�',,{.,,:'
�L:..n.�st'.www��.z..�i'f`*.t�a'� ,t.y1.', ��"'si 2;��.''e.�.e�,me.e=..'t*..f.t?�.�'�"'�'ii:,t�`�`xas��,��::i�;� ��a��s:.��.��-�}��.u.'"'�'.� 7� �
About 12% of empioyers surveyed reported they had moved their primary business in �
the last three years. None thought the mave improved their ability to find employees,
however.
� ,l �,
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 40
�'
Eag(e County Housing Needs Assessment
!'
Language Barriers
1999
Employers responding to the survey reported a total of 727 empioyees who do_ not speak
English as their first language. Based on the sunrey resuits it is estimated that roughly
2,420 employees in Eagle County do not speak Engiish as their first language. This
estimate was arrived at by taking the ratio of the number of employees who do nof speak
English as their first language (727) to the number of full- and part-time year-round and
full- and part-time winter jobs reported in the survey (9,551), then multipiying by the
estimated number of Eagle County employees in 1999 (31,784).
Summer Seasonal Employrnent
Employers estimated that most of their summer seasonal workers live in standard
housing (apartments, mobile homes, townhomes, etc.).
Type of Housing for Summer Seasonal Employees
Motels
2% —
Non-winterized cabins
0% —
Camp
Standard housing
94%
Job Growth Over Time
Over three-fourths of employers surveyed reported they have more employees today
than five years ago, while only 7% had fewer and 12% had no change.
� Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 41
!
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Number of Employees Today Compared to 5 Years Ago
More employees today Fewer employees today No change Not in business five
years ago
Almost 38% of those employers reporting an increase in the number of their empioyees
cited expanded hours or a more demanding clientele as the main reason for the growth.
It appears that these employers are doing more business with the same square footage,
thus necessitating additional employees. Another 25% have increased the number of
employees due to an increase in size or number of locations. About 37% of employers
chose °othe�' as the main reason for having more employees today.
Oth
37°
Main Reason for Additional Employees
Increased size
;'— 17%
Increased number of
Iocations
8%
More employees in
same space-more
demanding clientele
19%
employees in
__..._ _pace-expanded
houts
19%
_ _
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 42
l i
I
�
'
��.
��
,I
�
�,
(,
' ,
l.
� � ,.
I.
I,
1 �
� �.
� ',
� ,
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
I Projected Growth
A6out 42% of the employers surveyed anticipate increasing the number of persons they
empioy during the next year. These employers stafed they intend to hire a totai of 75
employees. Based on these results, it is estimated that 300 persons wili be hired in
Eagle County during the next year by existing employers. This estimate was arrived at
by taking the ratio of the number of persons employers plan to hire (75) to the total
number of full- and part-time year-round and full- and part-time winter jobs (9,551 }
reported in the survey, then multiplying by the estimated number of 1999 Eagle County
jobs (38,141).
Increase
42%
Job:Space Ratios
Projected Change in Employment
ttte sarr�
58%
The number of jo6s created per 1,000 square feet of space varies by type of business.
Impacts to housing caused by commercial growth can be understood by quantifying the
typical number of jobs required for certain uses. Standards can then be adopted that
require new comrnercial development to provide housing in proportion to the need
created by the new development. The following figures can be used to develop such
standards for commercial finkage programs.
Eagle County employers were surveyed to determine the ratio of employees to floor
area. These data were merged with data from surveys of sixteen other mountain resort
communities* to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
,
I Rees Consu{ting, Inc. Page 43
�!
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
1999
I,
Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet and Per Room/Unit by Business Type
�,\* w�� x.���?L y.-a�S�'"' Okr:^^a�vr:r)i.�,..- -�e..: . _ ' ' :.:.w+n•.-1: � �.:e�� p:x�'�J- .a. J'y 7rti,-u�
! z::2. �� Yf i v� AYr ' fc. . a . � � + � . �Y.r �s�'� �'4` ���..`s'iC'�t�.
�a ��5.���h� �� �"�.�°TYpe bfi U�e � � - � Employees Per ,x ># Ca,(�si.,�es �;�'�.
i'+�r.yr�f, j y�,�+ys�.a7r� .j,-""�^g ri .y.� �a .�. .� a . - K � � c � . r^ $',�.( /� ' F r , e7'f'�'.,,,� 1 L r'a� t �`y�, ".�"��"��f.s.:i$"..�'
i�c. �'�:�P-.•��"��i_� �; �.i,r�� �"» .. 1� � �_� - -- •-� r�, i 0��'V0._.Sry ui�re�,'F�t- �� � � t�� � 'u' ��
s. , �a„�„ !.•-i.�t .. ��.-..,� ��..... Y;' � .,u.7 .�r.. �. `�!�i...?^r ��+x�
Bar/restaurant 7.37 132
��� � �Tr:r.....-v. � tiw+ w -e-...�.�r1�...- .....�.�,�..--..i.;1 v,�n�'Yf' y.'�e;?YK�7.!f��r. }�s�
�s,:�o�lation`�� = a'� ,�.. �..;�z : � ��.�_. . . �.�.... � _. �..: : :::7�19� �� . �.0 «'��k:,y:::,, s �.� �,���
'�...��.:ssi:.�a...,� .. ��.�
Other 4.61 21
�--�� - -��; ��r--:..._,�;,�.�:.,�.:: - .. , _
. .,...
c�: r �.a-s *rti. .r , . . . ; e"- � �a,- , , r: � �. y .r"�r`j "B s;j 4<?,', -ri.ry . �
iav ^-
S i area/recreahonfattcactions amusements , , 4�49�M14;;�,w„�;.:w; ��,�„ ��,��,�8�� �
t.. �_ . ..4.�_._._.._.�,..�.�....._,.._._..__..._�J,.�...._... �.. . . , ._._�_,�..._. ' � . �' _�
�. t.; � � �
Constructionitrades 4.47 105
.Y".Ni , : . � . � . .4 . . � .... .
,
.. r
,�ofessional services `� � . . .�rt: � � ., . . . .� ����.:_�.� ....� .,.� Y.�. �:w:� �r227 ��_�:
_�.._.� .....�..._._ _..__, �..L�_..._�..�_�_ .._�.._ � .
Financernsurance 3.21 32
, � ..
Real �estate ` �r, . � �: 3 20 s
. � ,
. r, . 25
w_..�..�...._.._ .,.Y.. _�:.�...,x�,_.�.�.�. .�._: . :_:.. , n ,�
... . M....... .�..,.�.:.�.�_. ���.�_... ..: ...,.;
General retail/grocerylliquor/convenience 2.96 288
� „ ... . . k . . . . ..
. .,
z�ther s��rvices ��:,_ � ...� : 2.89 � .. .. � 151 � ,
�...:a...__�_...a_.._. . . .. ._. . .�_� � . .� - - ..
Education 2.33 15
gG�--v
ovemment ....._._.,.�..w...t__ __�.. ,�..._ ... ._..:_ ._... �..y..,�__ ... .�.24,.,. . ..��... ,.__ ..... ,.. 4�.._. _�..
Warehouse/storage 2.08 1
� , �
�, . , � �
iService commerciai � , � '� 199 __ . ... �
- - .�_.�.�, __.., _w. ....�. ._...�. �,1 _ . .. . �.... . _._ _ . .. �v..... _ , .a > . . . ' .. , ._. � :
Utilities 1.75 8
�- , ... �-� , , .�
Manufaciunn9_.�A�.� ���.�., �.���_.�>�_,,.� . , . _..�.� .. �._._ � ..�..�.�$ �._�< y,� j .�., x.. l :
1 ' `Al' �.J" r� •� .�` Ya
_..,+-.i,'v� a�.S�Y.� � wa�..Sr.a ....� .....���. '�'dt�...i.�
Employees Per
Room/Unit
J'�y��j�:n +;, .�,'��'.i l . a F' '?. u w3'.i � .� ' a � � } r. - . � Y 7S�'Ty rr'� ` i rRt� ��1,. r '
�c�i.,.:�a,......;.....`l...._,.i� °.F f ��.n ai �4.} `J 3'fa ''^`', � Z � l. ? � d � � 'i. . . �w . Q •x x ;
V\G�S�Oa III � J� T �4� . . } :'1� � �.La L.���;. w� �t.a T� ( �'.,.{{`„i 'k�..2�. �.A' ,
�a�.vi+Fc�ur.._J'.:Lw:Lu.r...h,�k..�,.:a..,.,..a,.:o<.:n ...�yn�v.a..�. e•-.;:u.:�..�_.......�...,...-.-yw..rr,e: �.wa,�.:k�. lx•=rt�ew4=.�r:^:u.,.3..��-. �v w:,:i�,�
Property managemenf .30 14
*The merged data set includes 1,220 cases from surveys of the following resort
communities: Aspen (1991); Blaine County, Idaho (1990 and 1996); Chaffee County
(1994); Eagle County (1990 and 1999); Estes Park (1990); Frisco (1998); Grand County
(1992); Gunnison County (1992 and 1998); Roaring Fork Valley (1998); Routt County
(1990); Snowmass Village (1999); Summit County (1990); Telluride (1993 and 1996).
1
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 44
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
SECTION 3 °° COMMUTING
This section of the report examines what is often the least understood component of
housing demand – commuting. Specific topics covered include:
fi�'�:�'7
• In-county commuting through comparisons of where empioyees live to where they
work;
• Where employees live according to empioyers;
• The types of housing in which commuters now reside;
o Average housing costs;
o Tenure (own/rent);
• Household composition;
e Preferences concerning where commuters want to live;
• Where commuters work;
• Commuting pattems (length, number of days per week, transportation used);
• Sources of income and types of jobs held; and,
• Number of jobs held and hours worked.
Inter-County Commuting
To examine in-county commuting patterns, a first approach is to look at where
; _ __ _ __ _ __
employees who work in a pa�ticular community live. This information was obtained from
the household survey. Sta�ting with the location of primary winter employment in the top
row of the following table and working down, slightly over one-third of people who work
in Vail live in Vail. Of all the communities examined Gypsum houses the highest
percentage of its winter ernployees-78%. Minturn and Red Cliff house the second
, highest percentage with 64% of their winter employees living in those towns. Vail,
Eagle-Vail, and Avon/Beaver Creek/Arrowhead house the lowest percentages of their
winter employees.
From this data it appears that employees holding jobs relating to the ski resorts at Vail
!' and Beaver Creek commute longer distances than employees as a whole. While this
;;
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 45
�
(,
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
1
report does not provide information about employees of specific businesses, by
examining survey resuits at the town level it appears that ski-area employees are more �
likely to commute to homes throughout the area than employees in other cornmunities.
Abouf 15% of Vail employees commute from Eagle or Gypsum.
Where Employees Live
. r _ ..mr:5r.�, z
�x ••r , ::.y:+. . :. , . , �� s:,�r^;;�:r;'•-�::,;•,-- -� �-a- - - - - - - - •
_ .,:�.
n �"e � � +'a �
��:���.� k�,�;r ,.,.. � �� � ,. Location of Primary Winter Employarienf'�a,`13F ' �V� '4 -
r. . : �.� s
s�. +. ,...�. �.....,. . .. �� � �r,e. . . � _. . . .. . ._.. . .. .. ....... ..:,. � .� � wf.„�,.. �;2�: -�,..r} �{aru�.�:.. �
Where VAIL EDWARDS/ AVON/ B. EAGLE EAGLE- GYPSUM MINTURN/
Reside HOMESTD CRK VAIL RED CLIFF
�,.,�,.� � �,. ,�� .. �.. . .. .
��1a11r�-�"�w f�".�;_ �n�, , 35%0 ` 9% 6%, , :.�%> ...,�15%:� .. .,._�.� 7%. ... ......._'4%
.r �.�� ..,,�,... .�� .. _. . ,.... __ . . . . . .
MIt1tUm/ 6% 4% 4% 1% 4% 64%
Red Cliff
�..._w : , .. ..
��g1e-Va11�,,. , 13% � 6% 13% 4% • 29% .+ � 8%
. �._ .., ..��r .. . . .. , __._ . ,. ..,_ „ . . . . . . .�. .. . . . . .
Avon 11% 6% 30% 4% 8% 4% 8%
�::�.�.,..tK a .
�Ei�tiv8�ds/Htd r . �9%' ..::, , 'rv3% �: 29% 4% 23% . '. 4% ; : : 4%
�. . ... . . .�... . ... ... __.._
Eagle 8% 15% 10% 62% 10% 7% 12%
f% � ��-�.. ,���:
;:.:y . . .,?:.,..,��a i � _.... . . . .
. ,-
t;;,-��+ + 7�10 ,40�p . 0 0
. ,.
.
,
;.Y',��,Y.�sum=.��w ...�� ._.....;;.. �.� � ,._..� % /0 23 /o $% $°10
_. ,
7
. _.. ... .. ___.... . _. .._.... :.S_ .�._�.� . ._..�,.... _ ...._... ._.
Rural areas 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
� -�-�--- _ _.
� K.ti,r _irrT�<.t�°�� '�, 100°/a ; 100% �` 100% , 100% 100% � 100% 100%
�:...,.., 5,.���..�: h :..,�.,.�....�._.�.... _�.._�..,� �. _ . .. .. _ . .. . _. <.�. _ �.. _ ._ . . .� ..,...._... ,_ _......� __..___.. _... _ . , ...........
A second approach is to examine where residents of each community work. Starting
with the town where residents live in the fa� left column of the following table and
working across, Vail and Avon have the largest percentage of their residents working
where they live (65% and 57%, respectively).
Where Residents Work
�s�'J.•+i`3�-�ty^c.. � �� . .0 } .. �,a{X5 ^v�`�ti:a,"'::t.FCy'.i":'?t?"Y�,*'� a ,�..-a - •—•a,.; _,y' ' . .-,�c.:.p;yx:::=,?..y. "
� � ..:. .�»...�. � . .. .. �..... . . .:. . � ,���.>,...:T � '��1 � t� '
�=,��'�,�_._..����:��,.: � ,;-����4���-��ocation�of Primary Wmter"ErriQloyment �'`�rr��r,�� �� ��;s;�������a ,� r��;;
_ .. �. _.__� _ .. . _ . w .....y� �-r,....�.�::>x�,y.3.�..����_,. ..:.�,.:...�:� �
Where VAIL . EDWARDS/ AVON/ B. EAGLE EAGLE- GYPSUM MINTURN/ OTHER '
Reside HOMESTD CRK VAIL RED CLIFF �,
w• v ,.... �, � ps�^ �'���� "`�p� d �3��'wr+� n i -�aY�'x�^ -"'� .s,y •�sc�,a� .rav-t ,:C3 tfrr-• �0::�-
,��...u.�' � � , ; -� : ' `., �i65Jo. ���.��.'�..'',�',�,�,�,,.6„�; �;.� 91% � t,�;.,,,. �1 °lo �5°Jo �i{:���u �. J''' �"��° ��1�J� ��r ° , '
'�.._ ���:�.�s:�.:�� ��'s:�». � _ �.:° .?��....�.:,o ��;0.:� /'�
Mitltum/ 29% 8% 22% 2% 4% 31% 4% 100%
Red ClifF ,� ;
�'�"� `���'''i1��� �4�
��� ��
Avon 23%
Eagle 14%
�j±,.��.�-�..._ "r �vA �,� � �p
i,ir�i°- k � �`�L7.lr
�r.������ �� R
Rural areas
��,�,.y ��ansa �'}'.�0:�.. p��T.,,c' r�e k O.� {. ��.,s, e. �xr^ .-a�.+�,.�.. •�,,.�.^x,`4y,. "yt.:o}" i- �^'ry�.ar � a�,'�,� w::<..
u""s,�� ����.,.+� �Q �.s3 �.�"'���0 ���w��p ���.,�a.u..r`�r..��� ��� �'„��:.. �0 ���� :4JA� �������
5% 57% 3% 3% 1% 2% 6% 100%
`r�f7�'O �k(�..��',..�*'�,r",n,- �°+0 ��7�ir. i3�'"'i�Tk" "'�lS��"'O �;;,k s3� :�Y�'F'�"`�'J . '�%"�" ` r .,5; r > � �� .
�6/D��,��,��G�36/o� �.� �`,52�,,�%�� ` �6�a �'�,,����°lo� ��'z,%� °c�q �'
g"J' .� � ��rv � h� ^�'-_' r+.s� !�'�*"ic.t' �'�w�;''��"�rL�'� ���"'"� ��. ; � s�� �,y���'• � �"�'`�,i.��F�
T 4E t'. Fr 4�+J' A"l'.9� Ya4 <.r A� f.FS -yar'� �.. a'`K '� � :f'��4`..k7....6....
'y�c.��, y LNi�'�`'`,.a?�� ~ °�'i.yt�-�, �.iaa._� �'�:r+ea'�:. _,..x:�:+2� �:=W aa..:.�3.sg.�'i't"1'-wx"x"�L.c3 ��!'..^ '`.:�, ,..�'R. �.�'., � '''ils-.,,�
10% 17% 46% 4% 1% 2% 4% 100%
� r9 . �. �y�� . ,,, � ..F�.if,TY�.....;z �• �,-'n:xT�a �;,, p .: �,'+.ro�,u a �.�a: �r 's'',i",+',. r ..r � '"r,�*`>,�' 1 �� "4'Ta`
�4 /o: �,��xw�;.�. �....3;�:8% �� :,.. ��5% %� ;-�,:�`f 4la h-� '' i� /4 �����.. .`'�,� ��"�J�o E±�-19.�0°l��
17% 17% 33% 8% 8% 17% 100%
i'
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 46 ;
1
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Empioyers reported that the largest percentage of their empioyees live in Eagle, followed
by Edwards/Homestead/Singletree, Avon, Vail, Eagle-Vail, and Lake CountyJLeadville.
Into-County Commuting
� According to ernployers, about 14% of employees commute from outside Eagie County.
With an estimated 31,785 employees in Eagle County as a whole, it foilows that
approximately 4,450 persons commute into the county for work. Note that this estimate
includes empioyees in the Basait area.
It should be noted that the estimate of 4,450 in-commuters is lower than an estimate
generated by the State Demographer's Office. The State estimates that in 1997 there
were 8,240 persons commuting into Eagle County far work and 2,000 residents
commuting out of Eagle County to jobs elsewhere. Because of this discrepancy, the
estimate of housing demand generated by in-commufers should be considered
canservative.
Where Employees Live
otne�
z�io
Ga�eld county
1% �
Lake County/Leadville
10%
Summft County
1% �Rural areas
4% : ;'r,..
Eagle �
20%
Mintum/Red
4%
6%
Vaif
12%
Eagl�Vail
10%
EdwardsMomestead/
Singfetree
17%
' -.13% .
Beaver
0%
,, Informatian about persons who commute into the county for work was obtained through
!! intercept surveys of persons living in Leadville where there is a concentration of
cornmuters and at several jobs sites in Eagle County. Persons surveyed at their work
, Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 47
i
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
are referred to in the text and tables as "on-site commuters", however, the graphs label
them�as "Vail" commuters. �
Languages
About two-thirds of Leadvilie commuters speak and read English; nearly that many
speak and read Spanish. On-site commuters, on the other hand, largely speak and read
English but about one-fourth speak and read Spanish.
Languages of Commuters
r t..
a `�`'k����;`�. � � ��a-� � „�;�, `;.Overali . __ On-site .. ., __Leadviile :,
�.._r..�..__.,._._..k<.w..�..�_..�. .._ ..._.. . .. ... . _....._ .. ._, . _._
Speak Engiish 72% 91 % 67%µ
�;Re2�C1 Engl►sh��"...�:�:.� ._.. �,.;_�- .�`..... �72% ` 89%: . �67%:
Speak Spanish 55% 26% 63%
� .�
�Read Spanish....�Wa w.:.: .: _r.�... _.... .....52°/n . .. 24°l0 60°l0.:
Speak Other Language 3% 2% 3%
� Read ;,,{Other: Language� �_ .� ': , 3% 2% , 3%�
Vifhere Commuters Live
Of the commuters surveyed on site in Eagle County, aimost half live in �eadville/Lake
County and just over one-fifth (22%) (ive in Glenwood Springs/Ga�eld County. Another
12% live in Sumrnit County.
Summit County
12%
Glenwood Spg�,�o�����„
County
22%
Where On-site Commuters Live
Other
17%
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Leadville/Lake County
49%
Page 48
I
�
�,
�',
I .'
f
`
1
(
1;�
�
�
i
�.
4.
� ,
11
I �
�
j .
�
�:
;'
t
1
� i
I�
I��
��
,i
j
, ,
�
, i
� i
r
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Where Commuters Work
Most commuters overall (64%) work in Vail. About one-fifth work in Avon/Beaver
Creek/Arrowhead. Much smaller percentages work elsewhere in Eagle County.
Where Commuters Work
� Other
1% -
Mintum/Red Ciiff
0% �
Eagie Gypsum
%% . �%
Edwards/Cordiliera
7°/a
Avon/Beaver
Cr/Arrowhead
20%
i
As the foliowing graph iilustrates, larger percentages of Leadville commuters (66%) than
on-site commuters (50%) work in Vail, while on-site commuters are more likely than
Leadvilie commuters to work in Eagle.
Where On-site and Leadville Commuters Work
G�
Minturn/Re
Edwards/Con
Avon/BE
CrlArroH
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent of Commuters at Given Location
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Page 49
_
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Description of Commuter Housing
Unit Type
As the following graph illustrates, a much greater percentage of Leadviile commuters
(52%) than on-siie commuters (15%) live in mobile homes, while a greater percentage of
on-site commuters (62%) than Leadvi(le commuters (20%) live in houses.
ApUcondo/townhom
Mobile home
House
Type of Housing in Which �ommuters Live
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60°/n 70%
Percent of Commuters at Given Location
Housing Costs and Number of Bedrooms
On-site commuters' homes have slightly more bedrooms than the homes of Leadville
commuters. However, on-site commuters have substantially higher total monthly rent or
mortgage payments than Leadville commuters, possibly because they live in la�ger units
or more expensive areas. Leadville commuters have higher monthly utility 6il(s.
Number of Bedraoms & Monthly Expenses
E . • k : � � a,�,,�.: : �...
� t�' u i!�? �... ,r --i h� ¢��' µ n-F"aw�� +--sr
, ' � � � � ���� �, �O�erall�. ,; On site,���4`= ��,`�''�Leasiv�lle� �
, : � a d� ,�' z� , � �. . . �
r�t � ;} � �'97� ['��'C� k'ti,�+' ,°�+.,,"tr'�. � � �. �� ; . 'r . yi,,� ,4�"' µ, � � u .R xi"�'�t`''t�'�K.h.`���
�'�� ° �'" ����-�.��"� �,� � � c.-�� ��: _,:,... Commuters �� Comrri:uters�, �-�
. .�_� � z :�,�,:�..�,:..�_� , k �
Average # bedrooms 2.66 2.g2 2.57
F• ��."sq°".3:d�� . �.,5� . t�sT'Y• -�'�y�i.,� y .� .. . . . . .. . .. _.__.,. : m.tc�+ s sr�.
�. ���-�e� =� � a� 9a�e:P.,mf� ����. f�. . ���530.48 ~ $838;92 � �-'� $ :� < < ��
.� _..... .. , ..,.. .�._._,� ...,. . �.�`.,�,� �56 5'I �
�.... .
Average monthly utility bill $166.55 $148.76 $970.89
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 50
I
�
)'
�
�'
I'
�:
�_.
�
� '
r �
1
�
/
l
(I,
i
�
,
l�
�
' I
� _.
I
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment � ggg
Tenure
Leadville comrnufers tend to rent (65%) more often than own (35%) their homes; on-site
commuters own (61.5%) more often than rent (38.5%).
Own or Rent
�o��
so��
�
0
A
o so°i
J
C
m
i
� 40%
�
�
m
�
E 30%
E
0
c)
`o
� 20°�
m
0
m`
a
10%
0%
Own Rent
Household Composition
Household composition of on-site and Leadville cammuters is similar except almost
twice as many Leadville commuters live in single-parent households. The largest
percentage of all commuters—almost half—live in households composed of couples with
children._ Slightly under one-fifth of commuters from both-locations live in households -
compased of couples and about the same percentage live in households composed of
family mernbers and unrelated roommates.
i Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 51
�!
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Othe
Family members anc
unrelated roommate:
Unrelated roommate;
Couple with chiidren
Coupie
Single parent with children
Self
U% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35°io 40% 45%
Percent of Commuters at Given Location
Househoid Composition
Over two-thirds of fami(y members of Leadville cornmuters also commute to jobs in
Eagle County, while less than half of family members of on-site commuters do so.
Family mernbers of on-site commuters are more likely than family members of Leadviile
commuters to work near where they live. Many more family members of on-site
commuters do not have jobs.
Commuting Patterns of Family Members of Commuters
��1�.�' ��7.. .xi-.1 lsd��'� .t+'. g r� k r' ' : -:,.>, �.� �r . �:� ...�, - �:r:-�nr,e�^.,... �,.,.
«' -,� "'"�'�' ^x � r
��� �-. ��s���.�� 4,L y� � �� if � Overall . -.. On-site �;.:`";. +r Leadv�lle ' > �,
��"S� 65� c+��� r^� S �4� � �'v�' f 4 .' .' ..� . � �_• ; ..AT iln? �i � .
r � � �-°. ���"�;.<�J� r:�TM.,..-..,a,_ ...<:: .�;Commuteirs-i �Commuters� �
�:,, ��...,.. :.. .._. . , .
Commute to jobs in Eagle Co. 62% 39% 67%
T 'i 'r'..n�',�qT.'Ft { V.nyM:��Y.'�' q��n
� ,� � �t�w eren .� :�IVB�;���'� ��� `;� � 9% �w ��29%��' �� �"�� � 16%�`+?`�F� �^
.� . .,_. . � ....• a... �-. W � K �.�� �.�...,�; ._ �..s..Y �:�
Commute to jobs in other counties 12% 10% 12%
�B� _ ,or�e �� ,r e�.. ; . �r s } �-� � r,,-;�; ......,: ,�. �,.�;,;:
.€,.:,_,. �,,,_, r�.� �- BTb�/'�'t1d�COt1lR1Uf,..,. .. ...._ u. .. 7%.:. i`_;. ,�� „ 1.�% , �tr1 �:f �F� �%� k� �``
. , .. ._+: � � � . 3+:.. � i_ . r.e
Do not have jobs 3% 8% 1%
�
Rees Consulting, lnc. � Page 52 j
f
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
Location Preferences
Commuters at both locations were asked where they wanted to live. While the greatest
percentage of commuters from both (ocations want to live in the community where they
now live as compared to any other specific community, about half overall would prefer to
live in Eagle County. The vast majority of commuters surveyed in Eagle Gounty,
however, would prefer io remain where they now live. The overall results appear to be
impacted by Leadville residents; approximately 60% of the commuters who now live in
the Leadville area would prefer ta live in Eagle County. More Leadville than on-site
commuters want to live in the Vail, Avon, or Edwards areas, while more Vail commuters
want to live in the Eagle/Gypsum area.
Elsewhere in Eagle Co
Miniurn/Red Clif�
Eagle/Gypsum
Edwards
Avon
Vail
Where now live
Where Commuters Want to Live
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percent of Commuters at Give� tocation
Commuters were asked whether they would move to Eagle County if mobile homes,
�; apartments, condos/townhomes, or houses became available. Greater percentages of
!; Leadville than on-site commuters would move if any of these iypes of housing became
available; the greatest percentage would move if mobile homes became available.
While on-site commuters were less likely to want to move to Eagle County for any type
'� of housing, they were most interested in moving if houses became available and least
interested if mobile homes became available. These preferences are consistent with the
i i current housing preferences of on-site and Leadville commuters: Leadville commuters
are more likely to live in mobile homes than houses, and on-site commuters are more
likely to live in houses than mobile hornes.
j Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 53
Eagie County Housing Needs AssessmeM 1999
Would Move to Eagie County If Housing Became Available
House;
Condos/townhomes
Apartments
Mobile homes
0% 10% 20% 30% 40°/u 50% 60%
Percent of Commuters at Given Location
Commuting Patterns
The average one-way commute time is approximately one hour. Leadville commuters,
most of whom work in Vail or Avon/Beaver CreeWArrowhead, have a longer average
one-way commute than Vail commuters.
Average One-way Commute Time
� w ���.�-:�;-�� � ; _;-} .. _._ . �..._ . .. . . . .-..: _. . . : , . .. : .
�"'° �`O�rerall .�-�` � .: On-site ' Leadville Commuters < -
"�t � �!f + � s " .. . . .: � . . . � � �
: `+ s x��-e,.:�.i'.s k. ` .Ci 0 TM' ry. LT „ ; , ; ";; . ;' . ': � , j rt � �jkr!
� a1 ,..�A:.i.�)u�._A..H:w•lµ5� •.,�l�U`�CSu1.v::.� f.......,.��L:v�...�sK�x...t._..++.w ..:.lYr•�."rr i..,yi,�
=�i�r
1 hour 47 minutes 1 hour 4 minutes
�eadville commuters most often use the bus or drive alone to get to work, while on-site
commuters most often drive alone. On-site commuters.do not use the bus or hitchhike,
although they carpool more frequently than Leadville commuters.
_---
Rees Gonsulting, Inc. Page 54
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Average Number of Days Per Week Using Different Transportation Modes
�.+� �°� �" �� �`'' �Y..'�'• �y'"3''�t'�ti . `i.`:.: � { ' x f. r. � 3 "T� � 5 '�. /S-'i y�..£:^.{�'�'�?
�;.�w :��. �� ����-� �xL��`''}Overail r� ��R -� On s�te � �eadv�tle Comm�uters�
{'� .. ,�, � rty�.�'��"f����� E- �ra;�'s� �" k . :�r r ,, � t'i � �� � � . . ' s� ,. : t 4sn.�� ; �� ��*.�`*Y"`,�'r`., -.�'�r�� � a
3������ ,I�n'�'�''''�n� �.a.����r�.�w �,,ta 5r�- .J, ' u..•,w Commuters � : � $. . k.it"� t: ,� . �'k -.,�.� s�'�k' �`�'�
`.�r � s.. r � ` 7 .�3f,:��,...�...H � .� , . .. . _.-. ..1-�,: L�..:�a'.,..�:}:�'�,.nwtsn.2.ti.��'.s"''i::�. �`�1:eu�:��''r'�
Drive alone 2.58 3.79 2.34
�y �n��' s��'�`�' rt�: ��; �-�rr.�.f;,r.. �.:x,+,..g -- ,»..r�-,-,•.�,, �„^'.'� _x�ya ;��,r-�T" ,���:��-. ..—.--��;
�A'.'� p :�" �' r � . , ;. : y � t '� ?, f�—. �.,�' ,�e �.���
, +�`T'
t�� " ��-bR :7� y . '.:� ey �v ,rr .� �. F
'.—„�� �5:��1 ��"� f ti:.� .a�:..c'.qa'.,..�r��.%� .�'rS.'�.'�,':.:..�t '. ... � �.� ��m;d�._a.:....r.:.. �aL.�.a._ r..��c..t�3� u��-�u�. y5, �+`%�ac=dii
BUS 2.O% O 2,4g
�,
iHii�k� � � � ��� �r„� a � r �-�., k ,.�, 1. ,..� :��. ,, �,�;� �;.
.s-cwmr.,G-r..�. �`�.a_.ki.>Y.l:'.=c�.�,.�ya�.�..n+..:..s.a. ...�. ...�r... .. .�.. .. c -�....C�.w`�..,._.,'<.�,�. " 4(";i.�.Fa,��`.�...r.ti
Other <.1 0 <, �
Sources of Income
The primary sources of income for two-thirds of commuters overall are
construction/trades and lodginglhotels.
Primary Source ot Income - Overall
Retail/grocery/liquor
3%
Warefiouse/storage
,
Real estate sales % 'i %
1% — %
. /
Utilities �
4% —1
t
Profl services j
2% ��,_
Bar/restaurant
10%
Constr/trades
35%
Govt Education
_ _ 10% . _ � �/a _..
In comparing the two areas, on-site commuters' primary sources of income are almost
entirely construction/trades and governrrient while Leadville commuters' primary sources
of income are lodging/hotels, construction/trades, and bars/resfaurants.
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Page 55
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
Primary Source of income — On-site and Leadville Compared
Warehouse/storaga
Service
Retail/grocery/liquoi
Prop mgm
Real estate sale:
Manufacturing
Utilities
Profi services
Lodging/hotel
Govt
Education
Constr/trades
Bartrestaurant
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Commuters at Given Location
Commuter Jobs
Commuters' main types of jobs are housekeeping/maintenance and construction.
Type of Job -- Commuters Overail
Other Service
6% 6%
Constructio
27%
Managerial/super
7%
Admin Kestaurant
13% 10%
Housekeeping/
maintenace
31%
Rees Consulting, inc. Page 56
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Leadville commuters are more likely than on-site commuters to be employed in '
housekeeping/maintenance, restaurant, or service positions, while on-site commuters
are more likely to work in construction, managerial/supervisory, or "other" posiiions.
Type of Jobs — On•site and Leadville Commuters
Othe
Construdior
Managerial/supervisorj
Acimir
Restaurarn
Housekeepi ng/ma i ntenaoe
Service
0%
5% l0% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Percent of Commuters at Given Location
Number of Jobs and Hours Worked
On-site commuters have a slightly higher average number of jobs than �eadville
commuters in the summer and ski seasons and a rnuch higher number in the spring and
fall. Overall, cornmuters hold fewer jobs than Eagle County residents, perhaps since the
time spent commuting prevents them from holding multiple jobs.
Average Number of Jobs
# Jobs Summer
# Jobs SpringlFall
�y��Lt ��� �.. v�� , .. " iL"' � r,, cs^s.�s t ��`r�'F,�r n C`�tj
Oirerall:� �On site Leadville �n��';
� �
.,��.
K�h ���' ���' ' Commuters � $ Commuters�¢;'
83 1
--,.�,x:�. F.�.:i:�,s , _...:. ,..
$4`�''t'; ;:` :g6:;:
��::�� �::�;<_.�.�.. ..... ...._�..
39 .98
.79
25
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 57
_ _ _ _. _
�,
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
�
On-site commuters work more hours on average than Leadvilie commuters, especially in
the spring and fali seasons. i
Average Number of Hours Worked
��''� � �� :. ^ �,�7•.�y�k�'� �, �� r' ^t4 c-3,' � � � Y � � ��� • . . y�- . � *`S'f"u y.ix•�""u.,^n ,aa�„—,r^`'�:.-�'�:' � .
L t
,�, � }�K '� 1 ?bi ��n j +� -�+rY,' ,.{.
�� �:. � ��_,�.. .�.+�� � �, �� : s„Overail On s�te �q��`,. Leadv�ile � ;•.. �
a��,',�+xA''�� � k• �% c, r 4r,.t.:r- � T... � F�-� n Flle:3�"iz�-+r8,,.N''ows�t,�k�'4�'i^^�..�r�� a`n`r
z'ii �� t�'�• r '� � "�?y.
S''4 +F .L.v �� M P SA9,sq,�....M„ Y l 4'
u - �����,.•.�„��� .�-r���:x�:.., :Commutersw;.�,; ��,�;�..�,Commuters.�'.�',a..�.'��
xi"`Y Z
�. . . ... .Linr �.r.aM'.i:+'.Val�...�..:,i...... . . ... ..... . . - � � � ' .
# Hours Summer 35.4 42 6 33 7
,��:., I
�r��r 5:':T�.�"� rv�r� .�rvrr � ��Mxt�'q� . � ��.3 �� . � �� �41 0 Cz .'� t � ���72 7�� �J,�¢ � :
�°}�o�rsjSki Season � ,_� 5°� �'`'`�
u.�..�..�,..:,.._,�..,..�. � ..,:a x.. ._ .. . . .._..., .__. �M.. _.. .._2,..�:� ..�;�_�r
# Hours Spring/Fall 16.4 41.0 10.5 (
Rees Consuiting, Inc.
Page 58
I
'
�
�
�.
i�
��
i.
1
I�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
• ` � s- � • � •
1999
This section of the report describes the housing supply in the study area portion of Eagle
County. it includes:
• estimates of the total number of residential units by area and the number occupied
by local residents as their primary homes;
• tenure (ownerlrenter);
• composition of housing supply including types of unit by region and by occupying
household;
• bedroams;
� bathrooms;
• housing costs; and,
• location.
Number of Units
The State Demographer estimates there were 21,044 housing units in Eagle County as
a whole as of mid-1997. The State estimated that 12,502 of these, or 59% were
occupied as primary homes. The other 41 % were used as second homes and vacation
accommodations. At 71 %, Vail had the highest percentage of units that were not used
as primary homes.
Eagle County Housing Units Estimate, 1997
Avon 2,100 1,323 63%
-�--� -.�._ - :� /
;�.a�al��.F�� .�-���,� � " � '����59 S}�y.,o�����.°�'� �� °`�. ��' ��`�_ � � '� � �- �
B���isa��_„'��i�i�`,si`�� 'L."'�5+,<.4 h..vt 7a'.�.: Y".tY' r-.' ��'�'Nas.�i��� 4' x �`J�"""�q3����.
ar 2's's�.,.1 � �+.9,.��...`'.a�+a1'.Xi _ s,.tt..'_
Y�9��+n+'.G2?�t�« ru-�ii���.a'yf�9:t 's�s:7+'�. `^ n: �.nr . .n' .c'aar✓,cJ��,r""�3?-a�..„
.aY+.4" �� �����ti.� .xd�3t F ,. TS'�#,n. ;�q� ���4{7 > yL��'+.'e`,� � o �� n n �� '� � A � Ys �ti'° ' �4 �.
.�w���.�'r.:li�.n 13.a:2 ,�l.�a, �` �- .. �� � °��� te�� �`,�� �
Gypsum 987 941 95%
-w. .:.,s. .. . �� �y� '� x ,�'�e'a °�as-� �y^�, 1,`":}^ ,. a��9 ar �' .U,�Z 'i`T`���i�,�. �� R O�)
I(a�.l �St�'-Gv'li� � ��s k � %� ���'�rJ80 ��'�" �, �'ti���'�5�.5�'�t ���� �{4;� -'��T� SJ
• @.71��.K� ��__..�..�`-" ,��- �a.�.�-3.��,. "�'r?'� �r�-�' ���,,,x�a.�.4ajY �� � �, t�. a�.Cx� °u'��11�-�Es�s�L.t431.u�
-j���, F ' Ya
``����'� ��� �^�4,,;� '�,' �+` ��7�8�� ��.., .,,�k�'�'`�� jz � � ����,�'.�.i�����29r���
Ks 2r � ' ��. .. 7 � v. ��, �+�3�{�
"N � i'8 �r..�We..�4""SY�.G.�
�: rarnt�t� po �tetl���� ���; `�- � 83v � � ���.� .�6�83 ' t�'�-� � �.���",�°' o �
-� ��, ..�.,����.t.��,, . ��������.,�`� ��.�,•�A ,,,� ����..,u,.�3: � �,����U�/�a�,
,��;�.�
Total 21,044 12,502 5g%
Source: State pemographer
�i
! i
_ __ 9
; Rees Consulting, Inc. � Pa e 59
�
,.I
i.
Eagle County Nousing Needs Assessment 1999
�
Locai officiais estimate that 10,649 primary homes are located within the study area for
this project. This estimate was generated by using a combination of techniques �
including building permit records for the municipalities and Census derivatives for the
unincorporated areas.
Primary Homes by Community
`�'1�..:y:�:`�i:`f;;,;v�'r'-"" _ �.,i • • .�{ _ -
y ;.�.f'��f F ..Nnr's r. r y• .�.. .a.. .,. �,' ,e. Yl � . . ��'�~ ,?'
17 Ll�::_+=..c4KMY'i"..:.��. .... . ... ,. ., �: Y:.. ......,r.ni.._.::R..C::uk�
Avon 2, 048
��,,".e ��.r' f;y'�,.'T,;s`Y�r;2` _ :':r-� -::.r.: ::.,7F;:"�,.,.'�'i'�.="?�.:,;^,.,.-�-
a .�� � z ,. � x .`-505
a�l ,y�.��. . ._ � .__.�.._._ ,.�..._.....��...:..:��..�.,.M_.�,..�am.__..
Gypsum 1,462
:�.=_-,<;.,.�,�x; .-:,, . - . ... ..... .
11!linturNReii Cliff _ . . .: . .. ,1,060
Vail 1,175
�,:, :,,�;;.•�:r�,.--� � n ,� : . _ ; . ... .
�Unincorporafed � 4 399
. �.
>,:.��...�: ,
.�., .�._.. ., ,ti_ _ ,.:_ . ,_........ r.. ..�. �
_.. :.. . _ . :. ..
Total 10,649
Source: Municipal Planning Depts. & Eagle County Housing
Division
Tenure
Of the household surveys returned, 76% are from units in which their owners reside and
20% are from renters. Another 3% are from units owned by a member of the household
and rented to other members and 1% are from units owned by a parent of a household
membe�. '
Occupancy Status
Owned by a member of
household and rented to
others
3% '
Rented/provided by
ernployer i ;
3% I �
Rented from landlo►d � ,
17% �
Owned by parent{s)
1%
Rees Gonsulting, Inc.
.,,W, ��, by resident(s)
76%
Page 60
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
As expiained in the INTRO�ucT�oN section of this report, it is believed that the survey
under-represenfis renters. It is therefore assumed that the homeownership rate in the
study area is approximately 60%. This estimate was derived by applying the statewide
increase in the homeownership rate to the 1990 Census estimate for the portion of Eagle
County covered by this study. In 1990, the homeownership rate in Colorada was 59%.
By the first quarter of 1998, it had risen to 65.4%, an increase of 10.85%. When this rate
of increase is applied to the 1990 estimate of 54.2% for the study area, it follows that
60% of the homes are now owner occupied and 40% are rented. This results in current
estimates of approximately 6,390 owner-occupied units and 4,260 renter-occupied units.
Despite the bias in the sample toward homeowners, the survey results on tenure by area
of the county is insightful. Based on survey results, down valley has the highest
percentage of homeowners. In both down valley and mid valley, tenure patterns are
fairly similar to typical communities in that most residents either own the home in which
they reside or they rent it from a landlord.
The situation is different in Vail where there is greater variety. Vail has the lowest
percentage of both resident owners and renters who rent from landlo�ds. This is
because Vail has higher than elsewhere percentages of units owned by parents af
household members and units awned by one member of the household while rented to
roommates.
Tenure by Area
Owned by resident(s) 68.3 74.5 80.3
1 Y;�� �°;u'.�"..; ^,+_-r,�,,,���,.��"�i�i9''t�"�-..a t'�` P� . � g ms" f.. .�E'::r s�,,,��w+�-�
necl;� Qarerif �r�� Y.��.rr � �� �� a' L`;�,, ��; � �". �r� �
x.,..�,�u.�..M.��m �.,# �?�',.�;e..,+.l.�.s:� � �� ��:���;i...� °��',..-��s����:�
Rented from landlord 14.6 17.7 16.4
'�"C . � 7 '7�sY''�T^'o-:'�„T'"'!,+".,.�y"^E't''"3p.w-+z'�+'t.�','�X 'r'�'?v -ti.�c�q �" `i"x,.+< ..'...�v . � �.s'"��" �.zt ,�`�^.'*'a" "S"'�4^�'�"...y�'L"4 1.5�' '"`s.l� � w..���
aReniedl 'r�v�decJ b �ern !o er� �r��_,�r.. F4 9 ��� H-�,�'� ��� .„��' ; x:.Y � . s`
_.�.a.P� - �� �..�:.,�:�_.,_:Y:..�._Y �:� Nk .a , �.,�..._ � -�.�:.��.� � ��..�.�". �•�3��
Owned & rented to others 6.5 3.2 1.7
��'E...'�`�`��v �.�sr'�`��s�..�Nt;i..�r';��; � r�X'�-�i-."'�4j:-, N�F^'„'sc` � �t°S ,}5: �ra�+°"'�'�.x�+�w�'7
� �� ���.��,ti=�"'�-�-'�_�. �' � �� .� ����� .�r f ,�-�.�,,,'.°,0 $. '��"� .t,.°��;�,;. �; '�' ��,��,�� �'����
.� .:�..3�. t
100 100 100
Unit Type
The survey results indicate that 41 % of the residential units used as primary homes are
single-family houses. This estimate should be considered somewhat high since renters
who more often live in attached dwellings are under represented.
'i
__-- 9
�; � Rees Consulfing, 1nc. Pa e 69
'.�
i_
Eagle County Nousing Needs Assessment 1999
Singie-family house
41%
Unit Type
Other
1%
Accessory/caretaker Apartment
unit — 8°/,
Mobile home Dupiex
5% 15%
• Most of the housing in the Vail area is attached; oniy about 20% of the households in
Vail reside in single-family homes as compared to 68% down valley.
• Mobile homes comprise a significant portion of the down-valley housing supply
(roughly 11 %).
o According to the survey, apa►tments comprise only 8% of the housing supply; this
fi�uFe is likely low, however, due to the under-representation of renters.
Unit Type by Region
���,ti � ��,; � �� ���VAiL 4 4�. � � MID, I/ALLEY S ��,DfOWN V ALLEY�
�J �."�,.r'x'vc-m+..'`K`2c !..th�0 {s„v �;� f; �{5�0 �,R"C.'?Ns.'�1,�p"�:.4' �$.7`�.:�O�i����s.��
,�"� ::� :::u.:.:... . '� .�li' �sa..v�.-.
Apartment 5.9 10.1 4.6
T� o don miri7um ���.:' - , � � ��'$-�"'��.,_z� ��v,,.�9 8�� }i � .�k-b;= n �5"S F�;'"�.� .s+"�' -��.
.. . "'�a�>,.���n�r_�ar'�' �°�; L. �. �?�,�.h-,',�~c.�'�'2V;��.;.�. `tc". a-�"tk+�r.+;E"��::i��'+ -�� �"' . �
Townhouse 16.1 12.8 10.4
����`�� .�-.� ' � � '", �'
� �� � '18:�6'��� �. ,� � ��2`4`� -� �� : �<�, ����
�� Q� F� '�''� .Y `rcli f i7--�L 3 t '�'. . -+�
LY�v '4Si4� r r�c caz r-�-a "a •�','.,.r-..:�',�: �+t.�._-: �idu ,�_. --u�'sr�au'��:Rx..a"..:w.�a Lr.:.�'�'r�'yt��.":�+�w -�
Mobile home 3.4 10.8
��.91"����a`�rani�y�t�� e �y+-; �,� '�`v� ,.7:.fJ' @� � �� r � .'''���.`�'a�0 Ou � �''�AM�'�'r � �`� 'c �'i
.E:ti��-i.�.r.5;t� �'i'e_ r._._n ,a � �,.'�..�f��s3����'L�-.�.�c.�sT^�:� �. :�"c:.L�'.e.�•.:...-�'�?r�..�: ��r"�y�'�r����s.`r .
Accessodcaretaker unit p.q
r �� -_��y���- �r:�; �� ��� � �_'�5;- �
g ,� ���` i -a a5�.�,-°` *�' ',��,,, , c.. -x ... "��'^'r7.�'flt �`.-.Pi
"a-�'" ��.�H'�x� .o-fi�X3r�"si�iif�,. :w'e_ ''i � ��2 �,. ixk E a; :`' ��' 1. � "� : �"�x` �R�'���
,,`�ie`��% � s. G� � Y�i �"�'` x.�.. � � �'gm � ^.�`a'f.�� 7'� � 't' ti -a. ��', `�
_T' �,�,'aX. ' .c � 3� x-�'�...az�..'�.'.3i � G'�c::. r�.-r' �i,s`�.��us.a.b'ta:L,..�?? �...>a�r; � � �
100% 100% 100%
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 62 (
�
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
...
Less than half of the renters in Eagle County live in apartments. While several farge
apartment projects have been built in recent years, the majority of renters still reside in
' units designed and built for owner occupancy.
Othe
Single-famiiy house
Mobile home
Dupie�
Townhouse
Condominium
Apartment
Unit Type by Own/Rent
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
% Househoids
� Less than half of the homeowners in Eagle County reside in single-family houses. The
� only area where owner-occupied single-family homes out number attached housing is
down valley.
Unit Type by Area and Tenure
�
.. °r � � - ��'�='���'�'��'��#* ` � �� VA1L� ��`S�� "; �° M1D VALLEY"�`�;.�� �" ''DOWN b'AILEY� ��
. �.. �' .�;,� r
+'�'�.s•c,. •.'i�,�r'•,�.�r-� '.�tua��K..k:a :.�cu� ro.,., F..» ........ . ...._as:..�.r�:.�,,:�c::a.a'.w:..a...iy�#<�:n r�1;rc�r.J.tnas..',.s:n2�,....:a.,�.:,r.....3�'�t
�, OWN % RENT % OWN % RENT % OWN % RENT % _
..._. � `w ° S9 � "+�'�� �+"�.%-e�'wC Z5'` �,'�„".". -� i�r,:r"F"�yrnrt' . .:�^r �+�,f;.-'-�-SS'�. T' n �r 7°7_,aa.n-r"r-.a�7^.
A�: ,r.�1�� eli�...��` �i+�..'..,' :�h L��t-.:`�r �� ��.�£ �5 '?.`..� ;�.� ��1;� �"'st�' '� w`�5�° �s�r�,�`ai `�,�::� ��'Y �'�28,,�;�w
t .0 -rtt` '1 -. � F.N $$.i
, Condominium 39 46 21 18 1 5
, ; pL��.�+�Ul�.1S�'��� '�: e,,�f � '.k�''•--cm,,�'=x�s�- p'�" "',;.-�'`er:��p :� �;:;-'aW' s�"�„ r-�c:+�.� n,
ts, ,�-�-�ar�uae���4.ri'���Y�f..='3�. ,rt�T,�,.���(.7i�� ��y� ip I,k�,•y:.';:.y.�J7"�"q�"'gnr �r"�L�,��.}!'� '� �l.c.����b''r+Li �',�yTd� ;.is
.a�izKi 1'v'w`b.a�a�.;�7F..Lus�.a,�.vla i.ff-�,i,JSw?'ifi-.r. � .- �:.vd.:r`;�aa^:,,.�.. ,:�ti^�ut • s'^ � i' `�7 +^ �•� v F f 4�%.t,- �a�-x�eT?�
,wfu w.:�i-+� � •2c:»cr�.7���°z7«:_su tv �.33.a.� s€k:
Duplex 19 13 26 9 4
I� s
� d � � � ,�L�+ +r 'Y vl il'�w��+AS�����`: £ +V� .F� „'C""' Y '. J.'7 # � k rS�`, "r'" l' �`)f ;r, ��."'�^ .s ,�� C � : 4....: ...K"«
,� ��?y� � ��y' t ! ,{t�
�' �.i3.�„'i'�P.,�$�i�'�t7�� ��' ''"' ��'�^�..�i?�.1`x"r3`��„�� �£ex.er�.�r.�;. M., � � r?-'+c ,. �''� ���`e��s�cLM�wy..:e�: �� �ti..;.r.`"�`a.� �.x�7� +sY� �"�^'a�`�:.�.St`-
I � � ... . _ . . � ��.a.u'•'...�mYr>.:::..�; ,
Single-famity house 23 8� 37 5 77 26
�?°'...�a. � ���� ,{`." �.i-,,,+yC"�.K'�.� �a � a,�.. C-se.�r^-.�.lx� r�,;�`•'��`4p:•, S'..'� 3.'v "H?;''.rf."+¢ E ','�y,-."y�;; "�'F
�� ss :."�cacetaker vn�i�,� �.��;� r��: . �� � � .�. � � � :.. .� � � -�,� � .� , �� �
�� ,� � - "t .. 'a.SY.:. ,°'.t:u'�u. c4i� r.a,.N..n ��3w:ai>.!- S:i: . . ��-..wn....7..� ''..���t4Fa".s'?�.�'.ia,...�.. r�".3`�,`:���'�`��c•�1..... k.J�..�r.Ec'.�u'M1''t°'r.
�� � Othe� 1 4 1 5
;
° � ��:' ' � n.'�. }�"!� ts :� ei -KTrr'.e � .�, L�...�,�,.., .. ^ i . . � ,K. 0 .,,n� I� ti.^�n- � p . „�^�,' U .. ^�"ri
`�;�.�;,�� t�.s. ��,,,,,-�; .��:�OO�o,: ,;";,�10� .o � ��100%> ..u.. v100%� « 1DO.Io � , �IODIo
.. _ ._ _ �, s.,.....: ' . MKO � . �. �... : ..�:;k., ., � � . . J,.a.�..i_..,Les,. :.,.s,}.�....a� .,..as_,.,._� .,#�.Fn.c,ttue,t.3at�."
.
i '
I j
; .�
, Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 63
'i
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Unit Type and Occupancy Compared
A comparison of the various kinds of residential units to the types of household that
occupy them provides insight into the extent to which the housing supply meets the
needs of residents. tt appears that the overall match between the types of unit and the
composition of the households who occupy them is good. Generaliy, families live in the
large units (single-family homes, duplexes) while singles living alone and with
roommates tend to live in higher density attached types of housing.
• Nearly 90% of the single-family homes in the study area are occupied by families.
• Nearly one-third of all apartment units are occupied by adults living alone, a higher
percentage than live with unrelated roommates.
� Approximately 25% of the apartments are occupied by households with children,
either single parents or couples.
Unit Type and Household Composition Compared
���-��"����`°K� �� �;�;,��;�n���; t`r � sAparEment �Condo.minium Townhouse tDunIex. : SF House::.
�yr�a1`���� +.��,� a+`�'�,y.s" a�`.w-�F a;��`t'^^ � �".,r r""U f. � '<�yN rr�s, � . . � r .
i� �"��� � i�F T`,� L P� f-F r� i 4� c+v� O roa..� p �. . I- � i`� .� � ��.. �
(c.,, �" "�.��.s�.:.:�rt a .cf'N-'��„�r,�£':.z�6;,h �r-3..%pr2��; '�. _..._�;.�0_L:...�.�!..�, �`,±..-..4..�O�o �r..5.�5 �.:._... °%.._...s '� �:i .._..�O�a,. _--
Adult living alone 32 26 15 10 6
:�°=��� +x.. r
S.�n�pa e ixwi ch�1 en� �� �'' � � ss o-w� �- 4 � 4 "` f ,. � s �� Q,t � � � ^
i._.r�..� . - v �. ' �' a° ��`..+.ra.s. i�_.,°:.>...e__>..�.'�.is� _.si.:.._,.�r.. ... _.s._...�.� ..� T..r:� 4:�c.�:..• . .............``'...........��.i,
Couple 15 40 33 28 34
F''_u'�c�..��^%.*i� 1r �
'-�"'vDLipT� 1 y ch�lttren��:��:�;� E ���''�' �``� �i � ���`�'�' a; ,�,..�"';; y F '''rr-� r �-a � > .,.
�_:�.. ...��� .• -�,-�....�. �.�;..� �..u.'�"�', �fl,�.��' �,"_...�''� � �� �..�' �„,_.,'.�,` ZZ�u � �44 � : ,
�, ..�. .,.:�_t..-�,.,�....�,.;� ,,�...,-::.,,. ,� ..�._,.. �0,.:
Unrelated roommates 19 15 14 9 2
�� -�.�� :-���.k��� .. �-„r--�-� �.�--��.
-�' 'i S ty F'Z�v'r' r� 3 yP?"'" w r� xs � rr'L � �. ra�,r
r;�� ���oom�aaa�.te,s�. �'����,-�-��-,�,�,���.��.���,ti�`�i��� �N�� ������'��6�=`r��Y�'3� ": �;�,�� ;
�'?`�..�z'.��'ni:::.S,.� + .(a*•.�xwc:r��'��` `.^'.... .T .�. t�e���^�.a�ac..�..:s� 1�.�J.ii.i.:s4w�'��j;.
Other 3 � � � �
r�� g�v'�-""��'�'�„��5�2-,�.��c�.c��� ` �t�'''�'�.'' `�' ��,,.--.,�,k,...�,.�.r-,�s � "„��"='s'""k 'c'•'�`° nac ,y�%";,�--��ec;m;.Y..r
F � ,�-���.���'�,^�.,�, �i �� �OD✓q.� �'� UO%��` � �' � 00°0 "100.°l0; ,_.� �s'sr,�..: o •��
��"� ��� �.,� �� �10.0�9.
- �� �..� ..
Number of Bedrooms
Most of the residential units that comprise the housing supply in the study area portion of
Eagle County are moderate to large in terms of the number of bedrooms they have. The
average housing unit has 2.96 bedrooms (rooms designed as bedrooms). Roughly 2.6
rooms are used on average as bedrooms. Down valley homes tend to have more
bedrooms than homes in other areas af the county; 23.5% have two or fewer bedrooms
as compared to 48.8% in VaiL
I,
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 64 `
I.
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Rooms Designed as Bedrooms
v^`�'; diODlll�' Z�s�-t- =q r,-... ... �.,.-___•.x-.�-•r„r:.m:-r,s r,.re�-„-_ ��,,�,„».,,�.�--�s
'OVERALL �VAi� � ' MID VALLEY � s`:DOWN:VALLEY'.
..�r. �_.�.�._..._��.. �.,�..__. ._ . ..._ _ _,_ ,.:,. .....<...�... _�...._...
1 7.1 15.7 7.4 �2.�
.
.... '4 �� r��6ZT"TM�l.q �z-J-f� ' �C � � . � - � ..r.. � �`r r 614a,...<3'�< y �,,,.:
�P "i
�, -.�� �...i�.=y°'�� � ���.,y..�25�6 ....�.. . 33.1. _u.�...,y r..25 8wa. � °<� 29` .4��.
� :��..,.�a.x.:y �,-:,
3 41.6 29.8 39.6 51.3
.r � .' ��""fS��'�' 'Fn ,;. -�.i.. v . . ..0 .,. . ,+a" . a � 5. , ,.xrx+v � i +,. .r�
� �`"��;� 4r"���� 1��.� �;���191 � �4;p �� ��� � ,R� -:�,�
��r:xti�.�..... �'-s:�,..t,..;a,:.._.... .1. _...a-,. . .� e..c..:S' :.a. ..,.'�.,,� �� �'ti��'^ � y�,4� ��� :v�'.�.
i . . kxa:$..k.z,.. ., i.71
5+ 6.6 7.4 6.1 6.8
'�.''',f-'l�i��"?°W'p"'` s a--,f#,.s a?+nc;'""cr- . .: . r . ,. .. . . . � . . , .
�;�f� ��� � s-� tY','....�, �r;.;r,;�,� �00°l0 �>.._ .. :100% 100°l0 " ;..F 100°/_oY
i_. ._ . _ . .. ...._..� _, _. .. _ __ �,.�....�__..�_. .._... _ .� .
According to the survey 50% of the apartment units in the county have one bedroom
while all of the townhomes, duplexes, and mobile homes have two or more bedrooms.
Bedrooms by Type of Unit
»�� ,,. �-, , -•---� � � _ ,.._._. .., . ... ..,.... _
. .,,
�#�,Bedrooms�; �;:,APt °lo ,: �, Condo % TH�°!o � �_Dupiex_%.: N MH %o _ '`SF %o.� `�
1 50.0 16.8 p.7
�'-c*�Gi.�,�?�r�rs n"�,°j�.�--r^c��� . r`� �e e- �. . : .. . . . .. ....... � . ._.
`,_.._v°�°.� �-..�2,r--�%�'= s4�;: �::��'°�° <;:36 5 kF<.:�:_'.� 5$.4 37.0 ° .. ....,.. . _ �..� --L_. 42.�. µ��. .:1� �
3 13.5 18.4 53.3 58.9 ` 50A 45.3
����� ��r t!y 1 � �a �^�. . .. . ° j.. , k:: c � :5 { F � . . � . � .� J,�. : r 7> "- r ,. �,
��„-�.r�' .; ;.;�e�,� �::� �-�. ��..� �.:��; �z _�_.,_ 6 4 .. ..._. , 8 � r , ,�26 $ h 7 9 F 4 �,30;2=
. . .. .�, _ :.� ,__ .. .,_-....._. . z � ._.�,�,:� . _..
5 + 1.1 8.9 11.7
��^r�,�,� �Yt� �;���, ��� 1 OOIo �,.,�. :`-�..�: x100% T .. ��x100% FL�_.�..�::.:100%0 � �;1:�0%4 ��1 OO�o'
Bathrooms
Just under 15% of the primary hornes in the study area have one bathroom; a(I athers
have two or more. Neariy 45% have three or more. The homes in the mid-valiey area
have the largest number of bathrooms.
Number of Bathrooms by Area
�Y""�'+"�'"v�a*t"'a.�"'� �'�°'�rc } '��T�� �"�'^" ".'P'FSZT"'xT^Tz .�"S£{w'iT?,'sy's'u"'rS'°Tq's
��ath �o�ms `�VERAL�� �� V�A.lI.Y-�r'��,.�`-�" � iVIiD VALLEY,� DOWN YJ4L��E�f��
� < + ���k�� �ls��'d.���.'� n5.. ���ca�� J'y'..,t�p,� uS ��r`9`�a� $ S` v^ ''�.;n.2„t �� 't'� �,
�'E .,. � S�y�' d.'. ,�''�a.. " ;,,i��'roJO,��'^.e,¢. � �c `� O! �'Y,�;3,'e e.7 '�O '� �:f� ^� � 0����f ;'.s '
����'�'si _ cc.�'�t✓o,r�„'�..:K.�f �-�r'���+r-%- .r.k
1 14.9 20.5 92.4 16.2
i ,4��TV.v�`�'ij�' ����"i . sir�s•�"�<`:1jYi`-�. :. t;�i 't' 4^'.:,.'y4 'J'°� "v N' '`�nv""`P:�'�i!
�=''""��.�� "���-�'��;��D� ;�� �--��42:� s Sz�<���� :�"1���35 8 ``f��,��;,-'�__�.�=�-�'�'48;��
r.. ....' �r fo_o�.� 6�-�i._Lisi�:,��. �.v,�.:sik �.�i a'.zi..�....0 .G 6F?
3+ 44.2 36.8 51.8 35.5
� ,w"� s . rr`�,s' �. b"s3c�� �7rc�x .'a�,S r ,��"�'°���.�r��s�J„ ,� "T�'-,��°"x,t �'t� 'z'�;
i����,,�F?�� ,���:`�i��,QU°,/o ����� DO Jo � �.,��-,'-' � `i 1.OUo� ���.s,�ar �;�"�.� 00%��
s�.". �_:....a..,�. L._,.a..�i�.....__ � ..
Ii
l_..l
_ 9
I Rees Consulting, inc. Pa e 65
,�
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment � 999
Housing Costs
The average amount paid per month for rent or mortgage in Eagie County is $1,239.
The median amouni is s(ightiy lower at $1,104. Both the average and median amounts
are higher mid valiey and down valley than in the Vail area. This is likely correlated to
length of residency. Vail residents have lived in the area longer overall (see the
PoPUt.ATtoN ANO DEMO�w4PHics section of this report) and acquired housing when it
was less expensive. The cost differential is also related to the size of units; down-valley
homes tend to have a greater number of bedrooms and baths.
Monthly Housing Costs by Area
��...��� � n . ,_. , .. .. . . . . .
�=��L�.�,.�y,_„� „�4f , , ; :OVERALL. � VAIL , MID VALLEY� .DOWN. VALLEY.,
Avg. RenUMortgage Pmt. $1,238.69 51,136.27 $1,319.13 $1,138.28
�,., .�,_. r^�, ,: . ....
Medran>�.�;'< ;_.:. $1,104:. , $950 _
�:� _:, .,_....$1,200. .
. .. ...._ _.:. �1,100
HOA Fees $123.04 � 198.17 $132.72 $55.32
Approxirnately 46% of the households in Eagle County spend $1,200 or rnore per month
on r�nt or mortgage payments. Just over 15% pay less than $700 per month.
Distribution of Housing Costs by Area
h u+i tn'r
lTL �. 7 .�' � i ,� � M . "r^ ' ' � ..
r
k��� ���F� �,� ;�.�,,- u OVERALL. .� A � VAIL MtD VALLEY` � DOWN VALLEY
, ,�
vr3F-�.�;f9a��.s� c��. C I f .�.0/oa."�V........a`......�•.� k j.. Yt p'D �ti..i � 1"^ %.�Y �y1 � i,�'y�-4i..;' O^t�+� ��.'
��` - �.:.,.... ..� �... ...,r3y�..._,....,_ tx......._r.; �......_..J..w�w_. ,..r,� ,+,., .GL�...: L-.a�rz.z' �'::,s � �c--�.,:"a'wa:°., c..4.�';.�.
$0 0.2 0.5
'4 ///r���'r�t T.' '„A, -F .. 'y`..' r f � c��, ?.� ¢[ .
�C � �i��rs" ti C d�..E.:j •f^r f.�n s y, s�i' � �l -Jrs ` �.� .' rs � � 2 2� . � '� *-P' � •F' . � � `Yy?+ ^�y�)"�� �? 'xxAi._.; '"1;�g�,'r'2 � 'Y•
.;�.S.c.,� F.Y +.�.e_...,,... ._ �;f � :�,:..i�'� � rv+,.� ,w - '� � �n�. � y �y .at.a�. �-
:s.a� . . ...... ,ad..lc.n•tk+,.tii:L.:...s.o•.v�GY��c��.c..`c.'r:..T'1L:�S:L.az."..y�v.....,s��
$300 - 399 0.9 2.2 .1.1
�y.`��'�R'�.`?''"��.9�rrw�;5.`^�%��'C ,.�`,�''r.A.,A.E�',ti.',i"?i.�%?„k?:'�4.-.''' _ . •�iiz'::"��?;s:�-'�i'- ✓.:.: i�€'�.T3,*�'«`v.'":�+..,.;.,�.�. _:.:'.'r _ gx..n.er
V�'��9' t -L�.s Pr' f�nc�, i'y�v `&+� V»,.c, C .�'� 4 a r. 1r � s.ydst�,;s?,�Ay3f'.��`"5 .,31Y.'
�r�.c...�c,�:.a.-=�.f.�r''�^ x'� � ;.:� 2 �'^��+ �' �' � L7.% ��.ykr o y "'��/i !1 ''S.�7� Yo' s�^ 2��'
. � �;�:,... t... �.....:::�... 1.........:,u.�.,r..c' � :_.iE-+c:� -..�+".u*����-..��e. w:�: ftw.w�+��.c`�'�a;�t��srx�� �
$500 - 599 3.9 4.4 4.6 2,5
,�`00�` �9_9._'�� ��,� ,�: ��.�;-,� =..�r�-� 8 7 � ;� � ,�. !r �{ .
�� , aGx :,�� �� � � � �.:r � ., � �r ,r�� ,,,, s.t k
-""" �y'.,,,.;'.'�i�.�'.�.�.2. c �. ��2'3�j„� 7�r��� � :r ��r,i,�i,s����,,.�;t�e? �-����I��'r.��r Ss,. $•�
_ �-a��i
$700 - 799 8.9 7.8 7.4 12.3
,��� a/��t� y�� y..=yz�f�� ^��'� ., .,..�r'y.,�.�.��'+'" �'� �r',vai�,�",`'f'«..«f4�i.�'�?'�,� �7"�-'.. " ,�-�,�.�X-^.""'Y'4'� �. �,.�. r,���':, ,"�s
.V:. .�..w�w��-..u�e�F�.='t` i'�.:��'��G�;;���-��� +�n3t��r x�8�'��` � 7 '��„����� �4����v�� ��"'r. ,�+ ���4"�.
w .�c� *.A .t�! �°,.�'`�cEi.w...�,'.;-�ea..�.+«�a 'w'i4�� .," ...,y .,,,;:., � Y. �.
$900 - 999 7.6 13.3 7.4 5.4
4,�` -�-� � .�.�" �`
/"����,T �r n :: r.F ,,% �3j']'F�� � .�'t� ""'-,' =� ��'r.�T'.�` : '�a us. �. -F'r.s' �,"_-'�='c,�+
. �1i �.lx^i;����'"`e�y hsv,u��.'�;y+."�"�'� ��F.Y+:�'la. ��.�.%'s �'j�',�� .�� � ZY �'� T" ��i�'. �+��
i� . .ntrd' � '1._�::�i .GL.�� � ..�Y���?�i��.ei�,iti::4 .
$1,100 -1,199 7.9 2.2 6.8 12.3
'"'""a=��t`-s':i�'�"�c�'-cfi"�# re�'"'r� �`�"' � � ;s--Wi-m� �;:r�+
{ � ,�,`,�'`�? �4. rw '�. 2` [�., v+�iJp£ x•-..F� 13� ..y�".� _ ,y�' !N r��,�rer7�'- �-. ��.�t.-t�
f;r -� ..,� t u: t. Y 6 E hn;
�,�'�� -�...V-�,� ' ��,�:�r�.`�6 a ,.. � �,, ��.r38:9� �qr�r �.�:,�ry 51 �> �`�y~s �� 3g:�`,�
F � .� �,�._.��..�:.�.:���,�.,.x.,n� : ,�s �.:�, '.�..''�.. ,�
100% 100% 900% 100%
The following graph illustrates the extent to which mid-valley and down-valley residerits
spend more on their housing than Vail residents.
� .'
(
�.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 66 f
I. .
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
so.i
50.(
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Distribution of Housing Payments by Area
1999
less $400 -$500 - S600 - 5700 - 5800 - 5900 - 51,000 S1,100 51,200
than 499 599 699 799 899 999 - 1,099 - 1.199 and
5400 over
Housing prices are expensive in Eagle County. in 1998, the average price for a
� condominium or townhorne was nearly $500,000. In Vail, the average price of singie-
family homes exceeded $1 million.
A comparison of homes sold in 1998 reveals that current housing prices are somewhat
highe� in Vail than in the mid-valley area and far higher than down valley. This supports
the conclusion that housing payments are lower in Vail due to length of residency rathe�
than the current cost of housing.
Residential Sales in Eagle County, 1998
����'� � .'� F.r'T'�`�C +�-+, t �.. �. i r.s� �a�.;�;ti � . : � � c- r^t-i • � u . x .
�`'� i�,��"� � �'�T��'���?�,�,�'rY,5�� f:d� ondo/,Towntiome w'
�-� ,,�,��(�{'yv �.,-L� � �` �_, } � �u�r ��� 5F� Duplex�NfH" � f'� � -��
zi.._��'ic-."$��'�L�{G�.�,n �Sr�:�', l:::l"''�'" � T . 4 .... ....��..ZSs°..�.w.,.�..n Sin���i..T'�5'Ya�`�'- ! .y.w,._..� i..«...�"�'.�.%s%r. t.c��'S'
. v.i>.... -,.�
# Sales Avg. Price # Sales Avg. Price
r "�' �'=�,^ E'"y�"+ � �.0 ra; -.r�e'�'-^-`�
�' .:� -�.� `a� �;��"�" �*�+�c- -zar !� �c. �.'^�'- "��,,;�� �,�,�; � �r
-� � ` � b � ��� � � � � .� '��'_ �'_��.�,..' � ,�, �.�. 1 0� i � ��
�/�ii�Ac�a �.� ��: ��� 53 � ��.r:r$5� 8 41$���^ i�,�` �,..�� �.� 2�� �' � ��,.;� , � .....,_.;�,�,.�..,t
Mid Valley 555 $474,576 375 $745,847
""��wt��,� v :��� ��a'r-'*...C°�sj"�fia� av��� 13...,a��ry . •� �. : xy.1 �'r t ���n� � �FY" "t a ^c� �'9�rr {-
�1J� ^�'t��'P. �' F�,� (��`'s.." �.r�.�..�e�`ic�� "3�� .�.`S C�} �J�-t�i+G ,�-1' .{#"' �'.2" ,� � rtr;
�- ��.� ��:� ��.+�.��,��:�; �� �.-�.�-�1 fi8�600��: �,�.�, n.l���°�.�".�,1� � � �,�;`�",���.��2z47,�95�
Total � 832 $479,455 568 $691,226
Source: Vail Board of Realtors MLS
j j Rees Consulting, Inc: � Page 67
i
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
.. � �
Homeowners tend to spend more per month for their housing but the difference is not as
great as might be expected. Approximately 30% of aU renter households pay $1,200 or 1
more per month for rent. �
Distribution of Rent/Mortgage Payments � ,
so
50
%
40
H
0
u
s 30
e
h
0
� 20
d
s
10
0 ,
SO 3� - 3300 - $400 - $500 - 5600 - $700 - $800 - S90D - $1.000 5't,'100 31,200
299 399 499 599 699 799 899 999 - 1,099 - 1,199 +
Monthly Payment
The average rent payment in Eagle County exceeds $1,000 per month.
Average Rent by Number of Bedrooms
�.�,.�...
��� -����"��',� �'# Bedeooms�,��_ . _ yMonthly.�Pmt '
.�.:>�,:�.�.�, . .. �. ..�__ ._ ,.... ,u.�-�.
1 $664
.��n• �g�,s�-�;�«^:-� -> �•Y;Y�,:-. _ � _ ,,._. _.r.-:r.� .-„_���,
i._..€S,°"�^u L v� ,N k'R' i;'�?' w: � � . .� �. y �. , �Q ('� . � .4,.?.�i
`Y �'Z. T w��'5..� t �'�-�:'u� . <�?'��' }, rZ""r � 4' ...•U �' . h a � kily%: `� +p�7� � Za �. �. i
� -T '�_a,�:..' .. �......:.`1:,�..M�',:u t...��» . _ �� '"a" �i-....-... ,"•.'ii'.K:...?:+ts..:�.c:(,L.+..:s............�..,......s..w.:„..
3 $1,349
,��" � �-�.s �'�.k+.�m�'_.,''�'+ 4 K'�+s'`�!f�'.+.G.��': � h..c s� � 5'v'Jt � r^ , 1.^ .r- ,. "�"�4.,"� �.<
+ e�,�?¢ 2�� a��r. .ei�,+N.s�„>�r'N :�.�> yA N`S�Ff,k`}.Q "�+ h p.r '.'�,�
� � =�.��,.��°�"�ar.:sw..'3` ��":..�`se`aL't� .:�-� ta+�r.� s.;a,.;:..rx.4..;-�.'�'�+�.,-''n�.�,�t �S_`f; � �V,..�.r�.����=��::�
OveraH $1,035
Average rents are slightly higher in the mid-valley area than in Vail. Down-valley rents (
are significantly lower yet still average nearly $800 per month.
Average Rents by Area � �
�,Sy E��_ '�;s� r}'�'t�3,,''�,y-�r'-ykS.. �r�,w x��.�:¢-a r� �.t r:q..�*n.�-.+'�F a'�}� a
Area�;��-:�.��� ��.�'� �r� ti Rllonthly,�Pm�:,���'�,��.���,
,..a E �x�..mmb�`.�:. �w,"�1�#8<.t. � • kY�k � _ .� ..,..:, M.. -.��_.: . r�.c...,..,:.... w.� ,t��
Vail $1,026 �
�(� �?HjS"'X��)7.s�•' '4�p 5:' �er�15.�,T��,� �` '° .. �,'? '' � .b � � a�': , °'y�, trt' - tp' r �' 4�T'y�71" �f.v`rct +r� � �� �,�.�yy
���'EY�f��i +3 .E+��'.�aa.�5 ,�.4_'.�x.-�6�1r�S..c:r �a'�� ..s'2 "Gx'3�n� l;:d''.-�r �i.T�j'`I�O���.�7, d'` ..
�7' �.�.. .. _..�w. 7�. �... Si. `'7�`"i.,�_�.a....a.�a..1."J".wf..:1.0.,. � =a.:L��
Down Valley $797 �
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 68
Eagie Couniy Housing Needs Assessment 1999
HOA Fees
Homeowners and condominium fees are an additional housing cost for ail but 7.7% of
the households in the county. HOA fees tend to be higher in Vaii than mid vailey or
down valley.
Monthly HOA Fees
��`��;�y'�`} � � i�"{�Y' �� OVERALL'- ' � VAIC' ��' :MID VAL.�EY "DOWN VALLEY"
p�,. � � �. r � x. , �.. .
Mf Jf �],j ..�'*Y+ A{",)� . t i�t , . ... . . ..
�y�R,�' V` ��t� i 1• ,.�t�* O/� ' . O/p . ... .,- ��. L' p�O '.� S`
S",.�.,�"in..._. �:�..+i.,. �.< lsi..r,,..�'.ti. .�_ . � . , .. .... .. . �.... . . .� � , ..,. r ..... . ...��,7r.�a..'"�r�:
$0 7.7 . 4.5 6.0 13.0
�a;�49 =�E, �. �,..��, r 1
�:�. .�.���,...�.. "�:� � :��. ��..�_.. �28.7 . 1.5 " 27.6 � 48.0
� �...�.,,. . .: . ..
$50 - 99 9.0 1.5 - : j.. - 6.5 :- . .. 19.0
=$100 1'49 "�' � r � 11.7 16J 10.1 : � -'12:0
�.,,��:.:::::...t.�_.__.,._, s _:..;°:_:..._.�.:_........ . .. � .. . . ... ...... ... . .. .
� � , :.. : .,.�.,.:...��.
$150 - 199 18.0 30.3 20.6 5.0
:�200 249` ,� G . Y "_13.4 22J . : 17.1 ; :::. . .�>:, , .
..�.�.a,. �: _._..__�� ..,,a; . . _..
$250 - 299 3.8 6.1 5.0 �.. _. - ���
I�300; �399 �-';: �� � ._-�� � . _ . � . �. . .
5.2 12.1 .. ::.:...5.0 : � 1.0
$400 or more 2.5 4.5 ...� 2.0 . � _ . .._._.,._ ..2-0
r, {„�-� � ���. r� �- y,, 100 1 DO 100 - '` j 100
.,� �.
�...,".�:...�.u._..,.�:���. U..._ ��:��..,-�.,.. _.... ..... _ . , . . . . ... __,.. ... ._.. _...<V..,......,.��..,...._.
Locataon
Overall, 22% of the county's residents want to live in Vail. The Edwards/Homestead/
Singletree area is the second most preferred area with 20% of residents indicating it is
their first choice of iocation to live.
Where Residents Want to Live, 15t Choice
Rural areas
Gypsum 15%
3% �
._ '�Yra�i.'a!t,u.�....
Eagle
12%
Edwards/Hornestead/
Singletree
20%
Vail
22%
� Mintum/Red Cliff
4%
� \ Avon
�
7%
�
Beaver
'— Creek/Arrowhead
8%
9%
__ __ 9
Rees Consulting, Inc. Pa e 69
(
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Generally, residents live in the area of the county where they want to live.
Approximately 77% of mid-valiey residents want to live in mid-valiey communities.
Approximately 84% of down-valley residents want to live in down-valley communities,
including rural areas.
Location Preferences by Area
. x ,
�•:,
}^�in 15` �`I'ta�s. .�SP . �" au .t � t �rt�,r,xF, � 1 � . � t. �. . .� . . . .. � . � eT. . .a�+. :
� �.,,�-r�u��s^ �,r' wr� h vz.. �,.a �'� � v. z r: : : . ,. �ihere; L�ve�. Now �.� i� ,. �? xr� �'�''.
i��.�.ai�'...�z:�.;.c�+.�Crt.:;_..�..:ri:.�_x.4d rac�.;+Ja.:r .. ..� .. , � . ,. • v.-'3��7 �r,.-�arE .�"-�.,y
:.n.s,.f.�e �: . .._ . .-rt�N...:1t�..:�.. ...aG..._ •,:.�W,k�'v'W.:_+.:i:<�i�.�:..c'.ci�,Lk.r.:t,.!,fis.:'3u`'r`.c�sr-�a..'i�.
OVERALL VAIL MtD VALLEY DOWN VALLEY
Where Want to Live % % ��a o�o
—1^�y' wv�t��r1.,z�: • .. ._ �i[,. . . _ :�-r i `�+'a�. 4'9.•`-' ' ,.nz
'"VC�iI '�,�^,•�:''�r� ' r*� 7F � r-'" 22 : $'� :"'°.."`; ._ ..^, �;,..;.F,.'n�..._ . ,,.7E ��;=
�.-��-�,�� � ,:�:���. � ` �,� . M � � � I , y.,:,,w��::.�; N �.:.5� ...
,.
. .
a:...tia�...s� . .:.t_�'- �-�-'.�S?'u'•� „ ....:� .. ._: :. � : : ,.. ' : 'r . .r� ,..: , 'S.°'t�'�''i... < . s « .�,.�X"s m�.« v,=
. t^tit.3.is.'� . i'. � .n..�.,,--s..x+:.. ::�'s.
Minturn/Red Cliff 4 2 � �
;EagleNai(�, ; x j �� � 3 � ,
�::�,."'"s,....Y �,'.�s.�-�"r.'.�.�'..f�f� . r.i......,.x.,%,1'.).N.c..a...x...h/_ .� .. .... . ..., .. � �.-..s� ...s..:....n:�C�x.�:-hsa�. �� y � ^•-� � F \�� s'
? . . .�c.. � r. ..-. C �c�,-: . .<.�'..
Avon 7 1 12 ~� -^�2 �
�Bea�er 4� � ; � � �� K �, � � ,, ., $ - z ;: ? N � 2 , : ; 4 ;>
Creek/AROwhead �. : ` : ' � ' .
...
,.._�._:....�._..._ ..�. ... ___�_�,..:�..... _: . . _ . . :. : ., . . , _.�,:.:. . :.:.::::,.;:: <
Edwards/Homestead/ 20 1 31 11 �
Singletree
`Eagle� "�` � -'"�.�� , � -� J r. , ,
r
,�h� ,
` ..d.�._ wi� �aJ'L'f� 4 .�F.'� kf l4�-"M} 1 � S ' . A ' 2 ' ' - .. � � Y * �y ,�,1 S�' f��� j � ..E J .
.::w.�' auu.... _ �ti...ti �:Gn�. t..��..:��........C:......-w....._, ..-...... _w.�...s...v..�.�G;x�....��.i..a�:'._�.�f.:.te:�w+.`!:'.�,�.nl:. �r?: a.it�.,.%G.er:. .....:.......J���,3.'
Gypsum , 3 1 0 10�. .:
�al areas �� ,i�; �a�,���t��,n .�� ; $ � r - r f r * �-
4 ' �- * 1p x�
�,} �� �.��._�.._�..-,._` x, n �.�.:y.,_ � .,.�},_. � _ �..�... . .e . �.:. �_ .�... ��'.�.�.�_�:,.� ,_ �� ; �°��=..r... � x ���. :� �:.,;��,�.��29 k,:
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% � 100%
In almost all of the county's communities, the majorify of residents want to live in the
location where they now live. The highest match is in Vail where 87% of the residents
consider living in Vail to be their first choice.
There are a coup{e of exceptions in the county. In Avon, less than half (40%) of the
town's current residents consider Avon to be their top preference in terms of location.
Among Gypsurn's residents, only 25% want to live in Gypsum more so than elsewhere.
A higher percentage of Gypsum's residents would prefer to live in the county's rural
areas.
Rees Consulting, Inc_ Page 70
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Where Live Compared to 18` Preference
,=, "'�o:�.�i �' �S'` '"'��m�%3a '�,�°e`z.��'Y. yy. �"r�4� �,','�!�'` u�.r � �'�' rrs � � -"`.�r �4i,..�'�,^`?".*' n �5,.rn ^-`*'a,,�tfi^` hc—^a�,,'s"� „r�+-°'3
� � �ri s• here�L�ve Now � �- -��� �-� r N �-
ld ._��.a`� 5eil���-C's,�,� ext E'`'�3�`. :. � �, � � x�'*i�".,y ac?j,r' sC ���. . ��M . � � �a'sh �'�4.��°'� �.''�'�,T ���is£'� �'a �„��'
W L
�: c.._.'���:.....�..�* �� .:.cf'�3�s_.f5 �-...n..> :: �..r.e>,�.c. •=��:s `uL<a ....N-.2�....�����.., " �.��..�'^ ri.?'.zt�'.._.��a ;z„'
� T^¢a�^.Aae3S s .�n.�rug; 3 .: c ,,.t�.
ere�,,,,a �o�;��, �VAIL�, �VIINTl7t�t� �EAGLE=Ya �AVON � EDWARDSI �EA�LE GYPSUM RURA`�
s�`�`,e � ,b ���-�� '`��'�r� ��l{RED�'�Y� ��'��JAi��.� � =� ,� rU . �; �x F,� y ,� � z��� �x�.�� �X ; u « 4,�-�t
"� ' � HSTEADI� �- �`�� � v:. � �
����� : ���� ���rw_ ��,.�.�:. �,��, �,� � � � � � AREAS..
� � x � �, �, � F 4 � �-� �, � � �r �. ;�3� SINGLETREE �,;���1�' �,�'���`� ���r��� t,��=�
� ���"�..�..� ��-.�'�:,_ R�C�IF�: �-��:���f h ::� _ . . _ _ . �".�.�.:4. �� €;.�..,��-,�r�,.:.�:��:,...:;�';�
Vail 87 6 16 12 11 4 6 6
- `� �r,�fU�I�J1li+lu��✓��J:i�K� ��"�S��t���j ���a"",�"'f.0 � �;.,,�e�' `'ri'� �'. � � �y � i. •� r"'x"'c'k. ;S',�' � �� � "a�'�?;'+y'�'" �- �•.�'i"i .
ks-G �`' ^sr a>� ,��� a c t' w, ��:'Rr �n ,-+�-' .s� �sn �;c. r+ cr u�;
..� :..�af:�;�,'�i.:rCS:"r`^�+:....�`s&v-�'u�r G :1.r.�"i' :.3it' � r�� ,.�.ke.d7�s§,":.r�. �.."�"-.�-'."e''�a �"..,�u:......r .. ;_.. �a .. . _ .�,... '.�„�...�... s ....� .,':'s,.,..._ ..cs � w�� 4 . ;;' �'� u
i ... . . - . _ �'t5'.,.�... s.,:�: L.' :�#�" t�x ..�! :.xx� t��.i��. . 7cr;,�.:.i'
, EagleNaii 1 4 56 10 2 1 3 0
�
� ,� .` _;,.':y"y�,r _ ,,§. �T7',�;�Y"+YL4fi. ��:'" v.3.ri'a'��sjr: �Y.^^.' ,,4'�,r.�-r{::- ' iy , :y ,iyt
a
fAA� �;�%/n." . -�: �`"•` • .+F.l7 4r ' [�.y,.w,, � . • �['� }.�. R r�3 v� . p � � � �'> + F ^/ Y � a �, �� �'' im Sr
G'AA :..�".-µ1. ,-- ;�r � . �`��� �. �u'., � QG~isu�.��L�3� �r.�.uv+`3L�.�'CL�.�s�Y� �'r..� � �O ...+- '�.s��.:rv? � y;�.!.,,,,, � �5 {� F �y s. ;j' � (`� s` ''i,'�k 2 /r � �.
..i �.7:; s:... . . . ... ..-..+..... .� '.lf . ..v ' Cca.e..�ctW...v ��� .
i ....ew t.i..c`_... n.� ..:t
Beaver Creek/ 2 4 11 15 13 6 p
` �� Arrowhead
� �� �//M�(oT PY/)��.y1C}-h�qGV�{�•—� �nY L{C�.'+� W � ,nf-�s .
�... � �7�.Gi7C�S/1 lOt�lG �,��" !�V � R�i�� �t}� �� ,;`(L Y � ,.{'C}"' '� ' .�� ' � �� t k k � ��' ..,� ,�
E �Q 2. S
5€�. i� p.cv�a•.�.] i� c��� p pp 1�� �[ {s-�f,. tit �js Yy . � � �. � y� ;� s . �y. Li �� . n ,',,, r � � ��
�,�4P{�/i./I�('� '�i�44�` �.4.'..�'9_.� t�' j��` .tir ' , . "y �5 � y-� ' 4� 'i�t�/�T
..,,,u.n..�.ak.�,«:as�:J.,,w.nt.o�x,.,_<:w..:ta�_t� `E:..�;fu�,r.k.r:..»_r.. J,'a„�..,..r�w�....:-.. .. e. � x � .e:.r.. �., !� s .
,ni�+4h�*i. n.�G..{�i. : .f.:.lit..u.u'"Aec....
' Eagie 1 p 1 : 3.... :.. ._�. .. �..1 .. 57 13 0
...
./'� rn�
i....... I 1l7 rClV� �}�a�.���"� -� w'�''xc s'' �ii`�..,��f� � r� O E� �
i �,�yp�_;��u�~��� , ��,.�: s����..:? �=.��=� , . 0 .1 25 '- 0
', ....,..�..�.� .�.�.,.�..s �. ._,.: �: � � �� .�, 5 `� ,._ ; t
Rural areas 4 2� �.�._ 5 9 ,_. . _ ....._..11 ... .. ��1 . .�.. _....w_�41. _._...._. 94
�� � �� ��.����"�'���� � 100 t �� 100 r ;�- 100 " 100 � s ;.� ;_.t,..
.... .,y�Yil�.�, '�ky Y �'� �, � �ai . � �' t
, i .;s..'��..,..J�Hx,..rr'�`. �`..�+...h.�.`"..^�3v3:v%._"�-a,::», '-.5 ........ w-.,�:�"�.�,si-:i,�._..� ��.;ei'k,��`_i'� ,.. . ..._.�...._..�., 1 �� . �'! 00 �.' _ .. _100 _ .. ,_ 1.00�
�.�:<�� r �. � r... .��.�:. r,,;,._�_: .x� ; _
J
IRees Consulting, Inc. Page 71
�I
_ _
�
��
i
f
��
I
a�
l
I
1�
I .
�
i
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
SECTIOl� 5 -- F$OUSIPIG PROBLEIIAS
1999
This section of the report identifies housing problems in Eagie County and uses key
measurements to quantify the extent and magnitude of the probiems. Housing problems
� � examined inciude:
.
, �I :
• Affordability and the number of households that are currently cost burdened by their
rent or mortgage payments;
• Housing availability covering both for-rent and for-sale units;
s Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current home and reasons for dissatisfaction;
.
I� o Overcrowding;
• Problems unique to renters including units they live in being sold and inadequate
lease terms; and,
• Impediments to home ownership.
� Affordability
-$ Housing is generally considered to be affordable if the monthly rent or mortgage
_� payment does not exceed 30% of the gross incorne of all household members
combined. For consistency between owners and renters, utilities have not 6een
� included in the affordabi(ity calculations. On average, households spend 23% of their
� gross income on rent or mortgage payments. This average indicates that housing is
�
currently affordable for the majority of the county's residents.
i
� A sizable percentage of the county's residents are cost burdened, however.
Approximately 19.6% of the households surveyed spend more than 30% of the income
j of inembers on housing. This percentage is samewhaf lowe� than is actually the case,
however, due to the fact fhat renters are under-represented. By analyzing owners and
i renters separately, it appears that approximately 2,350 households (22%) are cost
� burdened by their rent or mortgage payment.
I _�
! Rees Consulting, Inc.
{
I -
Page 72
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
H
0
u
s
e
h
0
i
d
s
Percentage of income Spent on Housing
0%- 11%- 21%- 26%- 3l°/n- 36%- 41%- 46%- 51%- 56%- 61%O�
10% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% more
% of income Spent on Housing
Renters are more f�equently cost burdened than owne�s; 30% of renters compared to
17% of homeowners spend more than 30% of their income on housing. This is usuaily
the case since owners can not typically qualify for mortgages if the debt service greatiy
exceeds 30% of their income. By applying these percentages to the number of
households in the study area, it is estimated that 1,278 renter households and 1,074
owner households are cost burdened.
Percentage of income Spent on Housing by Own/Rent
Rees Consui6ng, Inc.
0% - 10% 10.1 2.9
21%-25% 15.7 19.0
�����b. .T��i%o�r�'3��,�'�"^�'�� r�`'-s'��q � � �: ''"''sr�
,mt.��9i�af"�r;�:r"', ���''� 3<61s"�F �3 ���G,��}�� �,�"I'��1�
31 % - 35% 7.3 �� . 10.9
�° o�4p o�' -�,� � �< �,����� �F ���r� �$ � a`�- '�;�,�� �
�� a �ct�-., ,. � �z �.a��,,,,,.�=F..�',.�.�5 .r.'�: � .r��C�'�"`��� - ,
41%-45% 1.3 2.9
6 o f� o/ � =a��~^°� �.'� :s�-,� �-,�' ,-�;- ��-�.-,£-_�r_�.
O�� /0'sk.;„' To�'�:�' r�i.�+�^k,�,�„�+..,h�+ R�*':`.y=?.j;� r�-i !'�"��'"�"���b �,�'��:G;,�
J..'a r'f�u F M .�`.z�+ �' •Sc�,�,.,,�,i -.i 'y
.. ' . �a.t' r��i".�:s.� e,a'}>.ac.�i,.:._.:�
51 % or more 2.8 6.6
�� �� �
- '�� ;'�`����",�.k.�����`�� � fl� � 00�%0� ����1�Oo�..�
� r-.. ,. �� r � - -- =n �s.;,�' -�,�' �?'-��� �u. -�„�•-� ���,;.
Page ?3
� II
�
t. I
i '-
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
1999
�
A small percentage of the county's renter househoids are severely cost burdened. It is
' ' estimated that 280 renter households (6.6% of the 4,260 renter ho�seholds in the study
area) spend more than 51 % of their income on housing.
, There is little variation among the three areas covered by the study in housing
affordability as measured by the percentage of income spent on housing.
Percentage af Income Spent on Housing by Area
0% -10% 8.4 13.9 8.4 6.2
�'F_1a'1G�;�D�/o i�:'d'7.`3��� .r'��- .j�l.y�••;,- �. c �,:"} t ,� /� a. 'e`�vt» c t � A�' ��+''�d� � ���{ (�� �Y�
..,�. aaJ �, ,,.e,i?. 3-�.2 4���.r- e:..�,r.-. �r -�. ��'0 �,`; � :� �.'Y3'V ti, -�xr ����r� �2 Y 7°i �F"9-✓ S+'�r� "'t� .7.e :
- �,_...b..^' k. � ».1v-i"x.. ��� f .<L'`L�c=:=.� �. � r.rSii�^s�,. r"u•..:
21%-25% 16.4 12.7 16.9 17.1
.� �-� �.�-� �- � . f M
6°6x,;�30°l0`����'� �„� `�� ���¢..� 93 �8 E . 10 �`� � ��;.""�.,'7� 1� ��' �''�-�� , �'�'��G 6� :.
F.tsx :�.. ..�z:�c`n_:._"F.:._v_-ix^.s:�.:�C�,."�.'�ir.,:.t-._rn,....._.....r�.� L..:..,...�.:?...,.,_.�..^'...-+r F.rr� i'�'' -taw....�. k•,,l.�=3.�",.?'.;s1��..-..�_.:,��.,.:f:,.....i:5
31%-35% 7.9 8.9 7.0 9.3
��p r ,1 pj a..q.'a,�- �"p" Krn� �t r yC . �, .�,r ,ciy-r r 7.w �v- ri �+
0.�'Y� /C�`i�'Nf � �'Jk:r„ r �Y„-`�v, r.`+, � 1r �. � �. uE � u'� ��' � n� r tr V.2
.,:z;�:�:��.,�::�:�� ���:�� �.�`.;�-�� �4 9�5-� �:.��'`..� x5 1F�� _._�...� �-�.�� �•,�"...�'_ r �.�� r
� �,..,�..:�•_ � �
41%-45% 1.6 1.3 2.3 0.5
� 0 h.'1� O "SS-'"`¢J--T'` �%!°`�`9" ..,,..,y,.'"c`"''r+"fl' -1rv -r. - .,{�r� "'7' C ..+y 5'm�".�- �,{'+TM {-xr=r-r.+-.^.^r '�. }c � m,
��O �0.�0-i�at+ ¢y� �,y�= . -r%x:.�N+-�' �� 3'h. �f+..�n `....s 1�� Jrr �: ">.,�.k r� fc 2 0� � a. r 1._�r 'S'� t1' .
t�,-�n -cr�w.�. �.ra.-_-.. F.. ..E-:��..�._ �w.,�.»,....._...:..-..� v�J,�:e eGndrw'�nk..�. r._t.°,S ` �2�' '"i'�.';_y:,,�S� � �:
, = ...7.4' Y.s...•.
- '51% - 55% •• 1 0 1.3 1.2 0.5
. �� .S;-,t+•��/ �sy�� r�.ifa;�.�s�'y �p=•�^ j �� r. � ' �.i,r
0 60 _�A��,''�,.��.�3= �'�:.�,.'�'' '.U`$�'^���;��'� �` ~� 5.� �-�.•»��b�i..�'�`�'i• .�,� �117� E,��'�,,,�, tlY�/4ii-.'�'- �
... � .:�a..s:f'ilx2v''21 > :S:a:£Y.,� �.:G.r>" - .au:.0 '...r.L�'.[ ti�9- :���-"fx.�`G:�:++::i-T.::.GC
� 61 % or more 2.1 2.6 2.1
i
., q/� y /� ,,.�/�
� � �,a _ EM,,�"'� '�-�}? `9'."' c.4A VO�� �"�Y�� �:t �L�-.�..X .7"+ {�,L°;: �y:y��w1.V�� �:�. � 6� f �-1- � � VU- � �
. t.,..... �.. .55:"uyt6"e.��OiE tr�h7 .�r4„ ;'�
�� :% Cost Burdened 19.6 20.4 19.8 19.1
? Availabilify
� Rentals
Even though multiple apartment properties have been built since 1990, apartment
availability remains very limited in Eagle County. Approximately 800 rental units have
been constructed this decade. Major projects include Eagle Bend - 340, Lake Creek -
_
270, Eagle Villas -100, and Holy Cross Village - 61. Despite this new construcfion, the
Colorado Division of Housing reports that Eagle County continues to have the lowest
vacancy rates statewide. For the fi�st qua�ter of 1999, the State reported only one unit
was vacant of the 808 they surveyed, which equates to a vacancy rate of .1 %.
i The Eagle County Housing Division monitors vacancies in apartment complexes
J throughout Eagle County. Based on a sample of 1,191 units, the overall vacancy rate
;"�� was 1.53% in April, 1999. While this rate is extremely low compared to the rates
;_; typically found in urban areas, it is higher than the 12-month average of .9%.
�,
; -
r
� i Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 74
J
_
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
1999
Seasonal fluctuations in vacancy rates correspond to variations in employment.
Occupancy levels are lowest during the summer months. Vacancy rates never come
close to levels that threaten the economic viability of projects. Most apartrnent
developers and their lenders pian for vacancy rates in the 7% to 10% range. in 1998,
the average annuai vacancy rate in Eagie County was .73% and the highest paint
reached was 1.48%.
Apartment Vacancy Rates in Eagle County, 1998
7.0
1.4
1.2
1
m
m
�
c�i 0.8
c
�
m
>
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Source: Eagle Gounty Housing Division
Vacancy rates vary by apartment type. Among one-bedroom units, there are often no
vacancies, even during the shouider seasons. Vacancy rates fluctuate the most and
reach the highest levels among three-bedroom units. This appears to be the result of
differences in occupancy patterns; yea�-round residents can afford to live alone in one-
bedroom units while multiple seasonal workers share the larger units.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 75
I
�
;
�
I I `
, ,
I
i
,�
�
� C
E �
I '.
! j J
�� � �:,.
�
�
� ;
;�
;
"�
; �
,'�
J
i �
I i.
_
ii�
� �J
I�)�
1
, �
�
3.:
3
V
a
� 2.5
a
n
c 2
Y
R
a 1.5
t
e
1
0.5
0
Housing Needs Assessment
Apartment Vacancy Rates by Unit Type, 1998
i�•�:�:7
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Source: Eagie County Housing Division
For Sa/e
The availability of single-family homes and duplexes priced at leveis that are affordable
for the county's residents is very limited. As of May 3, 1999, 423 single-family homes
and duplexes were for sale through the multiple listing service. Oniy 37 (8.8%) were
listed for prices below $300,000. Of these, ail but 14 were in the Woicott to Gypsum
area. Over haif of the singie-family homes and duplexes in the Vaii and mid-valiey area
were priced at or above $700,000.
Singie Family Homes and Duplexes For Sale, flAay 1999
�-����-� ��� � err�lalley� �UI�c1�V, lley Y ,�owsr�fi/a�tey�
.���,�-,., �� ,�PP.�-�� � _
. Under $100,00� 0 3 2
'� �OA 00 1D 99 99.v. -� �� �� ,��} =�-�""� �' t .� '��
� �. _ .� - �� y i r �'� c'e'����3t:�si �"�'"-�.'��,+�., �Zy`"�n`'
. ��r��x�-txt' �'�., -=.:��e/�..�"�'..E .xc� -�-+�tif-'-,;.+�`
x -}'°
$200,000 - $299,999 1 6 15
����C)��00� 399;'�99� :� � .�3� ~ ���� ��� r �k �� �'� ����
. ��w: .�_:� . '`� ��`�-���.�,�� �� �'���`��,�.� €; < .��.:-��.�.rc�
$400,000 $499,999. 5 3Q 11
�O.O;DOD��599,999 � � '�.��� fl���� r���yg:� ; _ �, -iro � ��'��, �
- �:.�t:..u;��.s,_ E�a;�,.:.r�.f,�=.,...�,.. �.� � � ��,::,� ��
$600,000 - $699,999 13 20 1
x.-�»T-.- ����,-�;- � -� � F� r�,:-�-�� �-a,,�t
7O�i�0�a ��;b�:o,�ve��.-� �'.�>��`� �''"'�-�`.:L :�}�����`�-�.: � �.�.r�'.�'��-`�
Total 67 284 72
Source: Vail Board of Realtors Muitipie Listing Service
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Page 76
-- i
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
The availability of moderately-priced attached housing is also limited. Only two units
were listed for sale under $100,000. While availability starts to increase significantly at
' the $200,000 price level, over 40% of the 477 attached units were priced at $500,000 or
__ above.
�
i
I
J
�
I
1
Condominiums and Townhomes For Sale, May 1999
��� •,�F� ;�;'�;'���:��i� �J ec�:Yalle �� �IAid`Va�le "� �werr'("/alte. �-
.� �:��: �.:tPP�. ��� Y�,:. .,��<..,yE;��Y:v':,.��:,.�,_.-�:,Y-_
Under $100,000 0 2 0
`.�.Qa:����9'�999 �' •:,� ,��' Y� °'I„�-" �.�."�; 3 � �� ��.2�
�.,�:�,�:"�;:_ � .��.:�i:''���`' �#s.�:���.�...'�::;: � .���* �:z.. .��
$150,000 - $199,999 5 17 1
,� {��r- u� �- f ,.= :,�+:x � �.� -�.-,
Z�a-�no� Y��1i s99x �,�:t� : ���ar ��� �p�.��'�....�' 2s�" ���'," �-�`K .�, ���"�,�'�+�
`� ��s, . ,� ..,q, . •�t�'_'-'.�:. ' '�'�".w.�.:. E,'ia".... �_, :4,�.'"".w•,..��'� ":S:w'`� � � ...5`' �„ ,� �,. Z°y �"��`'�-F
�. P'�:��_,e.x..e.s""�+Y���b'�
$250,000 - $299,999 16 31 1
�$�QO � �_ w .: j`9g. : { F , �-� .:�, � .�: •�-- �' " ��:� ��
-r. ;
, � OU �34w9: �r: �� �,a ,,;�;-7a,; � � T �''2'7�. �--� �"-� -��0. ':,
� w 5 .«. �, v...'4y �_�x�rv�: t�.`-:. `+{'�..�:.k"'..�r.'v.::y:i�� �+'ti'.n`r�.�� .••S`.t'`'� �W�•.- .'�-�...:,a,-�
$350,000 - $399,999 28 21 0
��A---�-�—/�'�^-^�-r----- „ e-^%- r >-;T�t -u�� �{�* � �--� ��
'Y'� � V V ;�449 999� . � � t� � ,.r+r .1 -p�'�`��.. dy F a rt .+Lr t'v" ,�,-"L
�:.: � ,. � � .� _ a <.. �,�,Y �,��t'"! .� w� � °9 4�' E� � �,, 0�
�.: � ^'_.i....:�r�._� ,,., _ ��„�.:..,'�`•.,,�.�{..,+'�C..,.w.. �,r'+:� i�:�..: 4��x�l�s�nJS��
$450,000 - �499,999 1 32 0
_._' J—,-..-.� "� �a �,.�"'"�V ° 1;� t^ z. .� �t '�J}"S"' �2'r -a t6'�
` 00�60U, ;or Atiove 4��- �.�-� �� � 85 � �- ���; y 28 ��- �=�af � �''�� ��.D�r��
�.�c?..o;r+ri"..��;,�ir�����".�tr_+'�...�t.o;-n,�. -.,,i't'�,,:.c,.x�,�•�.t.� ta.s.�^n' •'k'• LYr-� Y y.s
Total 146 314 17
Source: Vail Board of Realtors Muttiple �isting Service
Satisfaction
The majority of Eagle County's residents are satisfied with their housing. Approximately
84% of the persons surveyed indicated they are either "satisfied° or "very satisfied" with
their curreni residence. This overall estimate is overstated, however, since �enters are
under-represented and satisfaction levels vary between owners and renters.
Overall Housing Satisfaction Levels
Not satisfied Very dissatisfied
'13�,4, a%
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Very satisfied
49%
Page 77
�
l
��
r
�.
�.
I -
, -_
;
J
��
�
i
I �
� Ii
j
::�
i
�
! i ;
': a
.i
�-. � !
�
i,
�;
,
!.
�
�
�
�
-1
i
i�
I
i
' _J
;
;,f
��
i'I)
t
��
�,
�
' ).1
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
1999
Of the renters sunieyed, 47% are either "not satisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with their
housing. This compares to only 9% of the homeowners. By applying these percentages
to current household estimates, it foilows that 2,000 renter households and 575 owner
households are not satisfied with their housing.
Very dissatisfied
Not satistied
Satisfied
Very satistied
Satisfaction by Own/Reni
0°r4r 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
There is a slight variation in satisfaction levels by area within the county but no clear
trends. The percentage of persons who are dissatisfied is higher mid valley than
elsewhere —17% compared to 12% in Vail and 13% down valley.
m
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 78
� Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
' Satisfaction by Area
;
" - Very dissatisfiec
��
{
�
r�
���
!
i
_�
�
�
i
.1
f'
,
.+
1
�
1
�
1
J
Not sa6sfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
0 10 20 30 40 50 SO
Both owners and renters in Vail tend to be "very satisfied" more frequently than othe�
residents of the county.
Satisfaction Leveis by Area and Own/Rent
OWfl@I'S..-.
:, ,: _: ,._� ::.�
:�-,,.' ��.��� �� ,--�,63 9�� �' 'a2 �� �. � ��
B. fl5fil8+�� -�" �.€ ��i „ s� t,d r�•-._ ;�{,,� r.�. t .
� y . ' ,�. - aft� � n'�' c.:ffi.�.re"�, ,a�r-�.'��1. �o-."siP �`7'� .-� . _ r '""Y�s7'x �L+d✓r,�, .7 {� � ,�r £.'-ry��.;c
�atisfied_;.:. 30.3 36.0 36.2
�- ,� � `� : � ,'J ��"''�,B � ° � �
sf�ed ,� � r , ,� ��� s.��� ,�'�
�.k: -�; �� �:�; �>c.� � : �. �--�.��� � ��':;:�5 �.
llery dissatisfied 2.2 p.g
- � p�?-;�-,� i00°/jo��t�,Y,'� �" tiD.�os'� ����ry�.-��;���OA�;Ic�,����
..,�s�.c.� lE����i��r.�"a�`�M' ~ J°.;�};,'� _ ° � � :� ,,�; -� �F o s
Rentei�s': � -
��mn�f.. �-••� E �"-'�:�- '�.. ,s� s�z> �-��,' -�r =�� � -i -w�=� .��
:ix.�i�simxr'x�o �..�°S1''�: �au��� -��`�'���`.��''r."L.�'6.`�.."�+� �."s�'' �`!��-rn�'������ e';L���`���� � a��, �,�`r�'.;.,�s
Satisfied �- _ 31.0 44.0 34.9
e,�`�� � �����`� ���'�� �;�; `.� +��"��37M����x'��4�}��n '
� ��.�:-.�-�::���
Very�dissatisfied � 3.4 7.7 9.3
.�. . i ,�,��c,�zj,`' ��'a.� ������y'�°-� �� �-�'�,� � ���;0�4� ��F�� ��%0�":si.2
Rees Consulting, lnc.
1999
Page 79
,
'i
� _. ,
i
i ',
i
i
J�
� ,
�; � ;
j
!_ �
.�
i -;
�
,�
� ' I
;
'�
,
It
�!�
.J
� I �
i
�
I 1f,�.. ....I .i
� i
i ��I
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
The most frequently cited reasons for dissatisfaction are the smail size of units and the
high cost, followed by not being able to purchase. Re{atively few residents mentioned
being too far frorn work or not being abie to live in the community where they want to
live. Also, living too far from services or near vacation rentals was mentioned by only
5% as a reason for dissatisfaction.
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Too small
Too expensive
CanY buy, forced to rent
Overcrowdedlno privacy
Other
Unit in poor condilion
Pets not allowed
living with roommates
Too far to work
Not in desired town
Near vaption rentals
Too far from services
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4D 45 50
Reasons for dissatisfaction vary by area. Vail residents are more likely to cite living with
roommates and not being able to have pets. Down-valley residents more frequently
mentioned being too far from work. Being located too fa� from services was more often
mentioned by Vail residents than persons living elsewhere.
Rees Consufting, Inc. Page 80
�
Eegle County Housing �leeds Assessment -�ggg
va�dw�r�a �t�r �i��v,i����Lt:�� �ay �r��
Overcrowded/no privacy 21 27 3 i
r M vr^�.-- x�`=+r-�- �-r^ Z -F". ty . rr�.�:t�y. r . .. � . °c^ . , ,2 7�t .� S r-'^ aT .xa ,✓cb � .k. �,'-^,. <�;
�.,.� Zi�F:�x�i ,�'.�1,'.'�~����G1 �°'a "r5+-,.,�.J � y, s . e : 7� �'ijNici{�(�ic�, . .,[� ; . � t 1i . ; `,''�'�,jw+'' ,�12 ?�,r'�{' t- ¢ �s''�N'�yP� �"" u5ik ���}V�,'
....._��;.....ro.;G.2;'�.�x_c.;�:.�.�..._..�::r_..._ �',�i.�a� 1 T�„_�s,.ri..a,:._�. �.�,,.�...,.�.',.s_� h,�x..�.....�.., u:_.xy.,.,�.. �,c�;"`.::c... ��:
7'0o far ka 4vork E 4 22
���'?�''!ltrCi�SICEC��`�t7}ti/f�� ^,� t ;�; : .- �-sry",v } � . �aa _ � '`.. .. " °f .��Fj r i � ,�'`-''��'.r � a�'i�. �"i�-�i
'�..�i4us�s..=:...x...,�?.....`-u�7� �..�,__.......`.'�w.:w d:...`�.t�."5'�5..�..r.� Cr:�a.. 5...�. `�:r ». _ ..�.�.ar,<_u,.�:.� ._E,.� e�_,.,._....�?.��c:.::��......,L`.v�r;
Pets nc�t allo�v�d � 9 20 10
t., ;aTT¢ tA' „+�.!�l:r'P+s:as.;p'y..�r,.-p••�;} n.,u�nr,:,a-x..«:`rs :;?'+^..:�t�f.v�,...,.�,....y..,!�
iL'V��.��^1V'���I�Iti,�yQa11117�G�4�.�7, s , x � i,�� � ��.:L "7'7,'X ^^f r �'LY `KCr ,! r 5� 3 � L i ,, 1 .f . � t ' .�G`11�"�''"
' l�tm .�.
A.:,uG.,��-:b' . l.:i�'3YF:_ � .�....e.$s.:'.w:.rs...,.,.:v:L'1�...,. a.�:M.�„u '�,r`.'� �.:;:.a_...,.... . �..+..a��.�i,u..n._�w',''_.�..�c.t.^��....:x_ �,t,:.n ,.eX _ ...:� :XS ;! ..�.�a�.:t
Unit in poor conditian 29 �1.4 22
i'"y..�L:�t^rens'.'.RI?^^.f�J;;�;;?�,.aK��'"�..,.�,T^,_,.,°::7",S.'�)�� .r."'�,..,�'^�...-s„Ta p:���� .. +t,:}...J.;�1;Ty��• f'c,'t'^c'"" .c�?:r>r,.,M��e-
y���i�r��e��� �,�t��,�fr,�� . �,.�:iJavr;�;y� ; r r ,' �e��y '"SS� � ��C� � z� �*4 � �', pr�'�:!,ti�a.: i! �,�
Gouniy Housi�ig �leeds Assessment
�ii�-? �'� �'t.�%`�L� i 6'3 �
i999
Corr��arinc� the numbrr af rooms designed as beclroom� to fihose used as bedrooms is a
; I rn�:astarEmen� af avercr�wding that is su�erior to other standards. This examination
!; revealed Thai o4=ercrawding is more con�mon among srrialier units yet found arnong all
ric�s except pc�s5ila!y five-bEClroorn hornes. �3y applyi�}c� the percentages of
overc� o�n�cied units in t'rte su�ply of ap�roxima�eiy 1 U,650 primary residences, it app�ars
th�{i about 3�0 units ar� ov�rce�vyoed.
�:c�o��� J��'s�n�d �Carn��ar�d �:o U�e�! �s �edroc��rs
'� ��. 3 � ;��-
r+- l . c ::��.7 . 'n"' .� i1 h `��y . � /y � *t z 1 � +� � t . °'YS—^" .,�Y"'"YW^.^x7 ac �
s' 4�.c: t� r �. iff � f � y� 0 , �S.r 7� �i � � ti i�r 0 � � r � 0 � �. c . { � � �,�('.�'l+"" � S. � i . .7-:�
` I oiv h 1 � V/n x v_.� v� J�d �/O - E t � IO' a 4` /T� f ti �( ' t% 3'' �� r Y N x(S'''
r.a_.._.-iT.. Ei a:.� �.:Jr.:..:..i.>w,..u. �.�..�" �_r .. �, . �. C.a..,u...,,....n�� }5:_.1'�ln.:..,1«uc:tt'v:G:.:.._ , �'�,uS.....e.�.w.$r.K �.....s�.._.�i.� _.?._c.w..L.:.w,:,...
L ��°/O 7'-t�d�i7 32% 9%
� ., * r..r� � t s'S'?`^-" Si > p'*. iL ,F -7.� Y. :i5i !� �1� p ' 'FT � 4� �y�f ,i—a � Q Fn � ; � �,. % . � 7r Gl � er.rvk"'it y,,. .
� � q
)'3,��...'.t�1ircny,t�lt a.� t n���.t �ih _.����L ��.�frr 4 L�� �O�Fi-.��4rtist,�`t°Yi0 �`� s t 4
.�SuL.....+y.l L..f-..:....U.,.�.,a-/.,.��.�-1.Fa� u_.��=.i._Lw._,�:.L..,_ti.,.,,�_i,. G..__ . t_...:.,�,._�, .�n .....L_.irt._„�L..._:w....«... a_ f_.-?: a..��.. __..
d�
J ��0 �F � ��0 J V �IU
r . .� � z+f 't e
�i.�j �b;j�-.. dr� : .�S ��� ,s,i�' ���, c"YZ.. �. i'Sl ,jl.. F K, + `
� ��
��.��_.,_.... �, sa?fi��..::..u_.y:...4S.w�.!,w_:Y ?......5_ss�Y.s�. E.......;y�,�ti...:t?_� .z�JO.:�� t....L;��+.na��, v�0
� OD% �i 00% 100° o � rJ0 �o � 00%
Tt�is r��te��l��odology cio�s rai take inio �ccour�i a cornman �ype of ovEr�r�v�c�;r7g in E�;giE
t.;L}un�ty -� unrelatec� rcomrnaies sh�srin<7 beciroorris. R�nters ofte;►� rr�usi snarc� b>�t�rc�orns,
�vi7iUli is a comm<�ri re�sor� ;�r di�.,ati��,facii�?�. 1�Vf�ile the fre� uency of this :.:ituation ��as
nc�� rn��sur�:d, ifi is knowi� to eccur crit�r�. ���>loy�:rs ����a rna�i�;r lease r�ntal units for
t1�E:i� Fmploy�cs �isual�y r�lace l'nree to faur employees in Gacl�i two-be�roo�7� unit.
E-Ff t3::l��3":�a n`�e��.�`i�� �'i^�-'Y'i�'�'E°:�
R�nters ar� pa�ic�,�l� rly s�sc�ptik�l� to risina housing casfis ar�d lirnited al��ilability. Eteinc�
! c�isplr�cEC� bec�+ast� the u�ti�is itl w�'�i�h fhey i�v�; are solc! �nd ir�sec�arity d«e'tc� inGdequate
� IutisGS �re f�:��o �r�bi�n�s ex�niin�d tl�at �re unic��e �o renters. _
��P.7'I�dfS F(iP ��1�
Ori� pr�blem ih�� r�ntei�� �x;�F�r�ience is disp��cc�munt whEn ihe uni�t� in �f-�ich they resida
�re uc�la. !r' displ2CECllEflf OG�:urs durin� the c:eak vvint�r se�son, ren#crs f�ce a
'� nart;r.ularly to�.�gh hardship bec�use renfia�s �re ex�remeiy difficult to fnc, carnpirig is nc�t
� � a tcrn�or��ry a(tE� native and wor�: hours are l�n�, IFavir�q tf ��m lifitie tin�e �ic� see4c
C'r'.+:l�c,�C�1T16'llf �IQ!lalilq.
� !
�J
F:e�s Consutting, in�. — -- ^ Page 82
��yle County Nousing Neecis Assessrnent -�ggg
alm�st 8% of the rerfer hous�h�lc�s in Eagle C�unfiy (approximai�ly 340 houset�olds)
are at risk ofi beirg dispiaced since ti��� units in which they rESicie �rL currently listed fior
sale.
��r��es•-Occtapie� U�ias L.is��:d �o� ��al�
�,��,'�r",� h�=�. ,yy ���.�i-N`�6!'�'sS..M� 7,0�*�'"7§�NeH� � �; .9971� {4d'4�6 G� ! � �LJ'�l�d5rl�taYi'k'L �G+�Y�
�f y�3�r �. J . .� p/ � f rl C {�'t�1r ) �-,,,� �1� 4,4{4,t"S�.z(p s,_ `"6JC-r�" �',� fZ -0 vK'(}) ��, ��,��, "�+�
'�i.4 t:t1 � °lti Q ' 70 ' �t , ``xi �°/O �'�-,� i � „-,{ a�". �n x ) � � �`�v;in `��� s���-�'�
,s ...:,.�........ I,a,J.s'`w.ux..-..F'�..�S.,,Sd. 6aRa., �_.a..�.'�t�* ....e.. ,...�.'�7,wE.-�Y.�ei+4n.�..... ��5.?.d-w.�:.La.,.»�.:� af�:...:�.�.hW.
Yes 7.8 9.5 4.5 15.3
��� �t�?j � ' a wr5 i a � �� � -�� ss r.^r F t' {..'L,>-,� a . n -;;— � ';te.irr . � ,�r Q�,� > -^-�
_...�.y,,.,,� ���...i'��r a ' '"itr�4�_��� ) 4. U't�{r .+�� � ��::c�T.'��'' .i�,Y��".! i..��st.T�S:� .
� , k.3 }ry ,V..s�.s.... � .,.�:..a�..�,.�....c.. t., ,r .. ,r'�''_.r....r..�.....i... N.,ws....�' h wvitt.ui..:,,;�'.3.k.j:.,ai�=+A"�vi'2E�,��
1G0% 100% 900% 10�%
�he concern �baut r�r�?ers being ;1is�lacec� b�;cause �he units in which they r�side are
�old is w�:�rr�nt�c1 ba: ec� on rec�nt trei��s. i�� fihe past thr�e ye��rs, �0% of the r�nters in
�ac�le Co�m'ry (�siimated fo b,� a��out 852 hou�eho(ds) hav� moved b�cause their
resic9ences �vere soicl. F��niers in the mi� val4ey have r��en impacte:� the mc,st by the
Sc'Z.IF' OT UlllfS. ���e�riy % of th� r�nfiers no��� residi��g in the rnid-valley arUa inrlic�tEd fhzy
rnoved in the p��t tt�reL y� �rs bccause thei� f�,�mes �v�re sold anci they vv�re fo��ced to
vacate.
i-E:�ti=� �ar��r� �3ec���� � �ta�i�: l;�p�a:� �nicl
(J�+���E..1.. EI�;�I_ ;'v��L1 �p1E,i_.�.� �' t�t3liyi� �,',�l_g_Cl�`'
'���r'�P� c, ryn.� -� � r �vi+x. � rn. ;��` t..q v t. J
.�'7 � 1��_i.�'GLI�,� ° �d ��.t� r��:..s ,t,.�.�.c r�-:t�'� t�r!� `�i� �1� k'a�s..5`E
_l..._.._s_. �. .�._ ._, r,c,:....�. ....._. �..� � >.�...1:aL. ,,...._ .,. . �. .. �_ ..__ .... .. .:.i�. � � h:..... . �_. .1�..._:T ..::io.,..
i*io - £�0 8�1 76 87
�f''�""�'Yti,''�w-'i� l�V�p/6{r�E'y��� L w�i�V��O�'r,�.�- f. f�.:yS Tii1V�f0tir�'i�v ��[w�i�Kn�1�UD�Dy ���.�f`i
..L.,s=a3�-_.,�...� �it....s.a,F_..._,..,�,»��,..a5 t��_:c....."�:::.F...�:�..t�..Y,.,Zr....:.:i,e..:i ._..,�..»...,.,,. ...W�....5 � wF...'�.�f.c'
_L�... .....4� .a F��..:s:3::.:.«+:'E[.,u.�_
%.G-"35t,-' J��.'ilYi�
f�p�'J(OY.iIT12�EI}! �J% of t��e ren'c�rs in �agle C;ourify a� not tiave long-t�rrn leases �for #r�e
uni�s in �ihich ihey reside b�f rafiher renf or � mr�nfh-fio--moriih b�sis. -(�hes� renters are
� ut,jPCt to ii�creas�s in s-ent�;l �'��€.�� ttlor� ol`[�tl fF'��t'1 every y�Gr �ind may be ;orced fio
v�caie tr�eir uni�s v�ith �77in;lii��1 r�c�tice. i�nly 5''/� of thle renfal i�nits are IeasEd for six-
s?�ronth n�rioc�s, a srnall figure r�l�five fi� i!7e seasoria! f(uct�aiions it� em�lo}�mer�Y in th�
count�
Rses Gonsulti��g, Inc. V Page 83 �;
Eaglc Cotmty hiousing IVEeds Assessment
�_�asE 7errn �
Other No lease - month io
g�/a month
6i %o""
3 monihs
1%
i months
rJ%
P.enters in th� Vaii area are at grc�t�r risl< c,f losing their units �r having their rents
r�ised unexper,tediy si� �ee 32% da noi h�4�e leases.
I..e�a �e Y��r�s t�� Ar•��
Nty1 Tcy�` �',5� ��S �,X+`^.�' � ?'Ni`i � �t£t""f � �i'4 ��, �Ff�iL,. t :� FSANI�W �IS�I.e� I,xr ��kJ!.6'SIV�N�i.��t..��J
��1;� �N�s .c�:f � ..k� i�� �D�i1� i� Q� c� r.. �f� � ta�y�,F�. �
�.,:x.}�-.3,•.�ra�::..�..d„u�t.b1:�.�rt,.u.�!-:.�G.L......,,-,... _..� .. �f...,ri. ._....d.........���...�..a..�-rc3 S.-;�1�.�.�i,. �.....t.�.: tt��.i
F�o lease - rnonth to mantl�t 32 24 22
t' _''r"_``�, (.(., C. r 5 , � -� _ : ' , r r. 3 j. °i't . i ti �'t� � � . � ��r'F �. (. �. � ..
)��.mQ�lf�lu �.ti 7..S L s > i�... ' it 2 S� �` X f N ��Y
<<:aL.2.vwvwtl.L._u..ii�,1..Y„'i.�L.. 1:... ei.i,�..(,u... c.: , .... :.... ..la� u....�a�. _ �...t...la� �a� ct�.`.t.,` '...��vLf�.. �._.....1 ....`�..+� �� �w�,.4.�
6 manths 8 � ��
e!� (ilUi��i'iS2y��rt '1�� ! f r �`� z." s M�, ,,�q tt�, ��'k i4T 'rJ`�" r
f��: �.�cr.,..�n.r.d'6:r....r...v.� . . t,..�_,.»l.._.__.....� ._.,..�....,... ..v..�..._x. ._.r�.� s,.._��.s t.�.� i e�t ��._r,.t'..:..,.._ ..,�..
Otner 16 4 ` ��"
,., ('�(�
L{u..'iu!w4.M.�..�..:J.3 �.r�....� .�.; ...�.�ssi ��.u.}r i.�_.3 a�l ...� t r � llll.�+r.�.w 6,..w ....... 545. ��Ou�v.u' ti ic... �it�c�:.3:._.�.[..{.)...�.`�:�.�c,t...:,v!
'i 999
���ip�a��s��r��� �� �'?���:��hi�
�s de�cribeci in the {�TRO;�ucTion� secfiior� of this report, approximat�ly 40% of the
count�'s resideni� rent. fVia;�y of f,�em vrant to purchase hori�es but have r�ot f�r man�r
r�eas�r�s. i�f�e iotal c�ast o� h�u.�inc� fh�f is for sale is tl��e rryos� frcquently mentic>ned
reasan r'rallowed by hi�h da�n�n payrnents. The fact t��at hausing is not avaiiable �vvhere
r�enfars v�1anfi to buy rrv�s seldom rnentioz�ed.
i�
i ', Rees Consuiting, Inc.
Fage 84
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
4��a��n �#�� �3av� �1Q� �'�s�h��ed �fiearr��
�i��?�'����� �l,r`�I �.r�����HVY�F�'-`s�
�i' FcM,�j.?�e t54 �'�.h i" �4jc��'�x i a �xa�r� ,.
i �,5r��,$s�,��,�14�3M ����TT,,�tY� ���h,ti
Tot�l cost 83.Fi �4.2 82.9 84.6
+ � �;. � `� �._. ;-�,�' � � ^�e p r� �t� ,ti +c---'^�^ �i �` 'i a"'— � "�; � �n^�'-�'..
�.LackkQ� dow� a � � ��;„ ��.� �� � 6'� � F�.��'S5 � ���� u��-�.,r�0 7 � ��^ ��> � J
'�:."�:....r.�.2s�t'''2.;�wt ���{1 r�,u�...r+ v�'� � �fi��i'� ��� T' e�' irx� M t t&; �x� ,,�� v� �L.? s� a� . tiu`��-c�1:1�r"�.
3. §YLL't°''" � I z_ � +�, �rn, , _�.5.'s=��eea3�_`x �.��'� �4s'x:t�.W.._aac�: � ��w� Y2w+.%+.�..,. . �i�'T"�. w a�tv ? ,`; y.4� Y�; . „C-� syy7n.�i 4M S�R2>i
-� t� M�w6:�YJ.lv..roaaP.:�aS .1.w_Y...`' a'++w4i2.Yiil�r:�
:Lac� of.ti,�usinc; gype cF�c�ice 35.2 42.1 37.6 36.5
,u' "'�t°'� iN^ c:Vr-eJ"^z[ �ne° r. �.-w—+.nv+..:r,�u,r
i vn ) 4 �'t�"�' ". '" a, t'� s ��s � f-f?lh="•'.." ..=t.�. , i•,�'. r S � —5 1i-^�.a �-« . . � . ,x,
���n�� qu� ifj�fr��r a�la�n� r,�� r� ;�� ,� �,�:��`i�f-�2 � �. ����26 3 ���. "� � � t r.- �-
T, .. _�{ ,,. � � e�� z Z� 9 t. � .} £� � �42�3'
�GY.�F{.�i��''"��-xt:.�. i�rz"�e '+r��7..u;.�;'� �..,::�.`.:e�'+�}—.},� � �: �' �`:�' �+rrP.EV �S � !f .� 3.x .�� st,g„+ � `�eoZx•Y�TYa = 'sS t{ .
�i �...�i;�€Z.yt.c:�.m..,f�c�':: C.LU �t_.d[i!3tzn.�.� ....z.....^�c'u"1� �:..:7 .�w.s:3�..�'.�:;� ff f> b�T „�'-w:� '�..4y7'.�.' y°"ii�
Hnusing nai av�ilabie vvhere I ?_4.2 31.6 21.4 25.p
�aant ta liv�
ChEv^ �-e+ . r pr�� yfpn "�,.y,�l"'�� �� � r s-�.^scTM t P x '�'•?= i"S[. �."rt .. -m- '.^^*�.^�-t-x' C' Y,"i f t r
eap�ra ��rt �.i{ 1�"a"%4°'•` i �'�-+ 7 F � T^'� � �i = � � � � � f �1[kh�t IIT'2i 5 1T } i /�{ ( �eL�.:� i � �JI f � �
S��-�.-i� ��� y o,."3q} r h'} r• � M"�' s�M �a��„� y �� .:�"�� � .J ,,. r. ���'� � iV�� k',�k'�'.S� r� �ri�+i� � gRZ{
.+�lh �,�uc7'�Ja.S .•v�`i'�lk.`,7'7,,:.,�.,�'....A?e'S,".�:k'su�:'m'�...,c^,..s..� r.?;�.:..t d:n �....-L`?;«. s;..#,....x:..:.a c. ..», _. � X. u � si`� qC
S s ; .Ya� � .. . , e� ..,f :sF:.�a �.._. .T ( e.'�...,. �qvc7o,u ,S�xt'ncW!?
C)fher 11.6 18.4 9.4 11.5
�, ��� aiy° >���4Y ..,t,jav ; l.t�iy��r�'. ����—�"'`7•+^'%G�.t�,��t�xx+�5 Tr � � rr1�f"L�i� s ��- cm .k.'*��..�" . 't 4.C'�.a r� f �� F }(,, i�'p ie'i.`� 'Z-,,,,,r�`,k+T . y...M_.�
_ r t �e r .�, ��.° `� of�l � �?� :� 2G7��`i � ' � 281r�i yp � .� 28$ �
:;,e As �y�,�'� F� w�,E� 7 a,o",� �e:�Ki`;,->'r7 T.1.SJ �� £'�,P>�'x y� ��t� a��� .. i t�".r 'a^ti' �� �. G J.� V� .r,,..�xw�,:;e y;, R
°`..t�..:.�.� ti..:L{;1:r' >.�ik.L��:e:.S�.:a..rft .<.43+r.�r L:;s....��.t�w .:i`..;:n..>.s�.,a`t,.�^ v-�.sSa3 i .k.s ,«, ��� f.�.��.;.i�,>...�....�:,h k.�a_, ..•��"..�s�i3n.w:s"�.�.'k-�:i:�
Note:: Total ex�eeds 100% due tc mulitpie responses.
Rees Consulting, inc. Pa e 85
9
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
������� � W� ���������� ��� �������������
This section of the report presents findings fi'rom the surveys concerning the conception
and structur� of possible housing programs and projects. Trie �ollowing issues are
' _ , examined:
� Homeoti;rnership opportunifiies;
o Deed restrictions;
� Trade ofifs;
� Support for various employee housing aiternatives;
� Where different types of hausing should b� located;
s ��lho shouid be responsible f�r affordable housing;
'' a Employer ��rticipation in housing solutions;
� Employ�r support for deveiopment ar' empio}�ee housin�; and,
m Employer support far regional, county�v+lide approaches.
�ar�a����a��r�6�€� C�Dq���e�fia��i�:i��
Two groups cor�stitufie the rnarkefi for for-safe housing:
1. f�enfiers who want and can afford to purch�se; and,
�. Current hom�owners w}�o w�nt ta purchase a dir'f�rent home.
_ __
{�erate��
fhe fiirst grou�—renters who want to buy a home and can afford to do so based on
currenf hous�hold income—consists of a�proximately 1,790 huus�holds. This estimate
is based on the followinc� assurnpiions:
, � About 56% of current renters in Eagie �aun'ry want to buy a home in the area wifihin
� the next three years. Applying ihis percentage fo the estimated ��,260 renter
hnusehold�, rougP�ly 2,386 renters wanfi to buy wifhin the nexf three years. The
percenta�e is highest mid valley and lowest in Vail.
;
Ress Consulting, Inc. � Page 86
_ _ .
. �
�agle County Housi�� Nee�s Asszssment �ggg
S
�!-�n annual income o� at least $35,000 is required, based roughiy or► a minimum �
purchase price of about $195,000 witf� a 5% clow� payment �nd a 30-year fiixed ra#e
loan at 7%. ($115,000 is about the lowest price typically offered in rnountain
communities when public subsidies are provided.) (
��e���rs �J�o ����at �n ��y F�nm� is� �4�� �hr�� ��Ii�his� 31t`�ars
"'r� u"' 't if�F ."4 arn rr.�r'. k" .!'rci . u�'+'n—r7" �. � z� r. rr ��F.,t...,....... x
� i^ �ic�J s. �y� , rr K i7� ,y i+ '� s'�. v:>. r?_s{=
�� �`�t��.;���k���;����r�t1,�;�� � ����3�3r�::.;����,��9��►����c���r���r�!!��!�.��
Yes 56% 50% 59% ' y_. ~56%
„�r�!^•P^ v>� �vn r;� qrT�2� e}r.� ? n tn .-z�. .rr
+E"�p� !� y v,.}�`„Kyt_r a 3� .n' u O �q, 1� x'Ti r '.�'-�.rc �+' ""i r g a-'a-.��. �.� tx.+},a 1""�-',i
9�10� sk �� xr��`�G �'��: 22✓0� �3"I��rw �Z���O Qc.a''�""4 "� .����0 ��'' 1 l+t� � q0�
�._..,- a:.i'Sr �..�,.r.._ ...tj� . ��,1 t �..`� .,,.,t:, �...t„ � ....c_r.f-,: s=..,n 3�i�.......,r:au....�� ��Y:.'l,��?�
Uncertain 22% 26% 21 % 20%
a'`<1*s� "s.sy�r.!�f �M.'t��4 p� �`,1�'�^.s W?4' '�s�'..`?'-'"'� fi r. S�acr�97`a rw ^r..,'� .'x'=ri,S
��� �.�,��,�,��� �:��.,� ,10b10 ya� 3'1.00%a ��4,� � 1_OO�Io �,, ,� 1� j 1C10%�
"�x,�.u, �....�:�:., � ,�..c_ .....u......:.::i�x.,.....� ��..::�...w,,.:,`�, L? .ia..<?.�..:..:�... �. J,.a ..o...a '�.l..�.�..�..�, i,a�.._,. �.,..:.w
Abou� 25% of renters ir► Ea�le County f�av� incomes below the $35,000 annuai �
threshold. The number of renters wha v�ant to buy (2,38�) iherefore should be reduced
by this amou«t fio reach an �stirnafie of approximat�ly 1,7Q0 ranters v�ho are potenfiial
candidates �ior home o�vnership. This nurnber is still some4vhaf infiated because it is �
basad on current househald incomes. With lirnited excepiions, r�nfers living with
unr�lated roomrnate� will n�t be abfe or ���ant to �urci�}ase homes tog�ther. Thus the
p�rceniage of renfiers vyho ir�come qualify woufd t�e some�hat lo�n�er. �
9����el��8� Incorr�� �is�F�it��tica� ��{ (�l�€nit�er�.�
$"". z.�:4 � i�����^'+ �,,,-.er�.�' i�� �4�ith!� ii� + . '�5 '� � � r�n . ��..� '�
en {�rn�i s'. . � _'�'r+�.jN� �.' �'�, ���l..�j'`' i c3 ,, r�4��.l� �`rlir,� i,e��, � � . .,. .
s_.Svdor._sx,�r :.x..........a�'t'«?•p�,.t,.,L�.� ._^xa� � m�':,.. 4:.�0 . ?..t�,:r';xc...�.r h.._«.r :..��r.sn�_..s�,a.:::e:
$0.- 14,953 2% 7°/p
� i'5 �CiO�'�si � �99� �� �„�„��s_:r� ��� ` �r"'1 °%r�i�"�, � 4+,3r-�<;` `o z�:�7
w:Y :c�.t .�.�e:�.,�....<.c�!a.a�.�c �C:ee.�:�.baise ��r,�t...x.h��..,.,at'�.1'FaSz�u.aas �.�-��...r.�°'z�,Li.�� ��f"�x"�,�i�;�.`n`�::
. r.-.�,�::.�... .
$20,000 - 24,999 2.5% 5%
��/`/��"' ^r�".�.t°Yf�""'S-.:;,,,."�f� ''�§, ynrp"�r, �. �� �,,�.�.,�,.,,� i�� �ui.,-r �y M� �--�/r } �;r� r�7��a a•rf�`�'yr�`cr^i�
"`Y�Nj �V �,P;M�(`..~�V���-.;.��(�""'H� d'�s�ia � � w1'%L"v tt.us.�� S �✓4t�i�'1� �t�Q/O�tG�'..`ch'~'�'�fd
1.se..v.n.xY:a 5�:'�svu... +��.".`.� �'.,�'u �" v� %vcL-ttw+.tc..U'i�l .3S t"`.' Y
��o,aao = s�,999 .4�/0 ,�io
�:y?�@��°�'*i"„� � `:'�'-�'�;nrr ��y,,-'�fi� . �,,,�^'��.,,,---�•�''"� �'�",Jsh. dF� �r , a.� c-�,.r;�a�q:
�������' ��7�7�7,��' �i`"'�'v-"'�y'i�s �'Ss.�''�t�"w 0 sx�:�.3��� L� i�'� 0 v ��i:'
r........�x?�w:t..ec°u!,.,wa�.�.�,.� a�S,� �xK c, � k!i �<IO ��,.��,,1 'T h�.- S�0 4uT, .r,.,r
-� .,C.s` ....d� s.1L w. � �.,.t...l..,..s..,..��
$!-�0,000 - 4/-d,999 5°l0 1 d%
�Yi--"�^�•.�,ry:'� wa,�r,�p^,°�Fd�'��; F� 4^h .w�z. ��ej..; `-�'c.r'+�•�,� ��jYir'' �'` . vFl1P.rixR b..�
��� fOQL7�.���99 �����t� s s�z;���djo�� �' ��'�-;�''�jQj� ��.`�t
�x�J +s'�''�.'�"...,;m._'� ' ... ��,.:sn�... i....�., wa:...:�,..:..:w,: x::�s
$�0;000 - 54,99�J 6% 10�/0
R;;�;y-mE.'^l •v,r��y;r�, .+,u�;ix^�;;.,�f+S� ^' �: 5 ..'£'.n ,r,s.,".'= r r.,...
��55�004'���59��99`��',��'������;a�,�, ����,�y,���:�:,���k A��,-:��?�
?- - �.<,::„ r.,�,a.,.�'�aur:.:. , �krs'�.f,.-.:f� .��f..�`. �+"'�" u,_:,...,r:i 0 c :i» -i,.:51:� ��.. r...�s: �����.:.���i." "s' �a
$60,000 - 6�,99�J- 9% 8% �
�+�..... �.�:�y;r�xz"'FP r.�/�/��".av" j�.tf. a s r„ r r I, �'� � -�;„ ,s •�°-.,E��
[ U� �V T:t-+E Qv Uy's. ��'�. �y � `sq��ye%s'an:�a{ tTf;1F�0,.�y �
T..�,..V ��% O�A?'�U �VV'K ti � V y ��j4(' / l R (� yy � ��
� wu.'t3cumui�.T.�2tr— .�l�..c :w-'.�.;�i ii�� y� ��+.�.S�.t:.v ���i'�..�...�i�v'f.p ,I.rb.:x"sa�a.�`�..:..
$70,000 - 74,999 7% 3%
aFf'?7rL'S�-� ('i�^..r,""�5+� .K 'ry....-x��,,j�''•,'p�'rs�f'� � �°�,v�z TMN�,T�+�3q1 .nrrr,r-s, x;},q�" ij. � rS�t1-,"'�ce.: .*{;.:�p
}��I:' U�LJii�. i�L1�G�����i`�+,�3`�� c. � Li��i .'t 7�O yr K ¢ t� �i ��/ �O ��"'v...SF=•j
6,,. �ti t -r�..r»,.�xrs..�u„wss-�ir._,s.a2-�P�*i:..,.'"_S:S "'tbYx�G�ry.Y�m.r.>y.�,l.�R�t��`�..�.,.._:!fL.c�...�i._� S!aum.
I ����o �) ��%
Rees Consuiting, Inc. Page 87
Eagle G:�uni}� Housing Needs /\ssessmenf �qgg
To��l cosi is the prirn�ry re��or� w��y most renters I:a��� nof pii��ch�sed 3 ho�n� yet. Laci;
of � dov✓n p�:�ymunt v�as cit�d by ovE:r h�lf as ����ofi.��c,; reason.
°�'slY�y i��ra��r� �-�r��re i�e�i Ye:f !��arc��s�c�
sa;�
ao�ia
�o�%
so°io
ro
�
� �o�io
4
p
�-+
C
�j �i�7 �o
w
�
l7.
3�%
20°,�u
10°/a
0%
Totai c<�st L.ack c�f Lac't of C2n't I-iousing rrot Cheaper to Other
oo�;m tio:r:in� quaiify for zvai!able rent
pa� men! typ�: ci;oicct lnan vahere I
�t•Znt !c lis�a
Roie: t\ lisi o("r�thc�' reasons is i�iciuc�::d ir� the �ppendi�:.
�i.�/YYiJt di4�.}3�\iV�II�Q'icC`.1
"(�i��� s���t�nu �Jrou�r---curr�rit h�rr�eo�nrn�:�rs interr:r�^cl ir� �:,urcii��;inc� � difiere�t horne—
cnnsists ur a!w��rn>;iir���� ;iy 7,� i=? {��•:;��: �hc=1�:7 �i'rtiis Gsti�����ie is !�r s�.ci on tl��e ���umptiari
_ _ .__ .__
thaf E;0% c�f t�f� 1 �,�;�9 }»u�eh�!;.-as ir� �;�b st:.s��iy �ar�r� F o� �ion c>F ;::ac�i� Coun#y—or E;,390
I?UU �EFIC�ICiS--�fE Gtr�lil��f5 .3tli.i iilc!: �t�`i': t:11` t�lr..'C71 Ut'E; Itlii�i'C-;iiC�a fi i}�!.�i r'r�,:.�sinq ��iffer��:r�fi
FE��-nP. ��c��i ; c}rc.�u� u}���:: r�;�t in�:o;r�c; c�{�.���i.ir";�cf t>�:cG<<se i1z� er�ui¢l� Tf�ey !-�avF in ti��ir curreni
horr`iF-s is ur��iiodJrrr. Sli�i�tly rnor� miG� v��il�:y hr�meo�,n�r,� rs �r•� ir7ter�sieu in purch�sing a
nP�v h�me than V��i or clov1��,-��aii��y ;t�: idents.
; � F:ees Consulting� Inc. -------------- ---------- ----- ------^..—_Faga 88
_
Eagl� County Housing Needs Assessment
���t��t ���a����i��:+�a�� [i��er�.�f�s� 9�z �t�r�ha���►� Clgh�p 3��ix��
� s4� �� � ��Sr i .. ��,,:..� � �^^"sx'[o;ns��f ��'-vxf'^r�'Y '�' � C ;'Jv�'� ��' �. "'� i' ti
:��.���s; �.�.,n�,��� 1���, � ;�'���l�c� r; �� �����{� g�� �„ � �?����� -„ �-
��..�....�.,_.:.�: t:;� , �.�,�.....� � � �:� . �,..:..,�.���
`��s 4�4% �?_°% �7% �2%
�.yra;�}-r,f�7,r,r5d R�rt'��";.:* r fiY�z, ss�qr.; c-;,��;,:u�r? '= v.;M{:::t�+.,,—', nYr,. r.._c,
9 '�y �k�w 'r'�r f o ���`�� � � ,:,���.�+'�� 0 �'srk f�C o �rz..�°ut r"�a,"� �p`' )� F ���' �
f���=`_...'.a...�ii � �-tirFa���O,•:�"3. �5��?.�.�:e�0 � �ti �''" � .J� �U ' �t x .�'h.'Y^r;5°f �U�/0,� i�na'd'Nr..«
R:..,_,.s�._ � �.'t„ai ti �r :�,2.:.2ci.,.�,. u.u.::Li}:..u��..a.:.Gt.ESL:I:t tkas'�.�`�.Wr,,. . ....
1998
The prim�ry re�sor� v�P�y cu�ie�t hameovvners averall �nrish ta purcnase a differ�nt home
is to awn « lary�r hom�:, �ltf�c�ugh this �a�as less irriportant to ciown-vailey r�sidents.
Some�rhat ��ore imno� fiant for �c�wn�-va!!�y res�denfs is living ir� a di�f�erent ioc�tion. ti'ail
homeob�r�ers are tf�e ie�st coricErr�ed about living in a differen� location.
�'de�}n�� ��t•��rrfi�g to �'urch«���: �;3i�s��-�:�t Fia�s��
� �p 1 i^u�.��A .a},� Y ia.:r�F�� �����y ��.�-.�c � � fi>y^�s. i� ti ,cc� �� -itE. � .-t. ' M�'y
E ' t � y*,� �"���e��."h � '� s'�'�.� � � ��°�:Y'��� ''� r'd„��4{ �"' � t�@� �FT -�` �Ce�ii'Tm� "i
� �:r' �,cra � �y�'.�'`� i `a' r> �r .z�,�s�r r 3� qy.k' ,X �t`4 i�p �a� v �F? ' £�u,r �.Y... ��' � T\ s r„ '�+,tt �
t. � t 1 � T �',"j ti .�J I G J tL kt ' aC -i 'r4
�� � � Sy, t t33�'s^'S'�s? e� y d if r r i �
ut`..� :1�, ._ �::s._a_,...�`�.:.,.�,t �i .sii•�v,..�s_a :x � 5.. � �s;��.:` ' � �! <� s o.- �3a'�� ���d . P � � �
7. a ,�` � � ,U =: �ic:� v�. r�u�v_i:�,..� i..ct ... z ,�„����� ,�� ;
C3��n I�rg�r home 5�3% 63% 63�/U 50%
f,'^ ��:�'fp yCp�d �'i �+4l'C�.rja,�ti"'� f1. �l Vt y� 7�.f( 1!' Y_1 �^,i�'?7 ��) %Fh 2 fx ..�/ � ii F� .. � Q.,�n
�:.'.��.tl��i fy:��:?v ♦ ��.4� `r'`I Vl�al�t,��b�! Y ;11 � y^I �0/4i � 1 r 1'�D/Q p � �d � �oi� uf S � t� t �Cp
. - .u..+lsew.+L�.i, ..: t.u... v�Y�;.i.h ... ,.� �—:M..s ... �rx...e....� ..._ . .vnSG.�_� ....�.
i.ivc in �iifer�:�t�t f�c��fi�n �0°/a ;Z5% 36�io ci i%
y � � .. e^ .r+:a �;S^`i � .�.i 1 r bt ,� v � s`si} ���.,r tl N �� �, � '�v .. ., t
������t � � 1 �� iJ � �.r a � f �,�t,t � r � . l � 6 +. ( . 1 �� 7 iG,
]/;.y}9 .J / s 'J �i
K...i!: ._..e�...�et..3�.,xr....�r.+.k�:i..1.��u��i�:� ! �..`i�i:4n+Lt3'ra,.,u.,o1„ � fyy, `.xl_%�''. �.u.....�..� I ��lOt � .a�a....��eJ,...u���...m�
(�tote: /; list of "o!h4r" reasans is includECi in the appendix. ilnulti�le choice quzstioti,
res��orises �xc�ed 100%.
�?�"c,-'� Y�!':�fEi'€C;'�:€7@.�
Gced r�str:c�i�ns Ii�ii ir�e rtiie and arro�nf by v���icl� i�omes nay an�r�ci�fe tr�r�augt�
i'°S�IB �3ftG�� caE�s �,t�ac���d i;; �he cl�Qd. Ueed r�striciions thprefar� lirnii tl-ie r�turn c�n
irrv�sin�ent by resiriciin� groJ�rth in �quify. Yl��r,:se restric;ioi�s are iypic�ll;r pi�ced on
�C�:vJ�I� units it��at �r� d�veloped v��it�� �uhiic subsidies or ir�ceniivzs such as densi�y
k�c�nt.ises.
S�v�r�;l qaestion�> ��re askec�, first inairectl�;� ar�ci tt�en c(irectly, abouf �erc�{���ions ani�
accept�ziai(ii�r cfi de�d restric��ir�r�s. ,yil potential homebayurs, botf� o��Jners �r��ho war►t �
diffe�e�t l�rarrie �nd ; enfErs vul?;o v✓arit fio buy in ihre� y�:�rs v�jtE;aut consid�r�tion o`r
ir�co�rt� �iir.tik.�ifity, �v�re <�s�:�C{ �IIG Ii7l�Crianc� of variou,� reasons for �urchasinc� a I�orne.
Sf�•hiliiy, cantroi ove; r�csrr��, and refiurr� on ir�vesfrnent ra;ik f�ir�t��st iri �m�o�iance ror
pros�ecfii��� �.�urchasers ov�r�,l, ait��ough 1l�ii r��idenfs place siigritly l�ss i���porkan�e on
a�preciaiion thar� r�sic��nts of the 7ther zE�vo areus. Some�hat Iess im�ort�nt overai! ar�
incomz iax cieducfions for n��artc�age infer�st and long-term commifmzni to the
commu,�rifiy.
�ees Consuiti��G, inc. Page 89
Eagle County Flousing Need:. rlssessment 1999
���acr�fianc� c•t ��€��sr���� �ar ���.:r�'rz�sir�� �o;r,«
Long-term commitrnent io
cornmunitv
�ix�d cosf-no annual r�ni
in�rease
Stabili�y
Con!ral over hotn:�;no
landlor�
Fceiurn c;n
im�F�stmentla�pr.��iaiian
liite�est deduction on
taxes
0 0.5 1 1.:� `l_ 2.5 3 �.5 4 �.5 5
'Y =� iiUY It77}7�J17`uYti; F.i ' 1'fii'y! lit'i JOi'`i.'ctii�. �
A �nc�er> ir�-clepth iook �t �zttitudes G;'r�out r�c:turr� cn ir�v��:tm�r�i �n�! ac�pr�:;;ia�i�n ae:�c';s
ir�sigi�t infr..� i��� �c�iei�fi;;l ac.c:��fance of c��:��c? i�r:s�ric�tic�r� ��oc�r�ams fi!��at car> ���ipreciatien.
(�r>>y ��G�a (:1i (�C?t(st'i�13� �;DI7iE;'�)U;/t't"� J�/t3i�:;�� f8E?i t��lli`i1 Cii'1 ;nve:>?r,.ient/�;OpCBCl��i0I1 IS I10�
impc;rtant v����iIP 52% f���:1 it is vcy import��! if. Currer�t V�;il rt��.ider�'cs � re fihe IQaGf. li�:ely to
r�i�l< <�r,pr�ci�tic�r7 �s v�ry iri�pc,r'ian� ��v�iii�: c(c;:l�<<r�-v�!ley r�sicl�r�l> �r� �t���� mast likely to
�alt,» �t�t�iliiy �nd c�i��ro! over thcir hom:.�.
',' Rees Consullin�, Inc. �- - ----� - ----.-- Page 90
Eagle Co�nty Housing Needs Assessment
e!-�t7po�$�i�C� �'i�' hv'tt�t�r: c�� in�es#ra�er��l�Eorn� �p��-�cg��ion
5-very impertant
4
3
?.
1-not im�ortar�t
0%
1G% 20% 30% �0% 50°/a 60%a
...�
�1 rnare direcf ap;�roach ����s then taken with pot�ntial hc.�rrrebu��rs b�� �sking th� ext�nt
fio u�hich � resale price I�►nifi��tion v��ould iti�pacf ti�eir purchasz dc:cision. Th� o�ii�ns
�ve; i;:
o �iat af ail—iimiiations on resale prices L��ould r3of b� a iactor,
� Very litilE---lin;i���ions ��rr��!!d r�oi �e a�:ey cor;sideration; .
� tv�od�rately--�� es�l� �.; i�.� lin;its �vouid be �n impr,r�Gi��t cor,sideration; ancl,
e�Jery rn�.�ch�—re�.al� limiiarin;;s �+rr���lr� pro���bly 1-�ot b� �cce��i�,ble.
i�ver haff ar'the pc�iGn;iai horne�.,��yers over�li i�dicatecl zhat a rvsalc price lirnit��ion
6"dOIIICE V2i")/ CYiU{,}� irnF�act �t}�ei� �urcf�as� decision � ar��d wo�ald pra�aabiy be unaccepfiabi�.
About 'i 8°lo s't��t�c; that a res�le prir.,� I;n�iii�tion Lvo«Id n�t im�act their de�isi�r� at a(! �r
vEr� (i�lE.
Rees C�nsultir��, Inc. Pag� 91
f
�
I
�.
Cour!;� Nousing Needs �ssessment
{re�.��cr t�f f.�eed F2estriciior�s csn l��rci��se D�c�vicst�:,
Net at all
6�io Very littie
Very much
�J.i'�o
erat°ly
!9%
Deec1 restrii:tions �re gener��ll_y ac.r,�ptable �o r7ore V�i? resid��nts tt}�r� mid- or �own-
v�i#ey resic��nts. Tney are unacc�:ptabie �to c�ver t�aif of rnid-vall�y re�idenzs.
�r�Es�:s��d �f ���a� �2esf��e�4r�r.:.� ,�a� i=���c4��� ze C�e�i ,�;,;�� �y �Y��
Very much
�vioderaieE;�
Verr littie
���
t\Ut dC ?�� 7�-.. YCi .I �w 4�.- . i7`r ,e• �fy. �F'sr = � txiF+,e -,z �r��.�. >�rt,� t ,.s_"' � �+•�t s riC �,rv� rrt`.J � i d1' y��;i���
..;F.a.r � � ! d 4, s a� �J�r t���s� '�� i� tii F i , `Fi 0. h� t� t S 4 1rJ 4Hr „',sd,.,.,
�' .y'��v� { � ~ � � f «, 7� � � .�� „S n �k ,l � y , � F � ,- s-.r „*. 7�yv.�, t �'�=�,�'
� '��� ,+t . �'l i i` � q ( , KhM r .� t G . �,rx �� �.Y � �7`�r � � '� s �J �.� � �.(��-
� G �., � :�r'+�: j F . a � � �u* i�.t..5, t �."� t t ,} .r � } � . } s ,.rl r t� T
i�? j r s h�`G t� rf3 1 n'i �g r C1 � d t M1� 1 ryt �3.
��.,: Lr.°'�,r+;,�..y�,�r n `��A. .. c'-r•.�-C;' ., ,� ,Gi � � t� . ; 4�: • �[" . 'Y5` ��� :tL..�Y�����Y.rc.��
. j
� O�ia 'fd% 2U%n 3i1% � 40°.�0 50% bU%
PatEntiai hori�nuy�rs stat�d that � r�c:n� yvitf; a 3% cap on annual appreciation �oulcl
need io be pric::>d 2?% be±ov� rnar6c�t ia- i!�en� to buy it.
ReeS COilS�Jtir�y, Inc. F'�ge y2
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
E t�e�� O��
9999
Trade offs must be made to provide and maintain affordable housing because land,
constructian, and a�her� de�elopment costs are hir�h and "affordable" levels are below
markefi value. Eagle Gounty residents were asked to rank fihe importance of various
facfiors that influence l�ousing selection: price of home, community you want to live in,
unifi size, unit typ�, amenities, and desire to awn. The largest percen�Eagz of Eagie
Gount� residents chose desire to own as fheir most important factor. The next largesf
p�rcen�age chose price of home. Few Eagle Counfiy resicients consider unit type; size,
or amEnitiPs as top fact�rs in choasing a pl�ce to live. When making trade offs, it
a,�pears that owning a home of any typ� at a price one car� afford and in a community in
v�ri�ich cne wishes t� live gen�r�lly outuv�igh fhe opportunity to live in a larger single-
f�mily home t�itr7 more amEni#ies in a less desirable location.
"t'o� �����ar ��r Cyhoo�inc� �9ace �c� !_iv�
Desire to owr
Amenilies
Unit size
Unit type
Community you want to live in
Price of home
U% b% 1U% 15% 2D%u 25% 3Q% 35% 40% d5%
i his pafteri is e�1en m�re apparent vyhen one eaamines the top �wa factars Eagle
Caunty residenfs selected as mosi im��ortant in ct�oosing a place to live. Desire.fio own
and price of the horne �,�sre among the top t��o chaices of E�gle County residents; far
fewer r.hose ianit type, sirye, ar amenities as one af their tap tt�vo choic�s.
Rees Lonsuiting, Ir�c.
i'age 93
�aqle ::ounty Heusing P�eeds Assessrr�ent 1999
ic�� l�v�Q i=ac�r�-� a�i Cha��sin�= r�la�e fio Liv�
Desire to own
Amenities
Unit size
Unit type
Cornmunity you want to live in
Frice oi home
0% 10% 20% .°.0"/� 40°io 50% 60%
Percont af cayls Ccunty
Distinct cJififerences f:XiSf q�t4�,�een residents af ti�ie tt�ree ar��s conc :�rning ihe rnost
importanfi facta; in chacrsirig G pl�ct; to live. lVlany morr� V�i; resici�nts rark iiuir,g in fheir
ciesired cornmui�ifiy as f�e n�7ost imj�ort�.r�f 'ractor t� iar� residents of the afher 4vva arE�,s,
M�i�ile fire des;re to own is some�.�rh�� iess ii�i�art�nt ror 4'ail residents than residents of
the ofih�r t�vo are�s.
pesire lo own
F,m2nitie>
Unit size
Unit type
Community yo� want to
live in
Price of home
0°ia .�.% 10% 1:�% 2Q°io 2j�% 30% 3j'/o 40°/n ���% 50%
Perc?nt of Rre�
F2ees Consultir�g, inc.
� ��� ������ ���g ���������� � ���:a�� �:� �.e�w�
Page 9�
Eagle County Housing Pdeeds Assessment
l
1999
C�ifFerences b�t�veen the three areas �lso appear v�hen exanining the �op tUVO factors in
choosing a piace to (ive. Desire to own and price af home are impartant to more down-
vailey and mid-valiey residents than Vail residerifs while living in their desired community
is irnportant fo rn�re Vail residents.
i'o� 7'v�o F�c�ors in C>hoosing a Plac� $o �.iue
Cr�mpari�orr of Ttaree f�reas
Desire to owr
Amenities
Unit size
Unit type
Community yau N1ant to
live iri
Price of home
U`%
1U% 20% 30% 40°!e 50°/a 60%
Percent of Area
Renteis �nrere asked if they would iliove to or live in a communify other ihan their fiirst
prefier�nce if this �llowecl them fio buy a home. More t}��an half averail said "yes." Ulid-
vailey renters ar� th� mcst wiilirEg to move to buy a home, vyhile Vai! renters are t�r;;ely
undecided.
Rees Consu(ting, inc.
Paye 95
Eagie Ceunty h-lousing Needs Assessment
m
�
� ,
�
��
a
..,
c
�
U
L
�
Q.
F'2�a�ie� ��Ii9iing�7uss �fl �i�ov� ic� ��y �Zesidence
' Yes Ne Uncertain
199�
�.��g�lc>��� a-�c��.��is�c� �'��9:�t�siG�:ive:s
� j Eagl� C;ou�tty resid�nts �vere �s;eci �����iich of various aliernatiues th�y supported for
��
c�evelopin� erriployE�: housinq:
�� �� m Weif ov�r h�(f suppon inritision�xry zoni�ig, ��hereby a p�rcentage oi all new home�
are cicsign�:tec� empioy�e housing;
o About t�vvn-thircls �;.�apori cornri��ercic,i iir�kag�, �vhErzby t mployers pra�iide housin�
i':
for a percentage of �II nee�r jobs create�l;
.
„
� f�tesicients �r� ovErwt�eimincriy c,'�7F)!:�SrCI ia a property cr sales fiax increase v��hile h�lf
i 1 a�e o{�posE°;J ro �r7 �;mpl�yee hEaci i�x; and,
� 11�any residents ar�e unc��c�in ai-�out cl�nsity bonuses and development fee rr�aivers,
which m�ay r��i�ct a lack o� kna�n�ledge ��nd/or ativareness about these alfernatives.
�;
� _.1
, -- ----
', Rees Consuliing, �nc.
Page 96
0
Eagle County Nousiny Needs Assessment
������i ���- ��v����a��r�t �� ��ra�lo��� ��u�i�a�
Commercial linkage
inclusionary zoning
Development fee dvaivers
Density bonuses
_,... .. ...�..,..... __. 1...r_,..,..�.m_
Property tax increase t
. +, r F�d �� � `��µh�r,q.P �e � re.��"R�c r .� .,S z �r�5}�,�,e� � �^� � � i ,�7�-�
=a �nZ �r�,'� f' �'�,-'� �rr� .�3�s"�/yr`iax � ���,r,� ��r.��a� � � 5� � r� Js� ,�:
�-�--.<<xs�!: ��,°3ir�3: ���+�".�- y 'x�'t 5y �� � * '+�'rt� a��� F' �5r ` �Ev�- �'S
i a�K,a��`,'�'4�af .�.'�'ll.s�s�E�, ,-p�,�f}yt� .� ��i,✓"Lt-s, 'd4� �t T'-� �4''� ��: �r`E```T
Empioyee head, tax J � � � w�,s,,'�rS � �� � � � �*�� � T�� �r
+ � � Y��' '
°SS7e;�1�� � n��� ��.LZ,�i�°���,-,�ij �� �� ,� `.��� 1�� �� *%'R '��e,3+. �� �5'�; -��n-- F li�x+'-�.�'.�}'�:
a ��� y.�,�'� � ,� � ��`�
;et��'�7:irt:jtiY »fPo.ut".,:,ru�rt�..�.����rr��.�5>*�+�4.��E+..a4'S.��...��'��.i�r���?�" r�3'*.r'�';
Sales iax increase `x�`�.
� P�
ttu i � � . T.n.t,l'f t f� }�"�'� . �iT� .', µ'�.'�7 F4 4-yi- ",. � � :�c ��^s � . L�' J �s �rs S P� ��f1 r
;�rY�,,.�-,.,�� �,. A 6 ���i� h lz�,� :r�rq�, �,�rr r�;�t�� ti r t t� 1��^ w�3
Development excise tax ',--� �r.4:.. ev`'� �m N tuf-�`�'� ;e�7''�'^�? '�°,p--i J�`�j3'`��'n`'ra-$ `�U? ,� t �s��}`�w ?� �E"''
�;•,-.C�-.:.���a�rf�i�..,, a { � .� Y"Fr� �3� �
on resideniial and -�-'° �'�` �`�' S- -� ��� "�";'i ' ,ur `r""
� e �� ��,r�f ts Y �,�tt" � �r,�-" y2.�y-.rs�9
commerciai construction � '� ': -�' .?�i-n'•vi"� �+"" � t� �a�''�� �^ '•iF�' �il,��, � �t#f n r -�t �'�t
,� n � -s.'.."�� ,,w � �. _ � y��.. ,t,..
:t�-!�s.v.nc:fi•r, �•,1s.eY., _ ..rl� t....<N. . .�r , a...._. _ ,,,. ..r. �,.r,...eX. ..'.
0% 10% 20% 30% 4U% 50% 60% 7U% 80% 90%
�f�a��� 6°6o�as€�c� �hc��i� �3e E3u;i�
Ea��le Cou►7fiy residents 4vere asked �nlhere �ot.ising for various populations should be
buiit. "Through�ut fh� county" was the most popu(ar choice for all typ�s of i�iousing
except seasanal sE;i area employe� housing; 52% of Eagle County residents feel
housing for these employees should be buiit in Vail. The secand choice for where
immigrant housing shoulci be buiit was "not in county," although only i7% made this
chaice.
i
1999
ftaes Consulting, inc. Page 97
l
t
I
i
I
Eagle County Housing t�eeds Assessment
Seasonal ski area
employees
1999
1i�d➢��r� Wo�ssir�g fr�r ��r�aus F'�p�l��iat�s Sha�aBd be L��ilf
'�,. � a• 4 � m-: r r"K-n m,^� ^r+^. ^e.� .e r� p F�u--s ;
��'r��. ?����1 ���I:nYsarr�l ���g(�l �Av�n ��c9�v��d� K�agf� Gyp�ur� rThroeagh r 3 k�a� i
3 S ��sY� .� �� �� C i� �K r � � Yi f t : ; �Ft(r > '„�.
Y�"5 '� .X ..�'�y 7 p� ! �G t c, �Y � � S C S A. t �"S�.t ,
�'�v� 4fYT� tF � iJ 4��RA �l.�B�l{ �° �6F��� 16��'G'�.G2". t R! n 'c ,� Y '' t wY � n.5lf � i� 2�idL . Y��s���
g• �}>.er �`S � t? ;� � " �� i s . zr� 5�„ i. � ,� i i4 yt, r.� .�-.�i 7 t;�1 L S`a'� s5 L*� 3fY� 2�..,�v r; t ¢,y�'z I L � t� �
�Ctti Ci�ay1L��.-�J%..�. <..n .,,waf......rer. r.r. �.�,_.:.5_.'. it....,cx�Nia�.: � .n.1LC..�i..cF6.:w'..� �.r.,t.�..w.:'[ � �.�.�1 a.'._.s#.i:�l•.�t✓�UEI°Y,... � y�vv�ia�F'fi
57_% 18% 23% 39% 19% $% 7% 48% 2%
Essential employees
Construction warkers
_ �___...._._,_�r..._..-....:.._._,:�.
5 0 o s, z o. i � r> o �F27°/ s22%+.a`` � � Yi °ur'' t �s °'�'-�-.�
t�:��i/o 12/of r2Jl 1E/o ; x2�1o. .,. o<< � 76/���r s 2/A ,;
,��'�i`x. . .-.,si �ti..ti....�..:a .: ��,.,.'.f :. ,. ,.., ... A � _. .._.. t.., ._.°n _.e f._.a Y.:.:.,u..de� �. ,�;,a...�......,.{ x.....,uio,.,f,�`,.,..+: � .»i._:x�: ,Yd�+..seri_i;L�
16% 7% �10% 15% 12% 11% 7% 81% 3%
-� �' n D o � o t� 0 0 r'"^' o o r � 7�o
9/,0,� r 9/0 ;r �/o, 8/0 8/0. 7Jo 10% �r66/o °'_ �"
}�._.,. ..._.,�.... �. dsu, .�_3__.c. .�s.:.,.. ,_. �. , �j .�.d;m. �..r.� �_, e ...A. . ...?;�+..<..... i<.Y} ..�_ : �� .�. � ..� ..�s � �..�.. . r ,�„ �., s...._..
5% 5°/u 5% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8� % 4%
� �'.9%0 � *; � 6%' `. a'{�� % x'. .�') %` � --*11 % �. ° . � �'�-7oi � I��jqo . s i � e�
��"L: t ) . ti � ,,,f�.l�i,� . � ���0 ..( ! /U r,�..V`t�0� y.F;�2°�0.}'� ,
{�a tia '� �. i 1 i �.�^ N Y.. � t t 1 - . � �: �� Y i� u
.+. lr' '' a w{ f" �. .�1. .'Y + .. . ( , � F (l � f�.y V ( 1., . . j �s i F� p.
�4�� 2t�'�'��� xe�arr�a � ° ,, .y� � r f . �:.� ?{ �.i x < � �''7� .t r!
� i;.ftMw�...t.,e `2, �..:1..�:...5. ..s_L..._....._ t._c..U� :..: J._. _.+...� � �....,....:x..7[ vt..,....... �.. � i.�x_...�...�r� _�..:
.�_ <_ .......w.,._ ..,..._. .
S�CiIOfS 6% 6% >% 6% 9% 1fi% "11% �2°/n 2%
�. iC�^ �T i �iR KE`i Fa' �'�"4" t � t,�, 'S r d ^J P 7' U 1.� O O t- � O . I "�i O�'r J L O ;f
f��c�!Wage���'�c�� �.f ����1210 u t�8/o� � 6l0 10% � 9/0 5 6/0 £i/ � 78/o t � t
� �� r i. j4� ����,.�F �,��r� �. � ,� 9 � `� s 'a� s � i , , b �S , o r � �o , � .
('�all/,5°NICG� 1i1(L1+CICGCS.��s t ;�%"',i't .�� � �r ` � '�, :x u :__N� s y�..'�.5_i u. ..�. �<.._..�: � ? ..,,,_.,. t._.w.`. .:.::; . �,. `, Y j �. z `�� :
. . _ ..= �_:�lu . .:::i. ..�i �.....':E..i:..nu�,�
*Multiple choice questian; tatais exceed '10�%.
��s;�onsi�ili�� ��r ,��crr�at�f� �i���irr�
Eaale County resider�ts fhink tt�af larc�e ernployers, private ciEVelapers, and/or iocGl
gouernmenfs should be responsible for building or �rovidin�r.� fur�as for affordab;e.
community housinc�. V�ii r�siclents �tend to fayor pr�v�fic d:a��elo���rs sorne�vh�i more
fh�t� large employers. "rl�ere is m�1ch iess sup��ort far I�c:�l r.i�ire�s/tf�e ger�erai F.,ublic or
visitars and tourists being responsiple for pr��viding «fiCord�ble i-�a;a� in�.
�;�t�o ���aca�cx �� �esg��rr�i�te �aE �fi��rr���+4� C;�rr�r���.3s�ixy FE���inr
Second home owners
Visitors/tourists
Local citizens/generai
pubiic
Privaie developers
' ' -tocal housing authorily
i r .
Nanprofit housing
, organizations
Ii l.ocai goverriments
t.arge employers only
AIi employers
�% i�% 1�% 3�°�a �?17��0 �� rJ�% 6�%
T�Ci"C.tllt Gi�i@&
tJote: Percentages er.ceed i CO clue ta muliip!� responses.
Rees Consultinc�, inc. F'age 98
. I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
Responses from Vail residents totaled 361% �vhereas mid-valiey responses totaled
350% and down-valley responses 339°'0. In other words, Vaii residenis chose a higher
nurnber of responses from the options presented, indicating that they generally feel
rasponsii�ility for affordable housing should be shared by more entities.
�mployer P�rt�ci�a�ion ir� Hc�u�in� Sofuiiar�s
Half of the employers surveyed repo�fied th�t th�y currently provide housing or
rentlmorfgage subsic3i�:s to an average of 68 employees per employer. This percen#age
rnay be ayerstated since larger employers tended to respond to the surv�y more than
smail businesses. The empioyers wr�o provide housing offer an average of 59 units.
About haff of the employ�rs responding ta the questi�n stated they would he willing to
assist fiheir �mpioyees v�ith housing in fihe future through rnaster leasing renta! units.
Oiher papular options were do�vn payment loans/grants and security dep�sits. Least
popular w�re buildinc� housi�y on sita Unci mortgage subsidies.
�rr��loyes��' �'refierr��d C��fhodS FOF' R�S,�'.yi�t��� �riiE: En;�loye� Ho�sia�ic�
Purchase existing housing
Buildinc� housing otf site
6uilding housing on site
Morlgage subsidies
Mortgage guarantees
Duwn payment loans/granis
Rent subsidies
Security deposits
F,Aaster leasing rental units
L ,o
�vio cu�o ou7o 9U% bU"/o 60% %0% 80% 90% 100%
�r��lo�r��•s' Su���rt fior Develo��e�rt o� E�nploye� Hou�is��
Emplayers were askec! which of several alternativ�s they �NOUIcI suppor� for developing
employee housing. Well over h��l� of fihe ernployers responding to ti�e questior� would
suppar'c inclu5ionary zoninc�, developm�nt fee ��aivers, and density bonuses for
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 99
�.
,�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment � ggg
developing empioyee housing. An Employe� head tax ancl sales or properfy tax
increases are fhe least f�vored aiternatives.
�rr�ploy�r supy�or� �ar �ev�loprn��t of �rn�loyee 6-�c�L�sing
Commercial linkage
inclusionary zcninc
Developmsnt fee vraivers
Density bo�7uses
Property tax increase
Employee head tax
Sales tax increase
Development excise tax on
construction
U% l U% ZO% 30°,�0 40 io 50% 60% 7,�% 80% 90% 100%
�rra�loy�r ���ppcs�t �ao� t�egiu��i, Goaangy-wicfe ,4��ara�che�
�
� Employers Urere alsa �s!<ed whether they would supporf a regional, caunty-wide
�,I I �pproach for v�►rioi�s housing matters. �rh� employers i espor,ding fio the question larc�ely
i�
su�ported � regi�nal, county-vri�e approach for most F�ou�ing m�tters with th� exception
of fees/t�xes for ho�sing, Gs iilusrrafied in fhe following graNh.
��
!_ �
'�
i�
;,
i��
Rees Consulting, inc.
Page100
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Eo�g�loy�r S��por� for Ftegic�r�al, Co�a:�iy-wide A�praac�h
Deed restrictions
Incentives for housing
Fees/taxes for housing
Development requirements
Administer housing authority
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
1999
Rees Consuiting, Inc. Page 101
i
�
I
I
�
f
l
I
�
�
I �
, Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
�li
�+��'�'��� � �� ����G�
In this sectian of the repart, mor�e detailed information is provided far the design of
housing projecfis and {�rograms. It covers:
m Unit type options;
� Bedroams;
� Amenities;
d Neighborhoods;
e Ldcation; and,
W Value of design options.
Unit Typ�
��
Individuals were asked to �ndicate their first preference for type of residence given vuhat
they can afford and are willing to pay. li� previous studies coverinc� mountain resor�
communities, the housing type preference question did not specify cost param�ters and
over 90% of the resporrdents selected the single-family home choice. in order to ta{<e
into consideratian cost limit�tions in this study, the aptions provideci in the 1999
r�ausehold survey included price�. These prices were in��ended to r; flect the relative
difference in the cost of fhe various types o� housinq. The options were as follo�vs:
� Con�3ominium priced at $125,000;
e Two-story townhome priced at $175,000;
p Duplex priced at $22.5,a00;
m_ Single=family hame priced at $250,000; ___ _ _
� A.�obile hame priced at �75,000, with !a� renfi of $200; or,
� t�ianufiactured home including lot afi $175,000.
lncluding prices greatly incre�sed the extent to �n�hich the responses �nrill be helpful when
ciesigning housing projects. As shown by ihe falfowing chart, not only are housing types
ofiher fhan single-family homes accepiable to r�otential home buyers, they are ihe most
preferred by appraxim�tely 44%.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 102
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
T'y�e ai Uni� Llesired by Potential Home �uyers
Manufadured Home
Mobile Ho
'� %
r.,.,.�,,.,,.., �� ,.,,
Single-family House
56%
home
�%
Dupiex
8%
fi�'��'7
Preferences vary by community:
m Fewer than half of Vail's residents (40%) chose a single-family home priced at
$250,000 as their first preference; tav��nhomes priced at $175,000 were selected by
22% followed by condominiums at $'125,000 (18%);
� Very feUr residents indicated mobile homes were fheir first choice alfihough
approximafiely 22% of the douvn-valley residents vvouid prefier to buy a manufaciLired
home on a lot over the other options presented; and,
� Dupiexes were selected by fewer residents than condominiurns or townhomes in all
three areas.
�y�� c�f Ur�i�� [�esired �y Poten�iai �-3aer�e �uyers, t�y �rea
;Co'ndominium:;:priced at $125,000 18.4
�, :� } r, t.� N*�..• a_.� az�:� "'�-i
�i"v S�a a ��oiP c1�E7tt'te pI'I�e�:$97,'�;OOt?"� � ""�:�-s��22�;4�
,��'� � rc�sv i�'��.x�tS_n "•�•'If --,�, t......4.;s�...:47:,:'� �S'��.'...a, ay� a'K•`b ..r.��i�: �i-� '� �'t;;x��y.. ?�
�...._::.:*.:::.�:;•_,_.. .. . .� . . .
�Du�lex,pric.e.d :at��225,000 11,8
� � �}� j�� � � � x,�4,.-_'�'v'�� �� >a � .r�
,��n e-•f�rt -tw"`' i� �� f 250=40� Y �{ �f.:'�,���_ �. � �
..,��,: :_�� -•�.-",t��.��,�,'�.�,��' �:����r� s���..�'�' �'�t 40:.$�
z-.� rs ��...�'�
Niobile:l7.ome priced at $75,000, wi �2001ot rent
� � � �� �
iil�a�ufac°�t(,� etl� t�ri�e��nc t�dmg�(of agz,$17��40CM�>� ��`t� �- 6�6
:;.,i�`?''.:�a.—t��Sr�-cL.�.t_ s�+^ .Cwl�.�?� �:,*=""'� ��i�2'.�s"��aZ.,.�'�:��4v�? °i'a,;: Erxl� i'�'�;*� u?�
_ 100
7:� : , 5:0
. .. .
8:9 .. ��:3
��=�5$ � �`���.'����� �y�59:�3
:���� ��=��'..�� _�:y:.��-.��
1:� .. 1:4
100� 1OQ �
Rees Ccnsuiting, Inc. Page 103
1
', i
�
Eagle County Housing Pdeeds Assessment
1999
' Pd�mb�r �f �edroar►-�s
' For any specific project, the ic{eal bedroom mix wili depend upon muitiple factors
including:
� � The target group to be served;
��
e The type of project;
� � � Location; and,
� � Price (rent or sale price).
i
Data from the househoid su�vey c�n be extrapolated in the future when sp�cific projects
� � are planned to generate recommendaiions on bedr�om mix. Because extensive
! i information is availabie on the perFormance of apartment properties built in recent years
regarding absarpiion and accupancy by r-iumber of bedrooms, it is suggested that tP�e
i I survey data be used in combination with actual perfarmance to determine bedroom mix
� for future rental projects.
� i �,rr��niii��
�
t ;
'I �
ln=unit washers and dryers received the top r�nking among 11 optional amenities surv�y
participants were asked to rate on a scale v�here 1= not imporfant and 5= very
important. Eagle Counfy's climate influences what persons look for in housing. Two of
the fhree fiop-ranked �menities are directly related fo ihe climate — energy �fficient heat
and sunligr�t.
It�-UNIT WASt-IER/URYER
ENERGY EFFICIENTlGAS f-iEAT
SUNUGN'r
: ftfiULTIPLE E�ATHROOMS
EXTRA STOf-tAGE
SOUNDPROOFING
GARAGE/COVERED PARKING
IN-SITE L.E',UNDRI' FAGLII'IE5
TW7 GR 1v10RE PHOtVE LItdES
WCIRKSHOP SPACE
C�rFICE SPAGc FOR BUSINESS USE
0.0
Br»�ot�arrce of �4r�es�ifi�s
0.5 1.f� 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 9.0 �.5
Rees Co�sulting, Inc. Page 104
.._. t
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Neighborhoods
ti
�
7he importance that Eag1e County's residents place on the outdoors is clear when �
considering the features that residents seek in their neighborhoods. Private yards and
decks/patios tied for the most important features. ANowing pets followed closely. ;
Curbside recycling received a relatively high ranking at fourth overaii. On-site or nearby t
day care received the lowest rating. This is often the case since most residents do not
have children; among those with children, day care typically receives a very high rating �
in terms of irr�portance.
Impnrtance of Neighborhaod Features
PRIVATE YARC
DECK/PAT1C
PETS ALLOWEC
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
GARDEN SPACE
ADULT RECREATION FACILITIES
�:IDS' RECREATION FACILITIES
WOODBURNING ALLOWED
SHARED COMMON AREAS
WOODBURNING PROHIBITIED
ON-SITE OR NEARBY DAY CARE
0.0
Location Con�i�lera�ions`
0.5 1.0 i.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
I�
Two broad issues relafed ta location were examined. The first involved site-specific
issues, such as proximity to services and facilities. The second set of criteria pertained I
to the desirability of living near various types of neighi�ors. �
Site /ssues
�.
The first set of consideratians related to housing sites considered a variety of 14 factors.
Uf these, uiews v,rere considered to be the most important. Beinc� near the heart af town
�
or the ski slopes received rnuch lower ratings than being near quiet areas and open '
space. Proximity fio a recycling center received a rating of 2.6 whereas having curbside �
recycling in neighborhoods received a ratiny of 3.4.
�
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 905
I _
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
Importance of Si�te Lo�ation Considerations
��
r,� cc�.a�r,� a�n� sarn�
a��ro a� �ac�
a.lr��
�oFOa,mn_ran
ca�w�rrY cF s�-aaA
r�z-n�v�,c�
r�z c�a-rr src�:rsr�r�
t��rRa�
t�AR� R.�JC"fFiAtJ�JRTA7iCtJ
t�f�ft9a-�tS
I�P�2 RE:G`tCiJt�G CE�VTff2
f�P12Ti�Sf4 SL�
i�.�lU� FEPRT OF 7iA/VJ
0.0 0.5
1999
1.0 . 1.5 20 25 3.0 3.5 4.0
i�e�ghbor l�sues
7he second sefi of issues tested under specific site considerations involved opinions
about neighbors. Residents felt it �as more impartant to be away firom nightly rentals
than from either seasonal workers or vacation homes. H�ving neighbors similar in
incomes and lifestyles received a rating of nearly 3.5.
Impa�fianc� t�f N�igi�bors
AREA AWAY FROM
OVERNIGHTlWEEKLY
RENTALS
AREA AWAY FROM YOUNG
SEASONAL WORKERS
NEIGHBORS SIMILIAR IN
TERMS IN INCOME,
LIFESTYLE
AREA WHERE FEW
VACATION HOMES ARE
LOCATED
0.0 0.5 1.0 'I.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 106
II
_
. �i�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
Value of Design Opiions
Each hauseho(d was asked to indicate how much more they would be willing to pay per
month in renUmortgage far five design options. A garage receiv�d the highest value
($59.63 per month) followed by an additional bedroom with a monthly value of $54.56.
The overaN rating of $24.73 for an additional bathroom makes it difficult to justify the
expense of providing more than the minimum number of bathrooms since the cost of
construction usually requires that the monthly payment be increased by at least $50.00.
Dollar Value af Design Options
�--i P`"�e"'s�^ny.t��+e tr c: 5"'�F .+� r+ —+-s:xns�^.r•.1'' �n. emrx^cxrs.�*'*—+- w r s'--.�.-o�e—a' n,
�,� 4��. ,'„3 mx S�"3� �4�'�"�� 3at�x� yl����"/2,;.�� �c�i�gQz.ra:�,. �. �iriimum�:i4�ax�murr?� �Ae �l�i
- �dLTAG.�{ �S � W 41.�..... ; eLasf:�'�s� l:�Fi=iG%' ik F 4iC NY �•ar�:S"-r�_.:�ii� .C.��i'�'.,3
ADDITIONAL BATHROOM $833.00 $0.00 $833.00 $24.73
�F2AGC��u��'.�•�:����-�'� �' � '�,,�, r�}��'�'`� ��2,OQ0�00 ��.���� Q�: �'� �'C1Q'D O�i �[�$5�rC3,
ey.v� -a-„� n.3d<� %:�v�S..�r� .a'��xc..a��s-�,s�..,.. 44"��.�.�LiS,:.:�?:�.� r* ta in..F'w' ��'5:.:.{ `�I#Er�.:E.:a �.allv�.tis:L..:
ADDITIONAL BEDROOM $700.00 $0.00 � $700.00 $54.v6
�i � r k �'w�'� y`` � i ,�"� "`E"r' �^^.,t5,�- �aC�."'�,t ''"� ,-p" c F,-ur r�
�a �n��p�QCK�R� ,r'`��� ��� � �r���aa�ao �.��a o� ���$�oo:oo � x$sfi��'�
.�'�t�:-`�'',:�����...�,uiiir.`l:'S�'e� - � s.r� � � ..x�.,+.i`�:a;..�.t.�taa.;.r�,.taJ�.! L^oS. � k+E�rs�'.cr�.t.C,�v i:u Ga::r,.va?._��.,L,.��
�ADDITIONAL 1QO SQ.FT IN UNIT $700.00 $0.00 $700.00 $37.01
!t shouid be noted that the dollar values assigned do not necessarily correlate to the
relative importance ratings. For example, extra storage was given a rating of 4.1, slightly
higher than garages/covered parking at 3.9. Garages were given a much higher value
than storage lockers, however ($59.63 as compared to $9.74}.
��
I
�,
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 107 (
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
;I1; r.' �e: i " • i�: ;�: .x
...
Key findings from fhe 1990 Housing Needs Assessment employee survey and the 1999
` household survey have been compared to examine changes in housing conditions in
����
'� Eagle County. Since the surveys were distributed through two different methods (the
1990 survey was distributed through place of employrnent), these comparisons should
�''; nat be considered precise but rather viewed as general indications of trends.
Income Lev�ls
The median household income has increased approximately 62% since 1990. The
average (mean) income has increased over 97%. The large difference between the
average and median incames in 1999 is due to the inclusion of several households with
very large incomes. Therefore, the increase of 62% in the median is more reflective of
the change in income that the general population iias experienced.
Encome LeNels Com�►ared
;G $i�r�t.�v� ��"'.��v �'li�.,.":r� �' �:
��..��r.�3�•��}��rC'r�'in Y t:'?;r<�a. 7 ts i'3�� tr�e�`:-:
Household Income
Mean .
fVledian
Fiousing Costs
i'x� o�iu ' r''�'�i ¢.17"� '`"�� j E�`i r_�` s 9�^r"` fy�"r7 k, fr sa�4+ C�'r' y;� i?
��'r� �. ,t 0' 000 7;a �-����� 6��Ot70 ��,� y�� �� ,� o .,�.„-;
��i c:a...k��..�,fa.v.,�„W�}� a.c..�,�..,.�..wwi.c.naat+.x: �....,.t L.w�a,..� V� J�s.�� �.��..2i
$43,570 $85,889 97.1 %
i�jY �C`��� `�� ��z°� ����r'� g ��t ��;��� �?rr.e �� ��� i��,'r'i�t�t��+' �s � .o- 9;n
� �:�xx,'�u 3..�.. ;i'.,_ �.. �� �,x�' �� �ss,��
$�0,000 $40,000 100%
� � 31' t�M`7L'-�ca""4�es �t�.y � �„(C'fi'�.gy"�"c'+°�l'q7y+7a'+"i..,�'�'r,� �, ^� 't�si'{'"
� �`�` �23.�:7v�.����f � �',,�a;5z3�24��� � �����33%°� �
3"� sr..�a.��L�.2 e��' �'.cr3sw:<.:e.z?. Lz'i:.�,x.v�.r.,;.r,cn��`�
Nousing costs overall have increased more than income. The average mortgage
'� payment has�ir�creased nearly-87%-since-199Q: Rent-increases appear to be matching
;,
� increases in income at approximately 62%.
i
��
Housing Costs Compareci
Avg:Mo�tgage Payment
'�'�''�"' > • r�;�'� =� a��,�:
�i.99.Q�4���8999<���� y�tnat�g.
$697 $1,303 $6.9%
d?'i:e .,r- a' �y;:^ r.�,np.� r,.G'�'�'S'� � .:t�'�
��: 640'�:� �„�'�.�5'..;� ��i6t��:?`;,°,lo'
o�:.:W���.,F�� � �..�- � �;.�,�;� .,:� �
Rees Consulting, lnc. Page 108
Eagie County Housing Needs P,ssessment 1999
���
The populatian in Eagle County is significantly older than it was in 1990. The average
age in 1990 was 33.8. By 1999, the average age had increased to 42.4.
Children
There are more children living in Eagle County now fhan was fhe case in 1990. In 1990,
ihere was an average of .56 children per household. The average has since increased
to .7.
Satisfaction wiih Housing
Overall, housing satisfaction levels appear to have increased since 1990. This finding is
somewhat skewed, however, by the over-representation of owners.
Sati���ction Lev�ls Compared
Very Dissatisfiec
Not Satisfied
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
By comparing the satisfaction levels of renters, it appears that satisfiaction with housing
has actually declined. ln 1990, 32% of renters were dissatisfied. By 1999, the
percentage has increased to 47%.
Rees Consuiting, Inc. Page 109
�,
l
,,
i`,
I
1
l'
�
�
1
'
'�
11
� '
{ .
' '
� .� ,
I
i.
I
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment �ggg
Satisfaction Amang Ftenters
�.-�. i � �.,;.�,,,�.� : . x �,,,��� ,�� �' `.� r-�.,��- � { �� £
a�.�: � �s. � ��; • , � ;�.������ �; 996 � �� �� �� 9,.�
�, ��:�.. ...�.� ,� x w:::.;�.�,.. ,.�-�„ �.�� -
Very satisfied 16% 14%
�, _r.---:� � .�. .,, .
�Satisfietl��3��-;� N=+Y.+~Y�'�'�2% � ,����,390�:;
rc,...�..w:rtK...�:yaF ' P `S t"!, _.,z','..`,`� �:u.c+.a�'i �.i�= -'� ��.x�.�x�'�v?u{�±=,�7.r 2
Not satisfied 26% 40%
Housing Aifordabiliiy
The percentage of households who are cost burdened by their rent/mortgage payment
has increased from 15.5% in 1990 to 19.6% 1999.
Percentage of Income Spent on Housing
0% - 10%
21 % - 25%
�p :.'y i p; m�'"".? uZ n y�'$i
ta.�-�� �t�-�O'��:r.-.��.r�u£:;:��.x.�f
31 % - 35%
C' o'!�"r o'� r'��' s� f -?
3�;61oi-, 40 /Q � � ',4�: �.�...�-,. �fv'.�
41%-45%
5�%-55%
'�' o '"�y;'�`.'=�a'•;�.°� �';�
�6.%ox� 6�0 /fl�; .�„y`' �:::�
. �?-u:.-��:.xk:t?%<�'.rT..,=.;..;�u�.��
61 % o% more
��,��; ,,�����.���,��;
%.COSt BU1'd@tlBd
17.6 8.4
11.9 16.4
4.5 7.9
3 Y.,. y s.. t r5"""?'�^�
yn�, ,w � t 3� ��.� � tv 4r9�
.t...s,�4_.,_�c_r_rw � F....�.s,i.l.......�`�..,..�5�;...
1.5 1:6
i` r''4 tiI �.�� F'"'... f.""-J "'�`r��
,rr� f� s b' r' C.�� '� "^
;.+�M } . {';S'2 s � t . r �.t_
� .� .�,.- - wtt.a�..cw -r..LL�_.L•':_,4z„ -„
.8 1.0
2.5 2.1
-��-�-(-�r(-}, ���. ���.�� n�
..��'e� ��'- ,:'i".`;a „a.; ...�Vl!�
15:5 19.6
As shown by the followin� graph, the perceniage o� renters who are cost burdened has
increased substantially.
� ! Rees Consulting, Inc.
Page 'i 10
County N�using Needs Assessment
45
% 40
R 35
e
n
t 30
e
r
25
N
° 20
u
s
Q 15
h
� 10
d
s 5
0
Percentage of lncame Spent on Housing — Renter Househoicls
0% - 11% - 21% - 26% - 31% - 36% - 41% - 46°/n- 51% o�
10% 20% 25% 30% 35% . 40% 45% 50% more
% Income Spent on Rent
i �.
1999
Rees Consuiting, inc. Page 111
Eagie County Housing Needs Assessment
.,
` ` �, : •� . ��; . '; � r� ,; ;� •
, �,. . , , . _.
. , . ,,� �. : �: �
...
Population
� Since 1990, the county's population has been growing at rates of around 5% to 6.5% per
, year. Much of the growth has been occurring in unincorporated areas and, in recent
years, in down-valley communities while the populaiion level has flattened in the Vail
area. Eagle County's growth rate has been double that of the state as a whole but
similar ta neighboring Summii County.
About 14% of fihe county's households consist of one person living alone and 40%
consist of two persons. Children live in less than 37% of the households.
I The median hou�ehold income in the study area is $65,000. It varies by community
� � from a low of $55,000 in the Minturn/Red Cliff area to a high of $80,000 in the
Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area.
Employment
Job growth has been occurring af rates of between 7% and 8%. It is estimated that there
are 38,140 full- and part-time jobs in Eagle Counfiy as a whole which are held by 31,784
employees. The average annual increase in jobs of 7.6% was almost two percentage
points higher than the population growth rate of 5.7%, indicating that the number of
locally avaifable employees needed to fill jobs may not have kept pace with the growth in
employment.
Approximately 42% of the employers surveyed plan to increase the number of persons
,; they employ during the next year. Based on these results, it is estimated that 300
persons will be hired in the following year. This estimate is low compared to the number
;( af jobs created annually in recent y�ars (about 2,500 to 3,000). __
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _. _
4pproximately 58% of the wage and salary jobs in Eagle County are in the retail trade
and services sectors, with average 1997 wages of $'{ 9,492 and $24,921, respectively.
!t is estimated that there were roughly 1,680 unfilled jobs when the survey was taken in
March and 1,564 unfilled jobs last summer. These estirnates include both fulf-time and
part-time positions. On average, about four persons per business were not hired or left
because they lacked hausing.
' Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 112
,i
. ��
. Eagle County Housing NeedsAssessment �ggg
Employers feei that fheir ent -levei rofessionals have the ��
rY p greatest d�fficulty finding
housing and that employees' being unable to purchase homes is a bigger problem than �
employees finding rental housing.
Commuting
There is a significant level of commuting within the county. Of the communities in Eagle
County, Avon and Vail house the lowest percentage of their workers — about 30% and
35% respectively, yet each community houses persons who work elsewhere. Only 65%
of Vail's residents who work are employed in Vail and 57% af Avon's residents work in
Avon. The extent to which these patterns could be changed is questionable since,
generaliy, residents live in the area of the county where they want to live.
lt is estimated that 14% of the county's employees or over 4,000 persons commute into
the county far work. About half live in Lake County and most of them rent. The majority
works in Vail. At least one-fourth speak Spanish. Many have family members who also
commute to Eagle County for work. It is roughly estimated that more than one-third
would prefer fo live in Eagle County. The percentage is higher (60%) among Leadville
residents.
Housing Supply and Costs
It is estimated that less than 60% of fhe 21,044 housing units in the county as of 1997
were primary homes. Approximately 10,650 of the units which are occupied as primary
homes are located in the study area. It is estimated that 40°/o (4,260 units) are rentals
and 60% (6,390 units) are owner occupied. Single-family homes comprise about 40% of
the housing supply; the majority of units occupied by residents in all areas except down
valley are attached types of housing. Less than half of the renters in the study area live
in apartments; most reside in units designed and built for owner occupancy.
The average amouni paid per month for rent or mortgage in Eagle County is $1,239 and
the median amount is slightly lower at $1,104. Both the average and median amounts
are higher mid valley and down valley than in the Vail area. Residents who live down
valley tend to have larger homes — more bedrooms and bathrooms. While ihese homes
are currently priced lower than homes in Vail novy cost, rnid-valley residents have larger
monthly housing payments. The reason appears to be related to lengih of residency. In
general, Vail residents have lived in the area longer than mid- or down-va(ley residents.
They purchased their hornes when prices were lower.
Housing prices are expensive in Eagle County. In 1998, the average price for a `
condominium or townhome was near(y $500,000. In Vail, the average price of single- �
�'.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 113 �
�
Housing Needs Assessment
1999
family homes exceeded $1 million. The average rent payment in Eagle County exceeds
. $1,000 per month. Average rents are siightly higher in the mid-vailey area than in Vaii.
Down-vailey rents are significantly lower yet stili average nearly $800 per month.
Wousing Afiord�bitity
Approximately 2,350 households (22% of the total) spend more than 30% of the
combined incomes of household membe�s on rent or mortgage payments and are,
therefore, cosf burdened. Renters are rno�e frequently cost burdened than owners; 30%
of renters (1,278 renter househoids) compared to 17% of homeowners (1,074 owner
households) spend more than 30% of their income on housing. �It is estimated that 280
renter households (6.6% of the 4,260 renter households in the study area) spend more
than 51 % of their income on housing.
Availability
i Of the 423 single-family homes and duplexes that were for sale through the multiple
listing service in May, only 37 (8.8%) were listed for prices below $300,000, and all but
14 were in the Wolcott to�Gypsum area. Over 40% of the 477 condominium/townhome
, units were priced at $500,000 or above; only two units were listed for sale under
$100, 000.
Even 4hough multiple apartment properties have been built since 1990, apartment
availability remains very limited in Eagle County. The Colorado Division of Housing
reports that Eagle County continues to have the lowest vacancy rates statewide. For the
first quarter of 9999, the State reported only one unit was vacant of the 808 they
surveyed, which equates to a vacancy rate of .1 %.
R�nier Problems
Many renters in Eagle County face being displaced. It is estimated that roughly 850
renter households have moved in the past three years because their unit was sold. At
present, about 8% ofi the renters in Eagle County (340 households) live in units that are
listed for sale. Approximately 25% of all renters live in units on a month-to-month basis
without the protection of long-term leases.
' Rees Consulting, inc. Page 114
Eagfe County Housing Needs Assessment 1999
Overcrowding
!t appears that at least 350 housing units are overcrowded based on a comparison of
rooms designed as bedrooms to rooms used as bedrooms. This methodology does not
take into account overcrowding when unrelated aduits are forced to share bedrooms.
Sa�isfaction
Approximately 2,000 renter househoids and 575 owner households are not satisfied with
their housing. The small size of units and their high cost were the main reasons for
dissatisfaction.
Suggestions
• Conduct an inventory of housing units, monitor changes in use of housing units (ie.
renta! units being sold to second homeowners), and develop programs to preserve
the existing housing supply.
• Develop more rental housing. The demand for units to house new employees and
employees who now commute but want to live in Eagle County is sufficiently strong
to support the additional development of apartments. Until the vacancy rate reaches
a level more in line with other communities, efforts to develop apartments should not
be curtailed. �
• Develop for-sale housing. The dernand for homeownership appears to be very
strong. It is estimated that as many as 1,790 renters are interested in and could
potentially afford to purchase a home if provided at prices substantially below
market. Many residents (roughly 2,800 households) who already own a home are
interested in buying different homes. Most want to move up into larger homes.
Doing so would free up housing for entry-level home buyers if sellers were required
to deed restrict their homes in order to be eligible to purchase larger homes.
o Develop uniform deed restrictions throughout the county. While the majority of
residents consider return on investment as an important consideration and would not
accept deed restrictions, 18% stated that a resale price limitation would not impact
their decision at all or very little. Potential homebuyers stated that a home with a 3%
cap on annual appreciation would need ta be priced 23% below market for them to
buy it.
a Concentrate for-sale development efforts an attached housing and manufactured
housing. Given high construction costs, limited land availability and the willingness
�;
�
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 115 '
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
, of residents to accept living in condominiums, townhomes and manufactured
housing, efforts to provide site-built single-family homes should only be pursued if
done to help subsidize the costs of entry-level attached housing.
...
o Address the special needs of the growing Spanish-speaking population. It is
estimated that 2,420 employees do not speak English as their first language. This
trend could be, in part, the result of housing conditions. If it continues, there will be
further impacts on housing needs. Special needs include rental units designed for
large families, lease documents in Spanish and bilingual leasing personnel.
m Develop county-wide commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning programs.
Requiring employers to provide housing for employees is supported by nearly 70% of
the county's residents. Well over half support requiring that a percentage of all new
homes be designated for employee housing.
I o Wqrk with empfoyers, particularly the larger ones, and private developers to provide
housing. Residents support a strong role by local governmerits although they do not
favor increased taxes.
m Develop affordable housing throughout the county except for seasonal workers,
whose housing should be concentrated in Vail.
I'���I
', ; Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 116
�.. . , - r. ::
Coenmen�� ReceivecB - Householci Sur�ey
,
i
,�
:i
_ _
�!.
�
I
�.
Appendix
Why Are You Dissatisfied with Your Residence (other)
Bad design, bad quality
Bad landlord
Buiit our compiex too tight
Co-workers
Dirty neighbors
Eagle Viilas
Electricity too expensive
Feels like col{ege dorm life at 40
Frankly, too many violent, drunk, stoned non-Americans
Hard to have a child care home in Avon (laws) �
I thought that if I paid $170K for a house, I'd be insulated from trailer trash. I was wrong.
Live with parents
Long to live in more natural setting
Mobile home park
Neighbors all slabs
New modular - poor quality
No garage
No garage/storage
No kitchen
No storage, no yard, no washer/dryer
No yard
Noise from neighbors, drive-by music too loud
Noisy
Noisy neighbors
Noisy neighbors
Noisy newborn
On busy road, short on storage, bedrooms small
Our downtown Gypsum area is rundown
Renter neighbors - 6 of them
Renting ground
Rude second homeowners
They not repair something en broke (sic)
To mine rich people (sic)
Too much highway noise
Townhome, can't afford single family
Traffic
Young renters and interstate noise next door
Why Do You Wish to Purchase a Diiferent Home Than You Now Own (other}
Access to backcountry, have a yard, equestrian zoned
Acreage
Away from all the growth and development
Away from immigrants
Cleaner neighbors, more land
Closer to work
Divorcing
Downsize
�
;
Downsize �
Duplex, rental income
Garage
Garage
Get away from condominium noise
Get away from neighbor's barking dogs
Higher quality construction
1 can own a larger, less expensive home in Garfield County, and work in Aspen
Investment
Investment
Leave area
Less crowded area
Lower monthiy payment
More better views, more land
More land
More privacy
More rural, ranch on acreage
More yard area �
New environment, tired of same old thing
New experience
Newer home '
No condo association
Not Eagle County
One floor
Own newer home
Privacy, garage
Quality of home
Quiet less dense area
Ranch
Reinvest
Remodel and sell
Rent income
Rental income
Rental investment
Rentai property
Rural acreage
Rural area
Safer area
Second garage space
Second property
SFR @ $400K
Single family
Single family
Single family
Single family with yard
Smailer, energy efficient
To build design of my choice
To get a warmer home and better buiit
To get single-family . -
To have a yard and garage
To have land for horses
' To leave for warmer climate
To live in the mountains with kind and friendly community
� To own a different type/style of home (not mobile)
To own our own home and not a duplex
To own property
To rent out
' Too much development in this area
Two car garage
Want to leave Eagle County
; �� We're adopting
Renters: Why You Have Not Purchased Yef (other)
Artificially inflated prices
As a foreigner, 1 believe it is difficult although I own property in Australia
Hard to save $30,000 down raising 2 kids on my own
Haven`t won the lottery yet
Job requires frequent moves
Just opening a business, iYs priority
Lack af knowledge about process
Lack of reasonable high rise vvith services
Out of luck on housing lottery
Plans to return to school, investment not worth it
Prices too damn high
Qualify for a loan, but not enough to buy a house (don't want to live in trailer park!)
Ridiculously expensive
Type and price of house not available
We tried to buy, but egotistica! real estate agent basically laughed at us. If 1'm not a
millionaire, they don't want to talk to me
!i
'. _ ';
I
'1
�
_
l
l.
,Appendix �
Suevey Instrue�eerfs
�,
L: y
/ . t• ; �• . }- ', � 1 t.
-.i
HOUSII�TG STUDY 1999
Ta better understand housing needs in Eagle Caunty, the local governments of the valley are sponsoring the following survey of area
residents. The information from the survey will help locai communities plan appropriate solutions to housing problems identified by
the survey. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey and return it in the postage•paid envelope within 10 days.
This page of the survey (front and back) contains questions applicable to the eniire household.
The remaining pages are individual surveys to be distributed to up to three aduit members of the househoid.
Keep in mind that the survey is completety confidential, and please remember to return all completed pages.
Do you live in or nearest to:
16
5
'I 1
14
23
19
19
1
Vail n=793
Minturn/Red Cliff
Eagle-Vail
Avon
Beaver Creek/Arrowhead
Edwards/Homestead/Singletree
Eagie
Gypsum
Rural areas
PLEASE DESCR/BE YOUR HDUSEHOLD AND RESIDENCE:
Is fhis residence: n=774
75 Owned by resident(s)
1 Owned by parent(s)
17 Rented from a landlord
3 Rented from or provided by an employer
3 Both owned by a member of your household and rented to others
-- Free--caretaking
-- Other:
� What type of residence is this? n=766
'` 8 Apartment -- Room without kitchen
``' 17 Condominium 40 Single-family house
92.5 Townhouse -- Accessorylcaretaker unit
I�' 16 Duplex 9 Other: �
� : ! 5 Mobile home
Hotiv many rooms are:
a. Designed as bedrooms mean=2.9, n=747
b. Used as bedrooms mean=2.6, n=682
How many bathrooms are in fhe residence?
mean=2.3, n=746
,,... •.-:....
, '- :: r;�'.:. :':. �::::;,:: ':":PLEASE DO NOT WRITE,IN 7'NIS'AR
I I . ��,r:�.. Q���Q��:�O����O.��
� . -_
Whaf is the total monthJy RENT and/or MORTGAGE PAYMENT?
mean=$1239 - OR - Not applicable/don't pay renU
n=661 mortgage paid off
What is the average MONTHLY cost of condo/homeowner fees?
(DO NOT INCLUDE UTILiTIES)
mean=$123 - OR - Not applicable/don't pay
n=366
Whaf is the average MONTHLY cosi of utilities, inciuding heat, .
water, sewer, elecfricify and trash removal, but NOT including
telephone orcable TV?
mean=$173 - OR - inclutled in reni
n=714
How much do you think you can afford fo pay for housing per
month? (yourshare if single, tofal rent/mortgage if familyj
mean=$1297, n=623
What is ihe total gross annual income of all househoid members
combined?
mean=$85,889, n=728
Including yourself, children, and others, ,
how manypersons live in this househoid? mean=2.7, n=768
___ _._ __ _
Of these persons, how many are under
the age of 98? (MARK "0"IFNONE) mean=0.7, n=758
Which best describes this household? 35 Couple with child(ren)
14 Atluit living alone 8.5 Unrelated roommates
� Single parent with child(ren) 4 Family members and
32 Couple unrelated roommates
2 Other
How many mofor vehicles are owned by members
ofyourhousehold? (MARK"0"IFNONE)
mean=2.2, n=758
� . -
�:o�00000 :sER�Ai:�#
• .[._. � .... . . ' ...y,r�I. ... '..+...' . f ... . . !.
63
62
61
60
59
58
s�
56
ss
54
53
sa
si
so
44
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
0
29
2s
27
26 �
2J
24
23
22
21
20
19
is
i�
16
15
14
13
12
ll
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
0
I?I
Please rafe fhe importance of the following items with regards to choosing
a place.fo live. Use a scale from 9 to 5 where 1 means "Nat lmportant"
a�d 5 means "Very Important."
Not Very
Energy e�ciency/gas.heat mean=4.4 n=763
: �,in-unit.washeddrye� ���: �=� .`::;r:;;.' ;"; . 4.5:,,., ' 760 :. .- •:
On-site laundry facilities 3.4 685
. Garage%overed.parking" : . .:.:: ..:.. .::: .. �_ :: 3.9 ' 760 .
Sunlight 4.3 762
Extra storage::.:. , � . . �, . 4.1: 753 . ' .
:
Office space for business use 2.6 749
�. Worlcshop space .. . �:.; 2.8 : 750
Muitiple bathrooms 4.1 760
� Two or more phone lines ;; ' 2.9 : 760
Soundproofinq 4.0 751
DecWpatio mean=4.0 n=761
Private yard: . . ,. 4 0 . . . . 765
Shared common areas 2.3 746
On-site.or nearby day care _ 1 9.,: ' 754 '
,
Woodburning allowed 2.4 754
1Noodbuming prohibited . 2 2 742 :,.
Kids' recreation facilities 2.? 745 �
Adult recreation facilities , , 3 2;'. �; 754.: :
Garden space 3.3 753
:; Pets allowed ` ;: . , . � " . .:: 3 8 'r ' 763 .:., ,.
Curbside recvclin4 3.4 756
Near to skislopes .: , _ . � :mean 2 6 � n=753 ;;;" ,:., .
Near to work 3.63 764
.Close.to,open space`.. _ . 3 8 : ;_ ' 761 _.
Near schoois 2.6 759
, , .
�Quality.of schoois , . . : 3 6 ;:..., . ' 754 ;. .
,� • .
Near grocery store/shopping 3.5 760
'. Near,quiet area offering solitude _ _.:. 4 0 765 :: ;
Near heart of town 2.4 767
....... ...... _
;�.. ,�:w,: �v.. .i,.. ..
.,:;'�....;�'� *.sy>;__ ,;•,J._i : i„L�,;
'Nearfrails" ... ., . .�.r. .. ,�,�: . � 33 ....... �,.._ 763..;�_ ..�'..
.- .. .. _. .. . ., . .
Near to pubiic transportation 2.8 763
;..
� Vietivs <% . .. . -;. : :.:... _4 0 Z68'� :� z �'`'.
_... . �. . ..,_ ... ...:..... . ... . ''..�,. . . ..�.
Climate 3.8 ~ 766
Sense of community,'. , . �, ., 3 8 :,,,,,, . 763: . , . �r;
Neighbors similar to you in terms of income, 3.5 760 �
lifestyle, etc.
_ .., ,�.
Area where few:Vacation';homes�are located;,,,, :'3:1`. __ � -. -�762::;;': _�;�
Area away from.young seasonal workers ` 3.5 _ `757
' Area ;away from ovemight�weekly, rentals � �:��3.8�:: , _ , � :760 � ; - , ,z
... . . . . . ..:�...... :... .., . :.: , . _ . .. :...
Near recyciing center 2.6 758
I,
How much more would you be willing to pay permonth in
rent or mortgage for the following options? (Indicafe zer� %�
you would not pay exfra for the item.)
mean=$26, n=503 additional bathroom
mean=$59, n=518 garage
mean=$57, n=499 additional bedroom �
mean=$11, n=500 storage locker (5x3 feet)
V
mean=$39, n=510 additional 100 square feet in unit
d.`� Go°��� �
Where should housing for the following populafion groups be built? ���a �a� ��,a ay � ro� ��°�`
(MARKALL TNATAPPLY) t7= Ja�.. .��`J`.. �a��_ Q',�� �va�� �,a°\'e �QS� �oJ°� �o`\�
�� c .. .. r � �. . ;..;t{-: :": ��;.:":`',,::;_�... , . :..::rp :.::......... - '
Seasonal sk� area em lo ees �-� r_ T :ri - :�; : 749 ��52: -:18, :�323� }39: :�;;�:19., `�� :�8 �,�i�x �=ti48�� 2
,.: ...
P Y � •��•� � �� �
. , . .. . . •
r ...
. . . . . .�... ....: _.�. . . . :.. .._. .. . :-. ;._ .;:. : �.. . .... ... .... ... .... . ..., ., . ... ... . . _ . .. . . � .. _... .
; ..:;::.
,:: . , .
.
,. . . ..., _ ..
. ,.r
Families with children .� �, 738 1'1 12 20 �� � 16 �26 � 27 .^�: 22:: ��76�.• 2
. : . ..., ._ ...: ..:. .. . . .�..j;. .. :;�_;,-.�..,V; �:,.,.,- ;-, -;..:. .
: ..
. . . , ..:. • . :.: �- . . �
Essential employees (medical, emergency,�utili(y; transportation',and schoois) �,:735 , r� 16 7 , 10 «_;�15 , �, :12 �=;::�11 `�� °:;�`T:f:� �81 ,, . . ,; 3. . .
Immigrant workers 722 9 9 6 8 $ 7 10 66 17 �
Constniction workers ;: ` : �"' '� " 8 t 9 %�'��8
, 722 , : .. . � . _ ... 5.:, .� �5 j ..,. 8 . 8 ... , �, ,., � •,�.. 4
r �s�; t
. , . ......_ . . ..., ,.�;-,..,..�>..,., ..,. ,.� . • _., ,... ..._
_ � � . . _..,.
,
i x
Entry-levei and mid-management singles and couples 730 9� 6 'I 1 11 11 10 7 84 2
. . - - .,,�,;.,,�,. .i5r. ��+ :'h+-`e - .,�:; . .�.<<:.:'.-nr :..5;;,:'�:
. 't.:C. r�.. m� -'st'.
. .. .�. :. . .: ;;;��
. .. . . .. .._, :.,.•.:�.,r,�. ;:; ^��_, �;;._
. . . .,.,,:, � . .::i;:
..
.'p_ ...JU.. -
l ':y`:
�..
s.s, :g.. 3 :"s.'':
; y.:
Seniors. . . : . -,. - �, � .-..: _ ;z.t�. 272� � `•< ..,c ` � i,c.Y%%t' : _=' . � _ .2 ,
•• '.
. . .,:..
, . .• � i'.� ���
,
� . � �.<<..z _ ..u_..,.. .. � .o. . _ .. v �;: ,..J. �il: .,�o •. w•
' ''��
_
. �:. .. _.�.:::..._...�.•.. ..... . . � .. ... .::. : . ::�...':1,: . .. . -c+n:U%... o .....�' !V J.�.....:. ?. ......i �� . .»,.. . ' . '`_'::
. .... �. . . ._3 .
Low wage retaii/service workers 726 12 8 6 1 U 9 6 8 0
{I �
1
,
i. ..�
i!
How Inng have you resided and/or been employed in the area?
3 Less than 6 months 17 More than 3, up to 6 years
3 Six months to 1 year �17 More than 6, up to 10 years
�'1 More than one, up to 3 years 48 More than 10 years
n=1040
Do you live in ihe area: 97 Year-round 3 Ski season oniy
n=1004
Are you currently employed? n=944
23 Yes, self-employed in own business
67 Yes, work for an empioyer
�:5 . No IF N0, SKIP TO RESIDENCE SA7IS�ACTION
tocation of Your Work n=822
�-1 :� Pt1m8111y ifl y0U! hOme OffiCe SXIP TO RES/DENCE SA7ISFACTION
83� At employer's piace of business
� Primarily in a vacation home (housekeeping, cook, etc.)
5 Primarily seNicing second homes (security, maintenance, etc.
How many days per week do you fypically use the following modes
of fransporfation to get fo work?
'.Drive alone., ;mean=4 9 ` : : n=774.:' ;
. . _ . ::..... ..:
Carpool 1.0 375
Bus . .. : .. 0 9 354
Hitchhike .002 . 303
:: - :.
Walk/Bike . ` . „ 0 9 ;. 364 .. ..:
If a shuttle connecfed your neighborhood fo the bus, would you use
ihe bus more often? 28 Yes T2 No n=782
'—Which best describes your satisfaction with your currenf residence?
49 Very safisfied 13 Not satisfied n=967
35.5 Satisfied 2.5 Very dissatisfied
Ifnot satisfied orvery dissafisfied, why? (MARKALL THATAPPL�
27 Overcrowdedlno privacy 18 Unit in poor condition
44 Too expensive 44 Too smali
9 Too far to work 39 Can't buy, forced to rent
9 Not in desired town 5 Too far from services (grocery,
18 Pets not ailowed schooi, bus stop, etc.)
12 �iving with roommates 5 Near vacation rentals
n=245 20 Other:
_ _ _ _ _
Please rank in order the following facfors so we can befter
understand ihe trade-offs you make when choosing a piace to live.
Mark "1 " for the most imporfant factor, "2" for the second mosf
imporfant factor, and so on. n=886
percentage ranked first
.. . . . ,.
Price of tiome ,. { 48 i ..;�_., .r.� . :. . �>
t
. . . .....:, ..._ Y.:.;,� . . .. �:
Community you want 37 � �
to live in �
, . .:
Unif fYPe., ' ` .15 t F ;
r
_ ..., _ _ . . ... . _ . ,. . .. �„_.: . ,... .�. ..
Unit size 15
�;�-�� �:,:; - >�, .,.,.:
Amenities { .� g ,�� r ,� � 7r ;';t:;}:�
Y. �.. _W. .�.�.. , ._ . . ,� _ . s:. :_..,.. ;°� =� >.. ...
Desire fo own 44
Please ignore current housing costs and availability. Rank the top
three locations where you wou/d mosf prefer to live. Mark your firsf
preference with a 1, 2nd Pr�ference with a 2, and 3rd Preference with
a 3. (Leave remainder biank if if's not one of your top three
preferences.) n=114i
Preference
22 Vail. - -
4 MinturnlRed Cliff
9 Eagle-Vai(. .
7 Avon
8 Beaver CreekiArrowhead °
20 Edwards/Homestead/Singietree
12 Eagle
3 Gypsum
15 Rurai areas
If you currently own your home, are you interested in purchasing a
different home?
44 Yes �(IF YES) What are the reasons?
56 No 59 To own a larger home
n=808 14 To own a less expensiye home
40 To live in a different location
21 .Other.
n=346
1F YOU ANSWERED YES--SK/P TO 'ALL POTENTIAL HOME
BUYERS" SECTION
lF YOU ANSWERED NO--SK/P TO 'AREA HOUSING lSSUES"
SECTION
Is whe� you live currenfly for sale? n=264
8 Yes
92 No
How long is your /ease? n=221
26 No lease - month to month
1 3 months
4.5 6 months
60 12 months
8 Othar:
Have you had fo move wifhin the past three years because the place
you rented was sold? n=234
19:�.Yes. (how many times?). :mean=1:6, n'=47 ,;�
81 No � . . .. . .. : .
Do you want fo buy a home in fhis area wifhin the next fhree years?
57 Yes n=238
22;;;No ,; ,,. : ;:IF.ldO=SKIP T0 'AREA;HOUS1111G_ISSUEB";';
21 Unce�tain . . � _. _ _.. .
63
62
61
60
59
ss
s�
56
55
54
53
s2
si
so
49
4%
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
� 29
2a
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
1s
17
16
15
14
l3
l2 ,
1i
io
�
�
�
�
a
�
n
,.:.,,,�.:. _
. .�: • . :' .:`•=.PLEASEOqNOZWRiTE'INTNISAREA .
.� r; ....;;.°'• r . ...,.,. �. . .. •:... ,.. :,. �... � ...: ��; .�
.� � � _, . . . •
. : . . . . •. ... . . : . . .... .
�0000a0000�oo'o.0000������,.� . � :SERIAL#:.
_ - . ..
�,..._,.:.,..:.., ; .
...;�_,..., ... :. ....,...._
.. . _
:=
,.. : .. ..
� . . . .. .. ..< :.:: .:. .: i.F t .. . � :.I" � . . .
CURRENT RENTERS C?NLY(continuedJ
lf you have wanted to purchase a residence but haven'f done so, what
reasons have prevented you from buying? (MARKALL THATAPPLI�
84 Total cost. n=207
62 Lack of down payment
38 Lack of housing type choice (e.g., no singie-family homes)
32 Can't qualify for a loan
24 Housing not available where I want to live
16 Cheaper to rent
1 Z Other. __
Would you move to or live in a community other than your frrst
preference if this allowed you to buy a residence? n=206
59 Yes 15 No 26 Uncertain
What wou/d be your first preference for type of residence given whaf
you can affor� and are wiUing to pay? n=501
8 Condominium priced at $125,000
13 Two-story townhome priced at $175,000
8 Duplex priced at $225,000
56 Single-family house priced at $250,000
1 Mobile home priced at $75,000 wifh lot rent of $200/month
14 Manufactured home including lot priced at $175,000
How much do you have available for a down payment? (Inciude the
portion of home equity you could spend on a down payment if you
would sell a home you now own.)
mean = $67,655, n=359
How imporfant to you are the foliowing reasons for purchasing a home?
Not
�'. , r�mi
�p�_R � - ,* . '+�i/P_RL�Rn�
lnterest deduction on income taxes mean=3.7 n=544
. �x::::; :;i�e•,- .4yY,...�,��� .,.;�. � ...:;.. :,r,�, . . �.�
Retiirrion�in�estmentlhome':�tr ����y{��;�•�;���.2�;:�;�:��•:,.�543`.;
� ..T�_ .. 3 .. ,r_'�,i� .
i':>" — _ '`f' •ve'k�'�rl•'.`.S'�.,. "'i:hya�n.�,._ `..r.'....,4.
�a.:•'reciation < y :,.� � F .� ; ,z .� ,� .
:..pP . . , � , ...._ . ;,_.r� �� .ri., t:�. ..,. ti. . � �...t�a�. --•
Control over home—no landlord� 4.3 549
' - _ - .. t� ��j.>r,'?':
:.l'' ;�.'.)�;.y ? "w!:'i:^y�,.- >t�:s A` �5�� '!'�L: . i'>i
,. . . . .:.; . .,. .
.; {�°:;
... , ,. . ,::: ,.
Stabili ,:. ;.,.... �.:..; ,�;i ... - , � .���: u�: w ., :.::.;
... , ,
. :��>;;:
......>,,:�..,:�,;.:,.;=,:•„ �,�;,-i•,,:' sy.
. . ..
..._. �Y:.'�....,:.�>. .•.:.,. ,. ..�. �...::::,.._...:.: .r;. �:;4:3�`�. . . -;.j..::540
_, .. . �....: ,:_:.,
Fixed cost--no annual rent increase 4.1 537
Long term,commitment fo , '�`' �.>' + Z�r"3 7 , 3 r 548 `
. - � > , .x
��:�ie commumtY.,. _.u.. . ,._._., '� „_. ._�,` , .. `. .,, �
_ . _ . .. ._ _ . ..Ytu� ;? _.. . .. . ....,,. . ,.
Resa/e price caps through deed resfriciions limit fhe future
appreciation of a home and the reium on the investment. To what
exfent might a resa/e price limiiation impacf your pur�hase decision?
6 Not at all--limitations on resale prices would not be a factor
92 �Very little--limitations would not be a key consideration
29.5 Moderately—resale price limits wouid be an important consideration
52.5 Very much--resale limitations would probably not be acceptable
n=522
How much below market would a home with a 3 percent cap on annual
appreciation need to be priced for you to buy it? n=427
8 0%, at market
24 23% below market (n=967)
67 OR Would not buy a deed-restricted home
Who shoutd be responsible for building or providing funds fo�
affordable communityhousing? (MARKALL THATAPPLI�
33 All empioyers n=991 �
56 Large empioyers only (over 50 employees)
55 Local governments
40 Nonprofit housing organizations
48 Local housing authorities �
56 Private developers
14 Local citizens/generai public
17 Visi#ors/tourists �
30 Second home owners
Would you support fhe following for development of employeI
housing? YES NO uNE z�
Development excise tax on residential and = 38 -` 42 {20
commercial canstruction
Sales tax increase 14 7$
Employee head ta7c `31 50 (.,�
Property tax increase 9 84 7
Density bonuses 30 32 � 3
Development fee waivers 39 28.5 � S
Inclusionary zoning {a percentage of all new .-' 60� : 23 16
homes are for empioyees)
Commercial linkage (empioyers provide housing 66 18 � i
for a percentage of new jobs created)
,srHnvu i :t'uu:.: _.: :: ;:�
� What is your PRIMARY source of income? n=916 4'
5 Bar/restaurant 3 Real estate sales
13 Construction/trades 2 Propeny management (lon�� a
5 School district short-term rentais)
9 Government 5 Recreation/a�ractions
6 Lodging/hotel/B&B -- Paren�nheritance
27 Professional services 5 Retaii/grocery/liquor j
1 U6lities 1 Q Retirernent �
-- Manufacturing 8 Service
-- Warehouse/storage
Jobs Hetd b Season Average Hou� �
y Number of Jobs
n-769 Per Week
Summer mean=1.1 40.3 n=7Q�
Skiseason 1.2 43.5 I
Spring/Fall shoulder seasons 1.0 37.2 '
Do you have the same primaryjob year-round, ordifferent
primary jabs in winter and in summer? 91 Same 9 Di ;
n=921
What is fhe location of your PRIMARY W/NTER employment?�
30 Vail 5.5 Eagle-Vail
11 Edwards/Homestead/Singletree 3 Gypsum
29 AvonlBeaver Creek/Arrowhead 3 Mintum/Red C►+ff
12 Eagle 7 Other �
What is yourindividual annual gross income before taxes?
mean=$55,424, n=914 (
What is yourage? mean=42.4 Gender 48 M 52 F 1
n=1007 n=973
� EAGLE COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PERCENTAGE RESPONSES
EMPLOYER SURVEY
Local govemments in Eagie County are undertaking a comprehensive assessment of housing needs ihroughout the county. This
information wiil be used to plan projects, alfocate resources and assist the private sector to develop housing needed by the county's
� residents. We need input from employers to do this effectively.. Please take a few minutes fo complete this survey. Your responses
' are confidenfial and will only be presented in combination with responses from other employers; information about your specific
, business will remain private. Thank you.
� �2.
I �1)
' ]2)
03)
04)
� )5)
J6)
07)
! )8)
)9)
10)
�__-, 11)
I '� 12)
� 3�
� .i 14)
I i � �)
�
�
!__�
Name of business
Telephone #
Contact person
Physical Address
Type of business: n=42
9.5 Bar/restaurant
2 Recreation/attractions/amusements
2 � Reiail/grocerylliquor
7 Hotel
5 Property management (long- and sho�t-term.renta�s)
2 Commercial services
14 Professional services
12 Government
-- Education
5 Real estate
2 Utilities
26 Construction/frades
-- Manufacturing
-- Warehouse / storage
12 Other. ___.__ __
Size of commercial space occupied:
How many business locations do you have? mean=2.6, n=36
What is the approximate square footage ot all space within the
building(s) your business occupies, including storage?
mean=9643, n=23
If your business is hotel/lodging or property management, identify
the number of units/rooms you operate/manage.
mean=49.5, n=6
;� 4. How long has this business been operating? n=42
� � �) -- Less than 2 years
�) 14 2 to 5 years
� 3) 1 Z 5 to 10 years
�( t) 29 10 to 20 years
!-- � i) 45 More than 20 years
"i
__i
5. How many employees do you have at all locations? (include
contract labor; if self-employed, insert "1 ". Do NOT include year-round
employees on the seasonal lines.)
means
Year-round
Summer seasonal
Winter seasonal (peak)
Full-time I Part-time I TOTAL
87.7
n=39
75.1
n=14
451.1
n=9
15.5 98.7
n=22 n=38
25.8 71.7
n=12 n=19
216 413.4
n=8 n=14
6. In what type of housing do summer seasonal employees
live? (ENTER PERCENTAGES)
98% live in standard housing (apartments, mobile homes,
townhomes, etc.) n=25
14% camp n=7
2% stay in non-winterized cabins n=1
14% stay in motels n=4
7. How many posifions at your business are cur�ently unfilled?
mean=6.5, n=35 Full-time
mean=7.3, n=27 Part-time
8. How many jobs were unfilled this past summer?
mean=3.1, n=35 Full-time
mean=3.6, n=28 Part-time
9. Of your total employees, how many do not speak English as
their primary language? mean=18.2, n=40
10. How many people, in your estimaiion, were not hired or left
your employment last year because they:
Lacked housing: 3.9 persons, n=36
�acked transportation: 0.T persons, n=25
Lacked day care: 0.3 persons, n=27
Lacked parking: .004 persons, n=22
11. Which of your employees have a housing problem?
NO MODERATE MAJOR
PROBLEM PROBLEM
Seasonal workers ................... ...........mean=3.0, n=25
Entry level professionals ........ ...........mean=3.2, n=29
Mid-management ................... ...........mean=2.7, n=29
Upper management ............... ...........mean=1.9, n=27
Retail/service clerks ............... ...........mean=2.9, n=16
General labor ......................... ...........mean=3.0, n=25
12.
1)
OR
2).
Which is the biqqer problem for your business? rr=42
32 Empioyees unable to find atfordabfe rental units
68 Employees unable to purchase homes
13. What problems other than housing negatively impact your
ability to hire and retain employees? (CNECKALL THAT
APPL� n=42
1) 26 Low wages
2) 13 Job quality
3) 82 Generai high cost of living
4) 26 CompetiGon from outside Eagle County
5) 33 Employee work ethic
6) 15 Language barriers
7) 18 Insufficientjob traininglskills
3j 13 Other:
14.
1)
15.
Do you provide housing or rent/mortgage subsidies for any
of your empioyees? n=42
50 Yes 2) 50 No (GO TO Q.16)
(IF YES) How many units? mean=58.6, n=20
How many emplovees? mean=68.2,�n=20
16. In the future, would you be wiiling to assist your employees
with housing through one or more ot the following methods?
YES NO UNCERTAIN
Master leasing rental units....... 33 ...............33...............33 n=39
Security deposits ..................... 26...............36............. 38.5 n=39
Rentsubsidies ........................20.5.............46...............33 n=39
Down payment loans/grants ...27.5 .............40............. 32.5 n=40
Mortgage guarantees ..............17.5 ........... 47.5..............35 n=40
Mortgage subsidies ..................13...............51...............36 n=39
Building housing on site...........13 .........:.....54...............33 n=39
Building housing off site...........15 ...............49...............36 n=39
Purchase existing housing.......15 ...............39...............46 n=39
17. Would you support the foliowing for development of
employee housing?
�
YES NO UNCERTAIN
Development excise tax on
residentiai and commercial
construction ............................. 32...............38...............30
Sales tax increase ................... 21............. 60.5..............18
Empioyee head tax .................10.5.............66...............24
Property tax increase ...............17...............47...............36
Density bonuses ...................... 36...............22...............42
Development fee waivers ........ 44 ...............22...............33
Inclusionary zoning (a
percentage of all new homes
are for employees) ................... 53...............24...............24
Commercial linkage (empfoyers
provide housing for a percentage
of new jobs created) ................ 29...............42...............29
Do you support a regional, county-wide approach for the
fioliowing? .
19. Where do your empioyees live? (ENTER PERCENTAGES�
13% Vail n=42
16% EdwardsMomestead/Singletree �
12% Avon �
— °10 Beaver CreekJArrowhead
10°lo Eagle-Vail �
8% Gypsum
4% Minturn/Red Cliff
19.5% Eagle I
3% Rural areas
1% Summit County
9% Lake County/�eadviile �
1% Gafield County
2% Other
20. How does the number of empioyees you have today compa�
to the number of employees you had 5 years ago? n=42
1 76 More em lo ees toda than 5 ears a o
2) 7 Fewer employees today than 5 years ago (
3) 12 No change (GO TO Q. 22) �
4) 5 N/A — not in business 5 years
21. If you have more empioyees today, please choose the ONE 4
main reason why you have more ernployees: n=42
1) 97 Increased the size of space in which you do business
2) 8 increased the number of locations for your business
3) 19 More employees in the same space - expanded hours �
4) 19 More employees in the same space - more demanding
clientele �
5) 36 Other:
22. During the next year, will the number of persons you empl �:
1) 58.5 Stay the same n=42 �
2) -- Decrease
3) 41.5 increase
23. (lF1NCREASE) How many more persons do you plan to hi� ?
mean=5.4, n=14
n=37 24. Have you moved your rima business location from one(
n=38 community to another within the past three years? n=42 �
n=38 1) 88 No
n=36 2) 12 Yes (from to ) 1
n=36 �
n=36 25. Did the move improve your ability to find employees? n=42
1) — Yes 2) 100 No
n=38 � '
n=38
YES NO UNCERTAIN
Administration of the
housing authority ....................52.5 .............20............. 27.5 n=40
Development requirements...... 54 ............. 20.5..............26 n=39
Fees/taxes for housing ............ 22 ...............42...............36 n=36
Incentives for housing .............. 67...............13...............20 n=30
Deed restrictions .....................51.5.............27...............21 n=33
That's ail! Thank you very much for taking the time to compiete this
survey. Please return the survey by faxing to:
(303) 449-6587 OR (970) 479-2452.
If you have questions about this survey, please cail Melanie Rees at
(303) 682-3049. I
�
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Commuter Intercept Survey--PERCENTAGE RESPONSES
l. Do you speak: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLi� n=313
.1) 56 .English
2) 42 Spanish
; 3) 2 Other:
2. Do you read: (CHECK ALL THAT APPL� n=309
; i 1) 57 English
� 2) 41 Spanish
��I
3) 2 Other: _
�' 3. Where do you live? n=306
' 1) 83 Leadville/Lake County
2) 5 Glenwood Springs/G�eld County
! 3) -- Metro Denver region
j � �) 9 Summit County
5) 4 Other
�( I�. What type of home do you live in? n=312
` 1) 28.5 House
2) 44 Mobile home
; 3) 27 Apartmendcondominium/townhome
i
�.
�. How many bedrooms are in your home? mean=2.�, n=258
j� i. Do you own or rent your home? n=306
_) 41 Own 2) 59 Rent
�
( '. What is the total monthly rent/mortgage payment?
' - mean = $530, n=305
I4. What do you pay, on average, in monthly utilities and fees?
� mean = $167, n=301
i � 9. Who lives in your household? n=311
� ; ) 10 Self alone
'.) 7 Single parent with child(ren)
3) 18 Couple
i'') 43 Couple with chitd(ren)
�. - ) 3.5 Unrelated roommates
6) 18 Family members and unrelated roommates
I ' �) — Other:
i '
� �0. Where do you want to live? n=305
� I 1) 48.5 In the community where you now live OR
) 18 Vail area
) 15 Avon area
4} 8.5 Edwards area
� �) 5 Eagle/Gypsum
� � ) 4 Minturn/Red Cliff
'/) 1 Elsewhere in Eagle County
li
�t
I __1
Would you move to Eagle County if the following types of
housing became available? n 313
YES NO UNCERTAIN
Mobile homes 44 53 3
Apartments 31 66 3
Condos/townhomes 21 70 9
Houses 41 50 8.5
12
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Where do you work? n=311
63 Vail
20 Avon/Beaver Creek/Arrowhead
7 Edwards/Cordillera
7 Eagle �
— Minturn/ Red Cliff
1 Gypsum
1 Other:
13. How long (time) is your commute on average, one way?
mean=60.47 rninutes, n=277
14. If you live with family, do other family members: n=265
1) 61 Comrnute to jobs in Eagle County
2) 18 Work near where you live .
3) 12 Commute to jobs in other counties
4) 7 Both work nearby and commute
5) 3 Neither - they do not have jobs
15. How much do you work during each season?
# JOBS # HOURS
0.8 35 Summer
0.8 34 Ski season
� 0.4 16 Spring/fall shoulder seasons
16. How many days per week do you use the following types of
transportation to get to work? (Enter "0" ifNone) n=169
1) Drive alone mean=2.6 days
2) Carpool mean=0.6 days
3) Bus mean=2.1 days
4) Hitchhike mean=.003 days
5) Other mean=.003 days
17. What is your PRIMARY source of income? n=309
01} 10 Bar/restaurant
02) 34 Construction/trades
03) 1 Education
04) 10 GovernmenY
OS) 31 Lodging/hotel
06} 2 Professional services
0�) 4 Utilities
08) — Manufacturing
09) 1 Real estate sales
10) — Property management (long- and short-term rentals)
11) — Recreation/ariractions
12) — Parenbinheritance
13) 3 Retail/grocery/liquor
14) — Retirement
15) 1 Service
16) 1 Warehouse/storage
18. What type of job do you have? n=292
1) 5.5 Service (store cierk, van/bus driver, guest services)
2) 32 Housekeeping/maintenance
3) 10 Restaurant (cook, dishwasher, waiting tables)
4) 13 Administrative (secretary, teller, reservations)
5) 7 ManageriaUsupervisory
6) Z7 Construction
7) 6 Other
�I
� II
�
�� �- �� '�� '�� ��� � �Y�.,.� February zoo8
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
o �
��'°�"'�:����.���� � ` r� �� .� �w;;,; ` �. �
�
�'
�.
, , .,x l;
rl,�:� .� 1 , yj' �
�,�� ; �� � t., s
.. `11��, •b��J����
' .t. ,�1 , �K ���1 i
� �
r i'v ""' 1 .-v
t,.. }iv �S .r , � . rt„ ("�,�i'r �... r t �i r {e
�{1 s • :�
��f re��`�,��i u� j '� i, t ��� � �i ``1 r�'+�,.-'�
d�F*�"' �� � F .. ' y �
r �� �r� 1 w � .ts*,.+.`m�wr �. �„�,�� r'��"i
;�. .
.� j , ��' 4 � ,� `+ ..N���., y+n.R,"S P � .
;y' „�'�S V� "�`� � ' i � �.
'�.. . � ��7 .
� , i I
.a,9�'- , S� ! -
c- +�-y" r� ? ,
,� ;� t� t � '.
i { M.�
�j ��t � F � �i�i r x .
'.y �-.�; !� '� �'i� i� }j .
"�;�- ' �i�'"; � � , ,�� *
.l.��,��'' � � t , f
�u_�� _: .:�� .....:... .:.- _ . ':_„ ,.:_..
t y'
1
°
�` s> z..,.t°Lt�`''��,q������'�jv� j ���".� '�a �[:'�'"�3 ;*��;�`� �,.y� S'�• -�'� a�. � • � �� ' ���-: ..�M�•.r"';�
rt
� 1�' �.� r s ��.rr,1, L+� ;.: t d".�i. Se °� �
Os � ."�r�+ .t �',�."r� .i„ � s. �. �,�;njrJ Y°u�'4 .�^'- � . ..�,�,,,,.,..�w-�r
y"x ,� � �xt " r 1 '� , .., � ,�+ . i ,. .
� �
,Ht' ' � � „y, 1- o-
Pr,_ . �. ". ,. ;:. , ' s.. �-^" ;` � _
. . . ,. , . ��s � ,�5 ,; ,... . .
� ,
- -. .:. ,. ..,.
� . .... . .�.., • ''�� � �
�y .. .. . � ' . . -
�,.. ,�.,;. . . ,. .
' r
. � , � . . . .. . ..,
+i
• " . . � � . .... . . .. ..... _ .�. . . ,. ...... �.v.i...�.,,r>wk,�i��C.':�
l
'�,�
I, ;
��'
��� .
r�
,V.. � -,;
.A
� v ; �;
$,.�z.
� �������� ������ �� ��ve������� ���������
��d ��� �� �c� �� �o���ng �����°��������
�
By Terry Moore, Fa�ca, Robert Parker, aicP, Beth Goodman, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap
Reports and journa� articles about the relationship between regulation and housing
costs �eave many �uestions unanswered.
What regulations have the biggest impact on
housing costs? Which are most prevalent in
U.S. cities? Are there differences in regula-
tions between urban and rural jurisdictions or
between regions of the U.S.? This article dis-
cusses (i) the impact ofthe requirements of
zoning and subdivision ordinances that are
rnost lil<ely to impect the cost of new housing,
and (2) the occurrence and magnitude oF
(and-use regu(ations that go beyond minimum
standards and, in doing so, increase the cost
of housing. The (iterature refers to such stan-
dards as "regulatory barriers to affordabte
housing" and as "excessive" regulation.
A cornerstone of locai poticy for land
use is the belief that regulation can improve
the efficiency of tand development and use
by reducing the negative effects of these
activities. Even though pianners and poticy
mal<ers acicnowtedge that the proper scope
of such regulation is empirical and that regu-
lations can go "too far," the number and
scope of regutations consistently grows.
Ultimately, theory cannot answer questions
about the proper scope of a specific poticy.
Because theory can be marsha(ed on both
sides of the question, some careful empiri-
ca( worl< is necessary.
`EXCESSIVE' VERSIlS `REASOiVABLE'
The empirical woric we report is from a study
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Deve(opment, part of a larger
National Association of Home Builders study,
Study of Subdivision Requirements as a
Regulatory Barrier. The study attempted to
quantify the cost of "excessive" regutation
based on the survey of regulatory standards,
benchmarks of "teasonable" development
standards, and estimates of development
costs. Defining both "excessive" and "reason-
able" is a s(ippery proposition. "Excessive"
implies more regu(ation than is "reasonable,"
but how does one define "reasonable"? We
continue to use both words in quotes to
emphasize the preliminary nature ofthe defi-
nitions used in the study.
The study used the foltowing methods to
produce an orderof magnitude estimate for
the cost of "excessive" regu(ation:
1. The NAHB developed benchmarl<s of "rea-
sonab(e" deve(opment standards for urban
and rural jurisdictions, based on a survey of
development professionals. It compared the
results of the national survey of regulations
against benchmarks of "reasonable" devel-
opment standards to determine the average
amount of regutation required in excess of
the benchmarl< standards (i.e.,."excessive"
regulation).
ZONINGPRACTItE 2.08
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIA710N ( page z
z. The NAHB estimated the unit cost of regu(a-
tions exceedingthe benchmarl<standards for
each development standard based on the
costs oF raw land and construction.
3. The NAHB and ECONorthwest applied the
unit costs to the regulations in excess of the
benchmarlc standards to the survey results to
estimate the average cost of "excessive" regu-
lation for jurisdictions in the survey.
q. The NAHB and ECONorthwest used the
average cost of regu(ation in excess of
benchmarl<standards to estimate the
national cost of "excessive" regulation
based on the number of bui(ding permits
issued in 2004.
The study investigates the inftuence oP
zoning and subdivision regulations on the
cost of new housing construction. It (i) selects
certain housing inputs that are often regu(ated
in zoning and subdivision regu(ations (e.g., lot
size, setbacl<s, open space, street width); (z)
uses a national survey to measure and
describe how those regulations vary across
the county; and (3) compares the national
practice to what a panel of housing experts
judged to be "reasonable" standards. The
study defines "excessive" regu(ation as actual
standards that exceed theoretical "reason-
able" standards, and this definition allows us
to estimate the costs associated with "exces-
sive" standards.
We're not saying that the standards cho-
sen by the panel are "righY' or that the addi-
tional costs are without benefit or are even a
deadweight (oss. The study does estimate,
however, how much the cost of housing pro-
duction coutd be reduced iFthe national aver-
age standards were lowered to those judged
bythe panef to be reasonable.
Despite a lacl< of
comprehensive
national studies, few
would debate that
regulafiions can have
measurab�e impacts
on housing cost.
A FRAMEWORIC FOR THINI<ING ABOUT
HOUSING C�ST
Many studies have tried to estimate the
efFects of land and development regulations
on housing costs. Most oFthem Pocus on the
effects of either whole categories of regu(a-
tions or general development patterns. Few
studies have attempted to estimate the cost
impacts of the development standards in sub-
division and zoning regulations, and none has
tried to do so on a nationa( sca(e. There has
been no comprehensive nationa( survey of
development standards affecting the provi-
sion ofafFordable housing: Despite a lacl<oF
comprehensive national studies, Few wou(d
debate that regu(ations can have measurab(e
impacts on housing cost.
Schuetz and White conducted one ofthe
few studies to examine the costs of individual
regulation and identified three ways in which
subdivision and zoning regulations can affect
housing costs: land, lot improvement, and
housing construction. l'he subdivision regula-
tions that were Pound to have a significant
impact on costs include sidewall<, curb and gut-
ter, and storm sewer requirements; impact fees;
and excessive right-of-way widths. Additionally,
they found that "excessive" zoning regulations
increase the costs of certain subdivision ele-
ments by increasingthe amount oFinaterials
needed. Excessive lot widths increase the costs
of sewer mains, water mains, streets, side-
wall<s, storm sewers, and curbs and gutters;
excessive Front yard setbacks increase the costs
of sewer and water (aterals.
Regulations can cause the cost and price
of housing to increase by amounts that are
not worth the value of the benefits that the
regulations intend to provide. In otherwords,
price effects are at the heart of the issue of
regu(atory barriers to housing. But housing
price is affected by many variables—on(y
some ofwhich are public policies—and only a
subset oFthose are the ones focused on in
a(legations of regulatory barriers. Fgure i on
page y shows the main factors that influence
the price of new housing. Some observations:
� Housing supply and demand factors
include the existing supply oF housing and the
demand for residential space resulting from
ZONINGPRACTICE 2.08
AMERICAN PtRNNING ASSOCIATION � page j
' � : .:�` ,. �.; ,.8. - e o o y ,� �
�� ��~,� *. � rr; a— 'i �,. �. ���,�
Number
Size of of Builders Materials
Buitders � Other labor � Fnancing
al 4 ' /
� Dt� TS R�� �OTH�ER�:
, �: k -r � , ��wA�,Q�
ST UC UR :� CO5T5:
� �,'�'�� ,°_`';��—r „ ,�
SUPPLY/PRICE � F#„�,Ph�rs�iaa �[�,b�n,str�mtsz� f
Of EXISTING CONSTRUCTION �A(e,g tapo��apl� y; k��ends�`
HOUSING COSTS � ��'�,��,��t ;����'�r,���,���,��s
;,r, � }-�� �i��enil,cesf �t�'�
�r��`��.,�"'�� �-f4�'�j�F�1x� r�'��rc �€�
� �' "�'i�5ervie��ta��o�lic�r� ���.
PRICE OF BUILT SPACE ��'�'��`�'����'r� 2�'�`�,��u,�" �,,, �
}`j���`�nt"g���su6 �1i�siart�.
(e.g., Housing, Offices) �� -r���'�,r;����, �r� �„� .
�.� � ����� �,.��,�"������;Y-- ��
/' . ��� �`�FB'UiLc�mg�SOdes�� �1�'S�`,
/ z "`� �``��s���i E �` `�
,�,��:x'��'����r t�rc� ����,�� v .
U�'i¢ �.���P�rcel�zatro�a ;53�� �k
DEMAND FOR COST7O1F LAND �i�`�`�wy��..��'+ ���'�,��'�` t
SPACE ///7711 1,i�'�,.Othet p;,ubyt4c,pn iLy 1`�'� �
� � x / / ECONorthwest
Po utation Changes in ��
P / S PPLY�FQF*
and real income DE ND�:
em loyment -`�'r- ,�BU{LR BL�
P ;,aR,��,��aN.�. r�,� ; A`�`
growth ��:r LAM1IR r. �..<
Rate of National
househotd economic
formation fadors
growth and economic factors (e.g., change in
income). These are significant influences on
price, but are usuatty outside the scope of
the debate about regulatory barriers.
� land costs depend on marl<et condi-
tions—the demand for land, the amount of
land availabte on the marlcet, and the result-
ing price of land. The cost of (and can be
divided into the cost of raw land and the
cost of providing infrastructure and services
to that raw land. A simple inference is that
regutations that increase the amount or unit
price of land, or the infrastructure necessary
to support residentia! development, are bar-
riers to that deve(opment. Here, and
throughout the slippery terrain of regulatory
barriers, we must step carefu!!y. it is not
enough to show, for example, that require-
ments for ofF-site and on-site inPrastructure
increase housing price: Of course they do.
Instead; we must asl<three retevant ques-
tions. (s) What is the efficient leve! of infra-
structure to provide? (2) What would the
deve(oper have provided in the absence of
the regulations? And (3) what would be the
difference in spi(lover impacts between the
efficient leve( oF infrastructure and the infra-
structure that deve(opers would have provid-
ed in the absence of regulations (i.e., both
short- and long-term external costs)?
� Construction costs depend heavify on the
costs of labor and materials. The structure of the
toca! construction industry can be an important
factor because the size and num6er of construc-
tion firms can influence costs through competi-
tion for labor, through a lacl<of expertise in
(arge-scale projects (requiring the importation of
expert labor), or through economies of scale.
a Other cost factors inc(ude financing costs
(both for the developer and the home
buyer), construction overhead, and profit.
The contribution of each of these fac-
tors can vary substantialty according to
housing marl<et conditions, but historically,
in suburban, single-fami(y, residential mar-
I<ets, serviced land generally accounts for zo
to 25 percent of housing costs. Labor and
materials account for roughly 5o percent of
housing costs, and other factors (e.g.,
Fnancing, overhead, sales, and profit)
account for remeining costs.
land-use regutation has severat effects
on housing costs. First, it tends to increase
housing costs by restricting the supply oF
land. it restricts development on certain
lands (e.g., where there are physical con-
sfraints or high-vatue environmentat
resources) and attows housing on some of
the (and not so restricted. Second, regula-
tion can also add conditions to development
that a devetoper would not otherwise meet,
and those conditions have a cost (e.g., (and-
scaping to create a visual bufFer). Other
types oF costs include permitting fees, sys-
tems development charges, and other regu-
latory charges. Third, developers may spend
time and resources in the process of trying
to comply with land-use regulations.
A final caution: The funding for and
research into regulatory barriers is primarily
about identifying and estimating the costs of
barriers, not about estimating the net impacts
(costs and benefits) oF public policy. Land-use
regulation does not just increase the cost of
development. It may, and most often probably
does, increase the vatue ofthe development
(even when the costs are greater than the
increases in mari<et value). Moreover, even if
the regulatory costs do not transtate into high-
er prices and bigger returns for the developer,
. the oPf-site benefits to targer grbups of citi- .
zens (e.g., those downstream from a develop-
ment that must pay the regulatory costs of
better stormwater management) may exceed,
perhaps substantially, the costs borne by the
devetoper and home buyers in the develop-
ment. Identifying and estimating the costs of
"excessive" regulations is an important piece
ofthe policy puzzle, but it is only one piece.
A NATIONAL SURVEY OF REGULATORY
STANDARDS
The broader purpose of the HUD study was
to exptore the connection between subdivi-
sion and zoning regu(ations and housing
cost. A nationaf survey of regulatory stan-
dards that impact the cost of residentiat
devetopment was the foundation of the
study. The survey focused on regu(atory
standards and requirements that raise the
cost of residentia( development and exam-
ined regulatory standards amenable to
ZONINGPRACTICE 2.08
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION � page 4
direct measurement and cost imp(ication
ana(ysis. Based on previous research, we
selected standards lilcely to increase the
amount of land required or likely to increase
the cost of providing infrastructure (i.e.,
sewer or water lines) for residential deve(op•
ment in subdivisions.
The Sample
We based our survey on a sample of 500
jurisdictions across the U.S. Ofthose, we
were able to obtain ordinances from 469.
The sampling cha((enge was to devefop a
methodology that resu(ted in a random sam-
ple representative of the population.of al(
38�966 jurisdictions in the U.S. The objec-
tive was to develop a samp(e that (i) was
geographical(y representative of communi-
ties across the nation, (z) reflected the
national distribution of population (includ-
ing iurisdiction size), (3) reflected both Fast-
and slow-growingjurisdictions, and (4) rep-
resented a range of government types.
We weighted the samp(e by popu(ation
in states (e.g., the number of samples for
each state is proportional to its population)
and then by amount of populafion growth in
each jurisdiction between i996 and z000.
This methodo(ogy p(aced emphasis on the
amount of popu(ation in each state, and
ensured that both fast- and s(ow-growing
communities were represented.
The I<ey weighting criteria did not
inc(ude the number of local governments. If
we had used the number of local govern-
ments as a weighting criterion, then states
lil<e North Dakota with i,744 jurisdictions
would have had many more samples than
states like California, which has 53z. We
focused on popu(ation and growth rate
rather than the number of jurisdictions
because the focus of the study was the cost
oF"excessive" regulation on newdevelop-
ment, which occurs more frequent(y in areas
with more population and higher growth
rates. Whi(e the survey represented s(ightly
more than one percent of the population of
loca( governments, it represented z6 percent
of the U.S. population.
We divided jurisdictions into urban
(those belonging to a Metropolitan
Statistica( Area (MSA)) and rura! (those not
belonging to an MSA). More than two-thirds
of the sample (323 jurisdictions) belonged
to an MSA; (ess than one-third of the sample
(i46 jurisdictions) was not part of an MSA.
The Ordinance Review
The survey consisted of obtaining and
reviewing subdivision and land-use ordi-
nances from the samp(e jurisdictions. We
used Pour steps to review the ordinances:
se(ecting the residential district to review,
gathering data from the zoning ordinance,
gathering data from the subdivision ordi-
nance, and searching both ordinances for
missing data.
Since it was not feasible or practical to
collect data about a!! residential districts,
this study focused on the requirements
found in the densest residential zone that
permits detached single-famify housing by
righfi. This zone represents the "border"
between mu(tifamily housing and low-densi-
ty sing(e-fami(y housing. The requirements
for less land in this zone increase the (il<eli-
hood of aFfordable housing being developed
because land accounts for a substantial
share of the costs of residential develop-
ment. Thus; choosing the residential district
to review was criticaf because most jurisdic-
tions have multip(e residential zones with
differing development standards.
TNE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
Lot Standards
Regulation of lot size and configuration is
important because these standards deter-
mine the density of residentiai development,
which directly impacts housing affordability.
Table s shows the lot standards cot(ected for
this study: size, setbacks, floor area, and
off-street parl<ing. Lot size is the key lot
standard in this study because the minimum
!ot size determines the amount of land
required for a singfe-family detached
dweliing. Most oF the other lot variables are
retated to size and placement of the
dwelling on the (ot.
The First and third quartiles show the
range oF responses between the bottom z5th
percent and upper 75th percent of jurisdic-
tibns' standards. The quartiles show the
range of standards that the majority of juris-
dictions fit into, without emphasizing the
smal(est and largest standards.
About 95 percent of jurisdictions with
zoning or subdivision ordinances had mini-
mum lot size standards. The mean (ot size
was 9.9z4 square Peet, with 5o percent oF
the jurisdictions having minimum (ot size
standards between 5,00o and 8,50o square
feet. The lot size requirements in urban juris-
ZONINGPRACTICE 2.08
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ( pageg
dictions were less than halfthe size oP rural
jurisdictions' requirements: an average of
7,578 square feet compared to the rural aver-
age of 15,507 square feet.
Lot width and setbacks varied across
jurisdictions but not as much as lot size. The
mean lot width requirement was 6z Feet, with
5o percent of jurisdictions' !ot width require-
ments varying From 5o to 7o feet. Average
urban tot width requirements were three-quar-
ters as large as rural requirements. We exam-
ined front, side, and rear setbacics; front set-
backs had the largest mean requirement at z5
feet. Side setbacks.averaged eight feet per
side. Urban jurisdictions' requirements for
front and side setbacks were about two-thirds
as large as rural jurisdictions' requirements.
Rear setbacks averaged zi feet, with average
urban requirements about 8o percent as large
as rural requirements.
The variables examined so far re(ate to
the size of the lot and p(acement of the
dwelling on the lot. The next lot variabie, floor
area, is related to the amount of living space
within the dwelling unit, expressed as the
minimum number of square feet of floor space
within the dwelling. Floor area is a key vari-
able because large floor area requirements
decrease housing affordability by requiring
larger homes than the market might otherwise
bui(d. On(y i8 percent of jurisdictions with
ordinances had requirements for floor area,
with a mean requirement of i,o6o square feet.
The final !ot variable was requirement of
off-street paricing spaces. Table s shows that
83 percent of the jurisdictions had off-street
parl<ing requirements and that more than
three-quarters of jurisdictions with standards
required two spaces. Urban and rura( jurisdic-
tions' requirements for off-street parl<ing were
simi(ar, with ofF-street parking requirements
more common in urban jurisdictions.
Street and Sidewalic SYandards
Because transportation is essential to residen-
tial development, jurisdictions commonly reg-
u(ate street and sidewalk standards in resi-
dential subdivisions. We co(lected information
about street pavement width, street right-of-
way width, requirements For curbs and gutters,
planting strip requirements, and sidewallc
requirements.
More than half of a(l jurisdictions sur-
veyed regulated street widths in their zoning
or subdivision ordinance. Table z shows that
the mean street pavement width require-
1'ABLE 1. SURVEY OF �ELIECi"ED STANDARDS
Standard
N Mean Median Deviation
ns
419 9�9z4 6,000 16,946
34z 6z 6o z5
� ';. 413 25 25 13
417 $ $ 5
`' ;: 404 21 Zo 9
, " 86 i,obo s,000 359
.
paces; 367 z z 1
idth (I�f) ;. i9z zs z8 6
w4dtii;(l f) z6z 52 50 8
), '4;, 153 4 4 1
i�� F) ,'; i 37 5 5 1
47 13 l0 9
18 1,562 795 3�447
34 z29 zi8 isz
295 7�57$ 6,000 13:946
246 57 5� 17
z93 zz Zo 8
294 7 6 . 3
z8z i9 zo 8
58 z,z13 z,000 4og
z65 2 2 i
i35 28 28 6
174 53 50 7
113 5 4 1
30 4 5 Z
34 14 lo io
14 1,64z 453 3.9z7
28 2iz 2i8 so3
;>::. i24 i5>5o7 8�856 z1>597
',': 96 75 6$ 35
zzo 3z 25 i8
� sz3 si io 6
;` iz2 z4 z5 ii
' 2$ 949 960 181
soz 2 2 0
`` 57 z6 z6 6
;! 88 5z 50 9
4� 4 4 1
7 5 5 1
ECONorthwest and the Community Planntng Workshop at the Unfvers(ty of Oregon
Square feet Is abbreviated as "s.f." and linear Feet Is abbrevtated as "Lf."
ment was z8 feet. Street right-of-way
requirements have an average width of 53
feet, which inc(udes pavement width, curb
and gutter, planting strip, and sidewalk
ast
5,000
50
Zo
5
15
Soo
z
24
So
4
4
so
371
i3i
5,000
50
20
5
i5
800
2
24
50
4
3
lo
343
13i
6,000
5�
25
8
15
8io
z
21
50
4
4
3rd
Quartib
8,5oc
7c
3�
1C
ZS
i,zoc
2
3�
6c
�
E
1S
4
Z�C
7,zoc
6�
z5
S
z5
s,3oc
2
32
6c
�
�
zc
92E
ZiE
i5,00c
$4
3°
i=
3�
i,00c
z
3�
6c
4
E
requirements, as well as public easements.
Pavement and right-of-way widths varied
only slightly between urban and rura!
jurisdictions.
ZONINGPRACTICE 2.08
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION � po9e
Ha(fofthe jurisdictions surveyed required
curb and gutters in their zoning or suhdivision
ordinances. Fewerthan io percent ofjurisdic-
tions required planting strips (landscaped areas
between the curb and sidewali<). Among ordi-
nances requiring p(anting strips, the mean
width was five feet. Half ofjurisdictions also
required sidewallcs on one or both sides of the
street and z6 percent required sidewall<s on
both sides of the street, with a mean width
requirement of four feet.
Open Space and Landscaping Standards
We eva(uated the amount of land required for
open space, which includes requirements for
devoting undeveloped land to public uses,
such as pari<tand. About 28 percent of the
jurisdictions in the samp(e had regulations
requiring dedication of land for open space
uses. Of these jurisdictions, 59 percent, or 78
jurisdictions, allowed payments (fee-in-tieu)
of land dedications.
Open space requirements varied but
genera!!y fell into one of three patterns: (i)
requirements Por a fixed percentage of land
within the subdivision, (2) a set amount of
land per dwelting unit in the subdivision, or
(3) a set amount of land per person
expected to live in the subdivision. Open
space requirements.in urban and rura( juris-
dictions were refativety similar although
requirements were more prevalent in urban
jurisdictions.
The fina! standard we examined was
landscaping requirements in subdivisions.
They varied from comp(ex, extensive require-
ments to general ones. Some jurisdictions
had speci�c requirements about the type,
focation, and size of plants used in land-
scaping. Others were generat, mere(y requir-
ing some sort of landscaping. Quantifying
these requirements posed significant diffi-
culties because of the variability in require-
ments. As a result, we simply tracl<ed
whetherjurisdictions had fandscaping
requirements. About 4o percent of jurisdic-
tions had landscaping standards in in their
subdivision or zoning ordinance.
CONCLUSION: THE IMPACT OF REGULATION ON
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
The regulations with the greatest impact on
housing cost were !ot size and floor area.
Excessive lot-size requirements accounted
for about three-quarters of the cost of
"excessive" regulation and floor area
requirements accounted For about io percent
ofthe costs.
All other devetopment standards exam-
ined in the survey (lot width, setbacl<s, num-
ber of parlcing spaces, street standards, etc.)
account fo� approximate(y 15 percent of the
cost of "excessive" regulation. For the most
part, these costs are related to additional land
costs and the provision of services. Of the
remaining standards, lot widths, Front set-
bacl<s, and street pavement width had the
largest effect on cost.
We end with a reminder that even if one
were to accept our definitions and resu(ting
estimates of "excessive" costs as approxi-
mately correct, the costs are not a deadweight
(oss. Our definition of "excessive" costs
clearly implies that the incrementa! costs of
the higher standards are greater than the
incremental benefits, but there are usual(y
be�efits. Bigger setbacl<s may require bigger
lots that cost more, but the purchaser is, in
fact, getting a bigger (ot that has some value.
Thus, the estimate oP an aggregate cost
impact of $1G billion cited above would be, all
other things being equal, an overestimate
(perhaps a substantial one) ofthe net impact
on the regulations on the purchasers and
users of housing.
VOL. z5, N0. 7
Zonine� ArocYice is a mcnthly Vubiication oF the
Flmericart PtanningAssocia�ian.5ubscripHons
are avai[able fior $75 (U.S.} and $aao (foreignj.
W. Paut Farmer, Fmcr, Exe�uti�re Director; Vltittiam
R. !<(ein, �ica, airector �f Research.
Zoning Practice (ISSN i548—oi35) is produced at
APA. Jim Schwab, aica, and David Morley, Editors;
Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor, Lisa Barton,
Design and Production.
Copyright �Ozoo8 by American Planning
Association, izz S. Michigan Ave., Suite i600,
Chicago, Il6o6o3. The American Planning
Association also has offices at i776
Massachusetts Ave., fV.W., Washington, D.C.
zoo36; www.planning.org.
All rights reserved. IVo part af this pubiication may
be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, induding
photocopying, recording, or by any inFormation
storage and retrieva( system, without permission in
writing from the American PlanningAssociation.
printzd on recyded paper, includin; 5�-7�%-�
recycted fiber and xo%, postconsGmer wasCca.
ZONINGPRACTICE 2.08
AMERICAN PIANNING ASSOCIATION � page7
�
�
�
�� ��
aaa��
O��-SW
z = c.> a
G�.�:
�'
i�
�:;�
ri�
��
�
z
0
a
v
O
�
�
¢
l'J
z
Z
Z
g
d
Z
u
�
�
¢
a
¢ m
C �
t0 �
bn o
� �
u � =
�c' �O O
. � bn
�
� � u
N � -C
� cn v
�
z
ai �p
Q m
w o
� N
�
N l.j
�
u �
u�i 4
� �
cv
� �
� �
I��. �
�
0
�
�
� �
� m
� �
�
d � .
[ ���r�
am� ��o
�� �� m�
� �����
� �t9� o°°
R � m O•i (:1
� ~ � � � �
�� � ���
O CJ F- P-� . °
u
� � � ,: ,
1 � � �( I ' � > �� ' � ' � , � ��� � � ,
,, � � � •� '� , � , �
, � ,, , �� i ,i � � �
i . .� :.� � ',.� � . ' ,f i :� E 1 l l`i .1 � ? � �
! ' ;�. .1 .., �t:i ..�,.:-,r: t � � ,. . . . , .....
ti i
� � !1
� i i .,' � ,�` ; ��,� � :� � ;_ � ��� i i ��� � ( ',�
�
� , I , ' ' 1
? 1 ') � t ;:t � � �� ' 1;1 �r �
� .. .. 1. ... . ..- .. , '... . •.1 "". .�. �:1 .. � . . . .1 .� '� . .
, i � i � '!. I �, � .; 4:- �} ;� .
4 ' �,. � l � � I , ' ,
f � f ;� � � i i I � i;� � y 1� i t"� i rl
,
+ �= ' t�� .i i ��. �J :� . ti '! 1
� ,. C1 :� .. , ,�. I� . , _. .. � .t � n i ,.: , � J ._
�
I -•
��
MEMOR�NDUM
Planning and Environmentai Commission
Community Development Department
February 25, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss a development plan, pursuant to
5ection 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, and to discuss certain
conditional uses, pursuant to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail
Town Code, to allow for a redevelopment of Solar Vail into a mixed use
development to include Type VI employee housing units, professional
offices, subterranean parking, and public utilities installations including
transmission lines and appurtenant equipment, located at 501 Norttt
Frontage Road West, �ot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC070052)
Applicant:
Planner:
�. t�
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey
Pratt Schultz Lindall Architects, P.C.
Scot Hunn
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey Pratt
Schultz Lindall Architects, P.C., has requested a work session with the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the revised
development plan and associated conditional use permits for the re-development
of the Solar Vail property into a mixed use project, located at 501 North Frontage
Road West, to include:
0
0
0
0
0
_ o
One (1) building containing a total of 87,818 (gross) square feet;
Eight stories, inclusive of two levels of structured, subterranean parking;
A maximum building height of 84 feet;
Eighty-two (82), deed restricted, Type VI employee housing units (EHUs);
4,850 square feet (net) of professional o�ce uses; and
Telecommunicatio�s uses (cellular telephone antennae).
Requested Outcome
A work session is requested to discuss the proposed project, which has changed
since the previous work session held with the Commissiorr on August 27, 2007.
Review and discussion is requested relative to recommendations of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, as well as, Housing District development standards and
review criteria outlined in the Vail Town Code. The applicant will benefit from
receiving specific feedback from the Commission regarding proposed permitted
and conditional uses, as well as building bulk, mass, height, architecture, site
development standards and any variations requested. No fiormal action is
required of the Commission at this meetirtg.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Solar Vail property currently serves exclusively as employee housing for the
Sonnenalp Hotel operations. The applicant, in proposing this re-development,
intends to maintain and expand this use as a direct nexus to employee housing
needs generated by operation of the Sonnenalp Hotel in the Vail Village.
Specifically, the applicant proposes this re-development to address, proactively,
the current and future employee housing needs generated by the hotel
operations.. As well, the applicant has proposed, as a possible means to finance
re-development of the site, to sell deed restrictions tied to units developed on the
site to other businesses or developers in need of "off-site" employee housing
mitigation in the future.
The property has been re-zoned from the High Density Multi-Family (HDMF)
District to the Housing (H) District, and a text amendment to the Housing District
allowing for "Professional Offices and Business Offices" as conditional uses has
been approved by the Vail Town Council. Such re-zoning and text amendments
were requested to better facilitate the development of a significant number of
employee housing units within the Town of Vail and to allow for the review of
certain proposed conditiorial uses proposed as secondary and incidental to the
use of employee housing.
Key components of the current proposal include:
s Demolition of two existing buildings containing 24 units, originally
constructed in 1976;
• Development of a new building containing 87,818 (gross) square feet;
• Eight stories, inclusive of two levels of structured parking;
s A maximum building height of 84 feet;
s Eighty-two (82) deed restricted, Type VI employee housing units on five
floors for primary use by employees of the Sonnenalp Hotel;
s Development of approximately 4,850 square feet of office space on the
first level; deed restricted linkage is proposed between office space (lease
agreement) and dedicated EHUs within the building; one or two units are
proposed to be "attached" to office space lease agreements and will be
made part of an on-site employee housing management plan;
s Creation of sixty-nine (69) enclosed parking spaces on two levels of
underground parking (separated for office and residential uses) and eight
(8) surFace parking spaces for a total of seventy-seven (77) parking
spaces on-site;
s Preservation of the existing earthen berm and vegetation located between
the existing parking lat and North Frontage Roacl; and
• Preservation and upgrade of existing telecommunication antenna "farm"
(to be better integrated into new architectural features of building).
The Solar Vail development proposal is comprised of two (2) separate
development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the re-
development proposal. The development applications include, but may not be
limited to:
• A Development Plan application for development within the
Mousing (H) district;
F�
A Conditional Use Permit application for:
o"Professional Office Uses" located on the office level of the
structure;
o"Public Utilities Installations including Transmission Lines
and Appurtenant Equipment" (cellular communication
antennae); and
o"Type Vl Employee Housing Units".
In addition, the applicant is requesting "variations" to certain development
standards, as permitted at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental
Commission during review of any development proposal within the Housing
District. Specifically, the applicant is requesting variations to:
• Setbacks — from 20 feet to approximately 15 feet between the
proposed structure and the west property line; and
• Parking — from 133 required spaces (per Section 12-10-10, Vail
Town Code), to 77 proposed for both residential and office uses.
The applicant has provided responses to conditional use review criteria for
employee housing units, professional business offices and public utility (cellular
communication antennae) uses: As well, the applicant has provided written
responses and justification to variations requested from setback and parking
standards.
A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached
for reference (Attachment A). A copy of the document entitled Tear pown and
Re-build of Solar Vail Emplovee Housinq dated January 28, 2008 (Attachrnent
B), and a reduced set of plans dated January 25, 2008, is attached for reference
(Attachment C).
:� -� �
The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8,
Series of 1969, which became effective on 8/23, 1969. The Solar Vail building
was initially developed as an employee housing project in 1976 and has served
(exclusively) as the off-site employee housing for the Sonnenalp Hotel. These
buildings were also approved for use as a telecommunications (cell) antenna
"farm" site; housing multiple antennae far various co-users or providers.
__ _ _
On August 27, 200i, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
held a work session to discuss plans for a similarly designed building. At that
time, the applicant was proposing sixty-three (63) employee housing units
(EHUs) and 4,700 square feet of professional office space. Two levels of parking
were proposed, with a total of 71 parking spaces proposed. The Commission
was generally supportive of the propose plans and provided the following
feedback to the applicant:
o The applicant should study building mass and, specifically,
provide for more of a"break" in the ridge line of the roof structure;
• The applicant should study loading, delivery and trash storage and
removal; and
• The requested variation to parking standards is generally
supportable in order to facilitate private development of employee
housing within the Town, and in specific response to avoiding
development on slopes in excess of 40%.
On December 4, 2007, the Vail Town Council voted unanimously to approve two
separate ordinances, Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2007 and Ordinance No. 35,
Series of 2007, on second reading. Ordinance No. 34 approved an amendment
to the Official Zoning map for the Town of Vail, effectively re-zoning fihe subject
property from the High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) District to the Housing (H)
District. Ordinance No. 35, approved a text amendment for the Housing District
to specifically allow for "Professional Offices and Business Offices" as conditional
uses within the Housing District. Both the re-zoning of the property and the
subsequent text amendment were requested to better facilitate the re-
development of the site and, specifically, to allow a higher degree of flexibility in
the design and layout of the site to accommodate a significant number of
employee housing units and to allow for the review of certain proposed
conditional uses.
Since proceeding through the re-zoning and text amendment process, the
applicant has revised the plans for the development, introducing slightly revised
building orientation, and roof forms (broken ridge and revised dormer designs).
In addition, the plans now show a taller building with increased density, as well
as a revised subterranean parking design. The access plan has been changed
to minimize any new road cuts and the driveway configuration has been revised
significantly to improve access, provide a hammer head for turn around while
minimizing disturbance on Town owned Tract A.
IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of
the Planning and Environmental Commission on the various applications to be
submitted on behalf of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. �
A. Development Plan Review in the Housinq (H) zone district
The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final
approval/denial of a Development Plan. The Planning and Environmental
Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the adopted
criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval "shall
constitute approval of the basic form and locati.on of impr.ovements
including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site
improvements and landscaping."
B. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final
approval/denial of CUP. The Planning and Environmental Commission
shall review the request for compliance with the adopted conditional use
. permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the project's
compliance. Generally, the Planning and Environmental Commission is
� responsible to ensure that any uses permitted are located properly, to
0
assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional
uses and surrounding properties and the town at large.
V. APPLIC�4BLE DOCUMENTS
Staff has provided portions of the Vail Town Code and several master plans
which are relevant to the proposed topics for this work session. At the time of
any final plan review there will be additional excerpts provided.
Zoninq Requlations
Chapter 6: Housing (H) Zone District (in part)
12-61-1: PURPOSE: The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for
employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee
housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards
prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is necessary in this zone district
to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development
proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this
title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are
allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary
to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure
that, employee housing permifted in the zone district is appropriately located and
design to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonious with surrounding
uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and ofher amenities
appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
12-61-2: PERMITTED USES: The following us.es shall be permitted in the H
District:
Bicycle and pedestrian paths. �
Deed restricted employee housing units, as further described in chapter
93 of this title.
Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space.
12-61-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following uses shall be permitted in H
district, subject to issuance of a conditional use • permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of fhis Title:
"Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as
determined by the planning and environmental commission) to the use of
employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents of
the development, and developed in conjunction with employee housing, in
which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional
use permit:
Banks and financial institutions.
Child daycare facilities.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Funiculars and oiher similar conveyances.
Health clubs.
Personal services, including, but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and
barber shops, tailor shops, and similar services.
5
Refai/ stores and establishments.
Business offices and professional offices as turther regulatetl by
Section 92-16-7 of this fif/e.
Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following
criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission:
A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing
employee housing on the property, and
B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the properiy. The GRFA
for dweiling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total
GRFA constructed on the property, and C. Dwelling units are only
created in conjunction with employee housing, and
D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and
buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on
adjacent properties.
Outdoor patios.
Public and private schools. .
Public buildings, grounds and facilities. •
Public parks and recreational facilities.
Public utilities installations inciuding transmission ►ines and
appurtenant equipment.
Type Vl employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 93
of this title."
12-61-5: SETBACKS: The setbacks in this district shall be twenty feet (20') from
the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the planning and
environmental commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved
during the review of a developrnent plan subject to the applicant demonstrating
compliance with the following criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between
buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light,
air and open spac.e.
C. Propased building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with
buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
D. Proposed building setbacks wiil result in creative design solutions or
otMer public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by
conformance with prescribed setback standards.
Variations to the twenty foot (20') setback shall not be allowed on property lines
adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is
approved by the planning and environmental commission pursuant to Chapter 17
of this title. (Ord. 99(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2)
12-61-6: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent
(55%) of the total site area. At the discretion of the planning and environmental
commission, site coverage may be increased if seventy five percent (75%) of the
required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts
of surface paving provided within a development, and that the minimum
landscape area requirement is met. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2)
C�
12-61-7: LANDSCAPE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT.� At least thirty percent (30%)
of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any
area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not
less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2)
12-6/-8: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Chapter 10 of this title. No parking or loading area shail be
located uvithin any required sefback area. At the discretion of the pianning and
environmental commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in
Chapter 10 of this title may be approved during the review of a development plan
subjecf to a parking management plan. The parking management plan shall be
approved by the planning and environmental commission and shall provide for a
reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer
parking spaces than Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a
demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include:
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation
including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services.
8. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars
for each unit.
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited ta,
rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered
work shifts. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2)
12-6/-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES:
A. Limitation; Exception: Al! conditional uses by section 12-61-3 of this
article shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except
for permitted loading areas and such activifies as may be specifically
authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor
display of goods.
B. ' Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display must
be located directly in front of the estabiishment displaying the goods and
entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building
entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by
outdoor display. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2)
12-61-90: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. Prescribed By Pianning And Environmenfal Commission: In the H
district, development standards in each of the fallowing categories shali
be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the planning and
environmental commission, and as adopted on the approved
development pian
1. �ot area and site dimensions.
2. Building height.
3. Density control (including gross residential floor area). (Ord. 19(2009) §
2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2)
12-61-11: DEVECOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED:
A. Compatibility with Intent: To ensure the unified development, the
protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the
surrounding area and to assure that development in the housing district
will meet the intent of the zone district, an approved development plan
shall be required.
7
_ _
8. Plan Process and. Procedures: The proposed development plan shall
be in accordance with section 12-61-12 of this article and shall be
submitted by the develaper to the administrator who shall refer it to the
planning and environmental commission, which shall the plan at a
regularly scheduled meeting.
C. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental
commission shall be held in accordance with section 92-3-6 of this title.
The pianning and environmental commission may approve the application
as submitted, approve,the application with conditions or modifications, or
deny the application: The decision .of the planning and environmental
commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with
section 12-3-3 of this title.
D. Plan As Guide: The approved development pian shall be used as the
principal guide for all development within the housing district.
E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development
plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of section 12-
OA-10 of this title.
F. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and
any subseguent amendments thereto shall require the appraval of the
design review board in accordance with the applicable provisions of
chapter 11 of this title prior to the commencement of site preparation.
12-61-23: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a
proposed development plan. it shall be the burden of the applicant to
demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable
design criteria:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing
and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and
located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site,
the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are
designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site,
maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide
adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding
properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space
and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide
safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation fo the site and
throughout the development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been
identified in the project's environmental impact repoit, if not waived, and
all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a parf of the
proposed development plan.
F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable
plans. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 19(2009) § 2: Ord. 3(2009) § 2)
:
Chapter 16: Conditional Uses (in part):
12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary
to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain
districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their
unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation
so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and
with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process
prescribed in this chapter is intended fo assure compatibility and harmonious
development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town
at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted
subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure
that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with
development objectives of the town and wili not be detrimental to other uses or
properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives,
applications for conditional use permits shall be denied.
�2-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS (in part):
A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use perrnit application,
the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following
factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities and public faci/ifies needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, tratfic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the sfreets and
parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be /ocated, including the sca/e and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to
the proposed use:
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title.
B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make
the following findings before granting a condifional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the
purposes of this title and the purposes of the zone district in which the
site is /ocated.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord.
22(1996) § 3: Ord. 36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600)
7
92-16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS (in part):
95. Business Offices and.Professional Offices in the Housing (H) Disfrict:
a. Business and professional offices shall be secondary to the residential
use of the District. The net floor�area of the office use shall be not greater
than 15% of the net floor area of the development site.
b. The sa/e of inerchandise shall be prohibited.
c. Otf-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 12-10 of this title and shall be clearly separate from the area
designated for residential parking.
d. No overnight parking or storage of commercial vehicles associated
with the professional or business office use shall be permitted. .
e. Signage shall be permitted in accordance with Section 11-6-3-A:
Business Signs within Sign District 1(Title 9 9: Sign Regulations, Vail
Town Code) and shall be subject to design review.
f. The number of employees allowed in a business otfice or professional
office within the Housing District shaU not exceed one employee for each
200 square feet of net floor area.
g. Homeowner Association or property owner approvai shall be required
of al/ Conditional Use Permit applications for a Professional Office or a
Business Office within the Housing (H) District pursuant to Section 12-11-
4: B:D, Application Form, Vail Town Code. �
Vail Land Use Plan (in part):
CHAPTER ll — LAND USE PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed
through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A
set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after
different types of opinions were brought out in �he second meeting. The goal
statements were developed fo reflect a general consensus once the public had
had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The
goal statements were then revised through the �eview process with the Task
Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now
represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals.
These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use
Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal.
The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are
as follows: �
General Growth / Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The qual'ity of the environment including air, water and other natural
resources should be protected as the Town grows. '
10
VI.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
2. Skier /Tourist Concerns
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while
accommodating day visitors.
5. Residential
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing,
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not
exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace wifih the market place demands for a
full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community.
PRELIMINARY ZONING APVALYSIS
Staff has completed a preliminary zoning analysis based on information provided
to date. As additional information . and is provided by the applicant, Staff's
analysis of the proposal may change or be updated.
Address/Legal Description:
Parcel Size:
Buildable Lot Area:
- Existing Zoning:
Land tJse Designation:
Hazards:
501 North Frontage Ro�d West, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail
Potato Patch, Filing
1.0 acre (43,560 sq. ft.)
.511 acres (22,259 sq. ft.)
Housing (H)
Medium Density Residential
40% Slope; Medium Severity Rockfall
Development Standard* Allowed/Required Existin
Lot Area:
Setbacks All Sides:
Per Development
Plan
20', or Per
Development Plan
Front:
Side:
Rear:
11
43,560 sq. ft.
20'*
20'
20'
- ... -.
No Change
36'
15'**
85'
Building Height:
Density:
EHUs
DUs
Per Development
Site Coverage:
Landscape Area:
■. .
Loading
Per Development
Plan
Per Development
Plan
30% total GRFA, or
Plan
23,958 sq. ft. or
55%; or Per
Developrnent Plan
13,068 sq. ft.
or 30%
133 spaces; or Fer
Development Plan
2 berths; or Per
Development Plan
36'
24 EMUs
0
6,100 sq. ft.
or14%
37,460 sq. ft.
or 85%
27 spaces
1 berth
84'
82 EHUs
0
13,000 sq. ft.
or 30%
30,560 sq. ft.
or 70%
77 spaces***
2 berths
Note:
* Improvements on the south side of the property currently encroach into the front 20 foot setback.
** Improvemenfs proposed on the west side af the site will encroach into the 20 foot side setback; the PEC may,
at its discretion, approve variations to the required setbacks.
*** Of the 77 parking spaces proposed, 69 spaces are covered/within the building (90% of total provided); 57
spaces will serve.82 employee housing units and 20 are proposed to serve 4,850 sq. ft. of office uses. Total
parking provided for residential uses averages .7 spaces per employee housing unit; .38 spaces per bed.
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONIiVG
Land Use Zoninq
North: Open Lands Natural Area Preservation District
South: CDOT R.O.W. N/A
East: Open Lands Natural Area Preservation District
1Nest: Public Schoal General Use District
VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
The purpose of the work session is to discuss general concepts pertaining to the
proposed density, use and zoning of the project, as well as the site development
standards such� as setbacks, lot area, site coverage, bulk, mass, and height of
the proposed structure relative to compliance with zoning and master plan
provisions. As a reminder, and pursuant to Section 12=61-10, density control
(units per acre and GRFA), building height, lot area and sited dimensions shall
be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission in a site
specific development plan.
At this work session the applicant and Staff would like to review the larger
question of whether or not the proposed bulk, mass, and height are appropriate
for the site when taken in context with its surroundings. Staff would suggest that
the Commission take into consideration the overall goals of the Town relative to
12
tlie provision and facilitation of employee housing within the town boundaries.
The Town goals and palicies clearly suppart the provision of high quality
ernployee housing within the Town by private entities.
However, Staff encourages the Commission to evaluate this proposal based on
development and design standards established in the Town's master plans and
Town Code, and to adequately judge the appropriateness of introducing this
design — the proposed bulk, mass, building and roof forms, setback and parking
variations and height - on a highly prominent site encumbered by constraints and
surrounded by open space with virtually no significant existing vegetation to aid
in blending the strucfiure to the site. Staff believes that this project will have
positive impacts, overall, on the community and that the project is supportable via
numerous master plan goals and policies. Staff has outlined several topics
below, aimed at guiding a qualitative discussion between the Commission and
the applicant regarding tiie building and how the Town might effectively work with
the applicant to resolve any potential design and development related issues.
Staff will address each of these topics and request that the Planning and
Environmental Commission provide any feedback on the topics. This feedback
will be utilized in preparing a request for final review of the rezoning request,
development plan and conditional use permits.
Conditional Use Applications and Review Criteria
The applicant proposes three separate "conditional uses" within the project.
Although the Housing District is intended ta "provide adequate sites for employee
housing..." Type VI Employee Housing units are allowed only as a conditional
use. In addition, the applicant requests review of conditional use permits for:
Public Utilities Installations including Transmissian Lines and Appurtenant
Equipment; and Professionai Offices.
Criteria to be considered in evaluating the Type VI Employee Housing and
Utilities Installations uses are as follows:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
Staff response:
Staff believes the proposed development generally meets several development
objectives of the Town. Specifically, the applicant proposes to replace aging
employee housing currently of limited benefit to the applicant and to.the_Tawn,
and to replace that housing with 82 new, deed restricted employee housing units
of varying sizes within the Town, and within close proximity (walking distance) to
the Village. The development is located in close proximity to public
transportation routes, vehicular and pedestrian transportation routes. The
following goals from the Vail Land Use Plan are applicable:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining
a balance between residential, commercial and recreational Uses to
serve both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural
resources shauld be protected as the Town grows.
13
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas)
5,1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through
private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of
Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands
for a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
Staff believes that the applicant and Commission should discuss the larger
issues related to the actual capacity of this site to absorb the proposed density
(EHUs), in relation to the Town's goals to provide sites and to provide incentives
to support private, affordable employee housing development by private efforts.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schoo/s, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
Staff Response:
Based on information submitted for review, Staff believes that the development
will have little or no adverse impacts on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other
public facilities and public facilities needs.
Specifically, staff believes that the provision of increased employee housing
density in close proximity to the Village and employment centers, public
transportation, vehicular and pedestrian transportation routes, a public school,
public park and recreation facilities will generally have beneficial impacts on the
overall community.
These issues should be evaluated by the Commission and the applicant should
be prepared to discuss iflformation provided such as the proposed employee
housing management plan and the�parking management plan in relation to the
larger issues of how this development will not adversely impact Town services,
facilities and facilities needs. In addition, the applicant shoulcl be required to
provide further information and evidence — a traffic impact report — demonstrating
that the development will not adversely impact public facilities and/or public
facilities needs in the future.
14
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removai of snow from the sfreets and parking areas.
Sta� Response:
Based on information submitted for review, Staff believes the development will
generally have positive impacts upon traffic congestion in the area. Specifically,
the provision of increased employee housing density on this existing residential
site, in combination with limited parking available on site, will encourage use by
residents of public transportation. In addition, the design of the driveway,
inclusive of a hammer head will enhance the ability of vehicles, including
emergency vehicles, to maneuver on the site.
However, the applicant should be required to provide further information and
evidence — a traffic impact report and revised site and landscape plans showing
all proposed turning radii, maneuverability and adequate snow storage within the
site — demonstrating that the development will function (internally) and not
adversely impact automotive and pedestrian circulation, safety and convenience
off-site. As well, the applicant and Commission should discuss how the parking
provided on site, for residents, business operations and guests, will provide a
safe and efficient relationship with traffic on North Frontage Road. The provision
of a hammer head should be evaluated to ensure that the design prevents or
eliminates the need for vehicles to exit the site in a reverse gear on to an arterial
roadway and bus route.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
/ocafed, including the sca/e and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses:
Staff Response:
Based on the information submitted for review, Staff believes that the proposed
development will generally have a positive effect, overall, on the character of the
surrounding area. Specifically, although the bulk and scale of the proposed
building well surpasses the existing Solar Vail structure on the site, staff believes
that the applicant has designed the building to fit the site and to accommodate a
significant amount of building (space) program. This has been accomplished
while working with a relatively small site with fairly significant constraints, such as
slopes in excess of 40% covering approximately 50% of the site. The bulk, scale
and massing of the building generally aligns with tha contours-of the site.
Benching the building into the site would require a variance to develop on slopes
greater than 40%. Benching or stepping the foundation, building and roof forms
into the hillside would also impact the financial viability of this privately financed
project to provide employee housing within the Town. The applicant proposes a
type of construction (concrete form) that is cost effective and sustainable, but that
may not allow for maximum flexibility in design options. .
However, Staff is concerned about the introduction of an eight story mass on this
highly prominent site. Again, for the above stated reasons, Staff understands the
applicant's approach to the design of the proposed building. However, Staff
believes the applicant and Commission should discuss the larger issues related
to effective and efficient development of the site, with specific attention paid to to
any alternative massing of building and roof forms to better "step" the building up
15
the site. Inherent in this discussion should be the Commission's feedback
relative to a potential variance for development on slopes in excess of 40%.
Critical to this discussion is the need for the Commission to provide clear
direction and feedback relative to the overall bulk, mass and absolute height of
the proposed building prior to the applicant proceeding forward in the
development review process. The applicant should be prepared to provide
justification and evidence supporting the proposed design of the structure relative
to the surrounding neighborhood.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed use. �
Staff Response:
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmentat impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title.
Staff Response:
Staff does not believe that an environmental impact report for this project should
be required.
Development Standards and Criteria
Pursuant to Section 12-61-13, Development Standards and Criteria for
Evaluation, Vail Town Code, the following development standards and review
criteria shall be considered in any evaluation of the project
IBuilding Design
Building design will be evaluated with respect to architecture, character,
scale, massing and orientation to ensure that the building is compatible
with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood
Functional Development Plan
Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole
Open Space and Landscaping
The applicant has submitted conceptual site, drainage and landscape
plans. As plans are further developed, such plans should be coordinated
to ensure that all site disturbance is mitigated, all site drainage does not
cause adverse impacts on neighboring properties and that proposed re-
vegetation (new plantings) is proposed in areas that will have the highest
benefit for the residents of the proposed development, as well as for the
neighboring property owners and general public. Specifically, plans
should be developed to ensure coordination between existing and
proposed site grading, retainage and drainage. Existing and proposed
erosion control and re-vegetation (new plantings) proposed should be
responsive to the . site, and should address concerns expressed by
neighboring property owners and the Planning Environmental
Commission at the work session held on August 27, 2007.
16
Plans should be evaluated to ensure that all landscaping and open space
is both functional and aesthetic, is designed to preserve and enhance the
natural features of the site, maximize oppartunities for access and use by
the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and
surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing
open space and recreation areas. Staff believes that the applicant should
r,evise the conceptual landscape plan to incorporate more plantings on
the south and west sides of the subject property, and perhaps on the
neighboring property (with express approval from the property owner) to
provide additional buffering and blending of the structure with the
surrounding area.
Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation
The applicant proposes pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems
whicli address internal and external circulation needs. The plans show
an improved access drive, staging areas for Fire Department use, a
hammer head designed to allow proper maneuvering and exiting, and
short term surface parking spaces for office uses. The plan includes two
levels of structured parking for residents and office uses. The plans atso
include new concrete pathways and stairs which provide access from the
existing sidewalk along North Frontage Road. This configuration also
provides for better separation of employee housing uses on the site from
the adjacent school property, by routing residents of the Solar Vail
building directly to the sidewalk rather than encouraging continued travel
through the school site.
Plans should be evaluated to ensure that all improvements are designed
to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site
and throughout the development.
Environmental lmpacts
Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have not been
identified. Staff believes that an environmental impact report for this
development propasal is not necessary. as this is a fully developed site
today. Nowever, the Commission should determine if the project will
require an environmental impact report. Such report, if required, should
include any and all necessary mitigating measures, to be implemented as
a part of the proposed development plan.
_ __ _ _ . _ __ _
Access to Site
The applicant proposes site access from the existing road/curb cut along
North Frontage Road. While maintaining this access point, the proposed
driveway will be re-aligned slightly, causing additional disturbance
(grading, excavation, retainage, paving and planting) on the adjacent
Town owned property (Tract A), which is zoned Natural Area Preservation
(NAP). �The applicant has obtained a"permission to proceed" through the
development review process from the Vail Town Council (i.e. the
"property Owner") to allow for improvement on Tract A. As well, the
Applicant may be required to obtain an access easement from the Town
for any re-aligned driveway access across Tract A.
17
In addition, the applicant must commence all necessary planning and
permitting necessary through CDOT and any public utility for any
improvements within rights-of-way and platted utility easements.
Specifically, an access permit from CDOT will be required for any
additional road cut along North Frontage Road.
Additional Water Taps for Site
Staff suggests thaf the applicant contact the Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District prior to any further submittals or review for this proposal to ensure that
the District has adequate public facilities (water and sewer capacity) to serve tlie
development.
Development Standards and Variations
Staff has performed an initial review of the proposed project for compliance with
the development requirements of the Housing (H) District, Section VI of this
memorandum. Within this analysis Staff has determined that this proposal is in
general compliance with the development parameters for setbacks, site
coverage, and landscaping. However, the following issues of non-compliance
and/or variation (requested) should be addressed during this work session:
Parking and �oading Variation
The Applicant is proposing to provide 77 parking spaces rather than the
total spaces 133 required pursuant to Chapter 10, Off Street Parking and
Loading Standards, Vail Town Code. This produces an average of .7
spaces per EHU and .38 spaces per "bed". Parking for residential (EHU)
uses is proposed in a tandem configuration within two levels of structured
parking. Parking for office uses (20 spaces) is separated from residential
parking. Pursuan� to Section 12-61-8, the applicant has provided a
"parking management plan" (Attachment D) outlining and addressing self
imposed deed restrictions to limit the number of vehicles permitted per
tenant (or per unit), and defining how the shared tandem spaces will
function. StafF believes that the applicant should be prepared to justify
the requested variation to parking standards. Specifically, the applicant.
should present all supporting documentation, including the proposed
parking plan, necessary to justify the requested variation. The
Commission should provide specific direction and feedback to the
applicant as to the acceptability of the proposed parking plan. By way of
background, the Commission provided direction at their August 27, 2007,
that a variation to parking standards was appropriate, in conce.pt, in order
to facilitate development of privately funded employee housing within the
Town.
Improvements within Setbacks and Easements
The applicant proposes to construct below grade (covered) parking and
above grade building improvements within the 20 foot setback prescribed
in the Housing (H) District. Pursuant to section 12-61-5, the Planning
and Environmental Commission has discrefion to approve
"variations" to fhe setback standards during the review of : a
development plan. Section 12-61-5 states the following:
"The setbacks in this district shall be twenty feet (20 j from the
perimeter of the zone disfrict. At the discretion of the planning and
18
environmental commission, variations to the setback standards
may be approved during the review of a development plan subject
to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following
criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation
between buitdings and riparian areas, geologically
sensitive areas and dther environmentally sensitive areas.
B. Praposed building setbacks will provide adequate
availability of light, air and open space.
C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatibie
relation�hip with buildings and uses on adjacent
properties.
D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design
solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise
be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback
standards.
The applicant has provided a written response to each of the above listed
criteria entitled Side Setback Variance Request for the Housing (H)
District (Attachment F).
Regardless of any future variation approvals, Staff recommends that the
applicant commence with all required planning and permitting with the
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District regarding any proposed
improvements within platted easements and the status of any live utilities:
Further, Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code states the
following (in pa�t): �
"No parking ar loading area shall be located within any required
setback area. At.the discretion of the Planning and Environmental
Commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in chapter
. 10 of this title may be approved during the review of a development
. plan subject to a parking management plan."
The applicant proposes to construct portions of two surface parking
spaces within the front and side (west) setbacks.
Employee Housing Plan
In accordance with the provisions o.f the Housing District, the applicant has
submitted a conditional use permit for Type VI employee housing units. Pursuant
to Section 12-13-3, the applicant has provided an Employee Housing
managernent plan for review by the Commission (Attachment E).
Section 12-13-3, sub-paragraph E, Vail Town Code, states the following:
E. Written Management Plan For Type Vl EHUs: For the purposes of this
title, a type VI EHU is an EHU which shall be governed by a written
management plan or other written program approved by the planning
and environmental commission. The management plan is the principal
document in guiding the use of a type Vl EHU. The management plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the planning and environmental
19
_
commission as part of the condifional use permit application for a type
Vl EHU in accordance with chapter 16 of this title.
9. Management Plan Contents:
a. Parameters: The management plan shall include a1l relevant
material and information necessary to establish the parameters of the
type Vl EHUs. �
b. Exclusive Use: The management plan shall demonsfrate that the
type VI EHUs are exclusively used for and remain available for
employee housing.
c. Notice Of Record: The management plan shall provide a
mechanism to provide adequafe notice of record to prospective
owners to ensure that the reguirements of the plan shall be met with
any future changes in ownership.
d. Occupancy: The management plan shall include adequafe
provisions to ensure that the EHUs shall be occupied, and shall not
remain vacant for a period to exceed three (3) consecutive months.
e. Affidavit: No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of a type
Vl EHU shall submit to the department of community development
one capy of a sworn affidavit on a form from the deparfinent of
community development, to establish that the EHU has been used in
compliance with the management plan.
f. Other ltems: The management plan sha/1 include such other items
as the planning and environmental commission or the administrator
deems necessary."
Staff believes that upon initial review of the proposed plan, the plan addresses
each of the above parameters or criteria. Specifically, the plan outlines fhe
number and type of employee housing units to be provided within the
development and specifies that such units will be for rental purposes only. The
plan specifies that rentals will be controlled by the applicant's property
management company, to be housed on-site within the proposed professional
office space. The plan calls for priority to be given employees working in the
Town of Vail and for rents to remain "attainable".
The plan calls for all units to be deed restricted per the Town of Vail
requirements. Deed restrictions, to be recorded prior to the developer requesting
a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, will be "by unit". The plan specifically
addresses deed restricted units existing today within the existing Solar Vail
building. These units total approximately 5,730 square feet. These units will be
replaced in tfie new development and will be deed restricted under a"bl�nket"
type deed restriction.
The plan proposes to link office space (4,850 square feet proposed) to employee
housing units through deed restriction assignment. Specifically, the proposed
office space will generate a mitigation rate of 3.1 employees. Therefore, the
applicant proposed to dedicate or assign 3.1 beds to the building owner. The
plan specifies that the type VI EHUs will exclusively be used for and remain
available for employee housing.
�
The plan should be revised to provide more d�tails regarding provisions to
ensure proper and optimal occupancy.
Hazard Areas
The subject property is located withiri areas identified as "Medium Severity
Rockfall" on the Town of Vail Official Rockfall Hazard Map. As such, the
applicant will be required to submit a site specific geologic investigation prior to
or concurrent with any application for a building or grading permit on the site.
Requested Outcome of Work Session
At this work session the Applicant and staff would like to review the larger
question of whether or not the proposed bulk, mass, and height are appropriate
for the site when taken in context with its surroundings. Staff would suggest that
this proposal be reviewed in liglit of similar development proposals for employee
housing, such as Middle Creek, and that the Commission take into consideration
the overall goals of the Town relative to the provision and facilitation of employee
housing within the town.
Additional Information and Review Requirements
Additional information and/or processes may be required in any subsequent
submittals in order to adequately address the following issues and/or
requirements:
1. Parking, access and on-site rnaneuverability
2. Site and Landscape Plan design elements
3. Grading, drainage and erosion control design
4. Traffic Study - in conjunction with CDOT review and approval of additional
access point
5. Building Height Calculations — Roof plan indicating all existing and
proposed ridge elevations, drawn over existing and proposed grades
6. Sign-off by all beneficiaries for any and all proposed encroachments
(improvements) within any and all easements of record
IX. REQUESTED ACTION
As this is a work session to discuss the proposal conceptually, no action by the
Planning and Environmental Commission is required at this meeting. However,
Staff recommends that the Commission provide clear and specific feedback and
direction to the applicant regarding the proposal in preparation for any future
review meetings. Specifically, the Commission should provide direction on:
• Building height •
� Building bulk, mass and forms (composition)
p Requested setback variations
o Requested parking variations and on-site maneuverability
• Requested conditional uses
Staff also recommends that the Commission specify any additional information or
analysis to be provided by the Applicant for the purpose of any final review of the
proposal.
21
XI. ATTACHIVIENTS
A. Vicinity Map �
B. Document describing the project entitled Tear pown and Re-build of Solar
Vail Employee Housing, submitted by GPSL Architects and dated January
28, 2008
C. Copy of proposed plans dated January 25, 2008
D. Parking Management Plan
E. Employee Housing Conditional Use Permit Written Response and Employee
Housing Plan
F. Side Setback Variance Request for the Housing (H) District
G. Letter from the Town of Vail Public Works Depattment, dated February 14,
2008
22
Attachment A
�
a
�
�4ftachment B
Scot Hunn
Town Of Vail Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
January 28, 2008
Re: tear down and re-build of Solar Vail Employee Housing
Scot:
Please find attached our PEC submittal package for a proposed tear down and rebuild of
the Solar Vail employee housing building. The rezoning from HDMF to H zoning has
been approved as has the ability to have an office use as a conditional use.
The existing 3 story flat roofed building contains only 24 units of which only 11 are
currently deed restricted. The Owner would like to tear down this tired and dated
building and replace it with a new building that contains 82 employee housing units that
are more closely aligned an size and type with the recently passed employee housing
regulations. These units would be for employees of the Sonnenalp Hotel and some of the
deed restrictions may be sold to other developers who need to satisfy employee housing
�requirements within the TOV. Alm.ost all of the parking for this new building would be
covered and we would propose to maintain and improve the landscaped berm that
currently exists along the south edge of the property. We have raised the building so that
the deep cuts (and resulting retaining walls) in the hillsidebehind the proposed new
building have been eliminated or minimized.
We have made some changes to the proposed building since the PEC worksession. We
feel that these changes are evolutionary in nature and have not materially altered the
concept for our building.
1. In response to coxnments from the Town Council, we have redesigned the access
driveway so that a minimum of TOV land is disturbed. We axe proposing to keep the
curb cut in the existing location and bring the access driveway across the front of the
Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Lindall Architects, P.C.
1000 South Frontage Road West, Suite 102 0 Vail, Colorado 81657 ■ tel: 970.476.1147 fax: 970.476.1612
info@gpslarchitects.com � www.gpslarchitects.com
��,
r
�
;
Scot Hunn- 28 January 2008
Page 2
Solar Vail property. As there is no room on the site for a turnaround, we are proposing a
ha.�nlnerhead at the foot of the driveway. We have reviewed this with the Vail Fire
Department and they are in agreement with the concept. Preliminary design drawings are
included in our submittal.
2. A consequence of item #1 is that we lost a significant number of surface parking
spaces that were shown previously in the front setback. To replace these spaces, we have
added a second level of covered structured parking that is accessed at the west end of the
property. We now have only (8) parking spaces in the front setback along with (2) spaces
for loading and deliveries. Of the 77 total parking spaces proposed, 69 would be covered
(almost 90%). Per the TOV requirements 20 of these spaces would be reserved for the
office spaces. The ratio of the remaining parking spaces to EHCT units is now at .7 spaces
per unit. .All parking on the north side of the building has been deleted. This serves to
eliminate the ramp through the building and most, if not all, of the tall retaitiing walls
shown previously on the north side of the building.
4. Item 3 above also provided the opporturaity to add more EH[J units to the north wing
at the office level.
5. In response to comments from the Town Council (and others) requesting that we
maximize the number of EH[J's being constructed and in response to comments from
potential leaseholders, we have deleted the lofts in the top floor units and replaced them
with corridor-served units on the top level. To accommodate these units, we increased
the roof pitch from 8:12 to 9:12 and made many of the dornners two stories tall. The
ridge heights increased by only a few feet over what we had presented previously. The
total number of units has increased from 63 to 82 and the number of "beds" has increased
to just under 158. The unit mi�c is now a more balanced mix of studios, one bedroom
units, two bedroom units, three bedroorn units and 4 bedroom dormitory suites.
5. The office space has been enlarged slightly but the 4847 SF of net area proposed (5708
SF gross) is less than 10% of the total area of the EHCT's.
6. In response to comments from both the PEC and the Town Council regarding the
uniform ridge heights of the previous design, we have stepped the roof down at both ends
of the building and have also adjusted the ridge heights of the two wings of the building
to be different. T'his has reduced the number of EHIJ's by one and has reduced the area
available for use by the cell phone companies.
7. In response to concerns voiced by the Principal of Red Sandstone Elemantary, we are
showing that pedestrian access to the sidewalk along the Frontage Road will be via a stair
extending down to the Frontage Road. Most of this stairway will be in the CDOT ROW
so there is no guarantee that they will allow it. This route will provide neither the
shortest nor the easiest way to access the pedestrian bridge over the interstate or the TOV
bus stop just below this bridge so we are doubtful that it will stop the residents of Solar
Vai1 from crossing School property. A more effective solution, to construct a sidewalk
along the lower leg of the school access drive, will require cooperation from the TOV,
the School District and CDOT since it is totally outside the boundaries of the Solar Vail
property. We wi11 attempt to facilitate this dlalog as we get deeper into the process.
Scot Hunn- 28 January 2008
Page 3
Prouosed Development Standards
a. Lot size: 1.0 acres (by deed) .979 acres (by survey)
b. Density: 82 EHtT units per acre. 0 dwelling units. Total density = 0.0
c. GRI'A: By definition, zero. Gross floor area of EHC7's not to exceed 60,000 SF
d. Site Coverage: not to exceed 13,000 SF (approx 30%)
e. Setbacks: existing: 20' front, 20' sides, 20' rear. Roof overhangs into the setbacks
proposed for front and side setbacks. Completely underground parking into the west
�side setback.
f. Building height (to current existing grade): not to exceed 80'-0" to roof ridge.
g. Office space as a conditional use: Not to exceed 6000 gross SF. This is less than
7% of the total proposed building area and approximately 10.3% of the total area of
EHU's.
h. Parking and Loading: 77 total parking spaces: 28 compact, 69 in structure, 20
allocated to office space. 2 loading spaces. Due to proximity of the site to the
Village cores and TOV bus service and based on the anecdotal evidence seen at
Middle Creek, less than 1 space per unit would seem to be adequate (.7 spaces per
EHL7 provided). Office parking meets TOV requirements.
i. Parking in the front setback. 8 total spaces: 5 compact. 2 Loading spaces.
j.. Construction in (already disturbed) 40% slope: 423 SF This number doesn't
mean much as we have stepped our floors so that there is almost no building area that
is more than 10' into the hillside.
k. EHU Standards: At the top floor, we are not able to meet the minimum floor axeas
required by TOV standards for every unit. Per the attached schedule of unit sizes and
"pillow" counts, we have pro-rated these units at a ratio of 350 SF/pillow.
Scot Hunn- 28 Tanuary 2008
Page 4
Scot, there are several processes that need to be addressed by this application:
1. Approval from the TOV for the curb cut and drive on TOV land.
2. Conditional use approval for the proposed office space.
3. Proj ect approval.
As we have discussed, we are asking that you waive any requirements for a model. WE
will attempt to present a 3D rendered fly-around at the hearing that will give a better feel
for the relationship of the building to the site.
Please let me know if you need more information.
Thank you,
Henry Pratt, A.IA
GPSL Aschitects
,
K� .. , � ,
� ''
� , � �. '�. ..
t. . ! . ^�. � . .. � ,�e�'��Cili'Y'lE�t"Bt C
I' . N -� 1 , . . � �-- -,.� : .
i 1 , � z ,� z �'It ,- / � - . :
1 ,. a � �
��. :. om ..� . ��._' 1.
;' • .. � • '
/ : �.
1 ��.1 \ �` /
' �O t� � j. , :/�' .. I
1 r t� ' \ . � .
, � ' ° , �` , .. � ', . ,���. .: . /.. . � 'L'� :' �--� . /: . ,S i :l � : ! � �/
1 . . �'�(� � � �, . : N ; � r .
,.' .1:.. f il�,�� �� '� > ' � V� � �.I. � � 1 t ` �
" � ,, ��I' j�� �\. ( i :�;.� �l�r �!I(l..jl,-i.�I�•j�.I�Ii(I.I� � .
a .. �� I. �i�j�t .�ti — �°`,� ; ;,1� �i
� � �:, � .,, �,. ;. ,; , . .:� ,.1.�1(.�/,1l /I i: l.j.� . , ; .. . ,.
, ,� � � .�; 1., , � , / ,;/,.�
, , � ��� ,.: � � , ► �.►�' ,�;; ��:���l�i, i!� �
; . � ,. �. � ; �� � � , � : �,�-.: ;.� .;: ,: .., �� � � , , �r� i, � :.
, .,_�� � � .� _ ` ii��ii���rif i, ii: ji���� .�; , .,. -
� , ' �, �I<.` t l � '° N.� i .
�. . �.;`,a ��:��,� , II -:;: `�' �. � r��i°IflGmll.11oi.��:�o�,��'�. rll��lt
- � � . � " � ���. ._ l �,�I.. 4 ;1 -� ��j �r .'I) (:��. � J- �f � �. �li;$Il
, .. �:, �g..� ll:l���'.,., � ,�.:�.`� ,. � t� f�l.Il.fl.l,l �:ll:r l�i,l , �,. ��
� �. �. .. � �i. �'o. � r �_ :. .!: �. L�.;,::, .�)�� „ li� tr�.
, . . �1 �..� ,,...� I�,. : .. , ; .. �..'. ,I{lfi. �I;,, ll.l i I rli� �:� . . ,.Il . � ,
',:. :- � !.:.1 :: jl.:l�� �.1�;�� .. ,. p_� rl .: ,, ._��..: � ;. I� �� I ���Illl-i �1�,�� .��I� ll'1��/�� . : : �
� � � �� �, � .,;N , p� � .I : , �� i.il i, i �,,r ;i,
. ,� � � . m � :. .
, , -. . �� ��E . : � �.:. i � f, I I.ill !I-!I I�/.�� I111 � J J . ; +., .
:, , � 1 , � 1, , � - i. ,i , � .; '; I, ll� . .
� ,. . . ! . -- . ` � `:II �. , 1� , ::E�� � �� I I�II IcI� ll,l.%��l �' , � �l.%.
�:. � �d. ... ., ,,.. � � ,. �,,.. � .
i��:...• , � ii. i'�. �.�7 ��� .� � Il�t I II,Ii�l:�l/% ; �,r ;l /�.
.
; .
,, //
,. : �. . . � .�� ., - - �m�, ,: ,e , �i;,
�,�� , , : q�1,l��lllqllll � � � f.
� ,i. I:,. . 11:-�t� �i:'. ; �.�:.'. ;r !�'�;i��! '�ll lil ° l �;, , I l. .
. {. n ' . � � r .
F�� � � . � .: � . � . �1 � . .�'!:`! 1.C:�:1,� �y ` - ;.;.: ;; �% '�-r;, ��� . ( '. �!l�I i.l�'� l�/, , � .
�. �� �= ��. �
i �� �ii �l �,`' ` � i,i�I r(
� � ; N i � �� , !' ( r �., ; �,` ' �I_,�,li. 1.r.
`� m 11 �..� ll(irlr�///,/Jill ; ..�I� . .
' � I / '� �; � ' F .�
j� - i�� �� � ��;�,.,� �� , � l 1����11 rii ►�!; ; % , ii , r �
� � �� � , � l � � E r.
i -�i� Q , . � �
. - — - :-� --': �: � �1��= �,�� � �l �lii I���i�ir�i. ��:�.,..;1.:11 I{�i J�
m j � � - 1 ,�' �' (
„�,i I � � .��.'li i�. ..,'d.:(g :. : � �: \i1 �� '' : � ,
' z o�� I� g a� �"� i. � i � � .
- .� .. � :1 � �. � : � � � � � ��: �:
:; , : . ; .�o� � . A .� I: I�,.�.�.s : : i W '�>�° .a€..��• • .. .. ...
l.
� ...i . � . i s �.. ! � : ,.� �,�. I � , _
o� �� � � - p 1��1'. �_ �p
�A� � I ' :� - • . �: ,g .
o� �i �•V ,,;, e � .
�nl � ,�. � ,i.�
✓�1 �. �.�I i �
, : � .� _ I j �s '�;� . '� I � I � � i ��
p � ��
,. ; �°�� '�.''�o Q ' �.t.�. ".\a�: ���� .. l�. .
. . `: - .. I. �1 �� ��°t. "�� . � � ilj;l I. �� � : . :
g �. �.::. ' I
; I�. �� ,� ( }i � '(?; (. �; � . , -. -
. � ,1.- N� : �:; � �: {; �':) i. . . � � I j:� ! :. �
�
:� .� � �:� �,: � �a iq, I � . -
� . .. ' . ' . ;. . '. '. � ' ' ',, ' L 1 . . .
�
.. ..�' ' .. ;:. � N.�:I ...' .�I �.�,�: .�.�������''�''��.'j!�I..I. . ...�'� �. '�, .. � . . .
. . . � .:.I.��.. :.�� .: ., �..,I�. ��;1 . I . .
.. ,. � f �, � I 41�������I� _
� � ��. l, , L� ;11�. �� � 4 if .
it ,� . .� . ,� � i : i.4;.�' I� �I: I;II' , � "
II � .'II.. i �`I •( � I I �III�'I(I �
'� �--. 1 �.I I I' I a
�. �y �... . � �� f � � I I . �.
- �� � � ` � I � ;` �
� �
�i �. __ � .�- i I ; ��I . ,.
� 'i i � , i_ i {�, i
� �rn� ll I ,
�.� :� � .�
I�.� �1 I�� � � I ' ,
�C:^. I. V .i, 1 � •:i' .I '. .'.'
:� .s �:I� .::� ��'.$�,� : i,: ..�.• '
� I :( '
�� �f �` ' ' . t
�, � ` �.
�. .. �� z .
� q �� I i � I ��� _. ..
' ��' \ �<: . f . .1 I �AA ' ,
��- �- ' � �
-}t. ��i 1 .' . � � ' � � '
'4'� ti" � � 1
� ��1: � • �
� . ( ' 1: J I `,, . `: .
iTi . ` � � s ��. � � - SOLAR VaIL" : .. . §��€,.. o _
. irv " _ . � �.H � . ' — � , . � .. VAIL ,co�oruoo ' . � . . g � � .
_':. m ' �
( oo.. � H '� ... — PEC:EXHIBIT . . e� ,r. 1
'�- ' ' ` m � I�. � � . ..:. xa vnre � � ncxsoN � ��er .o n � �
_ _ 1
�---_... ______/ �°f<��
' " ' 4'". .. . . i ... . _ � .-
. : .
. i. .
. . � \f�' ♦ .";., .J,._ .. .. ____. __."'_ -( N
:7
�' �. il.i � ' I w' I ttl ' � _
',` Y':��....,r'! i . .. p, ,i i,' i ,.: '� ""iTirj'! _�.�_y���
' Jf + .. `i' i � ' j'_ i + _ _"
` , rj �, � " � }�hrf # �r� ! � __i.. ' f
i
I t i �L • � �tl t �' �a' s �''���� -�' 1. � 1'� , � � w ,.
yi .a•-)�-7,1. L�� r{5 � ��^" '.,��„` , .�_�i: : , I"�� ;_ -
"F� i i i i t r . ' '''f.l{h�`•'i��p' ,i ;'o � J .
� � i �� ' � i`1 i �5t -'� � '�--' ` - _ -" - :� ci- � � �Y_..
tt ,' ' e � '� � �� ti'•, ,r'` � i3L•� � -
1 I j�, j i\; a �
�'�� �'ii �1��. .�� � Y
� �' ` �` � -1 SLOPE UP
' ��'. • �\ �`4�� �;.,, V��'';,� � i5. � .
.� ��1 ..t.t��x�t� \��`t+ `� -i mp� �-
+� �^a'.,.� rv'1' ,`-� `��. , "1 �j �u .
''� .S� tM , tf . � i:i �` � �. _.
'.;h^�` Yl'.1 �:. �, � .
�1 � i" �. v�� f Ci A la;a
. :°;�` h: 1� i � T ..I_:_
� '� �?>) � {:: 5'S� � �, 5 �� � f r nl _ v
`•a.. ::,, , . . . � _ --' �,
' ,;, : �,...,�,� .� t '� 1 <, `. I D '; A
i\,,, 1;:_:; i zAr��i'i' i�i ,i i�� ` Z i ,...-°° ..::` � O
` F�-:.,; [:"�=, t�. �y � 1� i ...�"@u 'r N
� "r.:f��r.t �4:1 i << p �. �� � � N�Q ts a
�� '• t' ;y�. 9`" '� 1 l a' r r m rii „r-' °t �
', 1. 1 I�T' , l- 0� yi�.,,.�,,,� � '` c
� t( i� i l t � a; '4 `•, �s �, a a�r 6
' � � �-�� "+t,� N .. o�D y Z
�` ,� '�' �.� �.' I �� * itl . � i�, , r •` � w 4� �' � r.,� 4�
, ,.,,. �,��� ,�,,..�
; �� �1'\'•,;, �•:t7:�'� ` � �`; �a �'. F� Y. (� � ��
`r-`;- i'�� _� u� . o r=
` --M t.j5i=_``�-1'� t ,�\ p ' „� p '
}t 7 i'�.;). i,:;� 1 1 i,1 �1 �. �� � � Y t' .
�` tit::t, .' � � ,: � � r o , �-
��,ry)�1�� i%^ � ,t V, t �q`, � = i ` t
� . `F, y ,�� .1 , ',` i `A � . .., .
�� 'r, �H, �� ' � `l \ i 2 '� � I
� �r�y .,r- } � , ..' � t . ,:4- ' ..
� :i p. � 1 i 1 '<< �`,�` �' i,,,
�1 �, I y t!!o �� �t v `.I.�''"�: ��'UV�r
. i,... _1 1 � i,� ,,`� mA� m`�.
,y r0��.
b `ti,` '��1 �i l � ''.` � , \ ��t1 �, U � IN1int Ca N � \
�Q, �;t ' � . :'.1�� �, � 3 � O a m \\
�� 1 �1 �..'_� '� i
;1 � � '� ��. �f �ti�;� p X f a� l,
\!` ,M � i• .1 �� �� ��,
•a' � ti-'--''' � ;,� ��,
���i, •� ,1 � � 'i , , .h,':� � � � V N Z „ c � .
,� �� .: t��'� =. za�� �� �1\
\, e ' �:. `,:;,' ��.. •,1` � i, � P m ��'1
,1t , l °� t�', r;• i,\ iS' � �` �, ''`� v d O `: .
'•t •',,, � �, ' nj,� ', ��) ' ' O � G � �.
� `� . •.ir�.,,��."1�1 \ �.. ,�'j1 �` m 'it
t '�; ,y�i-.���}ri�. � '� �i1 ` A '\'•,
t t � �, . i�''q �.. � t 1 � t �
� . �'y`1 _.y i��.„;:'.�%. , '` '1` .', �� �',:i
1 ' .� �.�r_�`� r 1�;:.4�� i� 1, i� �,, ` i-
,.`, ..�,ili-..���~��`�,.'rS � tiJ �4-
Ctu ...; i 'j�;"t '� � i 'v • i - _ �`
1\t Ji�:�"`;'�I;}�.° P.'' _� �
' t 1�,', , , '� �' � ' � �, . �``�:; � .~�?�'�b �ti r `t
` •� . `, � ��1 F o 1
,�i ` '•! . 1
1 'i• ,�y �� �� �t �'� 1'�.:....�i. `� � A A u i� l
�� l � 1 � ? ' NDiit Q� �
� ,'i\ i� . i 1� i � ' i� ? � � ..,�;.' �
�,1 ,�.� �Y� ������..�` ,',`� � i t'
``• �'�t, `5 � ' �-� � � '� `1 : .N'�� � f.''`•`
'�� , ,, '•'�' 3:ai `^ I il � `�� ''- �, I �tt
' y, 't \ \� r � � r.•',
'\` � Q �l '�` �� +�'• i�s�;;'' � '� '� , ,�, c
\ 'y '�'',,� ,-��,'' ` 4 ` � ; _ -`= ' y��. j `s
't" � , � i t i •'� : �� ... � x;
'` � , , {`' 4 � _ �yl, c- "'-• i I
,'i;. l,`' s. ,-! � '� , bl' i. °' rm- � i I_
4� � .� -t-__.•t� � � � � �; ";p\ .... c � -�p `� � i i
t i `5 _.,.¢".'y�.' - ` ,. ' � �' ...) �,� C�z m � i �
` _ . ..,.� 2� , � � . t � !:' j %
�t^!� 4 � ��i �1 'l �• �,��� \ �" � ��i . f � � ��� r. •
'� '� (�1 '� � i wG .c'•`-�� ,-F � " ��
`,, �; ' rn , � (� � , n�'
�� �p �� , ',�✓���' ,� � U
-°p '`` ,��:��.�,�:.���`�'�'=i'` `
� � 1 �:5,, : _ V�� .
i t't l � l` ��,, r,,'�, } �;� : 1� 1- �' �3
� �z� ``� �,`� � 1'�.1.. , I ' ' 1 � � �Ct�
o C1 �'� �,, � ��� �� `�;\
,� l` �p •.,,p��
� � �'i ,1 �dp�5 '�j(ytu
-D i 7" �•
_, rn 't ', � 5 �
�e�.�; , .
`,.` i � 't '` 'i y'.4��' I' "
`� ��� t\ 1 � 4`1 ',.
i i
'� . , 1
�.'-�.' `'� '�.` �'•�� 'l� �.' ',ti j i
_ �n �Ci� ., •., . t_ ;
_ ..5 1�_-ri�; H�fi
. � _-�5s�4_v'3' . ,
D
<
�
�t�,`� =v
��N
��a
���
�z
M�D
F� �
t�
3 N.
X '�
��
�
��
�y
ny
J' L
�� n
rF��i �,� � � ��
� 1. �k.Iff ' � f
` ���—�`=°�;��T ,: : 1 1
E< � � _I
, �-�'. � �,
' f'� . �r� a
�p-m �.
: f �- tJ eI'' �
i� . L 4..`` x��' t;' E F
.`�Y�. �4z .�;i! <ry
..�. �kap lE �� .
4 , � 4 �'
� t
�F` `�`F � j�F\ �
�� 1 i t
,`t�E�', �_`\ -�i I
t : fn�'.. Ei \f � -,� I
t} � r� s t ��� 1 r\ Y �)
\' ` t � �y �: :
m ....,r: �� �1\' \ \''� W'+r y/
�
�, � : � - "� �'�i� 1 I
- '� � l
� �' ,�•� �
ei'; _ : : : , , � :
_,,-. ;i:/,.',�`+ ;.
�� :'�'
! ,.�,� ; � ji
,•jfl: � , � ( � �. '� ' /
7,' ! {1
1 . ' ��j � '` � . � , � l. �._
i��, ( � f ' �._.��-I'".�
j_...}-;-j"',.�� I � i
=.�_.�� �'�;ja � i � 1.1 � �
t I � � i I�'� I ��1
I I I I� I I i r� �.�4� .
i � � 1..i1�..Y•"� �<'1' ��
�ni_ny? L�•2��'=y`'•t� i � � 1
I ; I �
� � � { i �r��
� �.-,-"'"".` �,. t+rl,%r
y �14::
� • �� f (
y;�"_k1 � 1t=„�.a-� i � � '� ! ' ` i !
1;. ��G, :3 � i � 1 � j I
��� i i i � i;, �� i! i
I i j i ! �
i
i
i � I '
' +'r�� �'c�'
, .,��. �, � �r�
. . =��;� � ,t
-a -�o rn m v .� m -o � v � -a
-OO -OO m�-OO a 1D v ��° �-OO t"
� � � °'o N o � o � tlt
n n. 0+ ; �°. � ��°. � n � a �I
N�1l O N � � l0 (l N'� �' "� �
�n n o 0 0
�� to u_ � D'o D'n
3 ° � � � �`n � �`n
r. � o
� N �
' a ¢
N �° ! ar : P�-a� �
�? � � � °�!�.:���4� ��� 50L?�R Y?� ( L �
o� �� ���P��ji �� NORTH PRONT,�,G� RO�°.D �����
p� ���a� i� V,41L, GOLORADO �Na�£ n
— r �
\
f� . . r-'�� ! i'
t .��:k
il I
��'� �
�� ��
1,`� ��� �1 I
.i` 1 ` +
� � i
i ` `� t �
�� �t\ �� ��. �
1 . i '� '
1 ��� , , �
� .
t t` `•1 t '1 . i
l+, � `�`1��.ti �,,'1, I
:` ,1 ,'1 ,,` ` i
, '\ .i � �
` , l`` t, 5
} �', 1 1\ i1,, ' ., . ,
� '� l �`, \ i
, � ' ` �
� '`,. `• ''' �;t �'�.
.�
� � � �� + � ` i
� `t � � �:� i
.'' t ,tt � ` ' ,'i `` , ,
� }� 1 � ,.
't � 't i �i1 �t �'`
1 '� '�� t ` �1'�,
t '� `�. �
`, � �1�1�. ```�t
'�� ' ,! �1i` ', ;,; `` L,,1� ��
� ,''� ,i�
� �r }
�} '�� ',� � ,,l , t
� � �4 ' � � ,� �''.
\ i•.
',` �� �'' �;i �5 � �', .
.'t5' . ,`1` '``1 ':tt 4,`` 1`;','i`,,1`, .
Y �
1 1�� — 4 4 ` �� `•, '•
t i
•1`` ;,,L D � ;'' ',`` ` � \ ,t1
, m %�� '�� ','} ',�i
� �., �i b �I ��� �1 �:, ` '���'.� '
.4 u�.. '
1`� � ` ,1' \`` t
`t '� �� �1
, r `� �
i
s i
i � � � ,`•�� �
t
. �$ ;` -... ` (
�� �- `� i I,�� 1�•t
1 � ! 1 l
`,1t �� '' t��� f 1
� � � �
� j � I
� � '� ,�V 1 I
�l , . �� , 1 .
I
. V .
� p fi)
O ,'"
_-'�
ly1 p
i• r��o
���\ � - --' •-' ���- i;'' `
_..._. --•'�,�41f1"11ft9.��-"'! (
�� �,��' a5 f � ��I � � �
� 'l ,�� �f l :' j �
{'` �♦'' 1'', {' i �,I �'1 �'` �
;It �I 'i ;'f '`ti ;V
1` ''!, 1't' 'j} ,��` ��+ '' �
�' ,t` �1`, � ` ,} ` I '1
.��1 �,'' �,1'+ �,' `,i �,'' �t �,;' ��.} �,1
�i 'f , �1
�,' �`I 1 �' ��'' i {`\'1 �,'
t ', 'j �•.) ;
{� ' �
.� �' � �t ` � t ��
�i 1' '' �' ' .
j { i
f '
'� �,1) �` 11 � t.� �1 � �
; � Sj �l , i �� �� , t ��'
; .� ' , ' �1 ' 1
'� � � ��� 'i I 1
;' �
� ,1� ' '' ''i � '�� ''� � '11 {
, '� �` y '{ � i' � 1
�'' 1' �' i ,' i ;
� �ti� 1�.
,� i i �� � ', i �i
' � i
�} �,��','t ','i
� � � �1
��� ' � t �
!t � � ' '� 1 � �
' �. 4 �'' ' �t �i �` {
'� '� '� � ; , '
', � ',t � � ,� i 1� ',4 �
���� I� � 1��� 1
: J I ,' �' �, ,' �'
. f j 1 r
�
. ' , (,t, - , jL_
; ; � � .�_.
._�.--= .
. �:�j�t--`-- ,
� /r'� 4.1
�.� .i
U
cs
------!----__�
\��
�--
�
� ...'
i •
'+, �' .'t'�'1�S,a„„�-�.-'f',,,"',,.���.. _
{yi .w.,.-. .y�c� A J � '
� ° i "%.�'"'..�ic- .._
,, t5��' .':!`$+�:t - � �'y'.i
_. , : ,� ;�
:.�.:�:;.. ���:�. .��:,
; � ��� �
\\\ // �. .. � . „
�,����; •.
`. �,
.�.��:�.
.•: ;
�- ,`��41 iI ' _
��'�' --- .__ - .-• 4.l�;VJ������ � 1� 1
. � � � -_ -,`� ��� � �c� , � 1
I - ,'t, , j ;4 1� ,' � I j �
-� � , '� � i
- - - - +ti'''" .. ' �t 'I ' 'i '
... . .�Trt �� --�n�n' '� 1y
�'ri�rtrtf'iuu �� ; ', i
•- : i i i;: i i
___�
-��� . ��, ��,�
� i . ; �, ! �
, , ,
o - ; 'i ' ti �
i � ; �
...................................i...............N............... ,� '; t, �i
i i i
_ �� • i
i ��� '�
;`t a � � ' I �C: , � ` , ,
� `.y�' � r t 1 ! 1
'1 �'�� ��.' � � � � � I . _ . 1 ,,'� ' ',�' ,�� ' t� t,�i
,l' •i / � � i'dw u u w i `� 1� ,i �i
: � ,
�� •` II ' ' j � 'y ,�� � 1
�'i t�i , � � ..�-- � =�--_..� .__ -_ ' '.
, � � ' _---- �i 1 � �1 �; ��
; r; �' ��, I/W 'j, ti w A � � t`� �;j �..� �,
.
, � ' ;..
� ' '� '' ��` � �� ° `;' N � --- -�� `{ � ; t�
..
' l \ - ' 1 .. P ....�-..,- _-�... -i --.- . .............. . ���
� . ..
' ' I
1 l5 . . ...- ., '=' -------- C� : `� ; '�!1 .I .
.:
.::�-'
»
,
.
. . ' " ..:='�' i
: , ... .. . ..
.,,.. :.
;�a � i..,.... @ , N A I N �. 4�' �t` ' i i
� • � ,
, • -
,` •� � �, �`� a , �, i 1
. •
„
• �,
, �•. .
. . .� , � . � =-'t
, , ....
. �. ,:- �" ... --� i'.t '�� t
•, �' �
,�
l . ..- - ( � , ,.Sj �1 � �� ;
.............. .............
,
,, ,`1 `.. �� � w� � � � 11 � '� :i`�'�� ,�� I
� y� � 1 ; a� ; �'1 ` r r` i '� '
,..
;•. �
�` '�1 �1 l;` I` '. . '-�' �_u_��__��r_.v. ._ y N V
'"
: � f !.-"'". , �� �' :✓
i
_ i
l:. { •
. : � . .::%- A '�, �
�.� .. .... . ... .. ........:�
P� � ;
l.` � ��, �,, �;,1 �t` 5',` . n I m = "� '�^ � � ti' 't�l `'i '�i
� - I w m �i - . �� 1 �� � '� . � �
�} 'i �` 1`�� �'• , 1 o w - ' � � ' � � � � � �t '
i `� �� t: �•i 1 u a �u+ ' � � y ° .. " 1 � � tc � 4 � ; f ' � �� ,
' '� �t !+ !'` 1 � v _U"� � � � j � � � � ���•�,�� �t\��.- � � � ' ',� ,','� ,' ''` � '�
•11 } �� 1��� ,1 �,� 4� � D " � '� ( § p O � P ''I
� �, ''� - `�r. y \�-! ` " , r� m _ , � � 4 t
�I �'t •.l t . N z � V, \1� �i �p m �:: � �I I
't lt i `:,� \ S � ✓�y� (- 1U. p�' . � A� � 'j
� 'i � � `^i !c .. '..a ;� t
t � ��� , � � � $$ 1 �� � p� - ,�j ' �
.� `'� � d z i, F� ,, 1 � a ' `. �� '� �� `
ti ,1 . , e{,} �'. 1 P � � �� y ,,�t';.;.n�^`` I '1 ' �
.' ;` `1��� b � .•�� � VY._... f ���, � �, ,;� ;,� � ;� � '�� ,it
, � , ;'.y :` �^� m { � 1 , i
'� � ,�, � � � I ''j ,
`, i, '`'•., `, � " ,'•1 ' - � ` �'f ��' i i �I ��1' ';t .
��,' > � i, ..-.W.:. ✓ , I ' :
` ' � ' , �, 1 C1 ' � � ° u n. , f �� I �
\` �' S �� �'t''• !` , \r � �� b� I I `
� t '•� � �, �� �•. �'��', w i t j r
�� ' � , l � •- �
1, � � _;�::_ \
. 'tl '. ''� �i ,'\ ' ` � w ' .
1 � � 1 ' •• � �' � .�,��.. � .
`i {� �i t �'� � �''.� ��� ����` � ,..r-° . .
�l � t '� ,� 1 ' :,5 � � � . . .
� '� � � ,1 �" � y�:i+�:.> • ,
� � �; � � 11 1�� � � �t t o .� � i .
�, � 1 � � �' 4 11 . �. N r ' '
. ',
-� ,.�. n ' • ' ,
,
i yl�, , . , � � , � ��
, � t �
� ; - N � •, , ',
i,
� � •
�' /.� p� �i' i '. �� , '. ...-' � � , • r � �i
� d t , . ,, , l ', ,:.� , �I � � _� _''�i _ - -- � I
1�i ,t rn `� '1 } � }t;'41�,���'t.:�-' ,, ('}d,_1... :"..t�."�I�J1J'
��o / t ` ��` P, . -n.�� t�
��� 1 � \ � � `. ' 't'} .
� y�rn ,� � \ � . �"�",.-"r r)
�r � , � -
• � � �, ��, �� -- --=�"
� � F r
�� 1 1 .� j ,
i i � l r m�
` `'��� j , ' f''` `,� j Il� . r' .
� ' �i . � r. ` .:
f '�
,'l �•. '•i �i` � ; , i � � � �:, Y� ��
�t � 1 I �
,� � 't t�i �� � '�5. : _.__'- i, .
�\ . . �. , , �1 �� , �', � D�._ ! _. �
n ��`a� �'
N s �� °A��.;���}'t �s� SOL�R �/,� I L ���' P
= o I��;�a��; �� NORTH �RONTf�C�E ROAD ���fl� � I �
O � m kr�Il��,�� Y,41L, GOLORADO �N9�� n
r �
i
i
i
i
i
i
;:>.: ' ",`
. ,:>s���. _ .
9�`i ,''' __ __ _.
'� 1 -
. U . i ' _— -- � .
. �'I i �,L��Y Fl `
' -- ^ 't ``�t`�' -
_ .�------ -- --�-;�.�y.��,':.�- _ ,--.-•---•- .� -.jat.a��r}d i i �
'�'..' t.,, .::' �„�� y ,
! .',!' `�}��`: ' _� " 1''' t i l � i
; - `~ ";� �` ': ;c%:;:.. ` ,'; � ;', : __
--t� � i •,;� _ = :,�,1 �{ : -. • , . ..
� ..... 1�.i . ...- ._. _: lr?yYC��'��...i�� � �'_
.'�f , \\
� '
�
.t` \\ ,_ .. �P
'y�, �� /;
'a� '! �
i �i `�.
� � ��% i.
� i•, /�'" ;
' �
,�' ` �- `~ � -� f
�� � � I
1 � �' - I,..=•.: �%'�� w I
1 \, 1�` �'` m i
` �,l` � ' i
..._�..�...«..�--' _
P�o a�
e�z ��
�Is �m
`-��
i;��.i
t—� i
--�
►
'� I
--�
�
���..
i' ., �,, i � �' '' i
t ( , ' �' �'
�� ,, f',� ,1,i '� � ,t� ,'i
L , '� ;i 'i �� 1
i �� �' � � ;
.__ ' ' �'� ',', � '� I
1. � �`� i�, � ` !
.-� , ? '`, �� 1 i i i, ' '} {
�� , ..} ' '''; i si t ',1
- �' 1� ; ; -- —'�� '1; '''
F '; ., i ' ;� ;'i ��''� ';��
-- ,o�,� t, -� t '� ; 1� j•')',
� j' i ' 1 1 j(i' �` �1
��� :F� . .. � t ,t: ' � ��� � ,� � � 1 �
_ ,�t 1 1 i
�� �'' I �` � I . ';�r ,� ,''� ''�
. � � ` `t �'� 1'1t
� , �.. � __.. . �
' , ' tt, , o m ,•. i . '... I � } � 'I
, :
t�. �. 1� i.....,^ , . ____��' I i
, ��� � i t�' i ` '
'\ �'p �'t ' i"` � . � I i,'1 1 �t]i � 1� Il
';, " I A i I i � �I [;� � 1
� `� t 'p, � � o I I I '{ t `�' �� '�j ' ,�I
� � `� `�\ ,, '� ,�__ _ r-- i � . � � i
t '�� .: �g p i � • , ;
',� �• � — �.� �- � '• � , �i
�'� `. ' =n:m �;" 5 I i 1� �I
i 1 � `� '�,. �� a+ j ,��+ �� � ''1"'+ ,•r �\ � � ' � i
i ,'. `1, 1 u+ 1 0 �
�'•, , �•� �, 5 � � � �,�,.�`t�� �� � Q \ ,; ti
i , '�i o�, 9 '� n m � . \ f
'� � � � � � ` \v� � , 1\ '' �I
� ', i, `•� � �
� �1 � �',\ in z . •, � � �i..ti1� ^,'�- \ ,� �I � �� � i
� ��._
', �� '` .:, � g �,;.., �,r _;'y�� . s��� . ar'� �� + ; i i :i
t ., , �,
, � � .�• : e� �
j ,1'� �� � b �, i `..'^� . `` 11'� 'i
� 1 d�, c: P .� � '� �
�� � � s�'. :� � , Q� \ ' � ,� � �
' ��`, b = `•.�y.1 �ti � `i ,,� � i ;
,� , � • ,
' ' , r ' 1 4 ''� � � , 'I
,`, `; ,,'1 �` , '',, ; � i �
,', t ,,`�'� ` `'``I �., � , �\ '�� '� � � ' i `;
� �i , �,,t' ` �. � �.`,' ' , , � ! � ; �� I 1�i
5, � �� �t�i '} � ,�..� ,\ �'` � `} . � { ,`i t �o , I
� �: ' CS'�, � E•:7 �', t } � �`, P' �
•,��, �• �,r _t � g �-
'i itii\ `1t'hJ',l ` t'li �S �mm - •
. ; � \� t ) � �� �' ',, � Tp u�
,',1 . � , 4 \ 1` ., `,} ♦ �
`,', ii 1\, `'l j t� �; 5'`i` `t` , �� .
'�� � �, . �I�-..� j '` ', \, � ; {..�' �;,` . ., �` �� r� , ' ,.
> O 'r. �'� �� � � , : �ry . � . '�,.,� ti� .
.`.O � -11 `'z � '� , `� , -- i '" ' .
�_ -I�, 1 n� '�` '\ : i � . ' �. ; .�, .;
mn; ''•, �'�;, '�'' � . 'f�
�'` a,r"—�',. � `' _. � ' ' � , _ ' ','
` '� �, ( 1 --'----•
y• rn , i� � I 1.,_ _
1ii�,� � ',, t � `'�\'�.�� '.` � � i� �i,� ��r�' ���`�-/ - ..
� r � -' j
b� i _ ------= , �� �r . i
� 4 , �, .,,{.., ..V:��_ .� .
� 't � F.a � �
6•J
�� ''� `� � ii - � r ' ; i ��i _ _ _ - '
', `, i}�, ! � rt--, j � ' f'}
� , I
'\1 ` `' + t _ ,'` � r' i i i _ _
t� . � ,
`, . ' � .:�1 f.' c I__ `�,....r
1`� I� � j -- i
�1 � t I `t
�'i. t 1 I i -- , ; � I
' ` , 1`, '� ,, ''� ' . . ' --.i�. � I
; i ill :�� .. i ; i
N {�g `{ t G /� O ` ' I <� �
N � 9 4 4�`'i:��;;� ��� ✓��1"�I` Y� I!— ��aaw g
� � i� 1��a���i �� NORTH �RONTAGE Ro,4i� ����
� � ������.j ° VliIL, GOLORAL�o �Ne�� �
�
� � i '
i
(! ,
� �-....._�-
0
__1
� ��
� �" C
n a �`
rn
e�
ur
S �p
3ag
��fi
I._.._
-- -...._---_ ...t'---
'
�
:_:�
iora�;e
/
■ �,
Do
.� :
��
I��'� - ;��
�,
������ �..
o �� _ _
�" _... v�i■ r'��� i - .
�.����� �i�r � �'.
���3 � C ��, `��
L_� � �
�i' J i : m
_... � 4rr� � � • �iii(� � _
�i.,
� J ,
�
5
,
P �''� L'"i�-1 !tti j11 --�4 �
� .-'u ' � • . � __'1�1?, ia , .�,.'.
p l i� i
"_' ; ~ � / C9 i ` \ 1
. a...� �. 'y�� '� �'1 . ; '�...� `�l .
4� t . '' - � . � • : ", 1 '4 ''`
,�. t ~ ` . �..�y^ �sii� .. �� (jl \ . �} � .';..{'^ a �
��,y �:�Y+. �1�;.� �^�:h„�o�'=' t�'�a t
,� �, �
" li ��
�,,,` ��_�.! , \y'�J ',� 1, ?`�. \\ : ,j' ' 1'i� ,,•,,,��
� �.:1...., � �\ ,�a
'.t '`\... .- , ,^.. -.� "� `'� '
1\ `',a } �... "�,.�` -•\� �t
''` 1`, `� ^ `,' ' "�y,,11
` ,` � �Y�..t , '�l.F'�ld' �^,� r-ri° �.., `�,➢���
1 ` ! �ti> >'^�'...z'%'��i7a � �Y 1.53 � ' ��-, l�
'.`N ' e1.�,.,, - a
� `',� i CY i, ' S 1
;,A r: P�� ';,
'•w '�! . B . . ' �1b, �`
y � l',m � � � � � ,�i , ��,� ' �
�� ' '�
.
• � � s, i .. � .
�
, . . . . . i ;��:t:, � �. �.' ' 1 r � . . , i
', • )`•�' � ! ! .
`, ' - , Q , . ``l.` ; :Pl. `� �y�.,..... 1a.- F
'Y,, -\�� �<� ,,• `.,.
i' .,i � � � � � �.� ti,
�. 1 0 �V "1 �\
'_, ,�• ,` ,�
�1 .- t ', .-p:,it' ..-.:r
'��..-�,: `� , � � p:,e� � ,� -` �
. .Y`� ;.p..05 .
r �p.a�".
� �..... .. �: ..--�.....
� N� ����f`I���'p �� SOL,4R V?�IL ��°a�' g
O� � i� ��f9d}�; f� NORTH FRONTAGE R0,4D ����
�g t �3� � ° �/�41L, GOLOR,4D0 �Ne�� �
�, ' ���3� �
_ ��
� ��
N —N
m
� ,� z
-Nn b �
.r
orn
m� �
°r
�N
�
��
���
io��-.^�;;
�...� - _
N � °g �1�ag ao � ��.g� �
N � �4 q�j;ae;���� �F4� 50L,4R. V�41L
O = g €g f9°�a4�= t1 NoRTH �f�oNTA6E Ra,4D �;��� �
� � g�� � f i� V,41L, GOLOR�4D0 �vg�� �
� , r�ia� �
�ti1 O
�, N
�Z
b�
rn
��rn
�r
b �j
�
�R
���
S
,'r �l
''��,
'y' ',q
, �,
`'' ,k �
� �u
_ 3��=8_.._._._.� :
, , .- t
�'..,, � � ' � �\,���
..- -� �
�� -�
:.. " _ �� , ;
��—' t .�Y
,' � , .1 . ' D' � , . �
,�.X"
�1 1` �1
�y'.� r'�-•p-;95J�
.,1�I p,9� i
z'_` �
� _ � � ��jl,,9���� ��� SOL?�R Y,� I L ��ae� �
N � � i�`�����'�i � NORTH PI�ONTh�GE RO,ht7 ����� �
O � � � ���'� ( �" V,41L, GOLORf�DO �N6�� °n
��t�� �
in ' O
a� ` c
PJ m (J1
� �z
�i d �
rn
��rn
ur
s .�
a �
��
��
102'-��b�
�N ����r� _ . ♦
',�..' r^,l,,,j+.� �l
�,',� ' }�
';l �
,\ ' ;
`'�,. �..
',�
''1.
, ''�.;a
,.�,� .
�..
a �"° ! a° t ��`a� �
N� �� l�if�`����� jr� 50L�4R Y,4 I L
� � j7 � NORTH PRONTACvE ROAD ^�
O � �� �s���� � �� VA IL, GOLORf�DO . ����� �
--a ���+�'`�° �Ny�� �
� �'•-
�
��
A �O
� m�
� a �'
.�
�{
�� ilf
ur
s �p
E
��
��h
�
io�•-.-as>"
_ _ ,,,, I�•.y.
�
�„ '�
,,y ,
i:`•.
�-k �1
� .;o,,`
,1
... �1
,i
}�
�m
=S � � 1N
� '� '�t
- �4
,4
^'�' i9
'a ,'
_ .� .\
.. ` �`
',? 1
'.k� '�;`
��,
:t—
; _.-
5
5,
�iio ' i i% RF�'� �
N� �. � l�i;;;l�i�g �►� SOL,4R Y,g I�
� o� d� �'�%�( ��i NORTH �RONT,4C�E ROAD ����� �
o � ���+�r��� V,hIL, GOLORADO �Na�� �
�
� O
m O
0! -(i
o (�
j�
o Z
��
$
��
��K
u
m
AF �
m �
�
➢ •�
J. �
B281'-lala` U •
� p
m �
i iry
� 9,L'
a �
o w
� ��
I 8.^.9i'-t.1/i w �N P N
t U_
9d2
fP,V6 8399'-4+b`-----'
i __'
1�p` � 9�i�
l=
� iN I 9�1�
.9tC-�SbZB '3nH3
9d3
RIDGEi 9308'-I�b"
D< i"'�_'_ 9d2 �, .'a
[� P
fil __' m Ln A
D
m � i' ...I � A y m 'U �'
ro �
( w 1 I RI�E� 850i'-'i'W' u'i S � � O
u y
�i � i I o- � a� I � I
y i.. ._` __ _� o N� f; I i I I
— _._.- tl! EAVE, 8299'-47b' -' I ( � (
'Y l_' __ J L__ __ J
...i __' �? i_' � I
� qd2 RIWE� 8904 -'1'ib
� � 9�IT �__ EA�� B]'19�3qb"
..�
F _" "_
_____'___U"'___ �___ r.,.-•"��
y� ' ;iti
. a -� �4, • B�a�^ �
(' m ���,_y _ _ t �� ', �P.f,
A
� �' /' ~ �
� ac � $���..o
a1„Zr
�: �\`�4.'-^�x{'\�i\'�y��'"�j '� � � �a
`� V"` �j �cm � 0�qa"b �p
N \ a N� EP�E �. W
9 `O ' �
�y _ , ad� q�ti
v � ' ' '= 3� 6�05 " .
_..��=�"�~aa2�~ p3..11ti R��'�,
r•' � �` R11K'E� 6g ..� '
a�2
\ a„� . , �;V1 '
� _ `i `,5 �'�i %
_l�Y�:' "' y,, '��`� , n
r � �� �.- N
` �•ti,�..,.: .\ S;
� \ P
\ '1 ��1
� %
.p
t.�i �, ` �:.1
1 R� �
y w \ \
� 1G ° %1 `y �..
� '�
!^ \ \ ��i �; �C'
v 1 \
�, � 1 i
� �—L�
A � � � ' \� "' m
'�� N
� ,
�.
9i��
ti � �� �����:1��!'' �g# SOL,�R �/,41L ��g� �
' � a�� �
o �� �9���# ; t� NORTH �RONTi4GE RO�tD �Po
O�g @ ��,;��,�� i° V,41L, GOLOR?.DO �Na�� h
� g
��
�O
c
m�
�r
I'ii
�
o�
e� O �
_# _
� �
� �i
��� �
�,
u
R
� � �� ��(�R;����� �s� 50L,4R V�411� 9�g� �
� o y'� �� i�� NORTH FRONTf�C�E ROAD ��Q�� �
Q � m ���i�t.�� ^ VAIL, GOLORADO �Na�f °n
_ � �
��
_�
��
=rn
grn
�
�
co
_� z
� t�
:
��
���
Ca1 �
� �
`� �
��a'° �
�����
�"'9�J� h
�
�
�
>
ni
F
�
m
�i
m
�p
m -�'i
�=rn
grn
�
�
�0
o� �
R
^ ��
���
� '" �� g�[�;'•����'I °s SOL,4R V,41L ��¢� �
�� � i�`����{� i��� NORTH FRONTP�GE ROF�D ����� �
� � ��ii�'�� VA.IL, GOLORADO �Na�$ �
�z
rn�
m�
arn
.�
rn
�
o�
L'�
e �
��
���
� � � 9�(�wi� ?"t °a SOL�4R V/�r I L �yaa� �
� � �O iq`�ge'A�'(i�i i�� NORTH FRONT�4G� R0,4D ����� g
O �' . � �S1i�ii��...�^ . Vf�IL, GOLOR/�DO �N3�� �
g
��
�c
m�
�
b�
.�
rn
a�
eo
u Z
s #
&
��
���
� � �� ��(�;������ �►g� SOL,4R Y,41L ��a� �
�--. �
O � m g(�l+�j�ji �p NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD •��;�$ �
_ � � V,41L, GoLOR,4D0 „sm� 9
��
��
�d
s�
.�
.�
o�
a�o
��
��
��„�
� � � � �� � ia� �4 a�
q j?a,��;} �9� 50L�4R Y,41L 9� �
� € �q,�`Is�9' � �! NOf�TH FRONTA6E ROAD �g��T �
� �
� �r�ti����� ° VAIL, GOLOR�4D0 �Ne�� R
��
��
md
b�
N
tii
C�
o�
�� O
d�
��
���
� � � ¢ ��Seei���l� jp� � �OL,4R V,4 I L �¢a� �
8
O � o i� �'�%���i �� NORTH FRONTAGE R0,4D ��P�� �
(ll �
� ���,��` f ° V�41L, GOLORADO �N9�� ti
C)
�
0
�
c
�
rn
�
�
w
�
Q.
n
.
•
T
::1
�"
n
�,
�
�
�
N
CC]
(D
N
0
-„
N
x x
0 0 � c O
N d� � �
V � � � l
°�° r r � � �
� oo < � < -* C p �
R� fD <D
� � N '� N N
"'�� � K � � � � �� � � � � � � � �� � � � � --
O'a a'a'a'a'a'� C'p'o'�'� "�'�'�'II G �'o'O'a -p
� m m m m ro m m � m m m m m m m m � m m m m�
C�r���«��i C=G�?►m�C�ooY C=G� nm
.� N � � _1 � 1 1 � �A .A W -� -� � V / � � -P .�1 G.i _l
N� W CD � Q C C �(D CD ��(Q Q. Q Q N W Q7 ��
@ Q. O.
"� Q Q Q- Q. Q- p' � Q. O Q. � Q- Q GL �' p' p' O Q Q- �O O
�-�r � 0 O p O O O � p p O O O � O O
�' r o° o° r o 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3 � 3
N CJt �P W
— �----
I
C �
r�
'� _a N � _a _a (V U7 � � _a � _a � � _a �p � _a � � � � N
N W G'> C� �
� �
N
�
� D C
00 CTt f3'i .A .P -P W N N O � � .A .!� .i� N N O � �i � '�-y�,
�A -J N G� W -i CO CO -P .f� � -� U1 W .A (fl �A �P �
`J 0o N.A � Cfl O Oo 00 -P -P N W� O 00 Oo .P .A ""
„'�'� rn tfl co y -1
jN -� � y � � � W y � � s -� O
d'� 'A .P f37 N � W W C�)� � CNO -P �P � � f�J� W � � CNO �A � � � N
'J O) N.A � Oo O 0o OD �P �A N W� O Oo OD -P �P
3 r �
_1
C
WV N W��� N CJ7 � CJt P.P. -� -� -� �� i CTI P P-� ��
Uti IV W CJi W N�A Ut d� -1 ifl -� �I �! N N N C� -� (D -� ^J -�,
W fJt O O W C31 O O � t4� CO �I U7 CJi U'i CTt U7 �(D CO �I Ut
*0
N
^ � , N
iii ' � d�
'�TI ` (J) O
D'' N N
� � � � � � "' <p O
�I � � � .P -P .? N N N O) � .A .P -P N N N � O
00 -� -� --� W W W N N N-y -� W W W N N N-� 'J
0o W W W OD Oo O� CJt Ut U1 W W OD Oo Oo Cn CTl Ut W O—
�
� _a � � � � Q.
a' a' a' LT Li' CS � �.
Q. Q� Q Q Q G� C.
< c G << G p m` ; Z
m m cD m m m
��� ��� v�i::�. °
cNn cNi, cNi, cNi, cNi, cNi, Q, :� �
c�oo 000 @ :. --I
,�
N 1 � . _a � '.' . �' � .Q ..Q � � _a � � _a .Cl � � -a . �N . O
N � . ' W N '' . � . . . .�I �I N N N . . . y ,.
tn cJt Cn W Cn N. -� ��� Cn CSt Cn Cn cn ��� C3t •,.�
t� 'v
�a �
�
V C'> -
� �
m tQ
'�
p1
�
�
� �
�
'G --
w
�
ro
�
�
-o
�
r
D
:Cl
n
_
�
rn
n
--�
�
-D
;�7
O
�
m
c�
--1
�
N
v
O
CP
�
�
�
�7
A
�
Attachment D
Solar Vaii
Parking Management Plan
February 14, 2008
This parking management plan is based on 69 garage parking spaces, 8 outdoor parking
spaces, and Loading and Delivery spaces. It further assumes 82 units, 57 studios, 12 one-
bedrooms units, 1 two-bedroom unit, 4 three-bedroom units, and 8 four-bedroom units, as
well as less than 6,000 sf. of off'ice space. .
Parking for employees renting at Solar Vail — this management plan is based on many
years of experience operating the existing Solar Vail Property as employee housing for
the Sonnenalp. While the proposed building is significantly larger, the use and a large
proportion of unit types will be very similar. We therefore predict the following
conditions:
(1} approximately 2/3 of the housing population of Solar Vail will consist of
employees visiting the LTS on some kind of Visa Program limiting their visits
to anywhere from 4 to 18 months. All of these employees are from foreigm
countries and therefore only about 20% of these employees will have cars.
(2) Employees working for Sonnenalp under visa programs have a speciiic
contract which specifies conditions of employment. This contract defines
amongst many other things the housing arrangements. Sonnenalp can manage
the number of employee cars by simply specifying in the employment contract
that housing does not include any parlcing. Since Solar Vail is within easy
walking distance from worlc and the village, as well as directly on the bus
route, this a reasonable and customary condition.
(3) Empioyees requiring a parking space wili generally not use their cars for the
short trip from Solar Vail to the Sonnenalp. Sonnenalp does restrict employee
parking on hotel property depending on season and other customer driven
factors. It is therefore more convenient to simply walk and use the in-town bus
service for the short trip. This will significantly reduce trips in and out of the
property and will allow easier management of tandem parking spaces.
(4) The present garage plan shows 36 tandem parking spaces. That translates into
18 spaces that will be difficult to access when the garage is completely full.
We will manage this situation by assigning those spaces to three-bedroom and
foux-bedroom tenants living in units with more than one vehicle per units
allowing easier communication and co-ordination of car owners. Presently,
only a portion of Solar Vail parking spaces is used by Solar Vail tenants. We
use the unused spaces to park overflow Sonnenalp vehicles at that location.
We anticipate that this situation wili occur at the `new Solar Vail', in which
case we would effectively use tandem space parking.
Parking for Office Space — Based on the currently proposed 4750 sf of office space, the
zoning requirements call for 20 parking spaces to be allocated to the o�ce space at Solar
Vail. We anticipate the following conditions relative to those spaces:
(1) about 50% of the ofiice space will be used for Sonnenalp Administrative
ofFices. As those functions presentiy exist, we know the number of employees
working in that portion of this ofiice space and can therefore predict that only
5-7 spaces will used.
(2) The office will be open and spaces will be used from 8 AM to 5 PM Monday
through Friday. Therefore, the spaces will be available on weekends and for
overnight parking to non-office users. This parking use pattern can be
matched with housing tenants working during the day requiring parking only
at night when the off'ice parlcing spots are unused.
Parking for guests of housing tenants and o�ce fienants — a certain number of spaces will
be used for guest parking. The current site plan shows 8 outside parking spaces. We
would propose to use those spaces for guest parking. Most guest-parking will be
generated by office clients and will therefore occur during regular business hours.
Housing guest paricing will mostly occur in the evening hours, generally after 5 PM. We
therefore believe that the outdoor spaces can accornmodate all guest=parking. Using the
outdoor portion of the parking for guest parking will also permit spaces 41-44 to be used
for snow storage in the event that on-site snow storage becomes necessary before being
removed from the property entirely.
Attachment E
Solar Vail
Conditional Use Permit Application
For
Employee Housing in the (H) Housing Zone District
Whereas, Section 12-6I-3 of the Town of Vail Town Code lists Type VI employee
housing as a conditional use in the (H) Housing Zone District, and,
Whereas, the applicant is seeking approval to construct not-for-sale 82 EHU's of various
sizes and configurations on the existing Solar Vail site, and,
Whereas, the applicant is seelcing approval to assign the deed restrictions to entities other
than the applicant who need to satisfy TOV EHIJ requirements, and,
Whereas, Section 12-13-3 (E) requires a management plan to be inciuded in the CUP
application: - .
Written Management Plan For Type VI EHUs: For the purposes of this title, a type VI EHU is
an EHU which shall be governed by a written management plan or other written
program approved by the pianning and environmentai commission. The management
plan is the principai document in guiding the use of a type VI EHU. The management
plan shail be rev.iewed and approved by the planning and env'ironmental commission
as part of the conditional use permit appiication for a type VI EHU in accordance with
chapter 16 of this title.
1. Management Plan Gontents:
a. Parameters: The management plan shall inciude ail relevant material and information
necessary to establish the parameters of the type VI EHUs.
b. Exclusive Use: The management plan shall demonstrate that the type VI EHUs are
exclusively used for and remain available for employee housing.
c. Notice Of Record: The management plan shall provide a mechanism to provide
adequate notice of record to prospective owners to ensure that the requirements of the
plan shall be met with any future changes in ownership.
_. _ _ _ _ _
d. Occupancy: The management plan shall include adequate provisions to ensure that the
EHUs shall be occupied, and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed three (3)
consecutive months.
e. Affidavit: No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of a type VI EHU shall submit
to the department of community development one copy of a sworn affidavit on a form
from the department of community development, to establish that the EHU has been
used in compliance with the management plan.
The applicant herein presents their proposed Management Plan:
_ _ _
1, Parameters: Per conversations with the Staff and the attached spreadsheet, we
propose the following paxameters:
a. The proposed project is comprised of 82 EHIJ's of various sizes. Proposed
(and subject to refinement as the design moves forward) are:
1) S7 studios
2) 12 one bedroom units
3) 1 two bedroom unit
4) 4 three bedroom dormitory style units
5) 8 four bedroom dormitory style un.its
All units, except for (7) studios and (3) one bedroom units on the top floor are
equal to, or in excess of, TOV minimum sizes as dictated in Ordinance #8, series
of 2007. As the design progress,, it may be possible to enlarge the top floor units
to•meet the minimum sizes required. The number of "beds" associated with these
units shall be pro-rated to 350 SF per bed. At the time of this CUP submittal, we
are showing a total of 150.23 EHU "beds" in the project.
b. All units shall be rental type units and none are proposed for sale. Rentals
shall be controlled by the applicant's management company. Priority shall be
given to employees working in the Town of Vail and rents shall be
"attainable" for employees working in the Town of Vail.
c. All units shall be deed restricted per TOV requirements in place at the time of
PEC approval. Deed restrictions shall be recorded prior to the building ,
receiving a CO. Deed restrictions shall be assignable to entities other than the
applicant and these assigned deed restrictions shall be allowed to satisfy EHU
requirements that an entity may be obligated to provide to the TOV.
1) Deed restrictions shall be by unit except as noted below.
2) Assignxnent of deed restricted "beds" (as defined in Ordinance 8, series
of 2007) shall be by entire unit except as noted below. Assignments are
permanent and may not be reassigned. Except as noted below,
assignments are not required to be made prior to building CO.
d. To replace the existing deed restricted units on the site, 5730 square feet of
EHU floor area shall be deed restricted under a"blanket" type deed restriction
and the "beds" assigned to the ApplicantBuilding Owner. This area of
EHU's may not be used to satisfy future EHU requirements however, this area
of deed restricted units may be transferred to other EHU's ofF site per
previous agreements with the TOV. Assignment shall talce place at the time
of deed restriction.
e. If approved by the PEC as a conditional use. The proposed office space
(currently shown at 4850 s� shall have 3.1 EHU beds assigned to the
Applicant/ building Owner as required by Ordinance #7, series of 2008.
These beds may not be used to satisfy future EHU requirements. Assignment
shall occur at the tirne the units are deed restricted. If the office space
expands in the future to the full 6000 sf requested in the Conditional Use
permit, additional EHCJ "beds" shali be assigned to the Applicant/Building
Owner per the formula in place at the time of PEC approval.
2. Exclusive Use: The Applicant has maintained employee housing on the Solax
Vail site since acquiring th� property so he has a long standing tracic record of
providing housing for his employees. The proposed redevelopment does not
contain any for-sale units, all units will be deed restricted and the applicant
intends for this project to meet his employee housing needs well into the future.
Notice of Record: The units are all deed restricted which will show in the title�
report.
4. Occupancy: With no for-sale units to offset the development costs for this
project, it is in the Applicants best interest to rriaintain as high an occupancy rate
as possible.
Affidavit: The Applicant shall comply with the requirement for an annual
affidavit.
Whereas, Section 12-16-6 directs the PEC to consider the following factors with respect
to the proposed Conditional use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities,
schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and pubiic facilities needs.
3: Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, trafFic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of
snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including
the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
The applicant herein provides the following response to the above factors:
1. The. TOV has identified employee housing as a top priority. This project will
substantially increase the number of EHU's on the site.
_ __
2: The increase in the nurnber of residents living on this site will have no appreciable
effect on light and air at this site or the adjacent school or open space. R.idership on
the TOV bus routes will increase as the residents wiil use both the Sandstone and
West Vail routes to access Vail Village and the shopping in West Vaii. The existing
pedestrian bridge will provide easy access to Lionshead and it is lilcely that there will
be increased usage of the adjacent bike path a�d sidewalks. It is not likely that there
wili be too much of an impact on the adjacent school or nearby parks as the proposed
units and the living environment is not conducive to families with children.
f. A preliminary traffic study is being prepared and will be submitted for review by the
PEC and the TOV. The location of the Solar Vail site may actually reduce the
number of vehicular trips into and around the Town since it is so easy to walk or take
the bus to almost any point in Town. Increasing the number of employees housed on
this site means that many fewer employees living elsewhere in the Valley who need
to drive to work and find a place to park.
The scope of this project includes improvement of the existing vehicular access
including a snowmelted turn-around spur for trash, fire and delivery vehicles. The
access drive and (minimal) exterior parking have excellent south exposure so
maintaining the access drive will not require full snowmelting of the drive to keep it
clear of ice and snow most of the time. In times when there is a need to store snow,
we would propose to use the 4 guest parking spaces at the southwest corner of the site
for temporary storage of snow until it can be removed off site. There is also an area
at the east end of the property that has historically been used for snow storage.
Pedestrian safety wili also be enhanced. Current residents either walk down the
unimproved drive at the east end or cross onto the Elementary School property and
either walk down their access drive or through their playground. The proposed
project includes a new stair-and-sidewalk connection to the existing sidewalk along
the Frontage Road at the west end of the site that will hopefully provide a more direct
route to the bus stop and Frontage Road walk/bike path.
4. The neighborhood for the Solar Vail site is characterized by TOV open space to the
east and the Elementary schao.l to the west. The property rises steeply behind the
project and there is TOV open space immediately above that. Increasing the nurnber
of EHCT's on the site, with the corresponding increase in scale and mass wiil have
little or no impact on the surrounding uses or the character of the area.
Attachment F
Solar Vail
Side setback Variance Request
For
the (H) Housing Zone District
Whereas, Section 12-6I-5 of the Town of Vail Town Code provides that variations to the
20' side setback standard may be approved during the review of a development plan, and,
Whereas, the existing side setback on the west side of the Solar Vail property is shown as
15', and,
Whereas, the applicant is seeking approval to maintain this 15' side setback, and,
Whereas, Section 12-6I-5 requires the PEC to evaluate compliance with the following
criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separatior► between buildings and riparian
areas, geologicaliy sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas.
B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space.
C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses
on adjacent properties.
D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefifis
that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards.
The applicant herein presents their response to the above criteria:
A. As the requested side setback of 15' is existing; no buildings, riparian areas,
geologically sensitive or environmentally sensitive areas are negatively impacted by
this request.
B. The proposed side setback of 15' has little effect on the availability of light, air and
open space. The shadow studies indicate that there is adequate separation between
the proposed Solar Vail building and the adjacent School District gymnasium which
is built into the hillside and does not rely on it's east elevation for light and air to the
gymnasium space.
C. The proposed 15' side setback and the continuing use of Solar Vail for EHU's is
compatible with the neighboring gymnasium. The gymnasium is accessed from it's
own site, primarily during school hours, and the ehu's will be pximarily occupied at
nights and on weekends when the school is vacant.
D. The buildable area of the Solar Vail lat is severely restricted by the 40% slope behind
the proposed building (already been somewhat disturbed by the existing building) and
_
the utility setbacks to the east, south and southwest. This probably explains why a
variance was granted to reduce the west side setback to 15' in the first place.
The design of the proposed building respects the limitations imposed by these
constraints and looks to the west side setback for opportunities to increase the number
of EHU's and parking spaces on the site. The design of this building assumed that
the existing side setback of 15' would be allowed. There are no hardships associated
with keeping the 15' setback but expanding it to 20' would deprive the TOV of
additional ehu's on this site and the parking that goes with it.
A#tachment �G
�
�
�a� oF v� 1
Departnaent ofPublic Works dc Transportation
1309 Elkhorn Drive
�ail, CO 81657
970-479-2158
Fax: 970-479-2166
www. vailgov. com
� �
;�
To: Scot Hunn
]From: � Chad Salli, Project Engineer
12.e: Solar Vail
Date: 2/14/08
The Town of.Vail Public Worlcs Department has received and reviewed the Solar Vaii submittal dated 1/2&/08.
The following are comments that should be addressed prior to approval. '
1. CDOT access permit is required and should be executed prior to building permit submittal.
Applicant response: We sha11 coniply.
2. Continue curb and gutter east of TY 2 driveway
Applicant response: We shall comply.
3. The Town of Vail General Notes shall be added. (Notes can be e-mailed upon request)
Applicant response: We sllall comply.
4. Please add Utility Signature block and have all utilities sign acknowledging acceptance of utility impacts
and design.
Applicant response: We shall cornply.
5. Final Civil drawings shall be approved and meet all Town standards prior to submittal of building
permit. Detailed comments will be provided at that time.
Applicaizt response: We shall eomply.
6. All construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, phasing, access,
schedules, traffic control, emergency access, parking, loading and delivery, etc...
Applicant response: The General Contractor selected will meet with Siaff and resolve these issues �rior to
construction.
7. A ROW/Utility permit shall be obtained and approved by the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to
commencing any construction within public Right of Way.
A�plicant response: We shall con�ply.
8. All improvements within CDOT ROW shall be approved by CDOT including all Frontage Rd
improvements and landscaping. This approval will be required prior to Civil plan set approval.
ApplicaiZt response: We shali coinply.
9. Prior to approval of an Excavation permit a shoring and excavation plan shall be submitted including;
excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans with plan, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and
plans shall include all existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). Any shoring within CDOT ROW wiil require
approval from CDOT and FHWA. Any shoring within the Vail pubiic ROW will require Town of Vail
approval and a revocable ROW permit.
!
Applicant response: We shall eolnply. '`
10. A Storm Water Discharge CDPHE Perriiit and all� applicable ACOE permits (i.e. Dewatering) shall be �
submitted prior to construction. ,
Applicant response: We shall comply.
11. Provide engineered stamped final drainage report, and a traff'ic siudy.
Applicant response: These are in progress.
12. The developer will be assessed traffic impact fee of $6,500 per peak hour additional trip generated, total
additional trips generated wi�l be determined once a firaff'ic study is sulirnitted and approved.
Applicant response: If the Tov��i of Vail t�uly wants employee lzousing and the replacemerlt of soon-to-be-
demolished pi•ofessional offrce space, this fee should be �uaived in it's entirety.
13. Show snow storage area.
Applic�nt response: We will cantinue io utilize �he opeil a.re� at the east end af the site and will provide a
temporary snow storage area in the 4 guest p�rkin�; spaces at the west eiad of the site. These will be noted
on the grading plans. .
14. Parking structuxe will require a sand/oil structure.
A�plica.nt respoi�se: We shall comply.
15. Show top and bottom of .proposed and existing walis. Walis greater than 4' in height (as measured from
bottom of the footer to the top of wall), shall be designed and starnped by a registered professional
engineer. All design parameters and assumptions shall be submitted with plans.
Applicant response: We shall coniply.
16. Town Code allows for a maximum of 6' high walls, the section provided for the exiting wall along the
frontage road shows this to be 8' in height
Applicanfi response: Any new walis �roposed shall conlply with TOV standards.
17. Show the turning movement for the proposed loading spots.
Applicant response: The existin.g driveway r.equires all delivery, trash arid fire vehicles to back up �al the
way to the Frontage Road. The proposed design still requires tllese vehicles to 6ack up but provides for a
turn-araund spur before reaching the Frontage Road. The Fire Departrnent has agreed to this and the trash
and delivery compai.lies will find tlus to be less onerous than exists in many places throubh out the T�V.
18. Tie in the proposed 3' pan with the culvert crossing under the rec path, do not discharge this drainage
across the surface of the walk and into the frontage road.
Applicant response: We shall comply.
19. Show the required landing of the proposed stairs on the west side of the property, with handrails. The
handrails can not encroach in to the rec path and must be 2' ofFthe edge of the rec path..
Applicant respanse: We shall comply.
20. Is the existing gravel path to the elementary school proposed to remain, be improved?
Applicant response: This path is proposed to be reinoved and blocked as best possible to stop ihe flow ol
pedestria.11 traffic acrass tl�e schoal property.
21. Additional comrnents may follow as plans are developed.
G d � M �
C�
R Q
a cn
N N N N f��- ��$� tn t1� tn Lf') �f7 ��� i.() tf) lf) �.C)
NNNt�t�
O 0�� �� � � r- �-- �c- �- s- fn fn tn t- �- t- c- T ��' N �- t- � r
� O O O
� �� N N N N N N
O
� W,= > > > > > >
�) v- c N N N N N N
c p -c� -� -a v -a a
c � .Q�.n �.nn�
� � � � � � �
_� 00 00 00 oO M C'� tC) tn U> CO o0 CO C7 M LC� tn �(� 0� CO 00 CYJ
M C7 C+) M c- t- N N N M M Ch t- �- N N N M C7 c+) c-
'V' �t' V d' CU .CO N N N V' d' d' (O t0 N N N �i' �t' 'rt Cfl
N N Q s-�a- ���
O .. �'�
Cf� . ';:G.;r�:
� �, �
�
(iS.
d:
._. .
y� .' � O lt') t(y tf� t[) LL7 lC> U� f�- d> d� � t!') tf> � tf) tt� I� Cn � r t!') Lf) Ln tn
d N N N N N 1�- I�- �- � e- �p N N N t� 1� r- � � tD N N N t`�
. �} CD �O � � c- s- r'd' Cj' I,(� M � c- c- �- �'d" 'V' t!� M � c- t- �-
`a d
� J
m
O O CO M N�f' �f' oO o0 O CO c� N d" �1' 00 00 O CO c� N
O CO M t[) �- Cp �t' d' � Cfl th t[� e- Cp d' .�i' O> (O M tf) s-
,� � N 0 � d" '�f' CO CO O N N � � d' ct CO CO O N N� � �h d' CO
'O � CV �y t� s- c- a- 1� c'7 r- �-- � I � C+>
N p� �
.-.. O. O O O CO M N ct' �f' W OO O Cp M N ct' d' 00 0� O(O th N
_ � �t' �t' Ch t!� �- tfl 'd' 'ct �
�"' �i' c+7 tt� e- (D rY d' rn cf' c� � r-
'= L d' d' d' d' CO Cfl O N� �1 d' d' (O CO O N N �2' '�f' d' ci�
= Q j?' �- r �
N
...
V
d
a �,
�� O O i.f) tt7 � c- c- t- r- �- s- �� 6! a- r�- r�- r- r- r � c- c- c-
C
J �
�
G> � N
�
d
J � � � � � N � � � � � d � .
�`--' �'= C� O O p O O J O O O � O� �
� ` � O
� � O� O O 0���'B'O p O O O-�p'L;��'D p O O O�
� p) �� �'� � Lr1 Cn � m m N "� ZS 't3 N N N� N 'p 'p 'II N
C C . C� m � .� ..-�. .� m m m m m,� ��� m
C/� (n !n (n ��- M�' �7- G f/� U� (li s- t-
� � ' � � r i i r � � i= i i i � � C7 � d" C (n U� f!� �
p p <Li,N, <CLr1U� W LLC7= QCOCiL] W LLf.�� QQOU�
Q= = N�� N N N� N N N N r.�, N N� N N(ll N N,� N N N N
�p � cz= QQ.�n.czQa.Qp QQ[z.cs.�a.�s2p �.aQ
F- Z Z ly' — I�' I�' !�' F-}' F-�'- t}' I�' I�' E'" I�' I�' I�' I�' f�' I�' F�' I--�'- E"' F-�' i�' !�' F-�'
N �t q' � � � N N M
�. t0 Q� � � 6� p � � �
�� ����' C s- Cn 9 c- ^�j � �
'��.' �-J..,,�j� �-� 9 J `- J •-' �
� d J
� a� �" c a. J � � _
� C' Y t�1 V .N �t/J �N
o _I � cv � � O O O
� a p p = _ _
N
v-
O
�
N
m
fQ
�
X
�
t6
�
�
�
�
N
O
U�
�
r _
m
W
LL
�
O
O
�
Q
O
�
�
N
�
�
O
.�.
tt3
�
�
._
.�
�
�
�
C
�
N
�
'i'J
C
ti3
.�
c
�
E
�
U
O
0
U
�,,
I
Attachment �G
.
�
T�WN OF YAI� `
Department of Public Works & Transportation
1309 Elkhorn Drive
va�t, co s�6s�
970-479-2158
Fax: 970-479-2166
www. vai[gov. com
�
To: Scot Hunn
From: Chad Salii, Project Engineer
Re: Solar Vail
Date: 2/14/08
The Town of Vail Public Worlcs Department has received and reviewed the Solar Vail submittal dated 1/28/08.
The foilowing are comments that should be addressed prior to approvai.
1. CDOT access permit is required and should be executed prior to building permit submittal.
Applicant response: We sha11 comply.
2. Continue curb and gutter east of TY 2 driveway
Applicant respanse: We shall camply. �
3. The Town of Vail General Notes shall be added. (Notes can be e-mailed upon request)
Applicant response: We shall comply.
4. Please add Utility Signature block and have all utilities sign acknowledging acceptance of utility impacts
and design.
Applicant response: We shall comply.
5. Final Civil drawings shail be approved and meet all Town standards prior to submittal of buiiding
permit. Detailed comments wiil be provided at that time.
Applicai�.t response: Vde shall comply.
6. All construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, phasing, access,
schedules, traffic control, emergency access, parking, loading and delivery, etc...
Applic�ntxesponse: The General Contractor selected will meet with Staff and resolve these issues �rior to
constructian.
7. A ROW/LTtility permit shall be obtained and approved by the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to
commencing any construction within public Right of Way.
Applicant response: We shall comply.
8. All improveinents within CDOT ROW shall be approved by CDOT including all Frontage Rd
improvennents and landscaping. This approval will be required prior to Civii plan set approval.
Applicant response: We shall coinply.
9. Prior to approval of an Excavation permit a shoring and excavation plan shall be submitted inciuding;
excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans with plan, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and
plans shail include ail existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). Any shoring within CDOT ROW will require
approval from CDOT and FHWA. Any shoring within the Vaii public ROW will require Town of Vai1
approval and a revocable ROW permit.
Applicant response: We shall comply. I
10. A Storm Water Discharge CDPHE Permit and all applicable ACOE permits (i.e. Dewatering) shall be �
submitted prior to construction.
Applicant response: We shall comply.
11. Provide engineered stamped final drainage report, and a traffic study.
Applicant response: These are in progress.
12. The developer will be assessed traffic impact fee of $6,500 per peak hour additional trip generated, total
additional trips generated will be determined once a traff'ic study is submiited and approved.
Applicant response: If the Tow�i of Vail tiuly wants employee housing and the replacement of soon-to-be-
den�olished pi•ofessional off ce space, this fee sh.ould be waived in it's entirety.
13. Show snow storage area.
Applicant response: We will continue to utilize the open a.rea a1 the east end oi the site and will provide a
tern�orary snow storage area in the 4 guest parking spaces at tl�e west end of the site. These will be noted
on the grading pl�ns. .
14. Parking structure will require a sandloil structure.
Applica.nt response: We shall coinply.
15. Show top and bottom of proposed and existing walls. Walls greater than 4' in height (as measured from
bottom of the footer to the top of wall), shall be designed and stamped by a registered professionai
engineer. All design parameters and assumptions shall be submitted with plans.
Applicant response: We shall coniply.
16. Town Code allows for a maximum of 6' high walls, the section provided for the exiting wall along the
frontage road shows this to be 8' in height �
Applicant response: Any new walls proposed. shall conlply with TOV standards.
17. Show the turning movement for the proposed loading spots.
Applicant response: The existing driveway.requires all delivery, trash and fir.e vehicles to back up �al the
way to the Frontage Road. The proposed design still requires these vehicles to bacic up but provicies for a
turn-around spur before reaching the Frontage Road. The Fire Departineni has agreed to this and the trash
and delivery coinpauies will find tlus to be less oiierous than exists in many places throu�h out the T(JV.
18. Tie in the proposed 3' pan with the culvert crossing under the rec path, do not discharge this drainage
across the surface of the walk and into the frontage road.
Applicant response: We shall comply.
19. Show the required landing of the proposed stairs on the west side of the property, with handrails. The
handrails can not encroach in to the rec path and must be 2' off the edge of the rec path..
Applicant response: We shall comply.
20. Is the existing gravel path to the elementary school proposed to remain, be improved?
Applicant response: This patli is proposed to be reinoved and blocked as best possible to sto� the flow of
pedestrialz traffic acr�ss tlle school property.
21. Additional comments may follow as plans are developed.
�Wc�i i� �
C �
cv sz
a v�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�, N NNNI�-I���� NNNI�-I���� NNNI�-
O d� r- r- c- �-- t- � fn fLT (O" �- e- a- t- �- CT �' �' �- �- � s-
� � �
E-- �' O O O O O O
ti O d N N N N N N
� Q � '�'L' �L' �L' �L' �L' G�''
� W= N N N N N�
V �.
C ��0��,...
'a '� � "Cf 'O 'LS
C� .�� � � ..Q .Q .Q �
'� �� c- c- �- � r- t-
� 00 CO CO 0� M C7 tf) � tt) 00 00 CO M M tf� tn L!) 00 0� 00 M
r' � m�'��''�'r�NNN c�Mt+��r-NNN c�MCn�-
N ;N Cf' rt' 'V' d' CO .CO N N N �1' d' '�t Cfl CD N N N '�t d' 'd' CO
�� � � � �
O . . '(n , p-
CL? , ;.C.,�,
� � ...
(if.
d
.�.
L O O t!7 tl� LC) tn tt� tt� tn (�- O� � T tC) l(� tC> �C) lC) t� 6� d> e- � tf7 11) LL�
� N N N N N f` I�- r� � t- t,p N N N h- 1`� �- � r- tp N N N t�
d d CU �O �- r�- s- r Cf' c1' tf� r s- �- c- r c- d' 'c1' Lt� 't� r�-- ��-
y � `� M �- C7 �-
� J
d
m
O O Cfl c'7 N ct d' o� CO G1 CD c7 N d' d' o� CO O CO M N
O CQ C� lt� s- (U d' '�Y' 6) (O ('7 tf) t- C� d' d' � CO Ch � r-
w� N p � d' �1' CO CO O N N r O) d' �1' CD CO O N N� 07 d' d' CD
�¢ N N r7 s- s- �- P�. � t+'i r- r- � 1^ c'rj
N p� �
.-. O . O O O CO C'7 N cY [Y 00 00 O' CO M N d' 'ct 00 00 O CD C7 N
���-9 d' rY C'� I.t) c- t0 ct d' O) Ci' M L(') r- CO V' d' � cY c7 i.f� s-
'= d' �Y d' d" CO t0 O N N d- �i' d- C{y (p O N N d- � cJ- (p
_� � r t- �- � r �
�
v
d
�. �
� Q�j d Q LC') Ll') � t- �- c- c- �- � s- r ��- �- � c- c- � r- r O� c- e- t-
= J
�
y 'r N
>
d
J � � � � � d � � � � � d �
„_, .,._, o 0 0 0 0 0-i o
� c � o 0 0 0 0= o 0 0 0 0 � o
� � o� o 0 o-a-a-a�-� o 0 0 o-a-a-�`a-� p o 0 0-0
�p ��u�omm °�mm tn �z3�mm °�mm �'v�a a�
� � ,� C .� .� � m +-� .� .� .� m � � � � � m
•� '� in � fnf%)i%��-r-M�'d'�C U)(%JU)�-c-t� d'c1' C (!)f/�fnr
� � � � � � � r � � � � � � � � � � ' ' Qmci❑
0 0 ¢,N QmU�wu.C�=_ QmUOwu..(.�_� � � � �
Q= = a> '= a� a� a� a� cu a� a� a� ,w a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a> �
� a��QSZQQn. QQaQQ�cz�+�' cu a� a� a�
- — F-�' Z Z F�' F-�'I�t�'F-�'t�'F�'F�'- F?' ~ I�'I�'I�' H I�'I�'F�'!}' ~ i�'I�'t�'f�'
tn d' V' � � pNp N � M
..� t� �y c� p'j � O � � q� �
�� � � .� � � �- �i > �- 9 �- 9
(.� J d� Y`� N d c- t� c- G�
7" �, J � � -� -J J
� � � = a J = � _
> a- � � � �� ��n 'w
�o J� c`a � � o 0 0
� a. O O = z =
N
v-
O
�
N
�
(U
�
X
.`
(0
�
�
�
�
fU
O
�
�
�
m
W
lJ_.
�
O
�
�
Q.
�
�
�
N
�
O
�
`
.,-.
�
._
.�
3
�
rn
c
�
N
U�
�
c
co
�
c
a�
E
�
U
O
�
U
_
i;
s,
�
!{� ,,
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 11, 2008
1:00 pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT
Anne Gunnion
Michael Kurz
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill Pierce
David Viele
Scott Proper
Susie Tjossem
►I ►I : : � : ► 1
5 minutes
Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a
request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, modifying the allowable roofing types for the District,
located at 1402-1428 Moraine Drive and 1450, 1500, 1550, 1600, 1650, 1700, 1750, 1800, 1850
Lions Ridge Loop and /Lots 1-24, Dauphinais/Moseley Subdivision Filing 1, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC080001)
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, President of Grand Traverse H.O.A.
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: No action taken
Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff letter.
There was no public comment.
The Commissioners had no questions or comments.
2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for
Promotion Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070073)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Recommendation of approval
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0
Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff inemorandum.
20minutes
Special Business
Sybil Navas, Special Events Coordinator, and Kelly McDonald, Economic Development
Manager, provided the Commission with further detail about the proposed permits. Kelly
McDonald noted that input was received from the VCBA, CSE, VEAC and the general business
community, all of which was incorporated into the proposal.
Commissioner Pierce questioned how the permits would be administered.
Sybil Navas explained that the Event Review Committee would review and manage the permits
to prevent conflicts with other events.
Page 1
Commissioner Tjossem noted concerns about limiting the total number of events in a given area
of town based upon a concern that only the aggressive or savvy merchants would be allowed an
event and late coming businesses would be prevented from obtaining a permit.
Rachel Friede explained the rationale for the proposal and noted that Staff anticipated revisiting
this issue after one year of project implementation.
Commissioner Tjossem asked if multiple businesses could partner to promote a single event.
Rachel Friede explained that such a scenario would be accommodated through a regular Special
Event Permit.
30 minutes
3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a prescribed regulations amendment to Chapters 12-23,
Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to establish standards
and criteria related to mitigating employee housing requirements, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC070075)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Staff/Planner: Nina Timm and Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to next meeting
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0
Bill Gibson made a brief introduction to the item.
Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, made a presentation to the Commission based on the
memorandum.
George Ruther, Director of Community Development, further explained why the proposed text
amendments were being presented. He said that prioritizing methods of mitigation was
requested by the PEC and Town Council.
Commissioner Viele asked if the requirement would be for 100% on-site mitigation of the current
requirement or for 100% of the employees generated.
Nina Timm answered that the 100% would be 100% of the existing requirement of 20% of
employees generated for commercial linkage and 10% of inclusionary zoning.
George Ruther further clarified that not all projects would require on-site mitigation. Only those
defined as new development or re-development.
Commissioner Viele asked if projects that are already in the works had been assessed a housing
requirement.
Nina Timm answered that the projections are for future developments only.
Commissioner Proper asked why a unit of three or more bedrooms would only count for 3.5
employees maximum.
Nina Timm responded that this was done so that a unit would not have a lot of tiny bedrooms to
offset the requirement. She added that there was an effect of diminishing effectiveness in the
number of employees actually housed in large dwelling units.
Commissioner Proper asked if this will cause people to not build more than 3 bedroom units.
Page 2
Nina Timm stated it was likely those units would not be built. George Ruther clarified that
dormitory style units could still be built.
Commissioner Tjossem asked whether this would inhibit units from being built that are geared
towards families.
George Ruther stated that Staff will respond with reviewing the requirements and making some
changes if necessary.
Commissioner Tjossem asked if developers are given incentives today to provide their entire
employee housing requirement on-site.
Nina Timm clarified that there is no incentive.
Commissioner Tjossem suggested that if developers built more employee housing than is
required by the regulation, they should be given incentives including more GRFA, height, etc.
Commissioner Proper asked why developers are shouldering the housing burden.
George Ruther said this is not to provide housing that we already lack. The developers are
required to mitigate for only a portion of new employees generated. He added further that it is a
responsibility of everyone to provide housing.
Commissioner Proper did not understand why generation of employees is a negative. He asked
why it was the government's obligation to solve this problem instead of the free market taking
over and solving the problem. He said this is popular because the tyrannical majority of the
Town has viewed this as the solution.
Ron Byrne, resident and owner Ron Byrnes and Associates, involved in development and real
estate, asked if the deed restricted units have required pricing limits.
Nina Timm responded that deed restricted units under this program do not have price
appreciation caps. The can be sold for whatever the market will bear.
Peter Knobel, resident and developer of Solaris, stated that there are long and short term issues.
He stated that businesses need to pay employees more money. He added that within the core
of Vail Village it does not make sense to have employee housing on-site. Under a proposal, the
developer should have a penalty when they create housing outside of the property. He said we
need to look at the best way to create new housing. He stated that developers need incentives.
He said he owns units in the Matterhorn neighborhood and if given incentives, he would add
employee housing.
Ron Byrne said that he wanted to put EHUs within regular residences. However, this did not
work very well. He said that with limited numbers of residential properties in town, developers
should be given the opportunity to utilize town owned property for employee units.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, said there should be a master plan
that shows where to put all of the employee housing. He said incentives are necessary when
requiring EHUs on site. He said there are certain neighborhoods have different rates of change,
and there should be more master planning of the community to understand where the shock
absorbers for new growth can occur. He believes this needs to occur very rapidly, because the
first tier of building lots is already eight stories or higher. Beyond that, he believes people are not
thrilled with bigger buildings. He said that if employee housing can't be placed in the town, there
Page 3
should be an allowance to put housing outside of the Town of Vail. He said mass transit and
parking are also missing from this plan, as there are advantages to building housing outside the
community and there is a need to get people on mass transit or provide parking.
Peter Knobel said that building employee housing down valley will cause workers to stay down
valley.
Commissioner Pierce said that this Commission was concerned the original ordinance was too
quickly crafted. He felt that it is reasonable for 30% to be in Vail and 70% elsewhere. He said
the housing solution should be tax based in order to place the burden on everyone. He said
there should be prioritization of inethods, and not necessarily a requirement for all on-site units.
He also said that there should be a hierarchy of value to the community.
George Ruther asked for clarification. He stated that his understanding of Commissioner Pierce's
comments is that Staff is to develop criteria or standards that establish tiers of "disincentives" to
be applied to a development that does not provide on-site mitigation.
Commissioner Viele stated that he believes the regulations are fundamentally a growth control
measure; he is not in favor of growth control. Continued development and the housing of
employees will produce more people. He explained his view of subsidizing the development of
employee housing within a housing (residential) development project. He believes the current
mitigation methods are counter intuitive; that if the Town really wants to solve the housing issue,
it should create a mitigation bank to be used strategically to incentivize and partner with
developers to make it more attractive to them. Any new criteria established or adopted should
be linked to choice of inethod. Businesses should share equally (and the Town should
encourage with "carrots") the burden of providing housing and paying a living wage.
Commissioner Proper, referencing page 3 of the memorandum, asked for clarification regarding
proposed establishment of "Off-site Mitigation Banking" regulations. He added that he
fundamentally objected to the Town's approach (to date) on addressing employee housing
mitigation. He further added that onsite units should be allowed to be smaller than units in other
parts of town. He also said the Town should use the fee in lieu to buy down units throughout the
town.
Commissioner Kjesbo said that requiring the units on-site will slow down the economy. He
added that he would like to see disincentives for certain mitigation.
Commissioner Gunion said the policy should emphasize giving incentives to those who offer the
best options. She added that the PEC should be able to review plans for EHUs outside of Vail if
it is a good plan. Developers can be very creative, and allowing for the PEC to review a
proposal that may not conform exactly to the five identified mitigation methods would allow for
that creativity possibly achieve solutions not conceived of currently.
Commissioner Kurz said that flexibility ought to be allowed. There should be general guidance
on units. He said that he is unsure of the PEC role with regard to employee housing. He said if
developers are enlightened and have solutions, they should be able to propose out of the box
ideas. He said that the pay-in-lieu should be used for a number of different programs where the
Town partners with people to use the money to create deed restrictions.
Commissioner Tjossem said that flexibility and great ideas. She asked Staff to come back with
plans on how to get employees in and to town. Flexibility and creativity are needed.
Page 4
Peter Knobel stated that developers need to know the rules, whatever they may be so that they
can pay reasonable prices for property.
Ron Byrne said that there needs to be rules in order to create financial models and get financing.
He is encouraging PEC to look at all the different options. He said that adding more GRFA
throughout the Town will not be noticed if done right.
Commissioner Pierce summarized that the PEC wants a longer range plan for housing. He
added that predictability is of key importance. It needs to be clear as to what is required.
Employee Housing Plans need to be submitted with an application, so that the plan is
understood from the beginning of the project. He also said prioritization of types of housing
provided should occur.
5 minutes
4. A request for a final review of variance from Section 12-6C-5, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-11,
Parking, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a front and side
setback encroachment and to reduce the required on site parking to facilitate construction of an
addition, located at 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC08-0002)
Applicant: John and Katherine Adair, represented by Pure Design Studio
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Table to February 25, 2008
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0
5. A request for a work session to review an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend a platted building envelope,
located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 14, Spraddle Creek Estates, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC070069)
Applicant: Ron Oehl, represented by Berglund Architects
Planner: Nicole Peterson
ACTION: Withdrawn
6. Approval of January 28, 2008 minutes
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0
7. Information Update
8. Adjournment
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0
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. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published February 8, 2008, in the Vail Daily.
Page 5