The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 121906Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AVON Meeting Agenda for December 19, 2006 Avon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - WORK SESSION AGENDA - (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. Open to the Public. - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - I. Call to Order (5:30pm) It. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda Approval of the December 5, 2006 Meeting Minutes Approval of Item VII - RAL Duplex VI. PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Buck Creek PUD, Buck Creek Road Applicant. Steve Isom /Owner. Oscar Tang Description: The applicant, Steve Isom, representing the owner of the property, Tanavon Corp, is proposing to amend the Cottonwood PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of five (5) lots and two tracts. The property is located on the northeast corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, is presently zoned as the Cottonwood PUD, and is platted as the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision. The proposed amendments to the existing plat and PUD are focused primarily on re -subdividing the Wildwood Subdivision from three (3) developable lots into four (4); to introduce a new, optional Montessori School use on the subject property; and to reallocate the existing, allowed uses amongst the newly subdivided lots. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled. VII. Final Designs - RAL Duplex - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision 12661 Beartrap Rd. Applicant: Bobby Ladd, RAL Architects / Owner. Robert B. Thomas Description: Design review for a duplex on Beartrap Road. The building is comprised of wood and stone veneer siding. Sketch review took place at the Commission's June 20, 2006 meeting and a Final Design Application was tabled from the Commission's September 5th and October 3rd, 2006 meetings. Posted on December 15, 2006 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at http://www.avon.onq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions VIII. Sketch Design - Commercial Timeshare Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner East West Resort Development XIV LOP LLP Description: The applicant is proposing a Sketch Design application for the 'Timeshare West" building in the Riverfront Subdivision. The building would contain 34 timeshare units (39 at buildout)which are two bedroom units each with the ability to have lock -off units. At the ground level there is approximately 6,000 square feet of shell space to be commercial/retail and timeshare sales. IX. Minor Project - Riverfront Function Lawn Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane ApplicantlOwner. Andy Gunion East West Resort Development XIV LOP LLP Description: The applicant, Andy Gunion of East West Resorts, is proposing to expand the function lawn at the Westin Hotel Resort and Spa located at 126 Riverfront Lane. The expansion would entail improvements within the 100 -year floodplain and an application to make such modifications has been made through Eagle County. X. Other Business A. Update of Various Projects B. Draft Housing Needs Assessment XII. Adjourn Posted on December 15, 2006 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at http://www.avon.or4 / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions J Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting AVON Minutes December 5, 2006 . WORK SESSION AGENDA - (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. Open to the Public. - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. H. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Foster. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to report. V. Consent Agenda: • Approval of the November 21, 2006 Meeting Minutes • Resolution 06-19, Trees of Colorado permit extension (MEMO ONLY) Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5 — 0 with Commissioner Lane abstaining due to absence at last meeting. VI. Transit Center Snowmelt — CONTINUED Property Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center Applicant: Design Workshop / Owner. • Town of Avon Description: Follow up to condition of approval by Planning and Zoning Commission to provide snowmelt at the new Avon Transit Center location. Steven Spears, Design Workshop, approached the podium with Dan Koelliker from Beaudin Ganze Consulting Engineers. Beaudin Ganze is the mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineer for the project. The presentation will discuss the specifics of a proposed snowmelt system. Tonight's presentation revolved around the logistics of the snowmelt vault, how it came to be, the sizing, the mechanical requirements, International Mechanical Code for Public Spaces, other systems reviewed, and energy efficiency of the units. Dan Koelliker began with describing the three options in the design documents for bid - alternates. One option was no snowmelt, another was a centralized snowmelt system and the third option was a snowmelt vault with three potential locations. 1 Commissioner Evans questioned the intent of the snowmelt system, and whether it will also address the Main Street Plan. Mr. Koelliker responded that the intent was to service this project area; about 32,000 sq it of hardscape. Commissioner Green asked if the 15 boilers were to service just this area and the response was affirmative. Mr. Koelliker continued by explaining wall mounted boilers in detail and their typical uses. Commissioner Evans questioned the BTU numbers and it was determined to be a 6 million BTU load. Commissioner Evans continued that the Commission was seeking to understand the 9 it deep, Floor to ceiling vault, underground, that is sized 15' X 15', and what required this type of space. Mr. Koelliker replied with the manufacturer names of boilers they had evaluated and the selected model had the largest capacity of all with a reasonable size and a wall pack. Commissioner Lane discussed operational issues of the boilers and how the stacks would be presented. Commissioner Green voiced concern over the design, attention to the vent stacks in a public place. Commissioner Lane commented on the need to have the stacks aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Spears responded that they needed to know the right location and that stacks would be coming out of the earth. Commissioner conversation continued with specifics of the wall mounted boiler option, stacking boilers on a wall, fans for venting, access to the vault, exhausts venting on a roof, and landscaping. Mr. Spears commented that they began with 12 vault location sites and they narrowed it down to the four options that were being presented. Commissioner Evans questioned why the vault was not situated under the Transit Center. Mr. Spears responded that there are two existing storage detention facilities underground at the site for the existing development. Norm Wood, Town Engineer, remarked that they were filtration galleries and moving them was not an option. Commissioner Goulding wanted to understand why it couldn't be put on the eastern side and chased over to the Transit Center, and exhaust it out as a chimney element. Norm Wood requested that this item be tabled for further review. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VI, Transit Center Snowmelt, Property Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners in favor. VII. Master Sign Program Property Location: Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 15 Benchmark Applicant: Nick Campbell, The Sign Gallery/ Owner.- Avon 56, LP Description: Sign Design application for replacement of all "WestStar Bank Center" signs on this Benchmark Road/Avon Road property to now read "US Bank." This change is required as part of a nation wide corporate identity change. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Hugo Ernst, The Sign Gallery, took to the podium to discuss this application. Mr. Ernst had a problem with the tower sign being eliminated. He discussed the need for USBank to have sign exposure. Commissioner Struve mentioned that what is up there now was nice, unique, and organic; a box sign was not appropriate and Commissioner Smith agreed. Dan Godec, US Bank, expressed his agreement with the box sign issue. Alternatives to the box sign will be reviewed for approval by Staff. Commissioner Green motioned to accept Item VII, Master Sign Program, Property Location: Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 15 Benchmark, the US Bank sign program, as submitted with the modification that signs 1, 2, and 5 will be resubmitted to staff for approval as a modification and 7 is not approved for installation as submitted and the lighting will be halo lighting on the sign with the individual letters on the tower signs. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners in favor. VIII. Other Business A. Update of Various Projects a. 12/19 P&Z Agenda will have Timeshare West b. 12/19 P&Z Agenda Cottonwood Amendment has been advertised but submittal data remains missing c. Bobby Ladd final design is coming back B. Housing Assessment Open House on Thursday from 5-7pm Data will be presented by RRC, the Housing consultant. New draft to be created. C. 12/1206 - VAA PUD to Town Council. XIII. Adjourn Commissioner Goulding motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary Staff Report 1VIWFr, FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVON C O L 0 R A D 0 December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date December 1, 2006 Project type Duplex Legal description Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units — Residential Duplex Address 2661 Bear Trap Road Introduction RAL Architects is proposing a Final Design application for a duplex residence on Beartrap Road. The property is an uphill lot with consistent 20% grades and significantly steeper grades toward the road and the eastern portion of the site. The proposed building measures approximately 8,800 square feet (includes garages), with a maximum building height of 32.5'. The proposed building materials include wood siding, cultured stone base, asphalt shingles, and standing seam metal roofing. During the initial Sketch Design review, both staff and the Commission commented on the size of the structure and excessive site disturbance. It was noted during the sketch meeting that the entire site would be disturbed with the proposed site plan configuration and that the Design Guidelines encourage minimizing excessive site disturbance if another design option exists. Since the initial Sketch review and subsequent Final Design reviews, the applicant has made significant alterations. This modified Design Plan incorporates many of the comments and concerns previously expressed. The review history and changes since the last final design are highlighted below. Review History Sketch Design Review - June 20, 2006 Final Design Review #1 - September 5, 2006 Final Design Review #2 - October 3, 2006• Since the last Commission review on October 3rd, 2006 the applicant has made several changes to the plans to address the Commission's concerns. Some of the adjustments include: • Landscape Plan - shrubs and undergrowth added to help tie the two units together and to help transitions from native sage brush to newly planted trees. • West Unit Modifications - 700 sq. feet removed and relief added to provide more architectural interest. Western unit moved 7' from setback border. Town of Avon Fax (970) Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Final Design December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 5 AYIN • Eastern Unit Modification - elevation raised to help step with existing topography. • Material Transitions - space between units has been modified to help tie the two units together. • Massing Adjustments - both great rooms have been modified to improve massing. Please find attached to this staff report a chronology of designs, site plans, and explanation of changes through the evolution of this design review provided by the applicant. There is also a colored elevation of this final submittal. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Desion Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninq Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 35% lot coverage, and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the property. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a 25' front setback and 10' side and rear yard building setbacks. All building setbacks have been adhered to with this submittal. Since last review the building and roof overhangs on both side yard setbacks have been adjusted to bring this design into compliance. • Easements: Utility and Drainage Easements of 7.5' in width border each side of the property. There is also a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement bordering the Beartrap Road Right -of -Way. It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owners responsibility if this landscaping required removal. • Building Height The maximum allowable building height for this property is 35.' This design is in compliance with the applicable zoning with all ridge heights below 33' as proposed. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grade are indicated on the site plan. Drainage appears to be functional with this site layout as the building works well with existing grades and room has been provided between the structure and property lines for proper drainage paths. • Parking: This design is in compliance proposing 4 internal garage parking spaces and 4 open-air spaces. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Final Design T December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5 7IN Snow Storage: Four separate areas are called out on the Site Plan designated for storage adjacent to the driveway. The areas on the site plan for snow storage appear to be functional and the majority of the driveway should benefit from sun exposure. 612 square feet are required and a total of 1077 square feet of snow storage. The landscape plan is responsive to the snow storage areas. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project generally complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical. The applicant has minimized the extent of site disturbance since the initial Sketch Design application. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with a 12' wide driveway which starts at a 4% grade and reaches 10% for the steepest stretch. The Design Guidelines require no more than 4% grade for the first 20' of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with no more than 10% as proposed. It should also be noted that the extent of the driveway has been reduced substantially since sketch design. o Parking and Loading. The minimum parking standards have been adhered to for this project. The Guidelines require 3 spaces per unit (over 2,500 square feet) and this design provides 4 functional spaces per unit. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of high quality building materials are proposed with this application including: 'Hunter Green' Aluminum clad windows, 2 colors of stained cedar trim and siding, 'Weathered Wood' asphalt shingles, 'Cedar' dry stack ledgestone cultured stone, and 'Zinc Grey' standing seam metal roofing. The proposed colors are earthtone and should blend well with the site. Colored elevation drawing and landscape perspective drawings are attached with the reduced plan copies. A color board of materials will be available during Work Session for your review. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest. The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials and roof planes and pitches. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Final Design ,w, December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5 At01 The roof pitches vary throughout the project with 4:12 (middle metal portion) and 8:12 for remaining asphalt roofing. The roof planes have been varied since last review, and the metal roofing was added between units to better differentiate between the two units. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant has submitted a single style wall mounted light fixture which complies with the guidelines. Attached to this report is a cut sheet of that fixture. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. The provided Landscape Plan appears to comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. There are various islands of native grass surrounding boulder retaining wall terraces. In terms of plantings there are a total 14 Blue Spruce (increased from 8) and 40 Quaking Aspen (increased from 18). Numerous deciduous shrubs and evergreen shrubs have been. incorporated into the landscape plan to address some of the Commission's concerns. The calipers and heights of proposed trees has also been increased and varied. All of the plant species are drought tolerant and comply with the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. Staff would ask that the applicant provide a revised landscape plan removing landscaping from the Town Right -of -Way, unless the Commission determines that these plantings are acceptable. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The design and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure would be dug into the hillside with a portion of the lower levels buried on the north elevation. Site disturbance has been reduced since initial sketch review and this revised final design plan works better with the existing site topography. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. Although the proposed structure will be highly visible from Beartrap Road, the scale of the development is similar to other duplex structures in the neighborhood and is in compliance with all applicable zoning standards. The applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 i, Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Final Design � December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 5 ra"K The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending conditional approval of this final design plan for a duplex on Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for a duplex on Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved at building permit submittal: 1. A revised Landscape Plan will be submitted to staff with no landscaping in Town Right -of -Way. 2. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearing shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4009, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectful) submitted, Matt Pielstic Planner I Exhibits: 1. Reduced Plan Set 2. Design Chronology 3. Light Fixture and Boulder Wall Detail 4. Meeting Minutes 5. Aerial Map Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 RECEIVIED \�Printed August 113, 2006 ` AUG 1 b 1006 COmnlunit Y Oevelopmgnt How to print without a print button To print this page, dick on the File menu, then choose Print.. Usually arrives in 5 - 7 ru;uress days SPECS • Internet/Catalog #• 100323245 • Brand, Hampton Bay • Model #: EL2010OSR • ColoriFinish Oil Rubbed Bronze • Material: Metal • Assembled Depth (In Inches) 8 27 • Assembled Height lin Inches): 12,8 • Assembled Weight (In LBS). 3.48 • Assembled Width (In Inches). 9 25 • Hardwired or Plug-in. Hardwired • Maximum Wattage Per Bulb 100 • Number of LighWBu!bsi 1 • ShadelGlass Type Art Gass • UPC CODE: 008938420174 Hampton Bay Small Craftsman Exterior Series 1 Light Wall Fixture Madel EL2010O8R IntemetlCatalog 9 100323245 Store SKU# 466354 This beautiful extenor wall mount light fixture in an ail rubbed bronze finish and iridescent art glass will add that unique touch to your home. This one light fixture comes with a 100 watt bulb Craftsmen series matching pieces include a past lighthanging light. small wall mount light, medium wall mount light. and landscape path light. • Craftsman Series • Art Glass • Oil Rubbed Bronze Finish • Bulb included Price: $79.00 WARRANTY AND SAFETY For warranty information on this product. please call our Internet Customer Service Center at 1.800-435-4654 2790.2106 Hcmer TLC. Inc. AAI Rights Ru^rrrved, Ute of e:is irtc is sub;ech ra ,,nam ten9s or use which bonvecn you and the Home Depot Inc .A I o � S � m JOS � w ' � a A Y¢ woo wUUOUo aQa` J Z ZxUx7 �p NW m U W � :JW 4 Om O Jmow O� o3a ?o °d j w ty�4 aaJJ77 M ^f luewdoleAsO Ally i' l lltlo 9002 9 1 9R a3ni303U V�Zo�ot� B. Trees of Colorado erty Location: Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision/ 0095 Post Boulevard ApplitaW.Xaul Doughty /Owner: Traer Creek, LLC Description: Sign 01application for a new freestanding sign at the Trees of Colorado location on b post Boulevard. This ss location was approved with a Special Review Use application and is limited to the 2006 calendar yabfi,,The sign is unlit and constructed of painted plywood. Matt Pielsticker presented staff's report. Commissioner review discussed the orientation of then/, igytto traffic and to the property, Commissioner Struve motioned for approval of the sign desig m IX, Sign Designs, B. Trees of Colorado, Property Location: Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivisio Post Boulevard, with the following conditions: 1. If the SRU is not renewed or extended, the sign is fMhw4,d at the end of 2006, 2. Landscaping will be installed at the time of sign placement, and 3. The s of be lighted. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with all commissFCPAU in favor. X. Sketch Design Pians- Residential A. RAL Spec Duplex Property Location: Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2661 Beartrap Rd. Applicant: Bobby Ladd, RAL Architects / Owner: Robert B. Thomas Description: Design review for a duplex on Beartrap Road. The building is comprised of stucco with wood and stone veneer siding. Asphalt and metal roofs are proposed with varying roof pitches. Matt Pielsticker presented staff's report. Bobby Ladd, project architect, presented the project from the podium. Commissioner Evans expressed concern with an 11 -foot retaining wall and that looping the garage doors creates excessive disturbance, and suggested a model be presented to the commission. Commissioner Foster agreed with Commissioner Evans' comments on the wall, it's being in the setback line, and the front entrances look mirrored suggesting changes should be made. Commissioner Struve agreed with previous statements, agreed the doors should be varied, and the driveway design needs to be revisited. Commissioner Goulding revealed a clipped gable. Commissioner Smith commented that the house next door has similar garages, concerned with the setbacks, lot was too small for rear garages, and building height was an issue as well as the height of the retaining wall. Commissioner Green agreed with Commissioner Lane that the building was too big for the site, light reflectivity of the home was a concern, and elevations needed massaging. B. Hubbard Single Family rty Location: Lot 3, Dry Creek PUD, A Resubdivision of Lot 44, Block 2, Witdridge Subdw ' 2510C Old Trail Road Applicant., Mic anner, Architect / Owner. Trent Hubbard Description: Sketch Design w for the third (upper most) single-family home in the newly created Dry Creek PUD. The building is c sed of stucco, wood and stone veneer siding, asphalt and cor- ten metal roofing. A building permit has issued for Lot 1 of Dry Creek, and Final Design approval was rece &anted to Lot 2 of this subdivision. Matt Pielsticker presented the report by staff. Michael Sanner, architect, took to the podium for commissioner questions. Commissioner Struve commented on the interesting design, Commissioner Smith had is-ftmi4ith the height of the chimney. Commissioner Lane questioned deck design. Commissioner Green qUer4 tabled with Item VI, Special Review Use Application, A. Walkin the Dog, Property Location: Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision / 281 Metcalf Road. VIII. Final Design Plans - Wildridge Residential A. RAL Spec Duplex Property Location: Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2661 Beartrap Rd. Applicant., Bobby Ladd, RAL Architects / Owner. Robert B. Thomas Description: Design review for a duplex on Beartrap Road. The building is comprised of wood and stone veneer siding. Sketch review took place at the Commission's June 20, 2006 meeting. Eric Heidemann presented the staff report. Commissioner Struve questioned the color scheme and remarked that it was very similar to the house next door. Discussion among the commissioners revolved on the comments of the size of the home, disregard of sketch design comments that the home was too large for the site, limitations of site coverage, suggested review of zoning codes and design review criteria, overhang is in setback, eave balancing, presents as one big structure, review as to the appearance and mass of the structure as seen by adjacent properties, and reevaluation of the landscaping. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VIII, Final Design Plans -Wildridge Residential, A. RAL Spec Duplex, Property Location: Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2661 Beartrap Rd. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. \offWil idence ation: Lot 6, Western Sage PUD / 5775 Wildridge Road East b Sutter /Owner. Buz Reynolds DescripDesign review for asingle-family residence on this Western Sage PUD property accessge Road East on at the top of Wildridge. Matt Pielsticker corn ted on this application and its presentation. Staff concerns were its position to the road, the narrow veway (14 ft to 20 ft), sight ability to road, and height requirements in excess of 35 feet. Commi ' ner Evans commented on the inability to read the plans and that there may be a better design. Buz Reynolds, owner, approache he podium and commented that he believed that he had a hardship due to the difficulty of the si nd the excessive 2:1 grades leaving the driveway, and that replatting was in the works. Commis sio Green commented that he could not read the plans thus could not evaluate the project. Bob Sutter, licant, approached the podium to discuss the site with the Commission with comments.regarding the taining wall height (lowered from 21' to 13'), garage location, distance from road, landscaping, a\thae ining walls, and elevation. heights. Commissioner Struve plans is one curb cut uses. Evans commented that the commission was being asked to approve a siteots and a home on one and that the landscaping failed to be intense. It was suggeplication might benefit from a model submission of the project. Commissioner Evansthe potential need for a guardrail and its functionality. Commissioner Smith motioned to table Item VIII, Residence, Property Location: Lot 6, Western Commissioner Goulding seconding the motion. passed unanimously. IX. Other Business A. Update of Various Projects Final Design Pla - Wildridge Residential, B. New Sage PUD / 577k Wildridge Road East, with All commissioners vNe in favor and the motion 4R►ma inbad& �ew_door exiting Unit 201 on the south elevation of the building. This doorway would open directly to a n' e�Pien rea for outdoor dog run, part of Walkin' the Dog business renewal request. Minimal conversation regarding the door and15Mding o osed. Commissioner Smith motioned to approve Item VII, Minor Project - b P[�tial Exterior Modifications, Property Location: Unit 201, Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivisied x281 Metcalf Road. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor and teflon passed unanimously. X-0 VIII. Final Design Plan - Duplex Residential - CONTINUED RAL Spec Duplex Property Location: Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2661 Beartrap Rd. Applicant: Bobby Ladd, RAL Architects / Owner. Robert B. Thomas Description: Design review for a duplex on Beartrap Road. The building is comprised of wood and stone veneer siding. Sketch review took place at the Commission's June 20, 2006 meeting and a Final Design Application was tabled from the Commission's September 5, 2006 meeting. Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Bobby Ladd, Architect, approached the podium to present his project. Mr. Ladd provided a model for the Commission to review and demonstrated a visual reasoning behind the structure. Robert Thomas, property owner, assisted Mr. Ladd in presenting the model. Commissioner Green was concerned that the elevations did not differentiate the two units. Mr. Ladd responded that the stepping back was meant to accomplish this issue. Commissioner Green continued that the landscape design did not seem natural and concerned with the site disturbance. Commissioner Lane expressed that the roof could be better articulated. Commissioner Evans asked what the exterior materials are to be used. Commissioner Smith was concerned with landscaping, the massing and the roof lines. Commissioner Foster voiced issue with the roofing, massing, height of the structure, and where was the differentiation of the units. Commissioner Struve was concerned with the 10 % grade, a more natural landscaping and a greater variance to the units. Commissioner Goulding suggested a variation of height with the trees to be planted, concerned with the lack of shrubs, a greater study of the landscape plan perhaps with a landscape architect, materials and massing of the structure were close to acceptable and suggested a four component look. Commissioner Evans commented that massing continued to be an issue, landscape plan was inadequate, no lighting plan and no lighting cut sheets were provided. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VIII, Final Design Plan - Duplex Residential, RAL Spec Duplex, Property Location: Lot 34, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2661 Beartrap Rd, for the applicant to address Staffs letter and all items discussed herein. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed 6 —1, with Commissioner Green opposing. tXv,.F_inal Design - Multi -Family Residential Prdperty,Location: Confluence / 254 Riverfront Lane Applicant:�2'ehren.. Associates I Owner. East West Partners Description: The applicant is opo�g a Final Design application for the Riverfront Lodge. The proposed building is comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first reviewed by the Commission at thelt,May;16, 2006 meeting. An on-site mockup review for this agenda item will take place at 5pm and is open to the publ. ic Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Wildridge - Blk 2, Lot 34 �QLot34 fpet Property Boundaries o ao e� N r co O S L 8 s E S N fl' a VV O y C 0 V 0 a c N > > O u V � N d N N j a V CU) C •� O D C C > O O C L p L4 •N V) O L 'a C�¢Os o E a a o CC J a wO A 3 •N N d -46 0 0 Lb m k� R \� |§ ) < § 2 G }j$| < c�±� o §)0"0 R = �$ k \0 /\ / \ \ 0 ƒ .r � 7 $ E % .7 ƒ .§ / 7 / � 7 $ E � \ / ƒ 2 �a7 � §\� Ebb 0 K[\ 0 \ § %> \ & ƒ k -0 U �•ee-o U\ &��\ V)§ < /ruu I r §'5E$$% 62IIo::2 Nol I-8IQ �I�I - I I IN ol IM N a L Q NC O C - N %0 V C LL L O %6 RL 3 RL 3 • d d d 00 0 i f V / ± � \ / \ 2 ƒ oe§ c §Bo / sm$ c\ / ƒ / /.R2 \ //\ \ e$§ /< / N L Q c� G t V N 0 a + E x - / 2 $ ® \ @ \ \ / § ) f \ $ ( « 'z $ B �a d \` §§«{ o \ 7 k ƒ s / 3 §ƒ �a --a 0-0 U \c-0 ® ƒ - 3 2 {� % ce/_±0)22 ;$ / ƒ k 2° 2 3 2) _ -0-0 /tE/ \.2 $ §\a§a &$ oe E )3 e 2 ' _' §oma>._._@ U $ % e G a$ 5 §7$ X®\ au �° F 0 c 5%'S\$U°-O o g,-0,0-§§-0 d /000 0-a 0(D)) \f/§ ��\//cuc « Eog E$7»°ƒ § \/r% 322$©2§e E »oo§•ƒ$± 7e-ele��eR / \/}\\\/\%b\k\ uE X23 & � /g 7\�� U N I I I 1/ I PA / \mac / r•. ;FFIF:F OPT hl r s• , _ ,•� ;, �' ,1. , ' fry �, _ � � I i � . ` � `.: .`�- — '� -.1/' � r w,. i � � ��•�� ""�-�--- �,,,�,.. .r.- amu'.. Sgrte�r..{+'� _ 1 { F `_� • ..� 1 WA am, y l c -NI r �-�lT"YU�t"lu' y sl � ls�� ,r �G�. ��T .w ry - /% '�;•►4//f�' �h ,. _ '.m"a � {�`. -, .`,aa rl '�' : z .,Se.=y'—a�r0+��-.:�� `'�I�-.�a•�i�a �.en ` \I, j4'. ` �:: � �.i►1 w�tts A ��- 11.4 n 1G. ..z�€1nt '�I�`�,,..r+� ,.rr �, =� , �� `v 4 4" ��. `� �,�� 4 r 11 • � I i�,� 'IIIN�11��1��{ .. � � t ak � 1� I{ 111l6J a tdL•a` �1C _ �� ♦ l e�`` 1 ^ '•` ♦ ry�3ll�a.car C •1 rt\ E G\ !` 3 r v.. x 7e � s �: 111�RR1 j f Z rnnu'w ..rw eeu ,tri • r �, i ( W ' ■ Y r F. V • i ' M J��1 � ri a�aii 3l!�(r � � ' -�dedddee�e pTi t fill art ♦d s 04 4 d d ddi OCVSOIOO 'NOAV NOISIAICSIS 39aINMIM CVON d'dau twas 199200 'fr6 10i ;4':)N;401saN Xalclna a� � � c t fill art ♦d s 04 4 d d ddi OCVSOIOO 'NOAV NOISIAICSIS 39aINMIM CVON d'dau twas 199200 'fr6 10i ;4':)N;401saN Xalclna vI'liG I1�IN11 • %� ILY Ie.1.' �1N� 1J'f i 1 / �/ /, rr� /r � r / %\ /, \ 1 1 1\, '1 11 111 1 ' • \ 1 1 1 �� / r'/ 'r fir;, rr \ / ,�\ � ,n / `1/r �Ij� II 11111' � • ' r / 1 l �� ,�� '�� err• r / r ./ / / /� / 1 � 1 1'�1 11 ; ;1 �� . • .. '. I � I ��'''• y�, I I r 1 J/ l� 1 j �� i i y �1•'KT•P• otru TTi'}.•11 O � W inn-•w ��v� ,. r � � �� r I 'II.1ia lYIH�1 }IlYil•�••'i11F.1.1' ` ■ r y W ■ x , wr r � • IL 1 • � // � � �� ' // ,'� ,'/ � /� I ; �, `i 111 �1 � '�\• �� . I.. / d �/� �� ,,� ,f /,�,�,`� � f � i �► ) \ \I11�• `1 11.1 \1 - � i �, �, � � f / I\ / 1 \� 1,1 1 1• i • \ � ��// moi/ ,' // /� � � / / %`'� � (, �� I I ..' I'i . v f � \� f' I�'• / l j 11 l��r I i Al / I r r _ ^ re LL. a a -�V W-----� -- - ---- ----- IoG (�. --i i I � II f --- -- i ------------- :JF; 6i� - IBM _ 8 I �� I I II ----------------- - AI I i (v, -------- ------------- I ---- -- i I f i (�, ----- -- ------------------- --------I------- I � A j s I I W � � J {V -_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_ f _______ w, -------- ------------- ------------- -- -- -- ------- (a. -------�-------------- -------- -- -- -- — I I L •�P+1"T�-e� avu T•Ti'p�A O ■ § S 0 R « 0 _ ! nrrvesw-rle salsa 'aj I :.h TL s � o M L- (il (El fsl rl (tt�Z1 �et� I 1 , 1 sl V I !F e 1 O O I j Vi I �_. ----- —' — ----- - - -- -- — -------------------- .... i YT17 i• 61) i 1 a� ��,-------- - -- -- ---------------- ! l----------------- � dl 1 'ZI I I � is 11 C� ----- -- --- --- ID --------`------------- —---------- I ` ! t0 1 P I --------------------- — -- --- `-- __- ------ ----- --- I------ — - — - — - — - - II a • Z z 1 Y 5 I I I I ,.o. _ {V--------G-------------i-------- -- ----------- ��, -- --- -------------- ----- --- --------- - - --- --- r�, ---- -- i--------------}-------- -- ---- i I I I I 1 'd I /r1\ r`l I r01) Wiz% I (91l t"MWA-w pm-RVA P. 23 reww-w—r— a9tv9.w3+pdTi e+•�rissaeia•w..i,G>..smt I" Q 9o N L I 11 1 3 3 1tl d8 If � �g � � I 38 a 1 ©O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0®©®O 0 0 0 Zi I 9 a E, o � C4 n d L a m w - �r.wrl-rte a,ur,�•r—A •F I wa ... I w rf- fi e LI S o s F g 7 s a d S ti_ d 6 B g tl� E p•��y[ J.1 B �,� C O Z5 ,r- m W . 1° C '!3 d I � 331 t 2 Aa � 3 �p 8 W Q ad d� 4 a8 9 00 ©O©000000000000 6 4 �� $ O I IL •� o • r I. all nl t v Staff Report Sketch Desi ATVO /Vi I n�ot.oa�oa December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Project type Legal description Zoning December 7, 2006 Timeshare The Riverfront PUD PUD Address 218 Riverfront Lane Introduction The applicant, Aleksandr Sheykhet from Studio Obermeier Sheykhet, has submitted a Sketch Design application for the 'Timeshare West' building, located on Lot 3 of the Riverfront Subdivision. The recently approved 75 -unit whole ownership Riverfront Lodge would be immediately to the -west, and public plaza and Westin to the east. The Timeshare West Building is a 34 -unit timeshare condominium building with 6,000 square feet of shell space at the public plaza level to be commercial retail and timeshare sales. At buildout the sales space on the ground level would be converted into 5 additional timeshare units and the total unit count would then reach 39 units. Each unit is a 2 bedroom design with the ability to have a lock - off. The Timeshare West is governed by a set of site-specific design review standards that were adopted as part of the Riverfront PUD amendment. The expressed intent of the standards is to create high quality architectural design through the use of varied roof forms, wall plane articulation, and quality building materials. It's important to note that the Town of Avon Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines may augment these standards where necessary. Attached to this report is a copy of the Riverfront Design Standards. Staff recommends that the Commission take a broader approach to the design review of this application due to the size and scale of the building. Unlike the Westin project where there was a great amount of material and design related detail provided up front through the PUD amendment process, this design is unfamiliar to the Commission and should be treated as such. How this building interacts with the public spaces that it surrounds including the public plaza is important given its prominent location. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 rxx (970) 949-5749 Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision, Timeshare West Sketch Design T December 19, 2006 Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 5 AM Staff Comments The design of the proposed building generally conforms to the intent of the Riverfront Design Standards and the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines The proposed building blends well in terms of style and material with the proposed Westin Hotel (identical roof material, similar ground level plaza detailing, pitched roofs, stepped facades, recessed windows, etc). According to the Riverfront Design Standards the form and massing within the Riverfront Subdivision will follow the intent of the Town's Guidelines "by incorporating form and articulation to avoid the monolithic." Following are guidelines from the Riverfront Standards that staff would like the Commission to consider. Some of these guidelines are more site specific to Lot 3 than others: • II.A.2 - Massing of entries shall relate to the overall massing of the buildings. • III.A.4 - The middles of buildings will be more visually subtle, but broken by primary and secondary elevation features and material accents that help to avoid monotonous facades. On any given elevation of Lot 3 80% of the vertical .wall area will be permitted to be within the same plan, with a minimum of 2 -foot offset for plane changes... stacked decks and balconies will be considered plane changes. • III.A.5 - Primary roofs will have pitches ranging 4:12 to 8:12. Secondary roofs, where pitched, shall be a minimum of 2:12. • III.A.7 - Relatively small roof overhangs are encouraged for buildings on Lots 1 and 3, which are visually and compositionally related to the Hotel. At these locations the minimum roof overhang permitted shall be six inches. • III.B.5 - The minimum setback for maximum allowable height from the Public Plaza will be 60 feet from building fagade fronting the Plaza. • III.C.1.d - Colors should be complementary to the site, and be comprised of greens, grays, golds, browns, and other earth -tone hues ... due to the desire for a highly activated retail experience at the Plaza level, colors used along the retail edges of the Public way may be more vibrant and active in nature. • III.C.2.a -At a minimum, 50% of the 1st level of building facades facing the plaza from the east and the west shall be glass. For this calculation the plaza shall be deemed to begin at the northeast corner of the timeshare west and shall terminate where the staircase down to the river begins. Site design: Lot 3 of the Riverfront Subdivision is bounded to the North by Riverfront Lane and the railroad crossing to the future Transit Center; to the South by the Gondola terminal with restrooms and riverfront park; to the West by the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 t Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision, Timeshare West Sketch Design -qw December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5 AIUN recreation path - extending from Riverfront Lane to the Riverfront Park Parcel - and the 75 -unit Lodge* and anchored to the East with the public plaza and Westin Hotel. Minus the platted building setbacks and various easements, the building footprint occupies the majority of the platted lot. The building is restricted above ground by a view corridor and public plaza easement above the Public Plaza. This particular easement measures 21.15' from the eastern property line and the north-east corner of the building footprint is located 22.1' from the eastern property line. The entire easement width is 55', including the adjacent adjoining easement on the Westin property. According to note 9.a on the approved PUD Development plan, minor encroachments for decks and balconies are permitted subject top design review. Staff would ask the applicant to clarify which dashed line (see sheet A2.W05) the north east corner of the building and roof overhang crosses: view corridor, or parking structure easement. It appears to be the view corridor easement. The site design is to some extent restricted by a recreation path that borders and slightly enters the west side of the property. It is staffs understanding that the construction of the recreation path is part of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) between the Town and the property owners, and will likely be in place prior to the construction of the Timeshare West building. The site grading and drainage will need to be indicated at a Final Design submittal, including existing and proposed grade contours clearly differentiated. Building design: The design of this project is generally in conformance with the building form and. massing standards. Facades of the building include balconies and decks to break up the mass and to add interest. The exterior walls of the building are articulated through the use of different materials, patterns, textures, color, and porches/balconies. The perspective drawings in the applicant's submittal clearly show the vertical articulation that may be difficult to interpret from the standard elevation drawings. Snow shedding is a concern that must be carefully considered during Commission review since there appears to be areas where snow and ice may accumulate. Staff would ask that the applicant address these areas during Commission review. The Guidelines also suggest the use of roofing materials that are durable, weather resistant and suitable for environmental conditions encountered in this area. The applicant is proposing the use of "Titus" recycled rubber roof as the primary roof treatment as well as areas of standing seam metal. Recycle rubber roofing, along with the concrete composite siding, wood trim, and stone base help tie together this project with the overall Village design and the Westin. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision, Timeshare West Sketch Design .�, December 19, 2006 Planning d Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5 AYSR Additional building materials include: precast concrete panels, fiber cement horizontal siding, 2 colors of cement plaster siding, metal clad windows/doors, stone veneer base to match Westin stone, metal fascia - soffits - eaves - roofing, steel guardrails, wood shiplap siding (12" exposure), timber beams, and aluminum framed storefront system. All materials appear to be high quality and appropriate for this project and property. The proposed building is 5 floors with a maximum building height of approximately 100'. The maximum allowed height is 105', which is measured from existing grade. Parking: The proposed parking and circulation plan includes two levels of below ground parking which would be accessed exclusively from underground ramps connected to the Westin Hotel Parking areas. According to the PUD Development Plan, the minimum parking required for timeshare units is .75 spaces per bedroom, with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per residential unit. The parking requirement for the remaining ground level shell area would be 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of Gross Leaseable Floor Area. The applicant is proposing 60 parking spaces, with 30 spaces on each of the two parking levels. All proposed parking stalls appear to be 8' 9" wide by 18', which is allowed by the PUD for Lot 1 (Timeshare East) and Lot 3 (Timeshare West). By providing 60 spaces, there would be 1.54 spaces per unit. It is staffs understanding that the remaining parking for commercial/retail, which amounts to approximately 5,000 square feet of GLFA, is contained within the Westin Hotel property and will be managed by East West Resorts. A formal parking management plan was required as part of the PUD approval; and must first be approved by the Community Development Director before operations. Solar Access Study: As required by the PUD, a solar access study has been provided for Commission review. The study shows the shade analysis for the entire Riverfront Subdivision property at two times of the day, 10am and 2pm, at four times of the year: March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 21st. This study was the same study that was presented during PUD review. Given that the building design and massing for Timeshare West shares similar mass and roof characteristics to that shown during PUD review this study is still valid. During most of the year there are significant building shadows cast on Riverfront Lane, portions of the future pedestrian crossing over the railroad tracks, and the public plaza area. Consideration should be given to the outdoor public areas on Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 1 J Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision, Timeshare West Sketch Design .Wi December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 5 Mill the north, west, and east sides of the building within Lot 3 given the shadow characteristics that this design presents. Landscaping: The applicant has provided a landscape plan for Lot 3 (sheets L-1.00 & L-2.00). Staff has made a cursory review of the plan, but more detailed comments will be provided during Final Design review. The proposed landscaping includes native shrubs, evergreens, aspens, limited sod areas and bocce court on the South side of the building. The landscaping proposed is consistent with the Master Landscaping Plan approved for all public areas of the subdivision, and is consistent with other planned landscaping for the Westin and Riverfront Lodge. Design Review Considerations The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the Sketch Plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the PUD and Zoning Code. B. General conformance with the Riverfront Village Design Standards, dated February 14, 2006. C. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines The Commission will take no formal action on the Sketch Plan application. Rather, the review process is organized so that direction on the design can be given to the applicant from both Staff and the Commission in report and at the meeting to incorporate into a Final Design application ora revised Sketch Design Plan. Staff will provide full plan sets for you to provide written comments and guidance to the applicant at the December 19, 2006 meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner I Attachments: • Sketch Design application / 11"x17' plans • Sunshade Analysis • Riverfront Village Design Standards (2.14.06) • Riverfront PUD Development Plan • Engineering Comments • Aerial Vicinity Map Town of Avon Community Development (970) 746-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 rk RIVERFRONT VILLAGE Avon, Colorado DESIGN STANDARDS February 14, 2006 I. Vision Statement for Riverfront Village A. Scope of Design Standards 1) The following Design Standards for Riverfront Village have been established to ensure the overall quality and compatibility of the Village with the Town of Avon and its riverfront site. In general these Standards shall apply to all buildings and plaza areas within Riverfront Village, with the exception of the Hotel building, or as otherwise noted. 2) An important aspect of the Riverfront Village vision is responsible care for the environment and sustainability of the architecture and Landscape. To this end, best efforts will be made to meet the principles set forth in the LEER (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building System for the Hotel. In addition, all other buildings within the Village will be designed with sensitivity to the sustainability aspects of site and architectural design. B. Architectural Theme 1) Riverfront Village represents an important interface between the Town of Avon and Beaver Creek Ski Resort. It is envisioned as a lively gathering place connecting the river, mountain and town- a pedestrian friendly environment where townspeople and guests can stroll from Avon's western Town Center, through the resort retail plaza, to ride the gondola up to the mountain or to step down to the river. 2) The village is situated on the seam between the town and the mountain landscape and should therefore strike a balance between the two environments, creating an architectural expression that captures both alpine and townscape traditions. To achieve this balance, the architecture shall take advantage of materials inherent to successful mountain resort architecture—such as stone, wood, and other natural materials, combined with more contemporary materials such as stucco, metal, and recycled products. 3) The Architectural l'heme will also feature the use of large areas of glass, clean building forms based on pure geometries, strong, simple but honest detailing (not overly rustic, "heavy," or overstated), and the bolder proportions appropriate to the larger scale of the Town. C. Design of Public Spaces 1) A public plaza will be used to fink the Town of Avon to the Eagle River. T1vs link should be reinforced in both a physical and perceptual way through the use of Riverfront Village February 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 1 of z. paving materials, landscaping, and sensitive spatial planning. Spatial planning shall include components that reinforce the connectivity of the Town to the River, and avoid elements that act as barriers to this connection, such as planter walls that block pedestrian flow, landscaping that screens the visual connection between Town and River, etc. D. Pedestrian orientation 1) A pedestrian corridor, connecting the town to a retail plaza with gondola, will gracefully transition from the plaza to the riverfront promenade by way of a staircase and stepped terraces merging with the natural landscape. This transition will avoid barriers from the Town to the River, and include elements which reinforce this connection, including similar paving materials, wide pedestrian ways that encourage movement, active signage and wayfinding, and a gracious grand stair with oversized treads and minimal risers. 2) Pathways shall also create a network within the Village itself, linking the different buildings along the length of the site and providing pedestrian access to defined access/gathering points along the River. The Plaza and pathways within Riverfront Village should encourage a pedestrian -friendly environment. E. View Corridors 1) A primary southern view corridor to the mountains shall be maintained from the eastern railroad crossing through the public plaza to help reinforce the connection between the Town and the ski mountain. 2) An east -west view corridor along the Eagle River will also be maintained through the preservation of a 75 -foot river setback throughout most of the site, with limited minor encroachments as allowed in the development plan. In addition, the Riverfront Park will act as a natural corridor along the river edge portion of the Village and act to enhance this view corridor. F. The Natural Environment 1) The Eagle River is a primary amenity for the Town of Avon and Riverfront Village. Links to the River shall be developed as special pedestrian ways to help activate this wonderful amenity. 2) The 75 -foot river setback will be Largely left in its naturnl state, and certain defined river access and gathering points should be created along the linear riverfront path. 3) In general, additional plantings within the river setback will be riparian in character and relate to plantings indigenous to river edge environments. More formal planting areas -- such as small sections of lawn, however, are encouraged at special gathering and access points to highlight these more formal features. Formal plantings featuring annuals are not permitted within the 75 -foot setback. 4) In an effort to enhance the natural environment, site walls and site walkways should become more "organic" as they approach the river edge portion of the Riverfront Village February l4, 2006 Design Standards Page 2 of 6 Village. Any walls installed south of the bike path shall be limited to boulder walls. Accessibility shall be considered when designing walkways. 1I. Site and Village Guidelines A. Primary Building Entries 1) Primary building entries shall be emphasized as welcoming portals through careful attention to massing, scale, and materials. This will ensure that Riverfront Village will not tum its back to Avon. Portals will be scaled to encourage pedestrian movement through them—and avoid overwhelming or diminutive massing --and they will be treated with materials that enhance this experience. The front doors of buildings should be treated in interesting ways, either through the use of glass or special designs and materials that provide interest to these special areas of each building. 2) Massing of entries shall relate to the overall massing of the buildings but be presented as special forms different than typical building bays. Sensitivity to scale should be considered when transitioning from the overall larger building mass to the more intimate scale of the pedestrian visitor. Designers are encouraged to use materials in interesting ways at primary building entries to reinforce their unique role as part of the building and as part of the overall Village streetscape. B. Solar Access 1) A solar access study shall be required for buildings exceeding 3 stories iwheight. These studies will convey shading impacts at summer and winter solstice Gun 21 and Dec 21), and at vernal and autumnal equinox (filar 21 and Sept 21). C. Site Materials and Colors 1. Plaza materials a) Rustic materials common in mountain towns and/or a more contemporary interpretation of these materials such as cut stone pavers, colored concrete pavers, and stained or colored concrete slabs are appropriate to the Village. Colors shall be complementary to the site and its architecture, avoiding bright or brilliant hues that distract from the pedestrian experience. 2. Site walls a) Site walls shall make use of more contemporary materials such as colored concrete masonry, stained concrete, board -formed concrete, and similar materials, in colors complementary to the site and its buildings. Site walls shall relate to plaza materials and building bases to help visually merge the ground plane around the site. D. Site Signage — Design, materials, and colors 1) Site signage shall be designed to help animate the plaza and be consistent and compatible with the design and materiality of the buildings. Site lighting will also be used to enhance the pedestrian experience at the Plaza level. Riverfront Villagc Design Standards February 14. 2006 Page 3 of 6 III.Architectural Design Guidelines A. Building Form and Massing 1) In general the form and massing within Riverfront Village will follow the intent of the Town of Avon Design Guidelines by incorporating form articulation to avoid the monolithic. However, specific buildings within the Village shall be subject to less or more stringent requirements relative to building form and massing as identified within this document to form a coherent, pleasant composition for the entire neighborhood. 2) Smaller masses, such as portions of the building or elements such as porte cocheres, etc, will be used to break up the apparent size of larger building forms. Smaller masses positioned in front of large masses will be used to reduce the visual dominance of the Larger forms. 3) The development of building bases will help to tie together individual buildings within the Village and will also tie the Village to its riverfront site. Site walls, and other site features shall relate to building bases in a way that reinforces visual connectivity to the ground plane. The plaza and gondola terminal, with its cantilevered structure will stand out as an elevated element from the south, drawing people up from the river. 4) In general the middles of buildings will be more visually subtle, but broken by primary and secondary elevation features and material accents that help to avoid monotonous facades. On any given elevation at Lots 1, 3, and 4, 80 percent of the vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane, with a minimum of 2 -foot offset for plane changes. Vertical forms comprised of stacked decks and balconies will be considered plane changes. At Lots 5, G, and 7, 70 percent of the vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane. 5) The roofscape of Riverfront Village is also critical to the success of the neighborhood and its relationship to the Town of Avon. The visual coherency of the Village should be reinforced through the use of similar roofing materials and colors throughout the Village, helping to knit the individual buildings together when seen from the Gondola or Beaver Creek above. G) Pitched roofs expressive of an alpine tradition and the incorporation of dormers, shed roofs and chimney forms, should be employed. Primary roofs will have pitches ranging from a minimum of 4:12 to a maximum of 8:12. Secondary roofs—such as at dormers, pone cocheres, building protrusions, and similar additive forms—may be flat, but only if they -ire finished in materials similar in quality to roof or wall materials on the building, such as pavers, colored stone, etc. When secondary roofs are pitched roofs, the minimum pitch required shall be 2:12. Flat roofs are not permitted for primary roof forms. Ideally flat roofs should be developed as terraces and other functional spaces. 7) Given the modem alpine character of the architecture at Riverfront Village, relatively small roof overhangs are encouraged for buildings on Lots I and 3, which are visually and compositionally related to the Hotel. At these locations the minimum roof overhang permitted shall be six inches. At other locations within Riverfront Village the minimum roof overhang shall be 24 inches for primary roofs and 12 inches at secondary dormers. Riverfront Village February 14.2006 Design Standards Page 4 of 6 v 8) To help ensure.that roof ridges for the Village remain interesting and contribute to the overall success of building massing, uninterrupted ridgelines shall be avoided. To this end, roof ridgelines are limited to 150 feet before a change in height (elevation above sea level) is required. These breaks (elevation changes) shall run horizontally for at least 10% of the overall building ridge length before returning to the prior elevation. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary ridge lengths for the entire building. B. Building Height 1) Building heights for the Riverfront Village will be restricted to the heights described in the approved Development Plan, as measured according to the Town of Avon Code. Architectural features such as chimneys, cupolas, and other similar elements will not be included when calculating maximum building height. 2) In addition, the percentage of ridge height allowed at the maximum allowable building height for any given building will be limited to 25% of the overall building ridge length. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary ridge lengths for the entire building. 3) The maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be limited to 75 feet from the Plaza elevation. The only exception to this facade height limitation shall be for the western favade of the central tower of the hotel, which shall be permitted to be as tall as 100 ft. from Plaza elevation. This central tower fagade may run horizontally for up to 60 feet along the plaza. 4) The minimum horizontal setback required for building facades exceeding the maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be 2 feet from the building fagade fronting the Public Plaza. This shall only apply to the central tower portion of the Hotel. 5) The minimum setback required for maximum allowable height per the Development Standards from the Public Plaza will be 60 feet from building fagade fronting the Plaza C. Exterior Materials, Detailing, and Colors 1. Materials and colors for walls and roofs at Riverfront Village will have a Light Reflective Value (I.RV) not exceeding 60%. a) Materials inherent to the mountains, including stone and wood, will be used at lower levels of buildings in areas of direct pedestrian interface, as well as metals. These materials should be used in refreshing ways within the Village, reinterpreted for the urban nature of Avon towards a "mountain modem" character. b) Stucco conveys mass in a subtle, "quiet" way and is therefore a recommended material for building middles and tops. However, building accents comprised of non -stucco materials, such as metal, wood and cement materials replicating wood, shall be allowed in building middles and tops to help provide interest, except as prohibited by Codes. When used, stucco shall be carefully detailed to ensure longevity when it comes near the ground plane at building walls. Riverfront Village Design Standards February 14, 2006 Page 5 of 6 c) Roof materials will include rubber shingles, asphalt shingles and other materials suitable for mountain environments. Standing scam metal shall not be used for primary roof planes, but may be used for small and/or special roof features such as shed dormers, retail roof forms, porte cocheres, and other selective roof elements. d) In general, colors used within the Village should be complementary to the site, and be comprised of greens, grays, golds, browns, and other earth -tone hues. However, due to the desire for a highly activated retail experience at the Plaza level, the colors used along the retail edges of the Public way may be more vibrant and active in nature. 2. n4inimum window area at plaza level a) At a minimum, 50% of the 1" level of building facades facing the plaza from the cast and the west shall be glass. For this calculation the plaza shall be deemed to begin at the northwest comer of the hotel and the northeast corner of timeshare west and shall terminate at the east -west plane where the staircase down to the river begins. This calculation shall exclude the gondola terminal, control booth and public restrooms. Riverfront Village February 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 6 of 6 PN �om i��' AVO N C 0 L O R A 0 0 MEMORANDUM To: Matt Pielsticker From: Shane Pegram, Jeff Schneider Thru: Norman Wood Date: December 12, 2006 Re: Riverfront Timeshare West Sketch Plan Review COMMENTS: The following comments are in response to our review of the above referenced plans: 1. The south section of the Pedestrian Access Easement has an east/west leg that is platted as 5.13'wide, but the building footprint and existing retaining wall appears to encroach on the platted easement, leaving 3' of access. 2. It appears that the Lot 3 plat shows a concrete drainage outlet in the SW corner of Lot 3, but the Utility & Grading plans show the outlet in Lot 2. 3. The title "Lot 1 & 3, Riverfront Drive" has been double printed in Sheet A2.W02's title block. 4. Please demonstrate that the building lot coverage is consistent with approved PUD documentation. 5. Please show the 75 -foot setback from the mean annual high water mark on the site plans. 6. It appears that the site plan on sheet A.120 does not depict existing and proposed grades. 7. It appears that access for back of house functions such as deliveries and refuse removal are not addressed for the project. 8. Does the connection between the walkway on the south end of the building and the recreation path from Riverfront Drive to the Eagle River Recreation Path need to be ADA -accessible? 9. Does there need to be a connection between the public plaza and the walkway on the south end of the building? 10. It appears that there is a typographical error on the cover sheet. "PUD" is misspelled in the project description. 11. It appears that sheet A2. W05 clearly shows the roof overhang encroaching into the platted view corridor easement. Note that this encroachment is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 12. Please demonstrate the compliance of the two proposed handicapped parking spots to applicable codes and regulations. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 748-4114. CMacuments and SettingsWpielstickeAl-oval Settings\Temporary Intemet FileskOLK58Mmeshare West engineering comments 12-12-061.doc Riverfront Subdivision - Lot 3 C .* 4 � • � � i 4 Y i� 0 oada01oO`Nonv 3niaa 1NoaA83nia s toi � ldOS38 1NOIJJa3Ala NIlS3M L LOWN UJ �-- Y t -MLL RU, �L !: .'' r`E+' ARM i F. i ze g j� i .,c P uj r< 0 W ie O N LL mr tsr�i7k., r S yg�yg�ge¢ egQgg 8R lit Nt LLJ WCC , ti r/ , �y� t1.�� {� L� • V � � iJ � 55S � iJ � F- � 2 � it7 l y Z W Z U Rte= € ^� W a$ N i v,i 1 S Cl)L YL W W U RIO W cc cc 2a8 ��9H FE a "i ggj g i yy F S jig 1 ° ER4 EpEa pf3lF2ik �jj,a gg g ¢y�$ ggaa°�E�"�3� R ®yk ? fill pg� gg$ S �E 115$116 a r @i $@ p a ��la �� i as a �� i3 �3 5 iY e C � l kk kkkkk � 15� a 11,1111 �a111!@111111,11,111g .R>!➢D�4 `�86h�Slb.Q�EQ�[IQE��iliE��E�QEEQC�E�26F .�@�FEEFlQ�lE�EF><a2$lE eaErS�SiEIi6®�@i$�se6Etl�Fi�EE..4aalE�S�l�e@khat&�4tE 954 >ES�$��4�tlE$.tRR$Qtl9asEl�ls$$4 9 c W .cc ss�4s4ES�a$3�9sEEsrrt�99E5Eis 33�a6EaBaxe3s2�a8e9��6e8ae�3dE�5eB$aadasa6$ 95le3.aaaiaaaa.EBBelEFtltEt!€lRaE�s�$EQ@QaEtE��@i� .a33RR6trdE lEx€43sfsEs$!E tea:CECeiC�� 341 .sols 95g35een$�aCai�s3,sa9�REaa I ! g � � gg LU t F rH J!'t 717 K ;..,. r c» IR' am' rya.. {�.,I mu ■... ;r �I I ■y �� a i � I i i, 1 5 { ■■ Z ••••• Z ■ . IMP w t _I w�' J w _. W r' x cn w w i • — a W 3: {y a F rH J!'t K ;..,. r c» IR' am' rya.. {�.,I mu ■... ;r �I ■y �� a 1 5 { ■ . t i • — a .. ti �11 4wo wo IIWM C4! co LLJ Lli LU CL UJ LU `4V,404, K) 8 1 t L ra Una • aacr-vea wr r ¢-ara ors .anm �'1 n xro w tc xw i • Iii is aw '✓uy31VO 06Z9l 'ON H QWfA/CIAO -03(551 SNI �NIiJ33NI�N3 NVoa3dLrao o�0 wvnoo a,oVa x� ..> r..:�»��b. m. _ !®ki3Y'1 ,VdI0NM:id 419 Ii193M Z9 9cwu mile S ak48NM01 wmxiw ra. SBO 'AB 031g3W 'JON J18 WAYUO L r- ZL NOLLO-76 d0 /<n 1GEVAI- ON MI -LL d0 Z/1. 1-1Lf30B O LL M CE LV00, � � 9L0 3OVd IBf NOOK 01311 w O 1�OHidd S.El01-aaWa =KM-=Jf11=dN00 aMd NOAV MH1 OMd 21ONSM61N00 MH1 En or dyW �IHdyE�ppdpl S�Ay � -°� NVOIJ3n'1VdI NINd LAS *U i0 SNOISMU 31V0 'ON 153N ZS 3DNVN 'Hl' DS S eNSM01 'Zl NOLL�35 a S a -- �------------------_�_ — OMN Vi0 SISY9 'It 3 ---- $ ews+ ' mz �P r .:. .r• s s'BIL M.9Z., QE t 5R }} 2r r �f; t S i F C?R Y 'I r 1 `• i' 1 g s Y 4�rt '` rs glias 1' x Y 44 1 OI/:AC ra }� sr 5$>r q x Ya f >IZ L ? s '� 55 6 31�c; t ei �s ky• 7X1 �Na ` r •:5 {s: r raa ? v sr ar 1 Z'q :`:x^x _ v I 1t. �J jag {;sa i� a 1 r ted` • z � 's a ili:, i � 4 =� xa ',''1� r .a� ;3 n � s1 �. � 1 4 �, ... r 5 y t o s x aA z- ttv= "'`�' '; •' ., -1 s s f7 . L3 n V•� /t� � t <q; ,i- 21),; '' 2;, VSi a;. $x �R9 } �3V S j., � s v L _ x 4 t V C .r54 / 1 , {'• 1 x3 ' 4 rxRxe < r>f i. r yi fx rat A7 ,( g F2n s! S �tiV F'y 5; dt!' %'- a s� zr`� f J� � ary � i CP �{iV • .. .... _... -. d• e 1 4 IP t1'.I ;4�_ i -Y T YLLfk „xtJt�s. T4 ty➢t£r k Lt ` it }\ J d 2.. ip 15 ;33f�Y YE ' � 7r �� 3 a a� s ; 4 � k sq 5 x•� � f S . x ^'� � i 1 • 6 �:, / I y�Ecty/ra4�i>"�{"st�ygaR�i"g r iiiy{� t r �.E EPif- Jr b daffYrSt;Tz'na .Y."¢ a • ' $ �B II RSA / I a F pe'3z ± 1x tN i a 1 1 �\ x i ,A / I 0 d. 1i c'`, rF9 Y:.' ♦.$ yZa / �.2° , y'4. Yin \\` s• 1 //./ /�..,a rtF.. YS ,s C V E• Fa �:. S 7• r11 tr99A'>:bp rsg $ $F xSIr I WO `{ 311 8i `}'1'1 +F.- 4�L £�¢# 4•} F � z X=hp 9 � /r �,` ...' ,_ I . 68 ixY c f;,r v i:\ a -� , a -/. , / /rt`';:. •� , /' s; is 1 Win a ra eve �1 ri ib E«a^. Y 3 rj: ii i D 1 r, a r'°�. a •+ i � i, \ 4 �� owlRIP / R Wel g,. :_. •,:gib � €�� W e s as Ra s y �1 Ye. Y' s` it If a Y i 1, . Y � ''Y � I I ,SB' lZf l 3,.Bf,0Y.DDA i ya: \ _ 1 I ' I ^3 v- �y Ian ¢ • � p J�1d'�,��rZ� i�j I , �Pe? � � 9 _ s a e k dtr �Q / R Wel g,. :_. •,:gib � €�� W e s as Ra s y �1 Ye. Y' s` it If a Y i 1, . Y � ''Y � I I ,SB' lZf l 3,.Bf,0Y.DDA i ya: \ _ 1 I ' I ^3 v- �y i �'I�..�d"� "yl �'�"•�<y,•� J�1d'�,��rZ� i�j I ��S � � 9 i3sg j yE ,SH'lZfl 3.lf,K.00N / R Wel g,. :_. •,:gib � €�� W e s as Ra s y �1 Ye. Y' s` it If a Y i 1, . Y � ''Y � I I ,SB' lZf l 3,.Bf,0Y.DDA i ya: \ _ 1 I ' I ^3 v- �y oOvk101o0 'A MOO 31OV3 'NOAV do NMOL NVx3pjmN 7vvar—,Pmd Lao 3HL do Loam as 3oNvu 'H1noe 4 d**xJN10L I& NOLLo-76 do b/t ISaWALMON 3H.L do UA 1- f 3FLL M 4o Lvo01 Nomwoene .LNoida1 'e cwv L 81°0"1 QRS a-U.LL (3NV-1 YVSOV/V-L-IV a � $ r i 3Yy� •p -� sg. s�.a. sY Ea 1R quill S al ask § aq`fi= ➢� fe b ,, fi gg 6g I °H .�'$ r �, o Y _ 5 R saK Sk; f 6 fi 2 I�,$s€ 3F �3e T� 7 eK z3 b Z £8 y 8z5? 4 5fi $je 8« �Rg>. 3'y& Aa 2� Innn 5 �f g - o4'S e€ z FYa `ag TR o ,�. .s us d '€!" = as jig axe $ x€ 's qy� �{ ago z €€ 'sa ¢l ;$ A fa? 6; : B iE rx �, txit OU91 roN 801' 90/9Z/9 WFM 31VO 19N .48 03303X0 M3 ;l8 NNV80 �-- / w VOO 30vd 90Y 11008 cmu= O / i NVMY831V lVdK)NIW 4/9 3N! �D hid 3OWd 'X11109 9 dINSWOL 'Zt NOdO3S F- 3;1. E s ssFS ptg�� $s° . ut Y te sang � o o$ _ -- --------------- na �` I10 nrd ;e 19 A009 *'- - _ F ^ 0 -ld 2lYfd p - j// sz.fiz.aos^sots �0 �,If •J - 4 y k Y 3 �Fn W9 A110 & $Na N 8 , Jg ryro OdWS! S # OR / / / FO� �c / i hid F- WHIR! i _has V ' J tao.tfi• a ISA a 3y 2."iC*S FO� �c 3 i hid F- WHIR! i _has s,9 �i ' Q..3 z+a / x- . --H ISA a 2."iC*S a:h i F- , i _has s,9 �i a:h i o ' z+a N ilk i o ' z+a N ilk r�[ Y•. i O r�[ Y•. i �1 1 Oad8010O `Nond 3AI8G INo8J83nId E 10l ` G 10l 1HOS3H 1NOdJH3 IIJ NI1SDM 3 o�� i a � [� W' w N Npc�c�i `r m W y co ,c oaVHOIOO `Nona 3AIIJO lNOHJ83nI8 E 10l `G 10l 1NOS381NOdJH3AIIJ NI1S3M Mi F_ CA 0005911 QQo�i F� 7v y' �� 3 3� U K ;H --Ham ammI lull I I vl F3•`, c3 G� Gi Sa vl 3 ~ ZL- CV 1112 �I U yJ p y Sip I OU 00 Q I I W y~j NFJ N Ir— zb o c V ,c ZZW Y oo ywy W sau � �z o fn a v o w Nro�v=iti Mi F_ CA 0005911 QQo�i F� 7v y' �� 3 3� U K ;H --Ham ammI lull I I vl F3•`, c3 G� Gi Sa vl 3 ~ ZL- CV 1112 �I U yJ p y Sip I OU 00 Q I I W y~j NFJ N Ir— zb O t t o # I t t`. w J z z w , auk"/ , Lu. 77iL=, 1- ; ; 1' , B 1 7-lls ` \ u1 G W dg9 OGVHOlOO `NOAV QWWQ2 mr'm 3AIHa iNOUJ83AId E 101 `I 101 VQZNW= c w WZ==j W Fag11, < 0 LL idOS38 lNOUJ83 Id NI1S3N r / ^ /� / lei /� � ' .f � • � �S / �fb' // / // / ' • Y +p �' J• t I t ICA / � / � 1 •1 +�t�" � . S � yam' • �f� !`�� '�,�f'+f" a %��?� 1 Ira e d•� ��;��.QO, ^r�r10 .fir O_ • fir. i.,�. �y, .A Y�'•P aA-1, e --J FA k .f f1f X1. '• J / � i i / ; I I * � j .'cam. \ t \\ I� \\�j \I / � .� k 1.4 114 ttII I \ / 1 k .f f1f X1. '• J / � i i / ; I I * � j .'cam. \ t \\ I� \\�j \I / � .� k 1.4 114 ttII I \ / i % •:.Lit!_'' i.,�. �y, /'' �' WWm�� OCIV80100 `NOAV cQil�`��o'm J QzN�a� 3ANG 1NOHJ83AId E 10l G 101 �as¢nZm idOS381NOHJ83 Id NI1S3M UU V J UUJ JJJU VV U V VU mIDlflmmlOtQfAmm p00000 0 0000000 00 wwwwww w www mQ1(�U1�W mmf0 inV' YiI1V'V'"�Y V'tfla�tlflV'<tV V6' ..+.u.,.i, .... a U V UMIR 61�R�O�aI rrrrss J 666 0666 6 6 6 6 6 O(Vd'�O tV NInm ffmtnLnmm N IIIUIiINllMInitl Min N 0 6 m N_ o mm mmmm�• vvvvvv� 000000°0 z aO aaaOcc z 000 00 Q13 . 279-0)3S,)t == = O 6 0 13 JJU UO JJ VV OOOOryO 0000p000�0000 ;OWQd) (kOcO'ry�tON�O�OtOtO t0 aaa60.6a6Q6 666 6 6 a1a��axsla�rno>�naalax�a�i m N HinZ am a ° pp �� appp. Qo p�iS p�Qi�OJ a 9p afl Q506nc 60-5 21136 9 w J�s��KF' G>13 o .6EaCm fl�'O..aYo£ Ti a1a1a �+. c 3 Vp O 0+00R0paprr 6 m0mv60`'��a� a UVLIWUtD J Ul Q N m m N 3� z tu J Y Cl " O OJ LLLU z Q LU UJ N z FT_ iii—i 1— H 4MO sI� II 111111 Q a � X�g � I� IIII�IIII m 9m m Ell h — II{i II �Ilil z •'�` H Its UT u L S 0 ° m E ELZ St 0 3 V y- 66 01 N O �Om 6 00 a J o_u o 01 �O v° m9 O®a E 6 .rmu q 9- 6 O O ®n-'-au6..�O.,. O i L mOE �+°+p6p _a �- 6°01 60$ m n `='�$c as � mTm c 00FL� 0 O®V6 U �c 3'a� ac 6 O a[ y =pJ �'a aµ -a0' 0 a \ sq� m0J 9 Jam' n� O T O t c p OQ9 av= Oam J �° cmri 6uc 00 E 4 �� o��+� ED - ;Z= O �dROa �L Oh _c a a a 00 �0 p y� 6� 0113' �0•u - 9 c .a ^ u 6 O m E D.. a a •p a a+' O ®a c m 6 t o$ n �O p1 r NE ;x.$€tl03 ® �0 �'� V of -a a ,� F 'b Oqm 0'� .a m= .0 m_ '�-•6 c J p aJ 00 Za 0q u m9 Q m ° J m�4E v® m 9E a um m ±+a sa=� m ®� a 9 m$> � o .-o ri�c cJo40 m� °o c a g x�- ma oa a ®� oa N. oap c ° m+�JO 3 -" ^® u %S -Ln ->�a `dd a6 E 1 -�a 8 ii �; � � � °�� m am a +, �m��m p`.,0, 0, a c00 °fin �0 0 0 Q m Oc -2 R �1 U „OJ R �d mri 9 Lp,r O�n a=�s"a L 0a � �p �s m> Q „ O �E 00 V n.0 c u'i r c0O Et1iJ 6=m ov 60 SLc"i0„ A0� m0-_ a+� 9� Od S �4 -1 „-� � mm ,O`��3 X61 6 �c a 6 � p °t pO�c Lmi v�am �m a c as o v > a° -E cp m u ado o f a$J m a 3 OL � cu O� OS O� O 9EU; cam, f OSS ,c c O 1-L-1 pn � 1 xp•." a a 000 t- �a „a o �1 m a„ 0 c tl�c m3Ft m a�3o ocmL �_ ®"o pv�� m1> o§��; m� �r ., om o p` m - or a�ncpp 0 N+-�s JU ° .2 _p O m�6m unzm EE "� 06 m 0 °p '6 y syr m t fav c v 0�y euJ sscm 4. 0 b�- ®a- O d ` O; O - 01 �u TO O- Em m Oda m am�-0 � h m i m -; pm:�m 0 c: -ot ° �y �; u 3a� o o N a tlaQ 6-m o y ^v j..tl. ma c 2' i 0 >3 a600 g� „ � a m0 ,g„ mp n a.� o ° _�QJ � m 0 Le yoo` u v$� oN� qm ° 2g ,n m �� F a"g $ a -o> "a� y m m ay v a m J' v V m a4 a € m �, n J 0 mO mE ` c6° -6 ° �m y" m°° , o -� V6 - 0 c om0 �v ; v $ n m , e �° �°`m ° L a tom 6 n-p''ggmm o€ 0 ala p > m iii` 6 E� a pcJy� my J2 0tmc3§®6 �® c0� J a®QO a c ® �O 0�' ®0 l_ tl m ... tl A W� c ccpmNO ttttll a�0 yO =�c ��_� 000 c§mC m"6ac t a `a1 O°61a6'a U��S `. �m�JV v-ip° 3 t. O 6E 0_ y OccO a n� �e o c OE„ c p� p _m 13 O- u u a O ;-+ a m 0-p 0 O O 62 ci .O g „ V n 69- c++ ab aR 0 "a t V Ira m-.,. 0 C6im �{3�p�cycB++ODa�atl z30 as r" �+, OQ� 6�+ c !] h�raV mom'mri co m m �,>3� aoy o® o� �s °o° `a m `mpo rn m ��Q >`�vast)c�ao l�o >E� LI�JJ ILo`�i�u x°�o` �iaa°u Q Ir o w� >"v aQ`�'—'n an m 'f ui 6 r 6W� 6 _ Q2 w Q ,P) GTl � ili H N N QN CU �Fi p rn U $HLL a WWm�� OCIV80100 `NOAV cQil�`��o'm J QzN�a� 3ANG 1NOHJ83AId E 10l G 101 �as¢nZm idOS381NOHJ83 Id NI1S3M UU V J UUJ JJJU VV U V VU mIDlflmmlOtQfAmm p00000 0 0000000 00 wwwwww w www mQ1(�U1�W mmf0 inV' YiI1V'V'"�Y V'tfla�tlflV'<tV V6' ..+.u.,.i, .... a U V UMIR 61�R�O�aI rrrrss J 666 0666 6 6 6 6 6 O(Vd'�O tV NInm ffmtnLnmm N IIIUIiINllMInitl Min N 0 6 m N_ o mm mmmm�• vvvvvv� 000000°0 z aO aaaOcc z 000 00 Q13 . 279-0)3S,)t == = O 6 0 13 JJU UO JJ VV OOOOryO 0000p000�0000 ;OWQd) (kOcO'ry�tON�O�OtOtO t0 aaa60.6a6Q6 666 6 6 a1a��axsla�rno>�naalax�a�i m N HinZ am a ° pp �� appp. Qo p�iS p�Qi�OJ a 9p afl Q506nc 60-5 21136 9 w J�s��KF' G>13 o .6EaCm fl�'O..aYo£ Ti a1a1a �+. c 3 Vp O 0+00R0paprr 6 m0mv60`'��a� a UVLIWUtD J Ul Q N m m N 3� z tu J Y Cl " O OJ LLLU z Q LU UJ N z FT_ iii—i 1— H 4MO sI� II 111111 Q a � X�g � I� IIII�IIII m 9m m Ell h — II{i II �Ilil z •'�` H Its UT u L S 0 ° m E ELZ St 0 3 V y- 66 01 N O �Om 6 00 a J o_u o 01 �O v° m9 O®a E 6 .rmu q 9- 6 O O ®n-'-au6..�O.,. O i L mOE �+°+p6p _a �- 6°01 60$ m n `='�$c as � mTm c 00FL� 0 O®V6 U �c 3'a� ac 6 O a[ y =pJ �'a aµ -a0' 0 a \ sq� m0J 9 Jam' n� O T O t c p OQ9 av= Oam J �° cmri 6uc 00 E 4 �� o��+� ED - ;Z= O �dROa �L Oh _c a a a 00 �0 p y� 6� 0113' �0•u - 9 c .a ^ u 6 O m E D.. a a •p a a+' O ®a c m 6 t o$ n �O p1 r NE ;x.$€tl03 ® �0 �'� V of -a a ,� F 'b Oqm 0'� .a m= .0 m_ '�-•6 c J p aJ 00 Za 0q u m9 Q m ° J m�4E v® m 9E a um m ±+a sa=� m ®� a 9 m$> � o .-o ri�c cJo40 m� °o c a g x�- ma oa a ®� oa N. oap c ° m+�JO 3 -" ^® u %S -Ln ->�a `dd a6 E 1 -�a 8 ii �; � � � °�� m am a +, �m��m p`.,0, 0, a c00 °fin �0 0 0 Q m Oc -2 R �1 U „OJ R �d mri 9 Lp,r O�n a=�s"a L 0a � �p �s m> Q „ O �E 00 V n.0 c u'i r c0O Et1iJ 6=m ov 60 SLc"i0„ A0� m0-_ a+� 9� Od S �4 -1 „-� � mm ,O`��3 X61 6 �c a 6 � p °t pO�c Lmi v�am �m a c as o v > a° -E cp m u ado o f a$J m a 3 OL � cu O� OS O� O 9EU; cam, f OSS ,c c O 1-L-1 pn � 1 xp•." a a 000 t- �a „a o �1 m a„ 0 c tl�c m3Ft m a�3o ocmL �_ ®"o pv�� m1> o§��; m� �r ., om o p` m - or a�ncpp 0 N+-�s JU ° .2 _p O m�6m unzm EE "� 06 m 0 °p '6 y syr m t fav c v 0�y euJ sscm 4. 0 b�- ®a- O d ` O; O - 01 �u TO O- Em m Oda m am�-0 � h m i m -; pm:�m 0 c: -ot ° �y �; u 3a� o o N a tlaQ 6-m o y ^v j..tl. ma c 2' i 0 >3 a600 g� „ � a m0 ,g„ mp n a.� o ° _�QJ � m 0 Le yoo` u v$� oN� qm ° 2g ,n m �� F a"g $ a -o> "a� y m m ay v a m J' v V m a4 a € m �, n J 0 mO mE ` c6° -6 ° �m y" m°° , o -� V6 - 0 c om0 �v ; v $ n m , e �° �°`m ° L a tom 6 n-p''ggmm o€ 0 ala p > m iii` 6 E� a pcJy� my J2 0tmc3§®6 �® c0� J a®QO a c ® �O 0�' ®0 l_ tl m ... tl A W� c ccpmNO ttttll a�0 yO =�c ��_� 000 c§mC m"6ac t a `a1 O°61a6'a U��S `. �m�JV v-ip° 3 t. O 6E 0_ y OccO a n� �e o c OE„ c p� p _m 13 O- u u a O ;-+ a m 0-p 0 O O 62 ci .O g „ V n 69- c++ ab aR 0 "a t V Ira m-.,. 0 C6im �{3�p�cycB++ODa�atl z30 as r" �+, OQ� 6�+ c !] h�raV mom'mri co m m �,>3� aoy o® o� �s °o° `a m `mpo rn m ��Q >`�vast)c�ao l�o >E� LI�JJ ILo`�i�u x°�o` �iaa°u Q Ir o w� >"v aQ`�'—'n an m 'f ui 6 r 6W� 6 _ Q2 w Q ,P) oadaoIoO`Nond 3niaa 1NoaJ83ni8 s log 1a0S38 1N0UJ83AId NIlS3M o N m O E3 A3 �i csm U x ^ x C7Q �d n z x a i j 1� n s ��qquu �t'iij 1 l ^R56�� r aor�a ut 34rus` I ^ x 45 •ci t X'h r s r✓ (F X +trr3 3. ifs ',u? Y•�-.; ""'" $+,,i,4.„. tJ.1K �.l.f 33 I \ . x x 1 �, 3'� dl's r',� x `� �� '1"� a; i �� • .. . j i..�” .k ✓' Yp.h�t 1. w( ! kf- U % wy! ,} Yy;Si Q W T '..{ S JF i'' x �. F h L`= '� '9 h r s } €�x +'�� r� fx "�� •s � i ��-r.y 011 _ � W 6009 / � i ,a^ - - �Y� -s,�•a r Fsr� 3,F' '\` e��yA��- �]�� h •, { art � .� � �• �.LL '.`r .av- 1�2Y XT fWMAI ll loll G� o(IdaoioO'Nond 3niaa 1NoW83nia s loi lH0S3)i 1NOaJ83Aid NIlS3M o g N S O t7 3 � � © �7S �i �✓i N o � >Ti Q oavaoioO'Nonv 3niaa INoaJ83nia s loi � 1a0S38 1NOHJ83Ald NIlS3M ru12 iii T o c p a 41`F ¢ gg s c� © 8 � N Q z / 0 F z z /� ❑ F ufF / \\ a 'ow /moo zo w$ c�z FOw wF � Fz Zw 0�r oaz / F Nmz \ IBJ Wo / �uwi 3 EL w0 w Z z i w F z ¢ NN 3O \/ / \ \ N0 / F vi w I I FV aw �w / \ w0 LLI S o Nz I I F u i LL 3z o Z. z� _ N tf d 1 w C4��8 , > $j! H > / Z LLJ �oZ(� / � J y�Fwi � r4 < Z~W b Wp F� S Z / N N F 5# of ZVj Zp�m$ M GI �. w QF OEM C< d � r ��E�'=ffJ I _ �e a �az h Fina h — — to M <17S N a U O F J W AR; s 3 � W W. » a} wow- — I 1 L _m J Al it mkt p -d M to N AlI Pais gyp W Z -y iiyyZi CS F1 P W \ m I $ o I I � - DUAL- �� ¢U CU %-\ . I LTJ I I H . \ \ I I �+ I W\I p =<iW HY LLJ 11,— N QFl�o LL p 23 rc M Z y�7, W J DIEff :,oO S�� }} b Z JF � Ern Z / N 3 LL Of 14 ri w ^V a OOVHOIOO `Non£ 3nl 1N0�1383AId 10l idOS381N0H383AId NUS3M ru � N O N Z�a soa g N W 4 J g V ZW #Z U v 2 a Z s � 84 o h Y Ih } yFp �F ZZN µ�1 �C M �ii4 Qg�yF� W Oka! O'fJ >NZ OR N HISS_ c4 Paz a W xZ Fa lex a a 00 Nzxova z g gj W 2 33 F 8 i3 ? � O O O Y h m r oadaoioO`Nond 3niaa 1Nodda3nia e loi ld0S381N0bJ83Al8 NIlS3M co O Z 5 a LU Y N Z pgp r �MZ Z OS b 0 s S. P$ Y YI tG FZ VZOy< R iN �y��W aC AWE C4 pp XZ F O < yS1 FFF �� y� <W �rK gjaa 73 K a0 Gi N N N 17i N 0 l 8g FFA Op < W Z` is 25 W F YS 6 O W Z �� Z�ggqgN� WO �—�jO2 Qm !!lOCCC Q W Z go �a CSR NW m lLLJ V �¢3 Zp��(OS<JJW Z Q W N2 qP<� CW —J=0 Of p FS53 R�Fisi OCIVHO10O `NOAV 3AIUCI iNOHJ83nI8 E 10l idOS381NOIJJ83 Id NUS3M 0 IN g�, M�td 49 H AIM s i A=WE Fig�W FLLN yN< W0 N�< 10 W<Z WwW<O Hal H9 SWC a<K H9 as a w e OaVU01OO `NOAV 3AI80 1N0H383AI8 £ 10l idOS38 BOUJUMH NUS3M t' T UN l3� o W a Z 0 w J W F- g Z OOVHOIOO YNOAV 'c 3AIJa 1NOHJ83nI8 E 10l iHOS381NOWHEIA18 NUSEIM N CD ul� ul� n��101 1■ L■ - e � o � - x;;!11,,;!1,:,;, a;;11I;;1■1; �■ ill�;i il;i iil� �i!u! ��__) %■. I„IM,L,illl,,l it„Irl„!rl, � l 1ill�iil��iill°� II�i11��illl�i illall°i111 1 Irl Irl IME ■ I!,Irl!jlrl!,1 il;,Id!lul! I'll III ■ M-1 ii111MB M=1 lMI �i - - R;1 _.=I 1111,_ 11■ 11 11 11 l�IL i �illli iliw iiiii. d .II I!!,1 ��•1!,al! r 1 a,. ® {1 I Id •III III Irl Irl. III 1.1 Yui 1 1 1 LI I ILII 1 —11II11 Il ldl Idl l'i1� Irll ld! IIII IrII �rI!!1 • v■ ■■■■■. ■.■■.. r■r■■nn an n u n p n n 1 w m •..0 tuleuI IN wl ■� 1■� In In 1■� 1 �.1:�.►.ml. '1„111,(III„I I.11 IfIII, 111111111i11;11111! O 1 - 1— 1 1— - ( s■ 9°I.1:1969Ei1'lil•� 1 I°I�IE1�1:1"{ „ 1!rl,!d„I it„111,II�L, i�l„Irl„pl„Irl 111111 111111 1111111 .1� „1� —■ , .a".a 1� .r ..1=.a' ■ ■ II:IIII°ul� I illIrl�°uli-Irllfllli u n n u u l a li If ■ - - '_ '- _ —+ = I r■ II IYII•nll•I �ill•Irll Irl ul� u11I�lliiil� = Il lily �irl� IiIilk irll i11� I11i11 Iill irli �� : � �_ = �� '■ u•1, n 1 'I N• a 1� n 1.1 n u n u u i 11°III�111� I ill 111 Id! pI1I _ lel , I■ �—' �_” _ �� !�® li 1 u 1 n,i u 1 u 1 1 1 u` /♦ � • ri� n■ u■ n u■ u II„III„111, Id,,lrl„III„I1L W. 1: Timm Ml� MIN EM IEEE— — — — i m=a - - 1_ �■�■�■�■■�■�! I'!lii�iiiil' 9ii4ii;j"hiitij!II}"hiihjiij!ai 111111 111111 111111 Illlli! _ - •� - � 1 nnrr uun ■uu■ nnr:' I .■orN uuu MSI i,l,_ilI -11 � I mi l mi l 11MIffil =1� {moi IMI -mi Mi®i IMM" -:iii - - - �i�l X11 i®I �' ■■i;�� ,{�� _II i r� 11 ml X11 MI;li m,1 "'iiiiiwool a ' 1. Ia 1� �I.'1■r==� 1� �1� 1z I i� nuu nnn nuu I inll � uuu nim - NIB • - ® ' — —i IIIA Irl■■ Irl■ nP 111■ IIY n1 ��Om�■�:i .1 ”:=��I�n.1 I■=i �_' �_ MEN�'==1 ■ �_ �■ •■ ■ ■■�■� ill,;ill.?i�l..,i�l.;irl.;rl..iill, 111111 i 111111 111111 11111, • = 1 1 1 �1 1 � 11111 ��1111 . i !i small MOVE 01001 Jim e 1 _ X111 __ 1lnl=_ dill Mimi! i■■■■ �■■■ =1 ■� =1 WE = --- --- MI -1 m-1 �0 MI -1 m=1 M-1 11IM—I0 min =21 1 0 � S��a�®®�oJ.L�llal■■ Li LLJ LLJ LLI_ z o(IVHOIOO `Nona MHO 1NO)JJH3A1H E 101 idOS381NOHJ83AId NUS3M a m d� aa�m Ld o z 9E M I . LL] �� i LLJJ ry o ry ass X Jill 11 Jill 11 LJ �-Vn n w o z z z � � 3 J W � 0 W �. Z I L LJ < o YS o u Z� w 4 r ri r vi co Z O w J w ,01 O � 1 e z w�t CD J W K r� F - ®®a® a m d� aa�m Ld o z 9E M I . LL] �� i LLJJ ry o ry ass X Jill 11 Jill 11 LJ �-Vn n w o z z z � � 3 J W � 0 W �. Z I L LJ < o YS o u Z� w 4 r ri r vi co Z O w J w ,01 O � 1 V) W U O I Z I Z z � W O � 3 J z Q z WLLJ y � O O I Q >mms J # W (V 4 Y o oavIJoIoO`Nonv 3nida 1NodJ83nia slog 1a0S31J 1NObJ83Ald NIlS3M 0E Bu z 0 Q W J W F- ri) j rad i 4` Town of Avon Design Modifications VON C O L O R A D O Landscape Plan Staff Report December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date December 15, 2006 Project type Exterior Modifications - Landscaping Legal description Lot 2, Riverfront Village - Westin Riverfront Resort Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) Address 126 Riverfront Lane Introduction The applicant, Andy Gunion of East West Resorts, is proposing to expand the function lawn at the Westin Hotel Resort and Spa located at 126 Riverfront Lane. Site plans and sectional drawings are attached which depict the existing and proposed landscape plans for the subject area. Staff is recommending approval of the of this design modification, pursuant to the criteria considered below. Design Approval Criteria According to Section 7 from the Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines, the Commission shall review all design plans utilizing specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code. The proposal is in compliance with all of the requirements imposed by the Town of Avon Municipal Code. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The subject application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Not applicable. No density would change with this application. 4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 WI A. Site Development: As depicted in Exhibit A (attached), the currently approved terrace and function lawn are to be expanded and slightly reconfigured, thereby encroaching into the 100 -year floodplain to a minor extent. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall receive approval from Eagle County for a change to their existing floodplain modification permit. The applicant has applied for the change and expects to receive approval by mid December. B. Building Design: The building design is not proposed to change in association with this application. C. Landscaping: The landscaping will be modified according to the attached existing and proposed site plans (Exhibit A). A planting schedule and legend have been included for clarity on the details of the proposed landscaping changes. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The changes to the topography that will occur as a result of this proposal are minimal in scope when compared to what has already been approved for the site. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. Visual enhancements from the viewing perspectives of adjacent properties will occur with the execution of the proposed landscape plan. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Monetary and aesthetic values in the vicinity will not be impaired with the approval of this application. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. This project is in general conformance with the adopted Goals, Policies, and Programs for the Town. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application, with the condition that the required floodplain modification permit approval be received by the applicant from Eagle County prior to the commencement of site work related to this proposal. Fown of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 N J Recommended Motion "I move to approve the exterior modifications to Lot 2, Riverfront Village - Westin Riverfront Resort, with the condition listed in the recommendation section of the staff report." Respec ully submitted, Matthew R. Gennett, AICP Senior Planner Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 wƒ 2 g ƒ E + {, � IV @ ) 3 ƒ y §} a ƒ R �ƒ. w Hui Ix im \ /m ? 0+ § \�) ! d LU m - a �« C ± . 2 / ± d W CL o > cm Cj 7 W 3 w Hui Ix im \ /m ? 0+ § • y i jC � � 1 _ ■ O OO�O � ■ - 0�'j�/'+`+�l�i. syr 1 " O�Ot%P�q pH�,x lobi AOOpO�•�r o� a� I v v v n n n n �lo O O fD rO r0 ± 0 ca n n n I 0 .rx 4 tx 0-4 a Y O O +m to 10 w m 03 n n n 1� •-> W i O r `iii' � w Il- 0 � � rn 4t� Im z O In �• u) Cf)ui O 3 IY Ff g%A o LLJ lS Cn -! I 0 .rx 4 tx 0-4 a Y O O +m to 10 w m 03 n n n Town of Avon HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2006 -DRAFT- Prepared for: Town of Avon Prepared by: RRC Associates, Inc. 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103 Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 449-6558 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................................1 CONTEXT..........................................................................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................................................................2 AREACOVERED..............................................................................................................................................................................2 PRIMARYRESEARCH.......................................................................................................................................................................2 OTHERSOURCES OF INFORMATION................................................................................................................................................3 DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................................................................................................3 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................5 SUMMARYOF HOUSING TRENDS.....................................................................................................................................................5 SUMMARY OF HOUSING CATCH-UP AND KEEP -UP NEEDS..............................................................................................................7 HousingContinuum..................................................................................................................................................................7 OwnershipUnits....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 RentalUnits..............................................................................................................................................................................8 NEXTSTEPS AND OPPORTUNITIES................................................................................................................................................12 SECTION 1— POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS................................................................................................................14 TOWNOF AVON.............................................................................................................................................................................14 COMMUNITYHIGHLIGHTS..............................................................................................................................................................16 SECTION 2 — POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS...........................................................................................20 POPULATIONESTIMATES...............................................................................................................................................................20 HOUSINGUNIT ESTIMATES............................................................................................................................................................20 HOUSEHOLDESTIMATES...............................................................................................................................................................21 HOUSEHOLD AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI)...................................................................................................................................21 HOUSEHOLDS WITH "HOUSING PROBLEMS"..................................................................................................................................22 HOUSINGCONTINUUM...................................................................................................................................................................23 SECTION 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUTING......................................................................................................................26 NUMBEROF JOBS.........................................................................................................................................................................26 JOBSBY INDUSTRY........................................................................................................................................................................26 WAGES.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 EMPLOYEES PER HOUSEHOLD AND JOBS PER EMPLOYEE............................................................................................................28 SEASONALITYOF EMPLOYMENT....................................................................................................................................................29 COMMUTINGPATTERNS................................................................................................................................................................30 EMPLOYERINTERVIEWS................................................................................................................................................................31 SECTION 4 —HOUSING INVENTORY..........................................................................................................................................33 OWNERSHIPUNITS................................................................................................ ........................................................................33 Typeof Units...........................................................................................................................................................................33 Ageof Units............................................................................................................................................................................34 Ownershipof Units.................................................................................................................................................................34 Valueof Owned Units.............................................................................................................................................................35 DeedRestricted Housing....................................................................................................................................................... 36 RENTALHOUSING.........................................................................................................................................................................37 UnitType.................................................................................................................................................................................37 MarketRate Rents..................................................................................................................................................................38 VacancyRates........................................................................................................................................................................39 RRC Associates, Inc TOC of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Income and Employee Restricted Rentals............................................................................................................................40 PENDING INCOME AND EMPLOYEE RESTRICTED UNITS.................................................................................................................40 SECTION5 — HOUSING SALES...................................................................................................................................................41 RESIDENTIALSALES BY YEAR.......................................................................................................................................................41 RESIDENTIALSALE PRICES...........................................................................................................................................................41 NEWAND EXISTING SALES............................................................................................................................................................44 SALEPRICES AND LOCAL INCOMES...............................................................................................................................................45 SALESTO LOCALS.........................................................................................................................................................................46 MULTIPLELISTING SERVICE..........................................................................................................................................................47 AFFORDABILITYBY AM 1.................................................................................................................................................................47 REALTORINTERVIEWS..................................................................................................................................................................49 SECTION6 - HOUSING NEED......................................................................................................................................................50 AVON RESIDENTS WITH "HOUSING PROBLEMS" (CATCH-UP).......................................................................................................50 IN -COMMUTERS (CATCH-UP)........................................................................................................................................................51 In -Commuter Needs by Tenure.............................................................................................................................................52 IncomeRange........................................................................................................................................................................53 NEWJOBS (KEEP-UP)...................................................................................................................................................................53 Keep -Up Needs by Tenure....................................................................................................................................................55 IncomeRange........................................................................................................................................................................56 SEASONALWORKERS...................................................................................................................................................................56 SUMMARY OF CATCH-UP AND KEEP -UP HOUSING NEEDS............................................................................................................57 SECTION7 - GAPS IN HOUSING.................................................................................................................................................59 RENTALHOUSING................................................................................................................................................:........................59 OWNERSHIPHOUSING..................................................................................................................................................................61 RRC Associates, Inc TOC Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to provide the Town of Avon with information about current and future housing needs and the supply of housing necessary to address these needs. The information in this report will be useful in evaluating and targeting the housing needs of local residents and workers and understanding where housing programs should be focused to best accommodate local housing needs. The information can also be used to discuss housing needs and opportunities with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), and various other federal, state, local and other public agencies and non-profit and private interests involved in projects for the community. This information may be used to: • Evaluate and potentially modify public policies and housing programs including land use regulations, affordable housing incentives and development codes; • Facilitate partnerships between public- and private -sector organizations to create developments that include suitable and affordable housing 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 to support a proposed development with different funding agencies. This information can also be used when a financial institution requires market studies (for example, rental units financed with Low-income Housing Tax Credits); • Establish baseline information from which progress toward meeting Town goals can be evaluated; • Plan for future housing needs connected with anticipated growth in jobs in the Town of Avon; and • Understand economic, housing cost and demographic trends in the area. CONTEXT Addressing housing needs, concerns, issues and opportunities is a complex 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 governments to consider when addressing community housing needs and opportunities. This information can help Avon understand and achieve the mix and balance of housing to support current and future residents as their housing needs and condifons change. Providing a balance of housing that is affordable and suitable for the range of employment opportunities available in Avon can also play an important supportive role in economic development. Housing is generally considered affordable if a housing payment does not exceed 30 percent of gross monthly income and the home is of a sufficient size to meet the needs of the household. The types of homes that 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. Customizing policies, goals and programs to local conditions is an important component of any successful housing strategy. The Housing Continuum illustrated below portrays a spectrum of housing that is affordable and most likely to be sought out by households in different income groups in the Town of Avon. It indicates the number and percentage of current resident households earning different area median incomes and the type of housing likely to be needed at the RRC Associates, Inc Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT different income levels. The Housing Continuum depicts what may be ideal for most communities — the availability of housing that is affordable to all households and provides options for changing life circumstances. What is key in this approach is that there are opportunities for households to buy or rent at different income levels, thus supporting an economically balanced community. Housing Continuum 2006 $36,001-$53,650 Low Income 50 - 80'/ AMI 353 HH/ 14.2% HH $21,601-$36,000 50% AMI Very Low Income 30 - 50'/ AMI / 341 HH/ 13.7% HH 30% AMI RIncome estricted $0-$21,600 Under 30% 0-30%AMI Emergency) 245 HH/9.9%HH Subsidized METHODOLOGY Area Covered $53,651- $86,400 Middle Income 80 -120•/. AMI 742 HH / 29.8% HH 100% 110% 80% AMI AMI AMI--�� / First Time Entry Home Level Market Buyers Market Rentals Housing o�01, MOM 0 .401 Broad Renter Market 120% AMI Over $86,401 Above Middle Income +120'/ AMI 811 HH/32.6% HH Step Up Market High End Market Source: 2000 US Census (CHAS); The Housing Collaborative, LLC; RRC Associates, Inc. 180% AMI This study covers the Town of Avon and provides information on Eagle County as a whole, where applicable. A mix of primary research and available public information sources was used to generate information regarding the town. Primary Research Primary research was conducted to generate information beyond that available from existing public sources. This research included local employer, realtor and property manager interviews and discussions with the Town planning departm ent. • Seven local Avon employers and an employer in Beaver Creek were interviewed to understand where employees live; changes in employment over time; the ability for employers to find and retain employees; the wage structure and position availability of local employers and to what extent employee housing is perceived to be an issue by employers. • Three realtors and four property managers were interviewed to learn what households are seeking when looking to purchase or rent a unit. Trends in real estate sales and the rental market were also discussed. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Other Sources of Information Sources of published information were used in the preparation of this report, including: • 1990 and 2000 US Census data, including CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) special tabulation data; • Employment information from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (2000), the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Center for Business and Economic Forecasting (CBEF) and Business Pattern data from the Economic Census; • Employment and population projections from the Department of Local Affairs and housing unit information from the Town of Avon; • 2006 Area Median Income for Eagle County from the Department of Housing and Urban Development; • Colorado State Division of Housing Rent and Vacancy Surveys for county -wide rental trend information; and • Eagle County Assessor data for homeownership and sales information and Eagle County MLS for current sales listings. DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable for the terms used in this report. Affordable Housing-- when the amount spent on rent or mortgage payments (excluding utilities) 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 Federal programs for low-income housing occupants pay 30 percent of their gross income for rent and utilities. Cost Burdened — when a household or individual spends more than 30 percent of gross income on rent or mortgage payments. Low Income Housing Tax Credit - a tax credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 42) available to investors in low income housing designed to encourage investment that helps finance construction and rehabilitation of housing for low income renters. Substandard Housing -- a unit that lacks complete kitchen and /or plumbing facilities. Overcrowded Conditions— the standard definition is where more than one person per room (as differentiated from bedrooms) resides within a dwelling unit. For example, six people living in a five -room home would be living in overcrowded conditions. Mean -- the average of a group of numbers. The sum of all the data values divided by the number of items. Median — the middle point in a data set. Area Median Income (AMI) Limits — most communities establish income limits for the programs they administer based on the area median income (AMI) for the area according to household size, which are adjusted annually by the RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Department of 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% of the median family income; 2. Very low income, which is between 30% and 500/d of the median family income; 3. Low income, which is between 50% and 80% of the median family income; 4. Middle Income, which is between 80% and 120% of the median family income; and 5. Above Middle Income, which is over 120% of the median family income. Section 8 Rent Subsidy- the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment program is offered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program pays the difference between 30% of'monthly household income and the Fair Market Rent (FMR) established by HUD for the Denver Metro area. There are two types of Section 8 assistance: 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 willing to participate in the program. Levels of Homeownership — When discussing affordability of properties by Area Median Income (AMI) level (defined above) and the types of homes households among different AMI groups are seeking, reference is made to a couple different stages of homeownership. This includes: 1. Entry-level ownership/first-time homebuyers: These are households typically earning in the low to middle income range (60 to 120 percent AMI). These are 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 earning in the middle to upper income range (about 120 percent AMI or higher) that currently own a home (either in Avon or in another community) 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 -nesters), etc.). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A primary goal of this housing needs assessment was to look at trends in the local economy, local housing needs and the housing market to identify local Town of Avon housing needs. This information sets a context from which to determine where housing programs should best be focused as the Town of Avon looks forward to providing housing to maintain and shape their community, assist their economy and understand their needs in the regional context of Eagle County as a whole. To understand housing need and market trends, a thorough review of resident household demographics; projected increase in employment, current workforce residency and employer needs and concerns; current housing inventory and ownership; and housing sales and rental patterns was conducted. This section summarizes the key findings from this research and the primary housing needs identified for Avon residents and employees. Summary of Housing Trends In general, market rate housing continues to be largely unaffordable to the local workforce and local residents. Existing deed -restricted housing has helped many employees and residents stay within the community; however, more affordable units are needed to ensure current residents can stay within the Town and that sufficient housing choices are available to assist local employers in attracing and retaining employees in the area. • Demographics and Costburdened: About 52.7 percent of Avon households were renters and 47.3 percent were owners in 2000. The average household size was about 2.79 persons in 2004 (down from 2.81 in 2000), with owner households (2.64 persons) being slightly smaller than renter households (2.95 persons) in 2000 (in part related to seasonal worker renter households and overcrowding). About 28 percent of owners and 48 percent of renters reported being cost -burdened (paying over 30 percent of household income for rent/mortgage) in 2000. Employment and Commuting: About 29 percent of workers in Avon also lived in Avon in 2000; meaning that 71 percent of the workforce commuted into Avon for employment. About 11 percent of the workforce reported living outside of Eagle County, primarily in Lake County and Garfield County (3 percent each). It was noted through employer interviews that workers from Garfield County have largely left their Avon employment to work closer to home (due to the high availability of jobs and competitive, if not higher, wages in Garfield County). This has increased the labor shortage in Avon and the difficulty for employers that relied on Garfield County to fill jobs. By increasing the affordability of housing in Avon to local workers, employers will be less reliant on outside labor markets for workers and be less subject to fluctuations in other area economies with respect to filling jobs. About 38 percent of residents of Avon that are employed reported working in Avon in 2000. Another 24 percent worked in Vail, indicating the extent to which Avon helps house workers in Vail. Very few of employed Avon residents reported working outside of Eagle County (about 4 percent). Housing Affordability: The median sale prices of homes in 2000 was $237,000; this increased 81.4 percent in 2006 to $430,000. In comparison, median family incomes (as reported by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Eagle County) increased only 17.5 percent during this period, from $68,100 in 2000 to $80,000 in 2006. Further, the typical household can afford a home priced about 3 -times higher than their income, whereas the median sale value of homes in 2006 was over 5 -times higher than the median family income. Home prices have been outpacing local incomes by a large margin. Trends between the 1990 and 2000 Census indicate that decreased affordability of homes in Avon has been occurring for quite some time, where household incomes increased 61 percent during this time compared to a 102 percent increase in owner housing values. Further, affordability compared to the state of Colorado as a whole in 2000 shows that: RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT 9. — The median value of single-family homes in Avon in 2000 ($373,000) was about 2.3 times higher flan in the state of Colorado as a whole ($160,100); — The median rent in Avon ($954) was 1.6 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($611) in 2000; and — The median household income of Avon residents ($56,291) was only 1.2 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($47,203). The median family income in Avon ($52,339) was lower than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($55,883). — Based on the above figures, it is not surprising the percentage of cost•burdened households in Avon (42 percent) is much higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole (29 percent). Residency of Owners: Analysis of the Eagle County Assessor data of property ownership in Avon indicates that about 44 percent of owners have a local Town of Avon address and another 18 percent have addresses in other parts of Eagle County. This has remained fairly consistent since 2001. The largest change is seen in the percentage of owners from other parts of Colorado (primarily the Front Range), where about 2 percent of properties in 2001 were owned by this group versus a much higher 9 percent in 2006. Increased competition for housing units from Front Range buyers was noted by a few realtors, who stated that this group purchases units in a more affordable price range than out -of state second homebuyers, competing more directly with local residents for housing. Current Deed -Restricted Units: The Town presently has 63 deed -restricted units available for ownership, although 15 of those units are presently retained as rental units to employees in Eagle County earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. All units are valued under $200,000 and provide units at prices that are largely unavailable through the general housing market. This includes 8 3 -bedroom units valued under $147,000. All units are condominiums with a few townhomes. A few of these units turn -over to new owners each year. However, the number of units available does not meet local demand for ownership housing. The Town also has several affordable rental units: 244 in Buffalo Ridge affordable to households earning less than 80 percent AMI (built in 2003) and 72 Section 8 apartments at River View. The Town of Avon also has rooms available for rent for bus drivers and City Market has 18 1 -bedroom units available to employees at below-market rates. Rentals in Town are full and many have waiting lists. Property managers indicated they have very few units turn -over each year. Despite the number of year-round rentals in Town, local need for units continues to be higher than the supply. Multiple ListingService: Of the 129 homes available for sale on the Multiple Listing Service on October 13, 2006, only 26 (about 20 percent) were priced below $400,000. Only three of the lower priced units had 3 - bedrooms and most (17 total) had 2 -bedrooms. About 11 of the units were in "The Gates," which are condominium units with little storage and not generally suited to year-round occupancy by locals. The average size of units was 790 square feet and all were condominiums. In other words, there are an insufficient number of units provided on the market that may be affordable to and suited to local year-round ownership and occupancy, particularly families. Realtor Observations: Realtors noted that the availability of housing in Avon is not currently meeting the needs of residents and local workers, with a shortage of housing across all needed price -points (from first-time homebuyers through move -up housing). A few felt that competition for affordable units, generally between $300,000 and $400,000, is very high and that many locals looking to purchase cannot find a unit in this price range. A couple noted that affordability is becoming even more of an issue since the new Gondola was planned, with increased speculation and interest from second homebuyers, particularly on the west side of town. Specifically, all of the realtors noted that units priced under $500,000 are in high demand. RRC Associates, Inc . Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT • Employer Observations: Employers encountered slightly different issues with employee recruitment and retention depending on the industry of employment, with all experiencing issues with employee turnover and difficulty attracting and keeping new workers as a result of housing costs in the area. When asked about priorities that employers see in the area for housing in terms of recruiting and retaining employees, the full spectrum of locally affordable housing options were mentioned, including: — Rentals for new hirees/recruits from outside the area. Vacancies are extremely low during the winter months and there is high competition for affordable rentals in the county. One exception was the school district, which noted that their new hires can usually find rentals; although more rentals for new single teachers would help. — First-time homeownership opportunities to keep employees. It was noted that Miller Ranch was a successful and much needed project. A couple employers offered examples of new hires (one an engineer and one a co -manager) that owned homes in their previous communities and, upon moving to Avon, had difficulty locating housing to rent. Despite earning in excess of $60,000 per year, neither can find homes to purchase that they can afford. This was also noted by the school district to be a problem in retaining employees over time and they indicated that about 75 percent of their turnover last year was due to employees moving out of the valley to purchase homes. They find that they can attract young teachers out of college given the "glamorous" location, but when they decide to start a family, they often move out of the valley to afford a home. — Along similar lines, more expensive, move -up housing affordable for higher paid positions, new recruits that owned homes in their previous communities so have some equity to apply toward a home and growing families (e.g., need more than a 600 square foot condominium) are also needed to retain employees. Realtor interviews and current listings for sale on the MLS indicate a large shortage of homes priced under $500,000 in the Town of Avon that would meet the needs of these households. Summary of Housing Catch -Up and Keep -Up Needs Despite the existing deed -restricted housing in Town and the large number of rentals in the area, continued need for housing from residents, in -commuters, new employees and seasonal workers is significant. Catch-up housing needs (housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing) and keep -up housing needs (housing units needed to keep up with future demand for housing) are summarized below. Catch-up housing needs evaluated resident households with housing problems (cost -burdened, overcrowded or in substandard units) and in -commuters that would likely prefer to live in Avon if affordable and suitable housing was available. Keep -up housing needs focused on new housing units needed as a result of job growth in the town and new employees filling those jobs. Housing Continuum When evaluating where to target housing programs and development options, the Housing Continuum, illustrated below, can be helpful in moving from aggregate estimates of housing units needed to specific programs and policies that target the housing needs within the community. The Continuum shows the percentage and number of households in Avon that fall into each AMI category, based on 2006 household estimates, along with a spectrum of housing that is affordable and most likely to be sought out by households in each AMI group. The Housing Continuum depicts what may be ideal for most communities — the availability of housing that is affordable to all households and options for changing life circumstances. What is key in this approach is that there are opportunities for households to buy or rent at different economic levels, thus supporting an economically balanced community. RRC Associates, Inc. 7 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Housing Continuum 2006 $36,001-$53,650 Low Income 50 - 80'/@ AMI S0% 353 HH/14.rloHH AMI $21,601•$36,000 50% AMI Very Low Income 30.50'/ AMI 341 HH / 13.7% HH / 30% AM[ Restricted $0-$21,600 Under 30% 0-3001AMI Emrgeny 245HH/9.9%HHJSubesId1%zCed/ $53,651- $86,400 Middle Income 80 -120'/ AMI 742 HH/29.8% HH 100% 110% AMI AMI / First Time Entry Home Level MarketBuyers Market Rentals Housing oo�nP�M�nt � t� Broad Renter Market 120% AMI Over $86,401 Above Middle Income +1200/* AMI 811 HH/32.6%HH Step Up Market High End Market Source: 2000 US Census (CHAS); The Housing Collaborative, LLC; RRC Associates, Inc. 180% AMI The following table takes the Housing Continuum one step further and identifies the maximum affordable rents and purchase prices of homes within each income category, the estimated catch-up need (or current deficiency in housing to serve residents and in -commuters) and the estimated keep -up need through 2010 and 2015 (or the number of units needed to maintain the current ratio of workers residing in Town as new jobs are added — about 29 percent) is presented for both rental and ownership units by AMI range. The needs identified encompass units needed within the AMI groups that are not currently being served by the market (housing "gaps"), meaning that the needs identified will need to be targeted with local housing programs to help households obtain housing in the community. f=inally, a description of different employment industries and job positions that pay wages within each respective AMI group is also provided to understand more about who will be served at different price points. In summary: Rental Units As summarized in the table below, residents with housing problems and in -commuters that may prefer to live in Avon if suitable and affordable housing was available need between 333 to 602 rental units priced below $1,340 per month for a 3 -person household in Avon (e.g., the average size of Avon households). These would be units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. The majority of this need (328 to 511 units) should be priced for households earning less than 50 percent AMI (or rents under $900 per month for a 3 -person household). The estimated need takes into account Buffalo Ridge units, which were constructed since the 2000 Census, and provided 244 units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. Keep -up units needed include an additional 129 units by 2010 and 132 units between 2010 and 2015. Interviews with long-term rental housing properties in Avon indicate properies are full and most have wait -lists. It was noted that during the winter season this is typical for the area. However, vacancy rates in the County as a whole during the non -peak employment season (July through September 2005) were around 5 percent, which is generally the lowest vacancy desired in terms of ensuring adequate housing opportunities and choices for renters. Local Avon rentals indicated that they tend to have only a handful of units turnover each year, with Buffalo Ridge being RRC Associates, Inc. 8 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT somewhat dependent on the construction activity in the area. The majority of employers interviewed indicated that the low availability of long-term rentals affects their ability to recruit employees, particularly in the winter months. Although seasonal winter workers were cited as a primary reason for the low availability of rentals during winter, most employers were more impacted by the unavailability of long-term rentals rather than seasonal rentals. Seasonal units are not necessarily as significant a need as year-round rentals, but seasonal needs should continue to be monitored as "ski front" development (e.g., Gondola, accommodations, etc.) occurs in Avon. As more winter visitors are attracted to Town, this will most likely change the picture of seasonal worker needs among businesses in Avon in the future. Ownership Units As summarized in the table below, residents with housing problems and in -commuters that may prefer to live in Avon if suitable and affordable housing was available need between 301 and 502 ownership units priced between about $137,000 to $320,000 for a 3 -person household in Avon (e.g., the average size of Avon households)'. This figure takes into account the current number of housing units available on the MLS as well as deed -restricted development that has occurred since the 2000 Census that would be affordable to these households. Realtors indicated that units priced up to $400,000 were in demand from locals and are generally not available, which would result in additional units needed for catch-up purposes. Keep -up needs would require another 92 units by 2010 in this price range and 96 by 2015. More specifically: • Ownership units priced between $137,000 and $170,000 (3 -person 60 to 80% AMI households). The current level of production and availability of units within this price category is below the current needs of residents and in -commuters (34 to 59 units). Keep -up will need to produce about 10 units by 2010 and another 10 units by 2015 to meet new employee household needs. These households represent the entry-level ownership market. Ownership units priced between $170,000 and $230,000 (3 -person 80 to 100% AMI households). This group shows the second largest gap in needs compared to supply, where catch-up programs will be needed to meet resident and in -commuter needs of between 91 and 158 units depending on whether needs of 25 percent or 50 percent of in -commuters are addressed. Keep -up will need to produce an average of about 30 units by 2010 and another 30 by 2015 to meet new employee household demand (or about 6 units per year on average). These households also represent the entry-level ownership market. Ownership units priced between $230,000 and $275,000 (3 -person 100 to 120% AMI households). This represents the largest gap in housing compared to resident and in -commuter needs. Compared to existing supply, there is a deficit of between about 120 to 194 catch-up units for households in this AMI range. Keep -up needs represent another 34 units by 2010 and about 35 units by 2015 (or about 7 units per year). These households include both entry-level owners and potentially some move -up owners that presently own homes, but are looking for a larger or different home to accommodate changing life circumstances (growing families, etc.). Ownership units priced between $275,000 and $320,000 (3 -person 120 to 140% AMI households). Interviews with realtors exposed that they have noticed a gap in the market for units for locals priced generally below $400,000. Comparing housing needs of the higher income households to market provision of units indicates a gap in supply of units in this range — equating to a minimum of about 60 to 95 units of catch-up. It is expected that resident owner households looking to purchase a different home would create additional resident need for this product beyond that shown in the below table. Keep -up needs would require another 16'units by 2010 and 1 A 3 -person household would need a two- to three-bedroom home (assuming no more than 1.5 persons per bedroom to avoid overcrowding), with option for some 4 -bedroom units. In comparison, a 1 -person household earning between 60 and 140% AMI could afford homes priced between about $100,000 to $250,000 (would include 1- and 2 -bedroom units) and a 2 -person household earning between 60 and 140% AMI could afford homes priced between about $120,000 to $285,000 (range of 1-, 2- and some 3 -bedroom units). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT 17 units by 2015 to maintain pace with employee household growth over the next decade. This income group largely represents move -up owners. Provision of housing for the higher AMI ranges should be explored, particularly if entry-level home purchase opportunities increase in Town, given that purchasers of entry-level homes largely comprise the future market for larger, more expensive units. These units will also accommodate needs of new employees recruited to fill higher -paying positions (upper management, etc.) that may have owned a home in their previous community and are looking for comparable housing in Avon. RRC Associates, Inc. r i Q o N >, tea) C14 rn o - L: ocaNi cm3c�>,rn o i COp o c L e co a) 'c C O 2 a N p > 4 O ch �_ cliM CNi O O a a3 `- a) a ca CD `'� co c a`) �s m �c - c `m > � cc o d Q c c 0 fc U c ca E > O O ca o c 69 05 E a_` ? Q v0.. O a) a) N N �!' a) C N Q N w d`co o O CO cM e N LO c o) - \ co op O o co ti t•<? g E 0 O E C E O o g E vu'i y cn as a v o . r tp �,., tH d' GNB- y O M r- 'tj a) U d C N E d '= a C-4 to a7 cu i NZ U O_ a) C N c E v O o u U3 F_ L c o $m --o � cm c o a Op O C � aa)�o c vi N CU V N C m.Vp 12 ca Cl. Q o C O !} co a) a0 M O � U') 6% cn U E ` O) Co G. E .N Lr. EA � (D Cfl vi C14 N M M Y C C 4 a d V? oT N c QQ CJ u- M 0 via ca Via. 0 a a) E cc Ul a ` cz c0' j r` a w N M c0 pN tO a) E O O (06 >+ O cv O m C-4 LOccc � co co ti in m c 3 c U' o C O N t O a0 ac) O'0 ~ M M aa) .6 +� O O C C E ca c r p W �? Ef3 N� N r N Ef} �- O) Y L (7 I? (D O En co Q O oo 'OD d C d U .� C C !� m O C0 cc N a) a) c4 N � - a � LU � cc u ° a0 �ti� z`cv 0 E m � O — a3 c N C 3 M O o N .0 5 E M E d C (6 .d-. CO N N O N N <D Oi o `"- O c>C p� E = c R w M C=) LO to EA hicC co j �,uy co wco co i C `� CM C7 C O >. E cL 3 +�7 Q ca v 1)C-1) c � � N _ v c a) O ,a Qo .0 au�j N M.0 G in E O O C ,U cc L Z M o N Z Z Z v (n C a) O C U C O O C aU7 r.n.«+ c M y .-� e9 In UB. = -O > O in �.9LIJ� m mErnam`o o 0 `� a) E CDO coo 3 E O �) o a) m c ow v aoi m CD E2 CO h O H o 00 O— CO L N U U 6 A? m E a -S i tO r $ O 00 M �'`) Z Z -p CLU 0-14 t9 O Cc%3 m E 7 N O t9 O M EA N M a0 6g E d E O N a) N 'D Ln O y y Oo N co LO �= O '�pQ o C O O U d O "� O O O CO f4 < cp vL3oo v'c cn D C N C � co d y N L L O 0 U) ca O Q c m .O. C d O Lo= Lm -E V) C a) 3 O 4 O C a) —0 .a N N O a) a) v N N O m N N C y o f E E tCD D` o Z z z ,`cam{' Z �j �j 3 0 c a) C d rnmE 3 o p 'CD O a 3 o O -2 `o Z a Z s e'a- p U !-c0 m �.a) = a c0 N U C Q L _ = c Q L L O C E= '� .X 1- a) x o m a) a`) x o a) a) cc a i) LIJ O F- cn O C O.. U 'o a Z aci � U a) Y N Y c 3 N a ca U a) Y a) Y O cn t m to O o a p a 0 �S ?._ cm c Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Next Steps and Opportunities The Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment identifies the range of housing needed by current and future residents and employees in the Town of Avon that is currently not being supplied by the housing market. This includes catch-up gaps (or current units that would be needed to help relieve cost -burden and provide more housing options for local residents and current in -commuters) and keep -up gaps (or units that would be needed in the future to accommodate new employees needed to fill new jobs in the Town of Avon). Ideally, the Town of Avon would be able to address resident and employee needs in full; however, in actuality, due to limited financial resources, land capacity and other factors, communities must often identify a segment of the households in need to target with housing programs until additional resources can be acquired to broaden housing programs and availability. In other words, the Town of Avon should evaluate their resident and employee housing needs in conjunction with the opportunities and constraints in the Town, and set priorities and goals for local housing programs. This would include: Plan For Residential Growth/Demand. Jobs in Avon are projected to increase by about 3,400 jobs by 2015. With the addition of the Gondola and associated increased focus on resorbside development and tourism, many of these jobs will be related to the lower and mid -wage range industries, including retail, lodging and service industries. These jobs will create additional demand for affordable rental and entry-level buyer housing over the next ten years; whereas the convenient ski access is expected to increase second homeowner interest and speculation. It will be important for the Town to plan for, encourage and support more affordable housing development as a result of this demand. • Inventory Resources. In conjunction with the above, the Town of Avon also needs to take inventory of their existing land, funds available, redevelopment areas/ opportunities, current planned growth and desired future direction for growth to determine existing and desired opportunities for locating new housing to be produced through programs. This inventory is important to understand which type of programs will be most effective in providing housing for the area and to ensure housing for residents is planned as an essential part of the growth of the community. • Importance of Goal/Priority Setting. As the Town of Avon continues to develop and land becomes less available, it becomes increasingly more important to ensure that this growth accommodates all segments of the population. This has important considerations with respect to any desired resident housing goals in the area. The relationship between commercial development and local resident housing for workers becomes a more critical part of the equation as available land and capacities decline. The extent to which employee housing is a priority in the Town of Avon needs to be determined, as well as identification of potential locations for that housing, households to target and workable programs to produce housing. In setting goals, it is important not to focus on one need over the long term at the exclusion of other housing needs. Although this can be done in the near term to ensure some successes of implementation and broaden resources in the community, long-term goals should be focused on targeting all housing needs. The goal of any housing program should be to provide a range of housing in the community that is affordable and likely to be sought out by households in different income groups and at different life stages. Targeting programs across a wide range of affordability levels and housing needs will ensure that residents have a selection of housing to meet their requirements at different stages of their life (entering the workforce, starting a family, retiring, etc.), thus supporting an economically and demographically balanced community. Several program options are available to help address housing needs. This list is intended to provide a range of alternatives for consideration by the Town of Avon. Potential programs include: RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Permanently Affordable Ownership Units. The advantage to this product is that it offers units at below market prices for income -qualified (and often employment -qualified) buyers, allowing them to purchase homes that would not normally be available to them in the market. The trade-off is that appreciation of these homes is limited to ensure permanent affordability upon turnover of the unit to a new qualified buyer, thereby creating a supply of permanently affordable ownership units in the Town. These homes provide households that are normally priced out of the housing market with an opportunity to purchase a home and build equity. The housing needs assessment identified that a range of properties priced under $400,000 to permit firsttime homeownership and move -up housing opportunities is in very short supply in the Town of Avon. These units would help local residents and employees retain and gain residency in Avon. • Down Payment and Rent Assistance Programs. This includes rent and utility assistance programs. Rent assistance programs can help renters stay in their current housing, while down payment assistance will help renters take the first step toward homeownership. • Sweat Equity and Fixer -Upper Programs. These programs encourage acquisition of older homes and renovation through sweat equity. They also result in new home development through sweat equity programs. Habitat for Humanity has a presence in Eagle County and would be a resource for these types of programs. • Rentals. Low-income rentals (priced for households earning less than 50 percent AMI) are in short supply for Avon residents and employees. The Town can encourage developers to pursue tax credit and other options for low-income rentals through expedited application processes, assistance with state agency applications for grants/funding and deferred fees, for example. Mixed -income developments will mitigate the perception of "low- income" housing projects and will increase options for low-income residents. • Zoning. Evaluate areas where higher densities would be appropriate. This would include areas that could support multi -family and/or small lot single-family housing. Consider mixed-use zoning that would support both residential and non-residential development. Consider PUD ordinances that allow flexibility in densities and lot requirements (lot size, setbacks, etc.), particularly for developments proposing some locally affordable units. Consider regulations that require contributions to (or development of) affordable housing as a component of the development (inclusionary zoning, impact fees, commercial linkage, etc.). • Partnerships. Encourage public/private partnerships as a means to achieve identified housing goals. Through such partnerships, housing that is more affordable can be achieved with enhanced financing options, assuring that a portion of the housing that is created will be affordable and provided to residents of Avon. In other words, units can be introduced into the area that will retain affordability over time without on-going financial resources. • Land Banking: Identify key sites br future housing development that are either currently publicly owned or that could/should be purchased for future housing development. Develop workable designs for future housing projects on these properties when needed. This approach permits incorporation of affordable housing into community development plans, but often requires continued public education about intended development plans and uses for sites. Works well in combination with partnership opportunities to provide housing. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT SECTION 1 — POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS Information from the 2000 Census was reviewed for the Town of Avon. Census information provides a benchmark from which other information can be evaluated, in addition to providing insights as to community characteristics at the time of the Census. Town of Avon For the Town of Avon, an evaluation of the Census information revealed the following: • Seasonal/recreational use of homes in 1999 was about 21 percent in Avon, in comparison with Eagle County at 27 percent and the State at 48 percent. Overall, about 74 percent of units in Avon were occupied by residents. A lower 69 percent of units in Eagle County were occupied by residents. At the time of the Census, 47 percent of homes occupied as primary residences were owner-occu pied, in comparison to Eagle County at 63 percent. Owners have slightly larger households (2.6 average household size) compared to renters (2.4 persons). Not surprisingly, most owner -occupied homes in Avon were occupied by families (58 percent). In the US Census, families are defined as a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. A relatively high percentage of renter occupied homes (46 percent) are also occupied by families. • As of the 2000 Census, roughly 83 percent of homes in Avon were multi -family units (condominiums, townhomes, apartments and dup/tri-plexes). Only about 9 percent of the homes were single-family detached structures. Another 8 percent of units were comprised of mobile/manufactured homes. • Avon is a relatively new community. Residential development originally took off in the 1970s (14 percent of homes). Development in Avon continued to grow between 1980 and 1994. Roughly 56 percent of homes were built during this time and an estimated 29 percent of homes have been built between 1995 and 2000. • Turnover in Avon at the time of the 2000 Census was high, with 43 percent of residents noting they had moved into their current residence in the 15 months preceding the 2000 Census. Eagle County, in comparison, had 30 percent move -in during this time period. Due to the timing of the US Census (April 2000), it is expected the high turnover is partially due to seasonal workforce conditions. • Renters in Avon have a slightly lower percentage (20 percent) of single -person households than owners (23 percent). Eagle County, in contrast, has a slightly higher percentage of renter households with single occupancy (25 percent) than owner households (19 percent). • About 15.5 percent of households were overcrowded in Avon as of the Census (defined as having 1.01 persons or more per room). This includes 22.6 percent of renter households and 8.2 percent of owner households. Overcrowding may be slightly inflated due to seasonal workforce conditions. • At the time of the Census, the largest householder age group in Avon was 25 to 34 yrs (36 percent), followed by 35 to 44 yrs (26 percent). A small percentage of households (2.6 percent) were headed by seniors (age 65+). This is low compared to Eagle County (5.3 percent) and the State (16 percent). • The median income of owners in 1999 ($73,015) was almost twice that of renters ($37,569). Renters were much more likely to pay 30 percent or more of their income for housing (48 percent) than owners (28 percent). Cost burden is generally a growing problem, as the number of households paying more than 30 RRC Associates, Inc. 14 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT percent of their monthly income for housing more than tripled between 1990 and 2000. In addition the percentage of cost -burdened households increased from 35 percent in 1990 to 42 percent in 2000. • The median family income (as reported by HUD) increased 29 percent between 1999 and 2006, from $61,833 to $80,000. • The average value of owner occupied single family homes more than doubled in Avon between 1990 and 2000, from $184,400 to $373,000. Average household incomes reported by the Census increased by 61 percent during this same time period. These figures, along with the increasing incidence of cost -burden, indicate that homes are continuing to become less affordable to Avon households. • Some important comparisons between Avon and the state of Colorado are also worth noting: The median value of single-family homes in Avon in 2000 ($373,000) was about 2.3 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($160,100); = The median rent in Avon ($954) was 1.6 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($611) in 2000. The median household income of Avon residents ($56,291) was only 1.2 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($47,203). The median family income in Avon ($52,339) was lower than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($55,883). — Based on the above figures, it is not surprising the percentage of cosfburdened households in Avon (42 percent) is much higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole (29 percent). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 DRAFT Community Highlights Avon, CO -Pop. 5,561 Housing Unit Estimates and Physical Characteristics Use/Tenure Type of Structure Housing Units 2,557 100.0% Single -Family 219 8.6% Occupied as primary home 1,890 73.9% Multi -Family 2,109 83.1% Owner occupied 894 47.3% Mobile Homes 209 8.2% Renteroccupied 996 52.7% Vacant 667 26.1% Units in Structure Seasonal/recreational use 523 20.5% # % Percent of occupied units, not total units. 1 -unit, detached 219 8.6% 1 -unit, attached 438 17.3% Occupancy 2 units 21 0.8% Vacant Owner 260/c occupied 3 or 4 units 90 3.5% seri° 5 to 9 units 373 14.7% 10 to 19 units 466 18.4% Renter 20 or more units 721 28.4% occupied Mobile home 209 8.2% 39% Overcrowding/Occupants per Room Boat, RV, van, etc. 0 0.0% Owners Renters Total % Total # 899 936 100% Year Structure Built 1.00 or less 91.8% 77.4% 84.5% # % _ 1.01 to 1.50 3.9% 9.0% 6.5% 1999 to March 2000 240 9.5% 4.3% 09.0% 1.51 or more 13.6 /0 1995 t01998 499 19.7% 1990 to 1994 678 26.7% % of Households Overcrowded 8.2% 22.6% 15.5% 1980 to 1989 742 29.2% 1970 to 1979 355 14.0% Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities -Occupied Units 1960 to 1969 14 0.6% # % 1940 to 1959 0 0.0% Complete Kitchen 1,835 100.0% 1939 or earlier 9 0.4% Complete Plumbing 1,826 99.5% Built since 1990 1,417 55.9% Incomplete Kitchen 0 0.0% Incomplete Plumbing 9 0.5% Year Moved Into Current Residence Substandard Units 9 0.5% # % 1999 to March 2000 793 43.2% Type of Heat -Occupied Units 1995 to 1998 693 37.8% # % 1990 to 1994 271 14.8% Utility gas 905 49.3% 1980 to 1989 69 3.8% Bottled, tank, or LP gas 11 0.6% 1970-1979 9 0.5% Electricity 883 48.1 Wood 15 0.8% 1969 or eariier 0 0.0% Other fuel/none 21 1.1% RRC Associates, Inc. 16 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Household Demographics Household Size Race/Ethnicity Total Owners Renters # % Avg. Persons/Unit 2.81 2.64 2.95 White 1,517 80.3% Black or African Amer. 13 0.7% Persons Per Unit Am. Indian/Alaska Native 14 0.7% Owners' Renters Asian 22 1.2% # % # % Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 0.1% 1 -person 202 22.6% 201 20.2% Some other race 275 14.6% 2 -person 326 36.5% 283 28.4% Two or more races 48 2.56/6 3 -person 158 17.7% 190 19.1% Hispanic or Latino 496 26.2% 4 -person 108 12.1% 161 16.2% 5 -person 48 5.4% 84 8.4% Household Type 6 -person 29 3.2% 41 4.1% Owners Renters Total % 7+ person 23 2.6% 36 3.6% Total 894 996 1,890 100.0% Total 894 100.0% 996 100.0% Family households 515 456 971 51.4% Married -couple 451 293 744 39.4% Bedrooms Per Occupied Housing Units Male householder/ no wife 34 81 115 6.1% Owners Renters Female householder/ no # % # % husband 30 82 112 5.9% No bedroom 25 2.8% 42 4.5% Nonfamily households 379 540 919 48.6% 1 bedroom 72 8.0% 329 35.1% Male householder 224 351 575 30.4% 2 bedrooms 293 32.6% 425 45.4% Living alone 115 125 240 12.7% 3 bedrooms 304 33.8% 99 10.6% Not living alone 109 226 335 17.701, 4 bedrooms 175 19.5% 41 4.4% 5 or more bedrooms 30 3.3% 0 0% Female householder 155 189 344 18.2% Living alone 87 76 163 8.6% Senior Households Not living alone 68 113 181 9.6% Age of Householder Owners Renters Total 65 to 74 years 31 11 42 Age Distribution 75 to 84 years 6 1 7 Age of Householder Owners Renters Total % 85 years and over 0 0 0 15 to 24 years 35 201 236 12.5% Total 37 12 49 25 to 34 years 270 421 691 36.6% % of Households 4.1% 1.2% 2.6% 35 to 44 years 292 206 498 26.3% 45 to 54 years 165 125 290 15.3% Households with Children 55 to 64 years 95 31 126 6.7% # % 65 to 74 years 31 11 42 2.2% Total Households 1,890 100.0% 75 to 84 years 6 1 7 0.4% With one or more persons <18 571 30.2% 85 years and over 0 0 0 0.0% Married -couple family 410 21.7% Single parent family 151 8.0% Nonfamily households, 10 0.5% RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Income, Housing Costs and Affordability 1999 Median Incomes 2006 Median Familv Income - Eaale Countv (HUD Median in 1999 Household Income $56,921 Owner Households $73,015 Renter Households $37,569 Family Income $52,339 Per Capita Income 30,115 2006 Median Familv Income - Eaale Countv (HUD Change -Median Family Income, 1999-2006 (HUD) 1999 2006 % Change $65,333 $80,000 24.4% Income Distribution 50% 80% 100% 1 person $280,000 $41,700 $56,000 2 person $32,000 $47,700 $64,000 3 person $36,000 $53,650 $72,000 4 person $40,000 $59,600 $80,000 5 person $43,150 $64,350 86,333 6 person $46,350 $69,150 $92,833 Change -Median Family Income, 1999-2006 (HUD) 1999 2006 % Change $65,333 $80,000 24.4% Income Distribution Percent of Income Spent on Housing Owners Renters Total <15% Owners Renter Total % Less than $5,000 0 9 9 0.5% $5,000 to $9,999 9 33 42 2.3% $10,000 to $14,999 21 48 69 3.8% $15,000 to $19,999 0 60 60 3.3% $20,000 to $24,999 19 86 105 5.7% $25,000 to $34,999 56 174 230 12.5% $35,000 to $49,999 95 177 272 14.8% $50,000 to $74,999 263 195 458 25.0% $75,000 to $99,999 131 89 220 12.0% $100,000 - $149,999 151 65 216 11.8% $150,000 or more 154 0 154 8.4% Percent of Income Spent on Housing Owners Renters Total <15% 114 105 219 15 to 19% 61 76 137 20 to 24% 26 153 179 25 to 29% 62 99 161 30 to 34% 18 111 129 35+% 85 338 423 Not computed 0 54 54 % Cost Burdened 28.1% 48.0% 42.4% # Cost Burdened 103 449 552 Median Housina Prices/Costs Mortaaae Amount SF # 2000 Value - Owner Occupied (SF) 0 $373,000 Value - Owner Occupied (all) 0 $230,200 Mortgage 0 $2,037 Gross Rent 17 $980 Contract Rent 80 $954 Value of Owner -Occupied Units 67 18.3% $2,000 or more SF # SF % Less than $50,000 0 0.0% $50,000 to $99,999 10 2.7% $100,000 to $149,999 7 1.9% $150,000 to $199,999 0 0.0% $200,000 to $299,999 47 12.8% $300,000 to $499,999 219 59.8% $500,000 to $999,999 83 22.7% $1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% Mortaaae Amount RRC Associates, Inc. 18 SF # SF % Less than $300 0 0.0% $300 to $499 0 0.0% $500 to $699 0 0.0% $700 to $999 17 4.6% $1,000 to $1,499 80 21.9% $1,500 to $1,999 67 18.3% $2,000 or more 184 50.3% With a mortgage 348 95.1% Not mortgaged 18 4.9% Gross Rent # Less than $200 0 0.0% $200 to $299 9 1.0% $300 to $499 52 5.6% $500 to $749 137 14.6% $750 to $999 268 28.6% $1,000 to $1,499 317 33.9% $1,500 or more 108 11.5% No cash rent 45 4.8% RRC Associates, Inc. 18 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Trends and Comparisons Eagle County Households by AMI: 1990 2000 % Change 1990 & 2000 Population 1,798 5,561 209.3% Housing Units & Households 87/.+ # Housing Units 1,344 2,557 90.3% # Occupied Housing Units 707 1,890 167.3% 51 Recreational/Occasional 500 523 4.6% 31-W% Total Vacant 637 667 4.7% Homeownership Rate 37.1% 47.3% 27.6% Household Size oW% Renters 2.38 2.95 23.9% 0% 10% 20% 3D% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0/6 ofHousdxft Owners 2.82 2.64 -6.4% Overcrowded Units 64 285 345.3% Affordability Cost Burdened Households # 178 552 210.1% Cost Burdened Households % 35.0% 42.4% 21.0% Median Incomes 120.0% Household Income $35,294 $56,921 61.3% 100.0% Family Income $38,636 $52,339 35.5% 80.0% Per Capita Income $16,561 $30,115 81.8% 60.0% Median Housing Costs 40.0% Contract Rent $590 $954 61.7% Value- Owner Occupied $184,400 $373,000 102.3% 20.0% Mortgage Pmt. $1,250 $2,037 63.0% 0.0% Household Contract Value - Mortgage Income Rent Owner Pmt. Occupied Comparison to State of Colorado State of Colorado Avon Owner Occupied Units 67.3% 47.3% Renter Occupied Units 32.7% 52.7% Avon % Increase, 1990 & 2000 Household Income $47,203 $56,921 Family Income $55,883 52,339 Change in Household Income, 1990 - 2000 56.6% 61.3% % Cost Burdened 29.3% 42.4% Residential Growth Rate, 1990 - 2000 22.4% 90.3% RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 SECTION 2 — POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS This section evaluates population and household growth, household area median income (AMI) and households with housing problems. The section includes a discussion on the housing continuum and affordability levels for Avon residents. Population Estimates 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. According to the US Census Bureau, as of April 2000, there were 5,561 people living in Avon, making up 13.3 percent of Eagle County's total population. In 2005, it is estimated that about 14 percent of the population in Eagle County resided in Avon, based on a comparison of Department of Local Affairs population estimates for the county and town. Assuming this ratio remains consistent and Avon's population increases at a similar rate to Eagle County's, it is estimated that 7,220 residents reside in Avon in 2006, increasing to 8,256 by 2010 and 9,430 by 2015. Eagle County and Avon Population: 2000 to 2015 2000 2005 2006 2010 2015 Eagle County 41,659 100.0% 49,373 100.0% 50,618 57,881 66,113 Avon 5,561 13.3% 7,042 14.3% 7,220 8,256 9,430 Source: 2000 US Census; Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. Housing Unit Estimates Between 1990 and 2000, housing units in Avon increased about 90 percent compared to a 45 percent increase in the county as a whole. Between 2000 and 2005, it is estimated that housing unit growth in Avon and Eagle County occurred at slightly more similar rates (37 and 27 percent, respectively). Assuming housing unit growth rates are similar to the County through 2015 (17.2 percent), it is estimated that the number of total housing units will increase from 3,583 in 2006 to 4,089 in 2010 and 4,680 by 20152. Eaale Countv and Avon Change in Housina Units: 1990 to 2015 % Change % Change % Change 1990 2000 2005 2006 2010 2015 (1990-2000) (2000-2005) (2005-2010) Eagle County 15,226 22,111 28,169 28,879 33,023 37,719 45.2% 27.4% 17.2% Avon 1,344 2,557 3,495 3,583 4,098 4,680 90.3% 36.7% 17.2% Source: Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. 2 If Avon were to continue to grow at a relationally faster rate than Eagle County, about 23 percent between 2005 and 2010, there would be 4,302 households in 2010 as opposed to 4,098. RRC Associates, Inc. 20 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Household Estimates According to DOLA, the average household size in 2004 was 2.79. Assuming the household size remains constant, Avon will add approximately 2,388 persons, 1,185 housing units and about 824 households3 to the town by 2015. It is important to note that the percentage of units occupied by Avon residents has been decreasing according to Department of Local Affairs estimates, from about 74 percent in 2000 (based on the Census) to 69.5 percent in 2004. This means that the percent of out of area owners increased between 2000 and 2004. Avon Population, Households and Housing Units: 2000 to 2015 2000 2005 2010 2015 Population 5,561 7,042 8,256 9,430 Population in households (Census) 5,307 6,778 7,946 9,076 Household size (Census, DOLA) 2.81 2.79 2.79 2.79 Housing units 2,557 3,495 4,098 4,680 Percent occupied (Census, DOLA) 73.9% 69.5% 69.5% 69.5% Households 1,890 2,429 2,848 3,253 Source: Department of Local Affairs; Colorado Demography Section; 2000 US Census; RRC Associates, Inc Household Area Median Income (AMI) The following table shows 2006 income limits for households earning 30 percent AMI up to 180 percent of the AMI. Limits are based on the median family income for Eagle County, which is $80,000 in 2006, as determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Typically, these income guidelines are used to establish housing targets and thresholds for different local housing efforts, as well as for Private Activity Bond Allocations, Low- 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; Eagle 2006 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development; RRC Associates, Inc. Special tabulations of the 2000 US Census data (CHAS - Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) were used to determine the number and percentage of Avon households within each AMI category shown above. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the percentage distribution of households in 2006 across all AMI categories remained the same as that in 2000. As shown in the following table, about 37 percent of Avon's households earn 3 Households were estimated by assuming (1) 96 percent of residents reside in households (DOLA, 2004), (2) the average household size will remain consistent with that reported by DOLA in 2004 (2.79) and (3) residents will occupy about 69.5 percent of housing units, as reported by DOLA 2004 estimates. RRC Associates, Inc. 21 1 -person 2 -persons 3 -persons 4 -persons 5 -persons 30% AMI $16,800 $19,200 $21,600 $24,000 $25,900 50% AMI $28,000 $32,000 $36,000 $40,000 $43,150 60% AMI $33,600 $38,400 $43,200 $48,000 $51,800 80% AMI $41,700 $47,700 $53,650 $59,600 $64,350 100% AMI $56,000 $64,000 $72,000 $80,000 $86,333 120% AMI $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,600 150% AMI $84,000 $96,000 $108,000 $120,000 $129,500 180% AMI $100,800 $115,200 $129,600 $144,000 $155,400 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development; RRC Associates, Inc. Special tabulations of the 2000 US Census data (CHAS - Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) were used to determine the number and percentage of Avon households within each AMI category shown above. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the percentage distribution of households in 2006 across all AMI categories remained the same as that in 2000. As shown in the following table, about 37 percent of Avon's households earn 3 Households were estimated by assuming (1) 96 percent of residents reside in households (DOLA, 2004), (2) the average household size will remain consistent with that reported by DOLA in 2004 (2.79) and (3) residents will occupy about 69.5 percent of housing units, as reported by DOLA 2004 estimates. RRC Associates, Inc. 21 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 less than 80 percent AMI, 30 percent earn between 80 and 120 percent AMI and 33 percent earn over 120 percent AMI. This varies by tenure, where renters are more likely than owners to earn less than 80 percent AMI (57 percent of renters and 17 percent of owners). Income Distribution Of Avon Households By Tenure: 2000 Census (update to 2006) Estimates Renters Owners Total <=30% 219 16.7% 26 2.2% 245 9.9% 30-50% 269 20.5% 72 6.1% 341 13.7% 50-60% 92 7.0% 33 2.8% 125 5.0% 60-80% 163 12.4% 66 5.6% 228 9.2% 80-100% 205 15.6% 178 15.1% 383 15.4% 100-120% 161 12.3% 197 16.8% 359 14.4% 120-140% 57 4.3% 92 7.8% 149 6.0% 140%+ 148 11.3% 513 43.6% 662 26.6% 0 TOTAL 1,313 100% 1,178 100% 2,491 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CHAS; Colorado Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. 00%- 15.60/6 90% Step -Up and High End =r 80%- 51.4% x 27.90/6 Step -Up and High End 70% Entry Level Housing "- 60% '� e , 50% 19.4%0 s Market Rentals 40% Entry Level Housing 30% 20% y'l ., . 'Market Rentals 10% Emergency Subsidized 0% Households with "Housing Problems" As noted in the "Population and Demographics" section, about 42 percent of households in Avon were cost burdened (paid over 30 percent of their household income for rent/mortgage) in 2000, including 28 percent of owners and 48 percent of renters. RRC Associates, Inc. 22 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 The 2000 US Census CHAS (Comprehensive. Housing Affordability Strategy) tabulations report households with "housing problems" by household area median income (AMI) levels. "Housing problems" are defined as households that are lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, with 1.01 or more persons per room (i.e., overcrowded) and/or cost -burdened (paying more th an 30 percent of household income for rent/mortgage). About 44 percent of households reported having housing problems, including 33 percent of owners and 55 percent of renters. Evaluated by AMI range, the data shows that: • About 67 percent of renter households in Avon earning below 80 percent AMI reported housing problems. This AMI category represents the primary income range for rental unit demand. About 84 percent of renter households earning less than 60 percent AMI also reported housing problems. About 35 percent of owner households earning between 60 and 140 percent of the AMI reported housing problems, with those earning between 60 and 80 percent of the AMI and 120 to 140 percent of the AMI reporting the most problems (60 and 57 percent with housing problems, respectively). Owner housing programs often target households earning between 60 and 120 percent of the AMI, and potentially higher, depending on the needs in the community, where this income range includes entry-level buyers and some move -up buyers. Many of the higher income owner households (those earning over 140 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, clothing, medical, etc.). Only 5 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 substantial. Households With Housing Problems by AMI, 2000; Avon -30% 30-50% 50-60% m c 60-80% z a 80-100% 100-120% 120-140% 140%+ 83% O Renters ■ Owners 10% 1006% 100% 100% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Households Source: 2000 US Census (CHAS Special Tabulation) * "Housing problems" is defined as lacking complete plumbing facilities, or lacking complete kitchen facilities, or with 1.01 or more persons per room and/or with cost burden more than 30.0 percent. Housing Continuum The Housing Continuum, illustrated below, can be helpful in moving from aggregate estimates of housing units needed to specific programs and policies that target the housing needs within the community. The Continuum shows the percentage and number of households in Avon that fall into each AMI category, based on 2006 household RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 estimates, along with a spectrum of housing that is affordable and most likely to be sought out by households in each AMI group. The Housing Continuum depicts what may be ideal for most communities — the availability of housing that is affordable to all households and options for changing life circumstances. What is key in this approach is that.. there are opportunities for households to buy or rent at different economic levels, thus supporting an economically balanced community. As shown: Up to 80 percent AMt At the lowest income levels, homelessness and the threat of homelessness are important issues. Additionally, special populations who are unable to work (e.g., seniors and the 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 9.9 percent of Avon residents fall into this category (less than 30 percent AMI), with an additional 13.7 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of the AMI and about 14.2 percent earning in the low-income range (50 to 80 percent AMI). • 80 to 120 percent AM 1: As incomes near the median, households begin to approach the point where they can buy their first home (80 to 120 percent AMI). Policies at this level are typically designed to help bring homeownership within reach, including down payment assistance, firsttime homebuyer loans and deed - restricted housing. Approximately 29.8 percent of Avon households fall within this income range. • Over 120 percent AMI Finally, at the highest levels, upper income groups fuel the market for step-up and high-end housing, where about 32.6 percent of Avon households are included in this income level. Housing Continuum 2006 $53,651- $86,400 Middle Income SO- 120%AMI 536,001-$53,650 742 HH/29.8%HH Low Income 100% 110% 50-80%AMI 80% AMI AMI 353HH/U1.2%HH AMI 120% AMI Over $86,401 First Time Entry Above Middle Income 521,601-$36,000 500% AMI Home Level +120%AMI Very Low Income Market Buyers Market 811 HH/32.6%HH 30.50%ANI Rentals Housing 341 HH/13.7%HH Step Up 30% AMI Income 0.111091 Market Market Restricted O��F ,d►nG $0.521,600 180% AMI Under30% 0-30%AMi Emergency 1 Broad Renter Market High End 145HH/9.9%HH Subsidized 9 Market Source: 2000 US Census (CHAS); The Housing Collaborative, LLC; RRC Associates, Inc. *Incomes are presented for a 3 -person household in Avon. The following chart demonstrates the distribution of Avon households by AMI range. The largest percentage of households in Avon earn over 120 percent of the AMI and would be likely candidates for step-up and move -up housing (32.6 percent, income over $86,400) with 29.8 percent earning between 80 and 120 percent AMI (max income $86,400) and 14.2 percent in the 50 to 80 percent AMI category (max income $53,650). About 13.7 percent earn between 50 and 80 percent AMI (max income $36,000) with an additional 9.9 percent earning less than 30 percent AMI (maximum income of $21,600). Percent of Avon Households by AMI Range: 2006 RRC Associates, Inc. 24 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 50 t0 _ 29.8°% 32.6% 80°/, _" - 80 to 120% AMI Over 120% AMI $86,400`, Over $86,400 $53,650' , 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The following table calculates the maximum affordable purchase price and the maximum affordable rent by AMI range for Avon households. There are very few owner households making less than 80 percent AMI (16.7 percent) in Avon. Households in this range are more likely to rent than to own. A larger percent of owners (31.8 percent) are in the first time homebuyer and entry level housing market (80 to 120 percent AMI). The maximum affordable purchase price for these households is $227,823 (100 percent AMI) and $273,388 (120 percent AMI). The largest percentage of owner households in Avon (51.4 percent) make over 120 percent of the AMI. These households can afford to purchase units over $273,388. • The largest percentage of renter households (44.1 percent) make 60 percent or less of the AMI. These households can afford up to $900 a month for rent. Households earning between 60 and 80 percent AMI (12.4 percent) can afford up to $1,341 a month for rent. Households earning between 80 and 100 percent AMI (15.6 percent) can afford up to $1,800 a month for rent and households between 100 and 120 percent AMI (12.3 percent) can afford up to $2,160. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price and Rent by AMI; Avon 2006 % Owner Maximum Affordable % Renter Maximum AMI Range Income Range* Households Purchase Price** Households Affordable Rent*** 50% AMI or less $36,000 or Less 8.3% $113,918 137.1% $900 50.1-60% AW $36,001-$43,200 2.8% $136,694 7.0% $1,080 60.1-80% AMI $43,201-$53,650 5.6% $169,760 12.4% $1,341 80.1-100%AMI $53,651-$72,000 15.1% $227,823 15.6% $1,800 100.1-120%AMI $72,001-$86,400 16.8% $273,388 12.3% $2,160 120.1-140% AMI $86,401-$100,800 7.8% $318,952 4.3% $2,520 Over 140% AMI Over $100,800 43.6% Over $318,952 11.3% Over $2,520 *Calculated for a 3 -person household which is the average household size in Avon. **Assumes 5% down; 7% 30 -year loan; 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA. *** Assumes no more than 30 percent of household income is used for rent. RRC Associates, Inc. 25 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 SECTION 3 - EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUTING This section evaluates job growth, employment, wages paid, seasonality in employment and commuting patterns to understand the quantity and type of employee housing needed to support the local economy. Number of Jobs Estimates from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and the Economic Census Zip Code Business Patterns were used to estimate total jobs in the Town of Avon. Based on the Economic Census in 2004, Avon had about 29.2 percent of all jobs in Eagle County. This shows a slight increase since 2000, when Avon had about 26.1 percent of all Eagle County jobs. Assuming Avon maintains 29.2 percent of Eagle County jobs through 2010, it is estimated that jobs in Avon will increase about 14 percent between 2006 (11,768 jobs) and 2010 (13,463 jobs). Yearly Average Total Jobs; Eagle County and Avon 2000 2005 2006 2010 2015 Eagle County 34,505 39,390 40,358 46,173 52,043 Avon 8,990 11,485 11,768 13,463 15,175 % of Eagle County jobs that are in Avon* 26.1% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% 29.2% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA); US Census Bureau ZIP Code Business Patterns; RRC Associates, Inc. *Percentage of jobs in Avon are estimated from US Census Bureau ZIP Code Business Patterns in 2000 through 2004. Avon had 29.2 percent of the jobs in Eagle County in 2004— assumed to remain consistent through 2010 in the table. Jobs by Industry The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) reports that the average number of jobs in Eagle County between October 2003 and March 2004 was 27,211, with 8,161 being in Avon. This number is lower than the DOLA estimate because it includes workers covered by unemployment insurance and, therefore, does not generally include self proprietors and many agricultural laborers. However, QCEW provides useful estimates for the types of industries that supply jobs in a region. Based on this data, the largest percentage of jobs in Avon are in the arts, entertainment and recreation industry (36.6 percent), followed by accommodation and food services (19.5 percent), retail trade (12.8 percent) and construction (7.7 percent) — indicative of the tourism economy in the area. The three lowest categories are health care and social assistance (1.1 percent), finance and insurance (2.3 percent) and administrative and waste services (2.6 percent). Jobs in Eagle County, in comparison, are primarily in accommodation and food services (24.7 percent), construction (13.0 percent), arts, entertainment and recreation (12.7 percent) and retail trade (10.0 percent). RRC Associates, Inc. 26 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Avon and Eagle County Jobs by Industry: Average 2003 04 and 2004 Q1 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Construction Professional and Technical Services Other* Other Services Except Public Administration Public Administration Real Estate and Rental Leasing Administrative and Waste Services Finance and Insurance Health Care and Social Assistance 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%. 30% 35% 40% Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of Labor * Industries included in "Other" are: Utilities, manufacturing, whole -sale trade, transportation, information, management of companies, education and health care. Wages The following table shows the average yearly wage in Eagle County by industry as reported by QCEW. • Management of companies and enterprises (0.6 percent of jobs), finance and insurance (1.9 percent of jobs) and professional and technical services (3.9 percent of jobs) pay the highest wages in Eagle County. • Of the top three industries of employment in the Town of Avon, only arts, entertainment and recreation pays above the county average wage ($37,711), with accommodation and food services and retail trade both paying well below the county average ($22,747 and $30,208, respectively). Of the accommodation and retail employers interviewed, about 70 percent of positions were noted to pay under $13 per hour (or under about $27,000 per year). RRC Associal es, Inc. ME 36.6 ° -11217% 24.7% 12 S% ■ Avon 10.0% ° © Ea le Countv 0% 1.1 4% 9% ° 10.7°/ 3.4% 36% 4.6% 6.1% 35% 2.3 ° 1.9° 5.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%. 30% 35% 40% Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of Labor * Industries included in "Other" are: Utilities, manufacturing, whole -sale trade, transportation, information, management of companies, education and health care. Wages The following table shows the average yearly wage in Eagle County by industry as reported by QCEW. • Management of companies and enterprises (0.6 percent of jobs), finance and insurance (1.9 percent of jobs) and professional and technical services (3.9 percent of jobs) pay the highest wages in Eagle County. • Of the top three industries of employment in the Town of Avon, only arts, entertainment and recreation pays above the county average wage ($37,711), with accommodation and food services and retail trade both paying well below the county average ($22,747 and $30,208, respectively). Of the accommodation and retail employers interviewed, about 70 percent of positions were noted to pay under $13 per hour (or under about $27,000 per year). RRC Associal es, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Eagle Countv Average Wage by Industrv: 2005 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; Sorted in descending order of average wage paid in Eagle County. QCEW wage estimates show that, in 2001, Avon workers earned slightly less than those in the county as a whole. However, average wages in Avon during the fourth quarter of 2003 and first quarter of 2004 were about 8 percent higher than the county average ($39,086 vs. $36,075, respectively). Wages per worker increased about 15 percent between 2001 and 2005 in Eagle County, averaging about $36,427 in 2005. Average Annual Wage per Worker; Eagle Coun 2001 2002 2003 Q4 and 2005 % Change 2004 Q1 (2001-2005) Eagle County $31,583 $32,102 $36,075 $36,427 15.4% Avon $27,698 - $39,086 - Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; RRC Associates, Inc. Employees per Household and Jobs per Employee Employees often live together in family and unrelated roommate households, meaning that there is often more than one employee per residence. The number of employees per household was estimated from the 2000 US Census by dividing the number of households reporting earnings in Avon by the number of employed persons that are in households. This information is necessary when translating the number of employees into the number of households needed to house the workforce. Avon, as of the 2000 Census, had 1.85 workers per household. Additionally, according to DOLA, each employee in Eagle County holds about 1.2 jobs on average in 2006. RRC Associates, Inc. 28 Average Yearly Wage EAGLE COUNTY OVERALL $36,427 Mgt. Of Companies & Enterprises $102,423 Finance & Insurance $60,181 Professional & Technical Services $59,723 Utilities $58,095 Wholesale Trade $52,587 Health Care & Social Assistance $50,147 Mining $42,662 Construction $42,411 Real Estate $41,940 Manufacturing $41,698 Information $41,476 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation $37,711 Educational Services $31,470 Transportation & Warehousing $30,611 Retail Trade $30,208 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $28,766 Other Services $28,546 Administrative & Waste Services $28,401 Accommodation & Food Services $22,747 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; Sorted in descending order of average wage paid in Eagle County. QCEW wage estimates show that, in 2001, Avon workers earned slightly less than those in the county as a whole. However, average wages in Avon during the fourth quarter of 2003 and first quarter of 2004 were about 8 percent higher than the county average ($39,086 vs. $36,075, respectively). Wages per worker increased about 15 percent between 2001 and 2005 in Eagle County, averaging about $36,427 in 2005. Average Annual Wage per Worker; Eagle Coun 2001 2002 2003 Q4 and 2005 % Change 2004 Q1 (2001-2005) Eagle County $31,583 $32,102 $36,075 $36,427 15.4% Avon $27,698 - $39,086 - Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; RRC Associates, Inc. Employees per Household and Jobs per Employee Employees often live together in family and unrelated roommate households, meaning that there is often more than one employee per residence. The number of employees per household was estimated from the 2000 US Census by dividing the number of households reporting earnings in Avon by the number of employed persons that are in households. This information is necessary when translating the number of employees into the number of households needed to house the workforce. Avon, as of the 2000 Census, had 1.85 workers per household. Additionally, according to DOLA, each employee in Eagle County holds about 1.2 jobs on average in 2006. RRC Associates, Inc. 28 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Average Employees per Household: 2000 Avon Employed persons 3,415 Employed Persons in Group Quarters 127 Employed Persons in Households 3,288 Households with Earnings 1,774 Employed Workers Per "Economically Active Household" 1.85 Seasonality of Employment The following graph compares employment by month from 2001 through 2005. As shown in the graph, there is a seasonal fluctuation of employment by month in Eagle County. The winter months have historically been the peak employment months in Eagle County. The lowest (or base) employment months occur in May and October of each year, with the number of jobs over the past five seasons increasing an average of about 19 percent during the peak employment months of December through March. tq O O E z Eagle County, Employment by Month January, 2001 to December 2005 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) The estimated Winter seasonal jobs for Eagle County in 2005 are 4,592. This has fluctuated over the past five seasons, showing an overall decrease of about 900 seasonal jobs between 2001 and 2005. The decrease is related to both an increase in estimated year-round employment and fewer jobs over the winter months. An analysis of QCEW data for the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004 for Avon shows the average seasonal number of jobs at 3,118, including Vail Resorts employment.4 4 Vail Resorts moved some of their offices to Avon from Vail within the past 3 to 4 years. It is expected that most of the employees hired for the winter season through these offices actually work in the Town of Vail. RRC Associates, Inc. 29 t2oo5 32,000 -ir-2004 - r - 2003 A. 30,000 12002 -i--2001 28,000 26,000- 6,00024,00022,000 24,000- 22,001 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -0--2005 30,781 30,789 31,210 29,072 25,767 28,172 29,245 29,081 28,068 26,923 28,083 32,127 -x-2004 29,367 29,407 29,581 27,662 24,264 26,469 27,847 27,557 26,620 25,664 26,271 30,966 -*--2003 29,212 28,788 28,977 27,248 23,708 25,891 26,901 26,984 25,771 24,762 24,650 29,220 --m-20021 29,592 29,842 29,762 27,907 24,265 26,462 27,672 27,741 26,334 25,161 25,953 -*-2001 30,848 31,172 31,236 30,346 25,191 27,328 28,677 28,843 27,293 25,948 26,445M Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) The estimated Winter seasonal jobs for Eagle County in 2005 are 4,592. This has fluctuated over the past five seasons, showing an overall decrease of about 900 seasonal jobs between 2001 and 2005. The decrease is related to both an increase in estimated year-round employment and fewer jobs over the winter months. An analysis of QCEW data for the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004 for Avon shows the average seasonal number of jobs at 3,118, including Vail Resorts employment.4 4 Vail Resorts moved some of their offices to Avon from Vail within the past 3 to 4 years. It is expected that most of the employees hired for the winter season through these offices actually work in the Town of Vail. RRC Associates, Inc. 29 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Eaale Countv Estimated Winter Seasonal Employment: 2001 to 2005 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (QCEW); RRC Associates, Inc. Commuting Patterns The US Census provides place to place worker flows, estimating where workers live and where residents work by place of residence and employment. This information is useful in understanding employee and resident commute and living patterns. Where Workers Live: According to the 2000 US Census, about 88 percent of persons employed in Avon live in Eagle County. This includes 29 percent that live in Avon, 19 percent in Edwards, 11 percent in Eagle -Vail, and 6.5 percent in Vail. In total, about 71 percent of persons employed in Avon come from an outside community (in -commuters), or about 3,076 workers in 2000. About 12 percent report living outside of Eagle County (506 employees in 2000), including about 2.8 percent of workers living in Garfield County. Employer interviews indicate that the percentage of workers coming from Garfield County has decreased since the 2000 Census, with significant changes noted within the past six months. Where Avon Residents Work: About 96 percent of employed residents of Avon work in Eagle County, with 40 percent working in Avon, 24 percent in Vail, 7.3 percent in Edwards and 5 percent in Eagle -Vail. In total, 60 percent of workers living in Avon do not work in Avon (about 2,055 residents in 2000). About 3 percent report working outside of Eagle County (about 130 residents in 2000), including about 0.6 percent in Garfield County. Where Avon Workers Live: 2000 Where Avon Residents Work: 2000 Place of Residence Average Year -Round Average Winter Place of Work # I Employment Employment Estimated Winter Year (May and Oct.) (Dec. through Mar.) Seasonal Jobs 2005 26,345 30,937 4,592 2004 24,964 29,394 4,430 2003 24,235 29,336 5,101 2002 24,713 29,476 4,763 2001 25,570 31,085 5,516 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (QCEW); RRC Associates, Inc. Commuting Patterns The US Census provides place to place worker flows, estimating where workers live and where residents work by place of residence and employment. This information is useful in understanding employee and resident commute and living patterns. Where Workers Live: According to the 2000 US Census, about 88 percent of persons employed in Avon live in Eagle County. This includes 29 percent that live in Avon, 19 percent in Edwards, 11 percent in Eagle -Vail, and 6.5 percent in Vail. In total, about 71 percent of persons employed in Avon come from an outside community (in -commuters), or about 3,076 workers in 2000. About 12 percent report living outside of Eagle County (506 employees in 2000), including about 2.8 percent of workers living in Garfield County. Employer interviews indicate that the percentage of workers coming from Garfield County has decreased since the 2000 Census, with significant changes noted within the past six months. Where Avon Residents Work: About 96 percent of employed residents of Avon work in Eagle County, with 40 percent working in Avon, 24 percent in Vail, 7.3 percent in Edwards and 5 percent in Eagle -Vail. In total, 60 percent of workers living in Avon do not work in Avon (about 2,055 residents in 2000). About 3 percent report working outside of Eagle County (about 130 residents in 2000), including about 0.6 percent in Garfield County. Where Avon Workers Live: 2000 Where Avon Residents Work: 2000 Place of Residence # % Place of Work # I % Avon 1,240 28.6% Avon 1,2401 37.6% Edwards 800 18.5% Vail 775 23.5% Eagle -Vail 465 10.7% Edwards 240 7.3% Vail 260 6.5% Eagle -Vail 155 4.7% Gypsum 260 6.0% Eagle 105 3.2% Eagle 185 4.3% Gypsum 70 2.1% EI Jebel 20 0.5% Basalt 45 1.4% Other Eagle County 580 13.4% EI Jebel 25 0.8% Lake County 137 3.2% Other Eagle County 510 15.5% Garfield County 120 2.8% Summit County 40 1.2% Summit County 19 0.4% Garfield County 20 0.6% Other Colorado 230 1 5.3% Other Colorado 70 2.1% Total 4,336 1100.0% Total" 3,295 100.0% Source: 2000 US Census RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Employer Interviews Several employers were interviewed to understand more about how the availability of housing in the Town of Avon (both ownership and rentals) is affecting the ability of local employers to attract and retain employees. Interviews were conducted with about seven different employers, covering a range of businesses in Town and included a couple large local retail employers, the Town of Avon, the school district regarding employees in the Town of Avon, a local lodging business, a restaurant in Avon and Beaver Creek and Vail Resorts lodging. • The percentage of employees living in the Town of Avon varied from 75 percent to 31 percent, depending on the business. It was expected that the majority of Town of Avon residents rented rather than owned their units. Most of the seasonal workers in Beaver Creek were noted to reside in affordable rentals in the area (the Tarnes, Rivers Edge, Timber Ridge) with year-round employees living throughout Gypsum to East Vail area. • The majority of non-resident employees generally live west of Avon, with between 13 and 20 percent estimated to be living outside of Eagle County (primarily Lake County and Garfield County). It was noted that within the past six months, in -commuting workers from Garfield County have notably declined, meaning that the Garfield County labor force is less available to local businesses for filling positions. Employers noted that there is presently a very low unemployment rate in Eagle County, making it difficult to find and retain new employees. One retail employer indicated that "wage competition" among the retail industry results in local businesses exchanging employees rather than necessarily attracting new ones — meaning that they constantly have several positions that remain unfilled year-round. Similar sentiment was expressed by other employers through competition for service workers with the construction industry in particular, which can pay higher wages. Annual turnover in employees last year saw significant variation among the different employers, with between 10 to 15 percent turnover at the Town, 47 to 51 percent among the elementary schools in town and 125 percent at one retail establishment last year, with between 60 and 75 percent experienced so far this year at both retail establishments. One retail employer loses about 15 to 20 percentof their workers at the end of each ski season, not because they hire for seasonal jobs, but because people leave in April when the ski season ends. The local lodging company noted a 25 percent turnover this year, mostly in entry-level positions. • The restaurant in Avon was the only local business that noted the number of jobs available increase in the winter months (seasonal employment). They indicated they can usually find employees to fill their jobs when they come available and housing does not seem to impede their ability to find workers. It was noted that a lot of their staff reside in Buffalo Ridge, many with unrelated roommates. • It was noted that recruiting new employees during the months of November through April was largely not possible, unless the hiree already had housing in the area. Rentals are full at this time of year and the vast majority of new recruits cannot afford to purchase in the area. It was noted that housing is always a major issue during the 3 to 4 weeks of the winter holidays and finding an acceptable balance is a challenge. • When asked about priorities that employers see in the area for housing in terms of recruiting and retaining employees, the full spectrum of locally affordable housing options were mentioned, including: — Rentals for new hirees/recruits from outside the area. Vacancies are extremely low during the winter months and there is high competition for affordable rentals in the county. One exception was the school district, which noted that their new hires can usually find rentals; although more rentals for new single RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 teachers would help. Retailers, restaurant and lodging businesses also noted a need for units that could accommodate non -related roommates. — First-time homeownership opportunities to keep employees. It was noted that Miller Ranch was a successful and much needed project. A couple employers offered examples of new hires (one an engineer and one a co -manager) that owned homes in their previous communities and, upon moving to Avon, had difficulty locating housing to rent. Despite earning in excess of $60,000 per year, neither can find homes to purchase that they can afford. This was also noted by the school district to be a problem in retaining employees over time and they indicated that about 75 percent of their turnover last year was due to employees moving out of the valley to purchase homes. They find that they can attract young teachers out of college given the "glamorous" location, but when they decide to start a family, they often move out of the valley to afford a home. Along similar lines, more expensive, move -up housing affordable for higher paid positions, new recruits that owned homes in their previous communities so have some equity to apply toward a home and growing families (e.g., need more than a 600 square foot condominium) are also needed to retain employees. Realtor interviews and current listings for sale on the MLS indicate a large shortage of homes priced under $500,000 in the Town of Avon that would meet the needs of these households. RRC Associates, Inc. 32 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 SECTION 4 — HOUSING INVENTORY It is important to understand the availability of units in Avon to residents and workers ,in determining the housing needs in the community. This section analyzes data from the County Assessor'(September 2006) property records to evaluate current ownership housing inventory and conditions. This section also discusses the type of rental housing available in Avon, market rate rents, vacancy rates and income and employee restricted housing as determined from the Division of Housing and local property manager interviews. Ownership Units Type of Units Based on the County Assessor property records, about 70 percent of units in Avon are condominiums and 19 percent are single family residences. Another 5 percent are classified as manufactured and mobile homes and 6 percent are townhomes. Residential Units by Type; Avon 2006 Mobile/ Manufactured Townhome Home 6% 5% Single Family Residence Condominium 70% Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (September 2006); Excludes Apartments Construction since 2000 shows a slightly different mix of units by type then currently exists in the community. In particular, about 28 percent of units constructed since 2000 were single family homes, whereas only about 19 percent of units in Town a a single-family homes. Condominiums and townhomes represent a slightly lower percentage of units constructed since 2000 compared to the existing mix in the community and mobile homes represent a slightly higher percentage (7 percent of units built since 2000 and 5 percent of total units in the Town). Housing Units Constructed Between 2000 and October 2006: Avon Mobile home 7% Single family 28% Townhome , n'r 3% Condominium 62% Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (September 2006) RRC Associates, Inc. . Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Age of Units The age of units can be a factor in the suitability of housing for residents. As demonstrated in the table below, the majority of structures (91.5 percent) in Avon were built between 1980 and the present. Only about 7.2 percent of existing units were built prior to 1980 (over 27 years ago). Year Structures Built in Avon Year Built TOTAL Units Total % Before 1970 2 0.1% 1970 to 1979 210 7.1% 1980 to 1989 1,286 43.6% 1990 to 1999 924 31.8% 2000 or later 408 13.8% Unknown 118 4.0% Total 1 2,948 100% Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006 Ownership of Units The percent of Avon units owned by persons with a local Town of Avon address has remained about the same (44 percent) between 2001 and 2006. During the same time period, owners from other areas of Eagle County increased from 17 percent (2001) to 18 percent (2006) and owners from other areas of Colorado increased significantly, from about 2 percent (2001) to 9 percent (2006). This is consistent with realtor interviews, which indicate there is increasing interest by Front Range residents in purchasing weekend ski units in Avon. Correspondingly, the percentage of owners with addresses in other states or countries decreased, from 37 percent to 28 percent. 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Ownership of Residential Units: 2001 and 2006 Avon Other Eagle Other Other County Colorado State/Country Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (2001 and 2006) As shown on the following chart, ownership of units by locals varies by type of unit. About 76 percent of mobile/manufactured homes are owned by individuals with an Avon address. Over 50 percent of townhomes, single family homes and condominiums are owned by out•ofarea owners. RRC Associates, Inc. 34 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 TOTAL Mobile home Townhome Single family Condominium Type of Property by Owner Residency Status: Avon 2006 0% 109/6 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Ownership of Units Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) Evaluated another way, about 64 percent of units owned by Avon residents are condominiums, 20 percent are single- family homes and 9 percent are mobile homes. A higher percentage of out -of --area households own condominiums (74 percent) and a slightly lower percentage own single-family homes (18 percent) or mobile homes (2 percent) than resident owners. A similar percentage of units owned by residents and outofarea owners are townhomes (6 and 5 percent, respectively). Ownership Residencv by Tvpe of Propertv: Avon 2006 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) Value of Owned Units Eagle County assessor records report the total actual value of residential units. Based on these figures: • About 17.4 percent of units in Avon are valued under $100,000, or about 486 units total (less than 80 percent AMI). However, of the 486 units in this value range, 269 are condominium -lodge properties which are leased as vacation/short-term rentals. Therefore, about 217 would be available and potentially suitable for local resident ownership, with 71 percent of those units (153 total) being mobile homes. Condominiums RRC Associates, Inc. 35 Avon owners Out -of -Area owners Condominium 64.4% 74.4% Mobile home 9.4% 2.4% Single family 20.0% 17.8% Townhome 6.2% 5.4% TOTAL 100% 100% TOTAL # 1,235 1,549 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) Value of Owned Units Eagle County assessor records report the total actual value of residential units. Based on these figures: • About 17.4 percent of units in Avon are valued under $100,000, or about 486 units total (less than 80 percent AMI). However, of the 486 units in this value range, 269 are condominium -lodge properties which are leased as vacation/short-term rentals. Therefore, about 217 would be available and potentially suitable for local resident ownership, with 71 percent of those units (153 total) being mobile homes. Condominiums RRC Associates, Inc. 35 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 in this value range are sized between 220 square feet and 550 square feet with either zero or one -bedroom. Two Mountain Vista employee housing units have two -bedrooms. • Entry-level ownership homes (80 to 120 percent AMI), between about $100,000 and $200,000 comprise about 27.1 percent of units. These include condominiums and some townhomes. Move -up housing (over 120 percent AMI) priced between about $200,000 and $350,000 comprise about 30.2 percent of existing units in Avon. These are primarily condominiums and townhomes, with a few (about 60) single-family homes. Of the single family residences valued between $200,000 and $299,999, only 44 percent are stand alone structures. The median square foot of single family units in this price category ranges from 1,154 square feet to 1,556 square feet, with an average of three bedrooms. All of the units were constructed prior to 1999. • The remaining 19.3 percent of units are valued over $350,000. These higher priced units are primarily single-family homes. Owned Units by Value: Avon 2006 Mobile Single Value Condominium home Family Townhome Total % Total # Under $50,000 0.4% 70.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 116 $50K to $99,999 16.6% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 13.2% 370 $100K to $149,999 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 8.6% 240 $150K to $199,999 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% . 0.0% 18.5% 519 $200K to $249,999 18.9% 0.0% 1.1% 9.3% 14.0% 392 $250K to $299,999 12.5% 0.0% 4.0% 13.6% 10.3% 289 $300K to $349,999 4.7% 0.0% 6.3% 23.5% 5.9% 164 $350K to $399,999 4.2% 0.0% 10.5% 1$.5% 6.0% 168 $400K to $499,999 3.7% 0.0% 18.9% 17.3% 7.1% 200 $500K to $649,999 0.9% 0.0% 23.6% 7.4% 5.5% 154 $650K to $799,999 0.1% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 2.3% 65 $800K or more 0.0% 0.0% 23.6% 0.0% 4.4% 124 TOTAL 1,961 153 525 162 2,801 2,801 Median Value $171,170 $42,470 $545,380 $341,120 $218,100 - Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (2006) Deed Restricted Housing The Town of Avon, as of October, 21, 2005, reports a total of 63 deed restricted ownership units in seven different developments, including a total of 17 townhomes and 46 condominiums. The units were constructed between 1991 and 2001. The majority (15 total) of Mountain Vista Condominiums are still owned by The Sheraton and rented to employees of Avon or Eagle County earning 80 percent or less of the AMI with rents not exceeding 33 percent of household income. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Deed -Restricted Ownership Units in Avon: Year Built Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006); Town of Avon About 13 percent of the units are valued under $50,000, with 16 percent between $50,000 and $99,999, 46 percent between $100,000 and $149,999 and 25.4 percent between $150,000 and $199,999. All units priced under $100,000 are in Mountain Vista Condominiums, Deed -Restricted Ownership Units in Avon: Value Deed -restricted units Value # % Under $50,000 8 12.7% $50, 000 to $99,999 10 15.9% $100, 000 to $149,999 29 46.0% $150, 000 to $199,999 16 25.4% Total 63 100% Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006); Town of Avon Rental Housing This section discusses the type of rental housing available in Avon, market rate rents, vacancy rates and income and employee restricted housing. Unit Type It is estimated that about 53 percent of occupied units in the Town of Avon are occupied by renters (about 1,899 households in 2006). As of the year 2000, about 9 percent of rental units were single -unit attached or detached homes, with 6 percent occupying smaller 2- to 4- unit buildings and the majority (52 percent) in buildings with between 5 to 19 units. A total of 245 condominium units have been constructed since 2000 (10 in 2000, 120 in 2001, 70 in 2002, 45 in 2003) which could change the ratio of rental type units in 2006. RRC Associates, Inc. 37 1991 1992 1998 1999 2001 TOTAL units Wildwood Townhomes North 5 - - - - 5 Wildwood Townhomes South - 12 - - - 12 Lakeside Terrace Condos - - 3 - - 3 Lodge At Brookside Condos - - 3 - - 3 Chapel Square Condos - - - 8 - 8 Grandview Condos - - - - 12 12 Mountain Vista Condos - - - - 20 20 TOTAL units 5 12 6 8 32 63 Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006); Town of Avon About 13 percent of the units are valued under $50,000, with 16 percent between $50,000 and $99,999, 46 percent between $100,000 and $149,999 and 25.4 percent between $150,000 and $199,999. All units priced under $100,000 are in Mountain Vista Condominiums, Deed -Restricted Ownership Units in Avon: Value Deed -restricted units Value # % Under $50,000 8 12.7% $50, 000 to $99,999 10 15.9% $100, 000 to $149,999 29 46.0% $150, 000 to $199,999 16 25.4% Total 63 100% Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006); Town of Avon Rental Housing This section discusses the type of rental housing available in Avon, market rate rents, vacancy rates and income and employee restricted housing. Unit Type It is estimated that about 53 percent of occupied units in the Town of Avon are occupied by renters (about 1,899 households in 2006). As of the year 2000, about 9 percent of rental units were single -unit attached or detached homes, with 6 percent occupying smaller 2- to 4- unit buildings and the majority (52 percent) in buildings with between 5 to 19 units. A total of 245 condominium units have been constructed since 2000 (10 in 2000, 120 in 2001, 70 in 2002, 45 in 2003) which could change the ratio of rental type units in 2006. RRC Associates, Inc. 37 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Rentals by Type of Unit: 2000 50 or more Units 1,404 20 to 49 Units 15% Market Rate Rents Mobile/Manufactured Home 4% 1 Attached or Detached 9% 2 to 4 Units Source: 2000 US Census 5 to is units 52% Based on survey responses to the "Colorado Division of Housing Multi Family Vacancy and Rental Survey", (Colorado Division of Housing), rents in Eagle County have increased about 7.9 percent over the past five years. Rents during the first quarter (January through March) are lower than third quarter rents (July through September) between 2003 and 2005 and follows the general slowing rental market trend in Colorado at that time. Average Rent, 2001 to 2006: Eagle Coun Quarter 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 % change (2001— 2006) Firstquarter $1,000.70 $984.66 $982.62 $1,018.35 $1,051.90 $1,079.78 7.9% Third-quarter $984.34 $968.98 $1,009.64 $1,033.49 $1,074.66 - - Source: "Colorado Division of Housing Multi -Family Vacancy and Rental Survey," Colorado Division of Housing. Average rents for multi -family properties vary by size. As of the first quarter of 2006, market -rate rents in Eagle County range from about $570 ($1.90 per square foot) for 1 -bedroom units to $1,074 ($1.43 per square foot) for 2- bedroom/2-bath units. Average Rent by Unit Type, First Quarter 2006: Eagle County Apartment Type Average Rent Average Rent per Square Foot Efficiency $569.57 $1.90 1 -bedroom $855.56 $1.42 2-bedroom/1-bath $1,079.99 $1.43 2-bedroom/2-bath $1,073.94 $1.26 3 -bedroom $1,220.18 $1.24 All Units $1,079.78 $1.42 Source: Colorado Division of Housing "Multi -family Housing Vacancy and Rental Survey Information on Avon market rate rentals at Buffalo Ridge 11, Eagle Bend 1.111, and Kayak Crossing was gathered through interviews. All three apartment complexes offer 12 month leases only. Current market•rate rent for these properties varies from $870 to $975 for a 1 -bedroom unit, up to $1,525 for a 3- bedroom unit. Rents per square foot are higher than those in Eagle County as a whole. One bedrooms range from $1.53 at Eagle Bend, I•III to $1.64 at Buffalo Ridge ll. RRC Associates, Inc. 38 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Market Rents in Avon (Apartments): 2006 Source: Interviews Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates provide another measure of the health of the rental market. Typically, vacancy rates 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 suggest over- supply of housing. Survey data from the Colorado Division of Housing in Eagle County show vacancy rates increasing in the first quarter from 2001 (0.1 percent) to 2004 (20.4 percent), then decreasing to 1.3 percent in 2006. The high vacancy rates in 2004 coincide with units from Buffalo Ridge and Middle Creek coming on line (in excess of 380 units). The low 5.2 percent vacancy rate during the third quarter of 2005 (October through November) and 1.3 percent vacancy during the first quarter of 2006 (January through March) indicate that these units have been effectively absorbed by the market. Vacancy Rates, 2001 to 2006: Eagle County Quarter 2001 2002 - 2003 2004 - 2005 2006 First-quarter 0.1% 2.0% .2.0% 20.4% 9.2% 1.3% Third-quarter 1.1% 1.2% 17.1% 19.9% 5.2% - Source: Colorado Division of Housing "Multi -family Housing Vacancy and Rental Survey • Presently, Buffalo Ridge, Eagle Bend 1 -III, and Kayak Crossing report no vacancies. Eagle Bend 1 -III had one vacancy this summer as a result of a renter breaking his lease. They were able to fill it quickly. Buffalo Ridge and Eagle Bend VIII provided additional comments on unit occupancy and demand for units. • Buffalo Ridge has a waiting list with 20 people currently on it, all seeking one and two bedroom units. The complex relies heavily on the construction activity in the area, with most workers renting income restricted units. While there are no current vacancies, vacancies have been experienced during low construction activity years. Overcrowding is not an issue, while renters may try to increase the occupancy of rooms, parking is very limited and management strictly regulates it. • Eagle Bend VIII operates on a first come -first serve basis and rents mostly to couples and families. They feel they do not have any problems leasing their units. The vacancies that occur are usually from renters breaking their leases unexpectedly, which does not happen very often. RRC Associates, Inc. Buffalo Ridge Rent per Market Rent Square Foot Eagle Bend 1,11,111 Rentper Market Rent Square Foot Kayak Crossing Rentper Market Rent Square Foot Studio $625 $1.70 - - - - 1 -bedroom $975 $1.64 $870-$910 $1.60 - $1.53 - - 2-bedroom/1-bath $1,225 $1.37 $1,140 - $1,175 $1.53 $1,200 $1.45 2-bedroom/2-bath - - $1,195 - $1,255 $1.36 - $1.43 - - 3-bedroom/1 & 2 -bath - - $1,335 - $1,385 $1.30 - $1.32 $1,525 $1.41 4 -bedroom - - - - $1,930 $1.52 5 -bedroom - - - - $2,290 $1.61 - $1.23 Total Units 68 288 54 Source: Interviews Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates provide another measure of the health of the rental market. Typically, vacancy rates 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 suggest over- supply of housing. Survey data from the Colorado Division of Housing in Eagle County show vacancy rates increasing in the first quarter from 2001 (0.1 percent) to 2004 (20.4 percent), then decreasing to 1.3 percent in 2006. The high vacancy rates in 2004 coincide with units from Buffalo Ridge and Middle Creek coming on line (in excess of 380 units). The low 5.2 percent vacancy rate during the third quarter of 2005 (October through November) and 1.3 percent vacancy during the first quarter of 2006 (January through March) indicate that these units have been effectively absorbed by the market. Vacancy Rates, 2001 to 2006: Eagle County Quarter 2001 2002 - 2003 2004 - 2005 2006 First-quarter 0.1% 2.0% .2.0% 20.4% 9.2% 1.3% Third-quarter 1.1% 1.2% 17.1% 19.9% 5.2% - Source: Colorado Division of Housing "Multi -family Housing Vacancy and Rental Survey • Presently, Buffalo Ridge, Eagle Bend 1 -III, and Kayak Crossing report no vacancies. Eagle Bend 1 -III had one vacancy this summer as a result of a renter breaking his lease. They were able to fill it quickly. Buffalo Ridge and Eagle Bend VIII provided additional comments on unit occupancy and demand for units. • Buffalo Ridge has a waiting list with 20 people currently on it, all seeking one and two bedroom units. The complex relies heavily on the construction activity in the area, with most workers renting income restricted units. While there are no current vacancies, vacancies have been experienced during low construction activity years. Overcrowding is not an issue, while renters may try to increase the occupancy of rooms, parking is very limited and management strictly regulates it. • Eagle Bend VIII operates on a first come -first serve basis and rents mostly to couples and families. They feel they do not have any problems leasing their units. The vacancies that occur are usually from renters breaking their leases unexpectedly, which does not happen very often. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Income and Employee Restricted Rentals Buffalo Ridge II offers income restricted, section 42, housing. Their section 42 rates vary from $615 ($1.67 per square foot) for a 1 -bedroom to $1,025 ($1.15 per square foot) for a.2-bedroom/1-bath unit. River View Apartments has a total of 72 income restricted units, ranging from $1.42 to $1.48 per square foot. These units have a waiting list for occupancy, from six months to two years. City Market has 18 employee -restricted one -bedroom units for $725 per month. Income and Employee Restricted Rentals: Avon Buffalo Ridge Apartments Rent per Rent Square Foot River View Apartments Rent per Rent Square Foot City Market Rent Studio $615 $1.67 - - 1 -bedroom $875 $1.47 - - $725 2 -bedroom $1,025 $1.15 $1,190 $1.48 - 3 -bedroom - - $1,390 $1.42 - TOTAL units 1 176 72 18 In addition to the above, the Town of Avon also noted that they have 13 rooms available to bus drivers, at a cost of about $450 to $550 per month per person. Rooms are in three-bedroom configurations with a total rent of $1,150 to $1,350 per unit. Pending Income and Employee Restricted Units Currently, Avon has a total of 63 deed -restricted ownership units (15 of which are presently rented to employees) and 266 income- and employee -restricted rental units. Future additions to the program include the potential for 256 more units at The Village at Avon, 8 units at Lot B, 9 units on Lot 61 and the potential for another couple dozen units as both commercial and residential projects are redeveloped in the core areas of Town. RRC Associates, Inc. 40 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 SECTION 5 - HOUSING SALES This section identifies trends in sales of homes by type of unit, price and ownership. Information from the Eagle County Assessor database and the multiple listing service (MLS), along with realtor interviews, are examing to identify sales trends over time and units currently available to buyers. Residential Sales by Year The following table shows sales between 2000 and September, 2006, by type of units sold. The sales for 2005/2006 represent sales between Sept20-05 and Sept -19-06 (herewith known as 2005/2006 Sales). An average of about 68 percent of sales during this time period were condominiums, with another 18 percent being single family homes. On average, condo sales have been increasing, with a high of 74 percent of all sales in 2005. The percent of townhome sales by year varies between 3.6 percent in 2001 and 13 percent over the last year. The average percent of sales for mobile/manufactured homes is 6 percent with a yearly individual decrease from 8.1 percent of all sales in 2001 to 1.4 percent in September, 2006. Sales by Year: 2000 to September 19. 2006 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006); RRC Associates Residential Sale Prices The following chart shows the general trend of increasing sales prices in Avon over the past 5 years. Overall: • The percentage of sales priced below $150,000 declined from about 26 percent of sales in 2000 to 8.6 percent of sales over the last year. The percent of sales above $400,000 increased from 23.3 percent in 2000 to 47.8 percent last year (9/20/05 to 9/19/06). • In 2003, there were a relatively high percentage of sales (21 percent to 26 percent) between $150,000 and $250,000. New construction in the Barranacas Condos and the Grandview Condos (deed -restricted units) in 2003 accounted for 80 percent (24 units) of the sales in this price range. • The percent of sales between $300,000 and $400,000 increased slightly between 2003 (13.5 percent) and 2005/2006 (18.5 percent). RRC Associates, Inc. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005/2006 Mobile/Manufactured Homes 8.3% 8.1% 11.3% 1.6% 3.4% 2.8% 1 2.6% Condo 61.7% 70.6% 59.7% 71.5% 72.3% 74.4% 63.5% Single Family 20.7% '17.6% 21.6% 18.5% 15.1% 14.5% 21.0% Townhome 9.4% 3.6% 7.4% 8.4% 9.2% 8.3% 12.9% Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Sales 266 221 231 249 325 289 231 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006); RRC Associates Residential Sale Prices The following chart shows the general trend of increasing sales prices in Avon over the past 5 years. Overall: • The percentage of sales priced below $150,000 declined from about 26 percent of sales in 2000 to 8.6 percent of sales over the last year. The percent of sales above $400,000 increased from 23.3 percent in 2000 to 47.8 percent last year (9/20/05 to 9/19/06). • In 2003, there were a relatively high percentage of sales (21 percent to 26 percent) between $150,000 and $250,000. New construction in the Barranacas Condos and the Grandview Condos (deed -restricted units) in 2003 accounted for 80 percent (24 units) of the sales in this price range. • The percent of sales between $300,000 and $400,000 increased slightly between 2003 (13.5 percent) and 2005/2006 (18.5 percent). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 All Residential Unit Sales, 2000 to 2006: Avon en no JV.V %0 ❑ 2000 25.0% ■ 2003 ❑ 2005/2006 20.0%- 0.0%15.0%10.0% 15.0%- 10.0% 5.0%- .0%0.0% 0.0%_ Under $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $500,000 $650,000 $800,000 to to to to to to to to to $100,000 $149,999 $199,999 $249,999 $299,999 $349,999 $399,999 $499,999 $649,999 $799,999 or more 2000 1 13.2% 12.8% 13.2% 15.8% 8.3% 6.4% 7.1% 9.0% 6.8% 1.5% 6.0% ■ 2003 4.8% 10.8% 20.5% 25.7% 7.6% 8.0% 1 4.4% 5.6% 6.4% 4.0% 2.0% ❑ 2005/20061 3.0% 5.6% 4.3% 8.6% 12.1% 10.3% 1 8.2% 12.5% 15.5% 9.9% 9.9% Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) The following chart shows the median sales price for all units over the last five years. Based on these figures: • The median sale price of markedpriced homes in Avon (including sales of single-family homes, townhomes; condominiums, mobile/manufactured homes and other multi -family homes) increased by 64 percent between 2000 ($237,000 median) and 2005/2006 ($389,500). This includes a 48 percent increase in condominium median sale prices, a 66 percent increase in single-family home sale prices and a 72 percent increase in townhome sale prices. • The median sales price of townhomes spiked in 2001, from $300,000 to $405,000. A total of eight sales were recorded for townhomes during this time. Three of the sales were from the newly constructed "View Townhomes", which were constructed in 2001. The average sales price of the three units was between $400,000 to $499,999. • The median price of single family home sales increased by 40 percent between 2001 and 2002. Of the sales in 2002, 38 percent were priced over $650,000 (19 sales). These sales were located in Wildridge, Mountain Star, Eagle Bend and Beaver Creek point subdivisions. New units, or first time sales, comprised 32 percent of the sales over $650,000. • The median price of single family home sales also spiked between 2004 and 2005, increasing by 47 percent. In 2005, 56 percent of single family home sales were priced over $650,000, and 43 percent of those sales were in the Wildridge and Mountain Star Subdivisions. • The median sale price of mobile/manufactured homes decreased by 62 percent between 2000 and 2005/06. However, it is important to note that there are very few mobile homes sales in each year (about 22 in 2000 RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 declining to only 6 last year). The variation in mobile home prices may be due more to sample size than actual changes in value. There has been very little sales turnover of mobile homes since 2003 (between 4 and 11 sales per year). Median Sale Price for All Units .yavv,vvv $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 - 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005/2006 Mobile $48,750 $47,500 $43,000 $58,300 $30,000 $21,400 $18,500 -Condo $210,000 $188,000 $204,750 $204,000 $211,500 $280,000 $310,000 --*-Single Family $470,000 $420,000 $589,500 $561,250 $519,000 $764,500 $779,000 -E-Townhome $300,000 $405,000 $295,000 $336,000 $330,000 $399,000 $515,000 __�(_Total $237,000 $205,000 $216,500 $223,500 $230,000 $315,900 $389,500 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) The table below represents 2005/2006 sales in Avon by price of unit. This shows pricing trends similar to those noted in the evaluation of existing housing values of all units in Avon, where: • Very few single-family homes are priced below $500,000 (only 3 sales over the past year); • The selection of homes priced below $500,000 are largely limited to condominiums. The four townhomes that sold for between $100,000 and $149,999 were deed -restricted units in Wildwood Townhomes South; and • About 6 mobile homes were sold last year; all priced under $100,000. RRC Associates, Inc. I , Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Avon 2005106 Propertv Sales by Purchase Price Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) The median sale price per square foot offers more insight on actual increases in housing prices. The median sale price per square foot of all residences increased by about 74 percent in 2005/2006. Individually, the median per square foot sale price of condos increased the most, 85.4 percent, with single family homes increasing by 62.3 percent and townhomes increasing by 43.0 percent. Condo Single-family Townhome Mobile home TOTAL Under $100K 1 - - 6 7 $100K to $149,999 9 - 4 - 13 $150K to $199,999 10 - - - 10 $200K to $249,999 19 1 - - 20 $250K to $299,999 28 - - - 28 $300K to $349,999 22 - 2 - 24 $350K to $399,999 19 - - - 19 $400K to $499,999 20 2 7 - 29 $500K to $649,999 12 12 12 - 36 $650K to $799,999 6 12 5 - 23 $800K or more 1 22 - - 23 Total 147 49 30 6 210 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) The median sale price per square foot offers more insight on actual increases in housing prices. The median sale price per square foot of all residences increased by about 74 percent in 2005/2006. Individually, the median per square foot sale price of condos increased the most, 85.4 percent, with single family homes increasing by 62.3 percent and townhomes increasing by 43.0 percent. New unit sales are defined as housing units sold within one year of their construction. The price per square foot of sales for new construction varies from that of previously owned units. In 2000, the price per square foot for new units ($213 median) was 17 percent higher than for existing units ($182 median). This pattern continued to 2005 with the price per square foot of new units ($278 median) being higher than existing units ($261 median). Through the third quarter of 2006 this pattern changed with existing units ($325 median) costing more per square foot than new units ($271 median). The new sales recorded in 2006 (6 percent of total 2006 sales) consist of 5 townhomes and 4 single family homes, ranging in price from $200,000 to over $800,000. RRC Associates, Inc. 44 Median Sales Priceper Square Foot: Avon 2000 to September 19, 2006 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1200512006 % Change Single Family $178 $177 $185 $190 $211 $259 $290 62.7% Townhome $193 $169 $190 $200 $202 $236 $275 43.0% Condo $193 $191 $202 $206 $209 $272 $358 85.4% Median of All Units 1 $182 1 $185 1 $191 $203 1 $208 $266 $318 1 74.4% New and Existing Sales Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006); RRC Associates New unit sales are defined as housing units sold within one year of their construction. The price per square foot of sales for new construction varies from that of previously owned units. In 2000, the price per square foot for new units ($213 median) was 17 percent higher than for existing units ($182 median). This pattern continued to 2005 with the price per square foot of new units ($278 median) being higher than existing units ($261 median). Through the third quarter of 2006 this pattern changed with existing units ($325 median) costing more per square foot than new units ($271 median). The new sales recorded in 2006 (6 percent of total 2006 sales) consist of 5 townhomes and 4 single family homes, ranging in price from $200,000 to over $800,000. RRC Associates, Inc. 44 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Median Price per Square Foot Sales of New and Existing Units: Avon Sales in 2000, 2005 and Jan -01-06 to Sep -19-06 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 2000 2005 Jan -01-06 to Sep - 19 -06 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) An average of 25 percent of new unit sales between 2000 and 2006 were to Avon residents, where about 75 percent were to out of area owners. Distribution of existing sales is slightly more even, with 42 percent of existing sales being to new residents and 58 percent to out of area owners. The distribution of new and existing sales to Avon residents has remained fairly equal between 2000 and 2006. New and Existing Sales by Residency: Avon 2000, 2005 and 2006 Average Sales 2000 to 2006 New Existing Avon 25% 42% Out of Area 75% 58% Total 100% 100% Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006) Sale Prices and Local Incomes As shown below, median family incomes (as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Eagle County) increased about 17.5 percent between 2000 and 2006, compared to a much higher 81.4 percent increase in median sales prices in Avon. The median price of homes in 2000 was about 348 percent higher than the median family income and this has increased to a 538 percent difference in 2006. A household earning $80,000 in 2006 could generally afford a home priced at about $253,1375, or 316 percent more than the income. Incomes in Eagle County are not keeping pace with rising home prices in Avon. 5 Affordable purchase price for an average sized 3 -person household. Assumes 30 -year, 7 percent loan with 5 percent down, no more than 30 percent of household income paid toward housing payments and 20 percent of the housing payment goes toward HOA, insurance and PMI. RRC Associates, Inc. 45 New $325 • Existin 278 $271 s. $213 T Q i arq� a 2000 2005 Jan -01-06 to Sep - 19 -06 Source: Eagle County Assessor Data (October 2006) An average of 25 percent of new unit sales between 2000 and 2006 were to Avon residents, where about 75 percent were to out of area owners. Distribution of existing sales is slightly more even, with 42 percent of existing sales being to new residents and 58 percent to out of area owners. The distribution of new and existing sales to Avon residents has remained fairly equal between 2000 and 2006. New and Existing Sales by Residency: Avon 2000, 2005 and 2006 Average Sales 2000 to 2006 New Existing Avon 25% 42% Out of Area 75% 58% Total 100% 100% Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006) Sale Prices and Local Incomes As shown below, median family incomes (as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Eagle County) increased about 17.5 percent between 2000 and 2006, compared to a much higher 81.4 percent increase in median sales prices in Avon. The median price of homes in 2000 was about 348 percent higher than the median family income and this has increased to a 538 percent difference in 2006. A household earning $80,000 in 2006 could generally afford a home priced at about $253,1375, or 316 percent more than the income. Incomes in Eagle County are not keeping pace with rising home prices in Avon. 5 Affordable purchase price for an average sized 3 -person household. Assumes 30 -year, 7 percent loan with 5 percent down, no more than 30 percent of household income paid toward housing payments and 20 percent of the housing payment goes toward HOA, insurance and PMI. RRC Associates, Inc. 45 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Median Price of Homes vs. Median Family Income: 2001 to September 2006 Median Price Year of Sale (all sales) Median Family Income* (HUD - Eagle County) Median price as a % of median income 2000 $237,000 $68,100 348% 2001 $205,000 $70,500 291% 2002 $216,500 ' $74,900 289% 2003 $223,500 $73,600 304% 2004 $230,000 $76,700 300% 2005 $315,900 $79,950 395% 2006 to 9119/06 $430,000 $80,000 538% % increase (2000 to 2006) 81.4% 17.5% - Source: Eagle County Assessor records; Department of Housing and Urban Development; *Median Income reflects the 100% area median income (AMI) for a 4 -person family household in referred to as the median family income for an area. RRC Associates, Inc. Eagle County, or what is commonly Sales to Locals The following table indicates that the percentage of total units being purchased by local Avon owners has varied slighty between 2003 and 2006. This shows a decline in local purchasers of homes in 2005/06 compared to 2003. Percent of Sales to Avon Purchasers: 2003, 2005, 2006 (through September) Total Sales % Purchased by Avon Owners Sept -2005 to SepQ006 146 39.7% 2005 290 37.0% 2003 249 44.2% Source: Eagle County Assessor Records; RRC Associates, Inc. The table below shows sales in Avon over the last year by AMI range. • Of the units sold in 2005/2006 that are priced affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of the AMI (below about $169,760), 46 percent were sold to local Avon residents. About 30 percent of Avon residents are in the first time homebuyer/entry level market housing range (80 to 120 percent AMI). These residents can afford to purchase a housing unit priced between about $169,761 and $227,8236. In 200512006, 97 percent of the units sold in this price range were condominiums. There is high competition for these units with Avon residents only purchasing 42 percent of available units. This corresponds with realtor interviews, which indicate there is increasing competition for first time homebuyers from Front Range second home purchasers. • Of units sold in price ranges affordable to households earning between 120 and 140 percent of the AMI (generally the move -up housing range), about 40 percent were sold to persons with a Town of Avon address. These are units priced between about $274,000 and $320,000. 6 Affordable purchase price for an average 3 -person household in Avon. Assumes 30 -year, 7 percent loan with 5 percent down, no more than 30 percent of household income paid toward housing payments and 20 percent of the housing payment goes toward HOA, insurance and PMI. RRC Associates, Inc. 46 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 • Of units priced over $318,952, which is the higher -end ownership market, 37.8 percent were sold to local Avon residents. Sales 2005/2006 to Locals by Affordability Levels Total - 147 49 30 6 39.7% 'Calculated for a 3 -person household; assumes 5% down; 7% 30 -year loan; 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA; and no more than 30% of monthly income is used for the total housing payment. Multiple Listing Service The multiple listing service, as of October 13, 2006, lists 964 units for sale in Eagle County, with 129 units being located in the Town of Avon. The median sales price for units in Eagle County as a whole is $1,195,000, with the median sales price in Avon being $859,000. Of the units listed for sale in Avon, 68 percent are condominiums. The median sale price of available condominiums in Avon ($677,000) is significantly higher than the median sales price of units sold in 2005/2006 ($310,000). The higher median price can be partly attributed to new construction (40 percent of currently listed units). The median asking price of the new units is $1,437,500, while the median asking price of the units constructed prior to 2006 is $439,000. The median listing price of single family homes ($1,450,000) is also significantly higher than units sold in 2005/2006 ($779,000). This is partly due to units constructed between 2005 and 2007 (4 of 17 units listed), with a median listing price of $2,788,500. MLS Listings, October 13, 2006: Avon Property Type Affordable Purchase Price* Condo Mobile home Single - family Townhome % Avon Less than 50% AMI $113,918 1 6 0 0 71.4% 50 to 60% AMI $136,694 7 0 0 4 27.3% 60 to 80% AMI $169,760 8 0 0 0 50.0% 80 to 1.0.0% AMI $227,823 14 0 1 0 46.7% 100 to 120% AMI $273,388 23 0 0 0 39.1% 120 to 140% AMI $318,952 25 0 0 0 40.0% Over 140% AMI Over $318,952 69 0 48 26 37.8% Total - 147 49 30 6 39.7% 'Calculated for a 3 -person household; assumes 5% down; 7% 30 -year loan; 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA; and no more than 30% of monthly income is used for the total housing payment. Multiple Listing Service The multiple listing service, as of October 13, 2006, lists 964 units for sale in Eagle County, with 129 units being located in the Town of Avon. The median sales price for units in Eagle County as a whole is $1,195,000, with the median sales price in Avon being $859,000. Of the units listed for sale in Avon, 68 percent are condominiums. The median sale price of available condominiums in Avon ($677,000) is significantly higher than the median sales price of units sold in 2005/2006 ($310,000). The higher median price can be partly attributed to new construction (40 percent of currently listed units). The median asking price of the new units is $1,437,500, while the median asking price of the units constructed prior to 2006 is $439,000. The median listing price of single family homes ($1,450,000) is also significantly higher than units sold in 2005/2006 ($779,000). This is partly due to units constructed between 2005 and 2007 (4 of 17 units listed), with a median listing price of $2,788,500. MLS Listings, October 13, 2006: Avon Property Type Median Maximum Minimum Total Number Percent of Units TOTAL $859,000 $4,475,000 $215,000 129 100.0% Condominium $677,000 $2,415,000 $215,000 88 68.2% Single Family $1,450,000 $4,475,000 $795,000 17 13.2% Townhome/ Duplex $859,000 $1,532,000 $499,000 24 18.6% Source: MLS listings on-line (October 13, 2006); RRC Associates, Inc. Affordability by AMI The following table estimates the number of units that are presently for sale in Avon and the number of units sold in Avon in 2005/2006 that would be affordable to the average 3 -person household by AMI range. This shows that about 78 percent of current listings and 57 percent of 2005/2006 sales are affordable to households earning over 140 RRC Associates, Inc. J Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 percent of the AMI (or priced over about $320,000). There are no units currently listed that would be affordable to a 3 -person household making less than 80 percent of the AMI (37 percent of current households). Only 11 percent of the units sold in 2005/2006 were listed in that income range (6 mobile/manufactured homes, 16 condominiums and 4 townhomes). Affordable Purchase Price By AMI*: 2006 Maximum % Current # Current 2005/06% 2005106 # Affordable Maximum Income Listings Listings Sales Sales AMI Range Purchase Price (3 -person HH) (MLS) (MLS) (Assessor) (Assessor) 60% AMI or below $136,694 $43,200 0.0% 0 7.8% 18 61 to 80% AMI $169,760 $53,650 0.0% 0 3.4% 8 81 to 100% AMI $227,823 $72,000 3.5% 3 6.5% 15 101 to 120% AMI $273,388 $86,400 5.7% 5 9.9% 23 121 to 140% AMI $318,952 $100,800 5.7% 5 10.8% 25 Over 140% AMI Over $318,952 Over $100,800 85.1% 74 61.6% 143 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Eagle County Assessor (September 2006); RRC Associates, Inc. *Assumes 5% down; 7% 30 -year loan; 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA; no more than 30% of income used for total housing payment. I Comparing sales last year (9/20/05 to 9/19/06) by residency of owner to current MLS listings (10/13/2006) shows that the distribution of units sold to owners with an Avon address are very similar to sales to owners with an out -of -area address (other Eagle County, other Colorado or other state). In other words, competition across all price ranges among locals and out•o�area owners appears to be prevalent. Sales over the past year show a much higher percentage of units priced under about $320,000 (38 percent) than currently available on the market (15 percent). 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Avon Sales by Residency of Purchaser (200512006) vs. MLS (1011312006) by AMI Affordability Range 0 co 0 0 0 Avon owner 0 Out of area owner O MLS rn ao � o o °° N c c CD a Qj o 0 G C Less than 60% 60 to 80% AMI 80 to 100% AMI 100 to 120% AMI 120% to 140% Over 140% AMI AMI ($169,760) ($227,823) ($318,952) (Over $318,952) (Under ($273,388) $136,694) Source: Eagle County Assessor (2006); Department of Housing and Urban Development; RRC Associates, Inc. *Dollar figures in the legend represent the highest affordable purchase price for homes within each AMI range. RRC Associates, Inc. 48 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Realtor Interviews Several local realtors were interviewed to better understand trends and needs in the local real estate market. In general, it was stated that the largest factor affecting Avon's real estate market right now is the construction of the 8 - passenger high speed Gondola, connecting Avon to Beaver Creek resort. Realtors generally felt that the availability of housing in Avon is not currently meeting the needs of residents and local workers, with a statements to the effect that there is not enough housing in Avon to serve first-time homebuyers or any price point for that matter. A few felt that competition for affordable units, generally between $300,000 and $400,000, is very high and that many locals looking to purchase cannot find a unit in this price range. A couple noted that affordability is becoming even more of an issue since the new Gondola was planned, with prices noted to have increased $100,000 across the board since the project began. There is a lot of speculation, especially on the West side of town. One realtor noted that rent has also increased as a result in the increased interest from second homebuyers, and there is a need for short term seasonal housing in Avon. • Second homeowners were noled to be mostly families, searching for larger, higher end homes and condos with easy access to the town center and the new Gondola. More expensive homes, which do not have easy access to town, sit on the market longer and usually take a price reduction. While second homeowners are primarily concerned with location, views and access, locals tend to purchase within their price range, without a strong preference for one type of home over another. When asked whether realtors noted any gaps in the market, a couple noted that homes in all price ranges were sought after and difficult to find, especially those priced under $1,000,000. Specifically, all of the realtors noted that units priced under $500,000 are in high demand. One reason noted for this is the increase in Front Range residents purchasing units for weekend and holiday use. This group purchases units in a more affordable price range, which creates competition for local residents. Most workers seek housing in Gypsum and Eagle as a result of second homeowner demand and competition. RRC Associates, Inc. 49 Jt Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 SECTION 6 - HOUSING NEED This section estimates housing units needed by residents, in -commuters to the town and new workers filling future jobs across different AMI ranges (based on 10 -year employment projections). A discussion of seasonal worker housing needs is also provided. This section provides estimates of housing needs for multiple segments of the population and workforce to understand how many housing units and at what price points future housing should be provided to meet local needs. Need is identified through catch-up needs (the number of housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing— includes needs of residents and current in -commuters) and keep -up needs (the number of units needed to keep up with future demand for housing — based on future employment growth). Section 7 discusses the "gaps" in housing and compares total needs to units provided by the market to better understand where housing programs may need to be focused to meet resident and local worker needs. Avon Residents With "Housing Problems" (Catch -Up) Catch-up housing is generally defined as the number of housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing, whether from an affordability standpoint or from an availability standpoint. The 2000 US Census CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) tabulations reports households with housing problems by household area median income (AMI). Housing problems are defined as households that are lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, with 1.01 or more persons per room (i.e. overcrowded) and/or cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of household income for rent/mortgage). Residents and employees residing in substandard housing, overcrowded conditions or unaffordable units often leave their jobs and the community. It is important to note that constructing new units to serve Avon residents who are cost burdened causes the units occupied by costburdened households to become available to address a catch-up or keep -up need from other residents, in -commuters or new employees. For this reason, existing housing problems can help define gaps in current town housing but do not necessarily reflect a numerical increase in units needed within the community. Renter Households: About 83.8 percent of renters earning less than 80 percent AMI report housing problems, totaling about 622 households. Those earning less than 60 percent of the AMI are particularly likely to report problems, accounting for 438 households. Another 82.6 percent of the households earning between 60.1 and 80 percent of the AMI also report housing problems, or about 135 households in 2006. Renters earning over 80 percent of the AMI are typically desiring to purchase homes so have not been included in the below table. Need From Renter Households With "Housing Problems"; Avon 2006 Source: DOIA; 2000 Census (CHAS); RRC Associates, Inc. RRC Associates, Inc. 50 Renter With "Housing With "Housing Households Problems" Problems" AMI Range # % # Total Households 1,313 55.3% 726 =50%AMI 4�'. 487 84.10/c "' . :: 410 50.1 to 60% AMI 92 < 30,8% 28 60.1 to 80% AMI ' _. 163 135. Total <=80% AMI 742 83.8% 622 Source: DOIA; 2000 Census (CHAS); RRC Associates, Inc. RRC Associates, Inc. 50 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Owner Households: About 48.4 percent of owners earning between 60 and 120 percent AMI reported housing problems, totaling about 258 households. Often owners of households earning higher incomes are cosfburdened by choice so have not been included in the below table (i.e. over 140 percent AMI). It should be further noted that producing ownership units for households earning less than 60 percent AMI (less than $43,200 for the average 3 - person household) in the Avon market is difficult and many owner households in this income range are typically retired and not necessarily in need of assistance. Need From Owner Households With "Housing Problems"; Avon 2006 Owner With "Housing With "Housing Households Problems" Problems" AMI Range # % # Total Households 1,178 35.2% 415 <=60% AMI 131 100.0% 131 X60.1 to 80% AM < 3,, ` �:"66 ,. �_.': 60.0% f`. ;ds "`40 '= X80.1 to 100% AMI;.178 :' '°37.0% 66 100.1 to 120% AMI 197_' 50.0% m 99 . :> :120.1 to140%AMI r. > ,a 92 =.., ,�i;�.`-'57.1% ..:,� :' 53 Total 60.1 to 140% AMI 533 48.4% 258 Source: DOLA; 2000 Census (CHAS); RRC Associates, Inc. In -Commuters (Catch -Up) Demand from in -commuters represents a catch-up housing need. This is estimated by examining the percentage of in -commuters that would prefer to live in Avon over their present community if suitable housing within their price range was available. Results from the US Census indicate that 71 percent of Avon workers in -commute. Assuming this percentage stays the same, in 2006 there were about 6,962 workers commuting into the Town for employment. For purposes of estimating the percentage of in -commuters that would move to Avon if affordable and suitable housing is available, we have provided a range of between 25 to 50 percent.? Given this number, in 2006 between 1,741 and 3,481 in - commuters would move to Avon, requiring the need for between 941 and 1,882 additional housing units. Estimated Catch -Up In -Commuting Need for Housing; Avon 2006 2006 Percent Would Move 25% 50% Total jobs 11,768 # that would move to Avon 1,741 3,481 Jobs per employee (average) 1.2 Employees per household 1.85 1.85 Total employees 9,806 # of housing units needed 941 1,882 Percent that in -commute 71% Total in -commuting employees 6,962 Source: Department of Local Affairs; 2006 Community Survey (NWCOG); RRC Associates, Inc. The table below shows the number of in -commuter households by AMI range. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the percentage distribution of in -commuter households resembles the AMI distribution of current Avon households, as determined from the 2000 US Census. 7 Surveys in other counties and communities typically show that closer to between one-third and 50 percent of in -commuters would prefer to live in their place of employment. It is expected that the actual number that would move to Avon would comfortably fall within the 25 to 50 percent range. RRC Associates, Inc. 51 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 • Less than 80 percent AMI: About 37.7 percent of in -commuters that would move earn less than 80 percent AMI and would primarily be candidates for rental units (between 355 and 710 new households). A 3 -person household earning in this range could pay up to $1,080 per month8 in rent. • 80 to 120 percent AMI As shown below, about 29.9 percent of in -commuter housing (between 281 and 5151 new households) would be needed for entry-level buyer households. These units should be priced between about $170,000 and $274,000 for a 3 -person household. • Over 120 percent AMI About 32.6 percent of in -commuters that would move earn more than 120 percent AMI and would primarily be candidates for move up and high end housing (between 306 and 614 new households). These households could pay over about $274,000 for a home. AMI Distribution of In -Commuting Households That Would Move to Avon Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. In -Commuter Needs by Tenure Catch-up needs from in -commuters can further be broken down into rental units and ownership units. The following estimates assume that the percentage of in -commuters that would prefer to own or rent in the Town of Avon is consistent with the current mix of Avon resident households (52.7 percent renters and 47.3 percent owners). The percentage of households expected to own or rent by AMI range varies based on the 2000 Census CHAS data estimates for Town of Avon households. Rentals: Assuming that the percentage of in -commuters that would rent within each AMI range is consistent with the current mix of households in the Town of Avon (52.7 percent of households in total), a total of between 496 and 992 rental units would be needed to fill in -commuter needs. About 37 percent of the units would need to serve the population making less than 50 percent AMI. An average 3 -person household in this income range could afford up to $900 a month for rent. The median rent for a 3 -bedroom unit in Avon is about $1,220, which would serve the 60 to 80 percent AN income range (12.4 percent of the renter population). 8 Uses the average of a 3 person household income, assumes no more than 30 percent of household income is used for rent. RRC Associates, Inc. 52 % Of In -Commuters 2006 (Total Units) 25% Would Move 2006 (Total Units) 50% Would Move - <50% <50 /o AMI 23.5% 221 443 50.1 to 60% AMI 5.0% 47 94 60.1 to 80% AMI 9.2% 86 173 80.1 % -100% AMI 15.4% 145 289 100.1% -120% AMI 14.4% 135 271 120.1% - 140% AM 1 6.0% 56 112 Over 140% AMI 26.6% 250 500 TOTAL 100.0% 941 1,882 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. In -Commuter Needs by Tenure Catch-up needs from in -commuters can further be broken down into rental units and ownership units. The following estimates assume that the percentage of in -commuters that would prefer to own or rent in the Town of Avon is consistent with the current mix of Avon resident households (52.7 percent renters and 47.3 percent owners). The percentage of households expected to own or rent by AMI range varies based on the 2000 Census CHAS data estimates for Town of Avon households. Rentals: Assuming that the percentage of in -commuters that would rent within each AMI range is consistent with the current mix of households in the Town of Avon (52.7 percent of households in total), a total of between 496 and 992 rental units would be needed to fill in -commuter needs. About 37 percent of the units would need to serve the population making less than 50 percent AMI. An average 3 -person household in this income range could afford up to $900 a month for rent. The median rent for a 3 -bedroom unit in Avon is about $1,220, which would serve the 60 to 80 percent AN income range (12.4 percent of the renter population). 8 Uses the average of a 3 person household income, assumes no more than 30 percent of household income is used for rent. RRC Associates, Inc. 52 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Rental Unit Needs: In -Commuters, 2006 Income Range Maximum Estimated Estimated (3 -person Household) Affordable Rent* In -Commuter Need In -Commuter Need $113,918 8.3% (25%) (50%) <50% AMI $36,000 or Less $900 184 368 50.1 to 60% AMI $36,001-$43,200 $1,080 35 69 60.1 to 80% AMI $43,201-$53,650 $1,341 61 123 80.1% - 100% AMI $53,651-$72,000 $1,800 77 155 >100% AMI Over $72,000 Over $1,800 138 277 TOTAL** - - 496 992 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Local Affairs; 2000 US Census; RRC Associates, In *Assumes no more than 30 percent of household income is used for rent. **Assumes percent of total households who rent (52.7 percent) remained the same since the 2000 Census. Ownership: In total, between 445 and 890 ownership units would be needed to fill in -commuter needs. The largest percentage of ownership housing need (45 percent) is in the 60 to 140 percent AMI range (entry and part of the move -up ownership market). Individuals in this income range can afford to purchase a home between about $170,000 and $320,000. About 31 percent of sales last year were priced in this range, where all but one of the 72 sales in this range were condominiums. Ownership Housing Units Needs: In -Commuters, 2006 AMI Range Income Range Maximum affordable purchase price* Owner AMI distribution** Estimated In -Commuter Need (25 %) Estimated In -Commuter Need (50%) 50% AMI or less $36,000 or Less $113,918 8.3% 37 75 50.1-60% AMI $36,001-$43,200 $136,694 2.8% 12 25 60.1-80% AMI $43,201-$53,650 $169,760 5.6% 25 50 80.1-100%AM1 $53,651-$72,000 $227,823 15.1% 67 134 100.1-120% AMI $72,000-$86,400 $273,388 16.8% 75 149 120.1%-140%AM1 $86,401-$100,800 $318,952 7.8% 35 70 Over 140% AMI Over $100,800 Over $318,952 43.6% 194 388 TOTAL UNITS*** - - 445 890 *Assumes 5% down; 7% 30 -Year loan; 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA. **Assumes same AMI distribution as reported by the 2000 US Census (CHAS). ***Assumes percent of total households who own (47.3 percent) remained the same since the 2000 Census New Jobs (Keep -Up) New employees demand new housing units. It is estimated that between 47 and 65 percent of workers that fill new jobs would desire to live in Avon. This is derived from a combination of maintaining the current percentage of workers who currently live in Avon (abouf29 percent) and providing housing for the 25 to 50 percent of in -commuters that would move to Avon. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Estimated Percentage of Workers that Would Live in Avon 2006 25% in- 50% in- # commuters commuters Workers that currently 29% 2,844 live in Avon In -commuting workers 71% 6,962 In -commuters that would 1,740 3,481 live in Avon % Total workers that 47% 65% would live in Avon TOTAL employees 100% 9,806 # Total workers that 4,584 6,325 would live in Avon Source: Department of Local Affairs; 2006 Employee and Employer Surveys; RRC Associates, Inc. Based on estimated job growth, about 1,500 more employees will be needed to fill jobs in the Town of Avon between 2006 and 2010 and an additional 1,542 employees will be needed between 2010 and 2015. • If Avon wanted to maintain the current ratio of workers that live in town (29 percent), this would generate a need for an additional 435 new housing units by 2010 and an addiional 447 between 2010 and 2015. • If Avon wanted to increase the current ratio of employees that live in Town to meet total demand from new employees that would prefer to live in Avon (between 47 to 65 percent of all employees), between 705 and 975 additional housing units would be needed by 2010 and an additional 724 to 1,002 housing units would be needed between 2010 and 2015. Estimated Housing Need Generated by Job Growth in Avon 2006, 2010 and 2015 2006 2010 2015 Total jobs 11,768 13,463 15,175 Jobs per employee (average) 1.45 1.40 1.36 Total employees 8,116 9,616 11,158 2006 to 2010 2010 to 2015 Increase in employees 1,500 1,542 % of Employees that Currently live in Avon (2000) 29% 29% % of Total Employees that Live/Would Live in Avon (including 25% and 50% of in -commuters) 47% to 65% 47% to 65% Employees per household 1.85 1.85 Additional housing need (maintaining 29% of workers in Town) 435 447 Additional housing need (providing housing for 47% to 65% of workers that Live/Would live in Avon) 705 to 975 724 to 1,002 Source: Department of Local Affairs; 2000 US Census; RRC Associates, Inc. The following table estimates the number of housing units that will be needed at different AMI affordability levels to serve new workers in 2010 and 2015. The table assumes new worker households follow a similar AMI profile as existing Avon households (based on 2000 Census CHAS data) -and that 29 percent of the future workforce will be housed in Town (e.g., maintains the current ratio of workers that live in Avon). RRCAssociaies, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 • Less than 80 percent AMI: The table shows that 37.7 percent of units will need to be priced for 80 percent AMI households or below - primarily the renter market (about 164 new units by 2010). • 80 to 120 percent AMI: Entry-level homebuyers will comprise about 29.9 percent of new worker households (129 new households earning between 80 and 120 percent AMI by 2010). • Over 120 percent AMI: Step up and high end households would make up 32.5 percent of new worker households (about 142 new units by 2010). Estimated AMI Distribution of New Workers AMI Range % of Households (2006) 2010 (#) 2015 (#) 50% AMI or less 23.5% 102 105 50.1-60%AMI 5.0% 22 22 60.1-80%AMI 9.2% 40 41 80.1-100% AMI 15.4% 67 69 100.1-120% AMI 14.4% 63 64 120.1 to 140 % AMI 6.0% 26 27 Over 140 % AMI 26.6% 116 119 TOTAL (29% of new workers) 100.0% 435 447 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CHAS; Colorado Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc Keep -Up Needs by Tenure Keep -up need from growth in employment can further be broken down into rental units and ownership units based on income levels of local workers and housing preferences. The following estimates assume that the percentage of new employee households is consistent with the current mix of Avon resident households (52.7 percent renters and 47.3 percent owners). The percentage of households expected to own or rent by AMI range varies based on the 2000 Census CHAS data estimates for Town of Avon households. Rental Units: Rental units will be needed by an estimated 52.7 percent of new workers needed to fill new jobs generated through 2010 and 2015 (provided current estimated owner/renter ratios are maintained in Avon). This will result in demand for an additional 229 rental units by 2010 and an additional 236 between 2010 and 2015 if the current percentage of workers continue to be housed in Town (29 percent of new employees). About 56 percent of rental units will need to be priced for households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI ($53,650 per year for a 3 - person household; $1,341 monthly rent for a 2 to 3 -bedroom unit). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Keep -Up Rental Unit Needs: Growth in Jobs, 2010 and 2015 Maximum AMI range Income Range affordable rent* . Renter AMI distribution** 2010 (units) 2015 (units) 50% AMI or less $36,000 or Less $900 37.1% 85 87 50.1-60% AMI $36,001-$43,200 $1,080 7.0% 16 16 60.1-80% AMI $43,201-$53,650 $1,341 12.4% 28 29 80.1-100% AMI $53,651-$72,000 $1,800 15.6% 36 37 100.1-120% AMI $72,000-$86,400 $2,160 12.3% 28 29 Over 120% AMI Over $86,400 Over $2,160 15.6% 36 37 TOTAL UNITS (29.0% of workers)*** Over $100,800 - - 229 236 *Assumes no more than 30 percent of household income is used for rent. **Assumes same AMI distribution as reported by the 2000 US Census (CHAS). ***29 percent is the average percentage of workers that reside in Avon in 2000. Ownership Units: Units for ownership will also be needed by an estimated 47.3 percent of new workers needed to fill new jobs generated through 2010 and 2015 (provided current estimated owner/renter ratios are maintained in Avon). This will result in demand for an additional 206 units by 2010 and 211 between 2010 and 2015 if 29 percent of the new workforce is housed in Town. About 65 units, priced between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI, would be needed by new workers in 2010. Another 16 units priced between about $273,000 and $319,000 would be needed for households earning between 120 and 140 percent of the AMI in 2010. Keep -Up Ownership Unit Needs: Growth in Jobs, 2010 and 2015 AMI range Income Range (3 -person household) Maximum affordable purchase price* Owner AMI distribution** 2010 (units) 2015 (units) 50% AMI or less $36,000 or Less $113,918 8.3% 17 18 50.1-60% AMI $36,001-$43,200 $136,694 2.8% 6 6 60.1-80% AMI $43,201-$53,650 $169,760 5.6% 11 12 80.1-100% AMI $53,651-$72,000 $227,823 15.1% 31 32 100.1-120% AMI $72,000-$86,400 $273,388 16.8% 34 35 120.1-140% AMI $86,400-$100,800 $318,952 7.8% 16 17 Over 140% AMI Over $100,800 Over $318,952 43.6% 90 92 TOTAL UNITS (29.0% of workers)*** - - - 206 211 *Assumes 5% down; 7% 30 -Year loan; 20% of monthly payment for insurance, taxes, PMI, HOA. **Assumes same AMI distribution as reported by the 2000 US Census (CHAS). ***29 percent is the average number of workers that reside in Avon in 2000. Seasonal Workers Peak winter season employment generated demand for about 3,100 workers in Avon in 2003/2004. Itis important to note that this includes information from the Vail Resorts offices that moved to Avon a few years ago. It is expected that many of these seasonal employees actually work in Vail. Interviews with employers noted that most of the seasonal workers in Beaver Creek reside in affordable rentals in the area (the Tarnes, Rivers Edge, Timber Ridge) and that the real crunch typically occurs around the 3 to 4 weeks of the RRC Associates, Inc. 56 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 winter holiday period. Other employers noted that attracting new workers to the area that must find housing during the months of November through April was made more difficult due to the unavailability of housing during that time. It is important to not overbuild to accommodate the peak season population, but it is also necessary to find a balance between year-round availability of housing and peak season housing issues. Vacancy rates for market rate rentals in Eagle County as a whole indicate that the projects built in 2003 and 2004 (over 380 units in Middle Creek and Buffalo Ridge) have effectively been absorbed into the market — where third quarter 2005 (July through September) vacancy rates average 5.2 percent and first quarter 2006 (January through March) vacancy rates averaged a very low 1.3 percent. In addition, Eagle Bend apartments indicated they are presently 100 percent full and have only a handful of units turnover per year. Buffalo Ridge has a waitlist of 20 people and vacancies most commonly occur during low construction years (occupancy is tied to the construction industry in the area). Finally, River View presently has a waitlist as well. It is expected that the tight rental market for year-round occupancy in Avon (and Eagle County as a whole) may be affecting employers in Avon more significantly than housing for seasonal workers (though seasonal workers do strongly affect housing availability during the winter months). As work on the Gondola in Avon progresses and more seasonal attractions are added in Town (visitor accommodations, retail, etc.), seasonal worker housing should continue to be monitored to ensure that new development accommodates for the needs of the winter seasonal employment that may be required to operate new businesses. Summary of Catch -Up and Keep -Up Housing Needs In summary, between 941 (25 percent of in -commuters) and 1,882 (50 percent of in -commuters) units are currently needed to serve in -commuting workers in Avon, with an additional 705 to 975 units needed by 2010 and another 724 to 1,002 between 2010 and 2015. To help target catch-up housing needs, addressing current housing problems of residents (about 880 households) should be considered. By providing housing to serve current resident needs, the units presently occupied by these households will be vacated and can then serve additional in -commuter, resident and new employee housing needs. It should be noted that, in addition to the catch-up need identified from in -commuters and Avon residents with housing problems, current Avon renters that could buy and Avon resident owner households looking to purchase a different home create additional demand for housing in Avon. Providing housing for these households would help keep existing households in the community and retain workers needed by local employers. Addressing the housing needs for current residents with housing problems will help serve these groups, although the combined needs of all of these groups would be higher than represented in the below table. Resident, catch-up and keep -up housing needs are summarized in the following table, along with a summary of seasonal workers. • Resident housing needs have been defined for households with housing problems (as estimated from the 2000 Census). • Catch-up housing needs have been identified for in -commuters that would be expected to move to Avon if affordable and suitable housing was available (estimated to fall within the range of 25 percent to 50 percent of in -commuters). • Keep -up housing needs are identified based on housing the number of new workers needed to maintain the current ratio of local workers living in Avon (about 29 percent in 2006). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Total Current and Future Housing Need TOTAL Housing Rental Ownership Units Needed Units Units Resident needs (2006): Current residents* With housing problems 880 622 258 Catch-up need (2006): In -commuters: 25% Would Move 941 496 445 50% Would Move 1,882 992 890 Keep Up Need (2010 to 2015) New Jobs by 2010: Meeting Need for 47% of New Workers 705 372 176 Meeting Need for 65% of New Workers 975 514 461 Maintaining 29% of Workers in Avon 435 229 206 New Jobs between 2010 and 2015: Meeting Need for 47% of New Workers 724 382 342 Meeting Need for 65% of New Workers 1,002 528 474 Maintaining 29% of Workers in Avon 447 236 211 Seasonal Workers: Monitor needs with Gondola development and related. Primary need is among Vail workers currently, but will increase in Avon as "destination" development continues (Gondola, hotels/ accommodations, retail, etc.). *Each unit that addresses current resident needs should be assumed to also serve catch-up or keep -up needs of residents, in -commuters or new employees given that the unit vacated by the current residentin need can then be occupied by another household. RRC Associates, Inc. 58 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 t SECTION 7 - GAPS IN HOUSING This section estimates where the current housing stock may be deficient in meeting needs of resident households, in - commuters and future workers needed to fill new jobs in Avon, as calculated in the previous section (Section 6 - Housing Needs). Need is identified in terms of affordability by different AMI ranges and by tenure. This information can, therefore, be used to estimate where local housing programs should be focused to improve the affordability of housing to Avon residents and employees. Rental Housing Long-term rental housing in Avon is limited. Vacancy rates for market rate. rentals in Eagle County as a whole indicate that the projects built in 2003 and 2004 (over 380 units in Middle Creek and Buffalo Ridge) have effectively been absorbed into the market — where third quarter 2005 (July through September) vacancy rates average 5.2 percent and first quarter 2006 (January through March) vacancy rates averaged a very low 1.3 percent. In addition, Eagle Bend apartments indicated they are presently 100 percent full and have only a handful of units turnover per year. Buffalo Ridge has a waitlist of 20 people and vacancies most commonly occur during low construction years (occupancy is tied to the construction industry in the area). Finally, River View presently has a waitlist as well. Given the additional employees needed in the winter months, employers noted that attracting new workers to the area that must find housing during the months of November through April was made more difficult due to the unavailability of housing during that time. The current gap in the market that would most benefit current residents are for units priced under 50 percent AMI (Under $900 per month for a three person household) and units priced between 50 and 80 percent AMI (between $900 and $1,341 per month for a three-person household). Providing units for the estimated 287 resident renter households in Avon earning 80 percent AMI or less with housing problems would also serve other resident, catch-up and keep -up needs given that local residents will vacate their current unit to occupy the new unit. It is therefore assumed that two households are served with each local affordable housing unit provided, effectively reducing the estimated need from resident households in half. Units Needed By Renter Households With "Housing Problems" (2006 Maximum Renter With "Housing Estimated Need Affordable Rent Households Problems" (50% of Gap) AMI Range (3 -person household) # % # # TOTAL households - 1,313 55.3% 726 363 <=50%AMI "':. '; $900 ;:;f..•'.'''488 »> 84.1% '410 205 = . .J 50.1 to 60% AMI a $1,080 92 30.80/( 28 14<; 60.1 to 80% AMI $1,341: .. : :'163 '82.60% 135 ._ .. -' 68 Total <=80% AMI - 742 83.8% 622 287 Shaded area indicates where the market may be deficient in meeting needs. • Comparing market rents in Avon to the primary catch-up and keep -up needs for rental units, it is apparent that more rentals affordable to households earning under 80 percent AMI are also needed to serve current in -commuters and future employee needs9. As shown below, this would equate to about 64 units to catch- up to current demand from in -commuters and another 84 units by 2010 to address new employee needs and about 89 units by 2015. 9 Market -rate rents for three-bedroom units in Avon are between $1,300 to $1,500, which falls within the potential affordability range for three- person households earning between 80 and 100 percent AMI. Seethe "Housing Inventory" section of this report for more detail on rentals. RRC Associates, Inc. 1 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Estimated Catch -Up and Keep -Up Need for Rental Units in Avon: 2006 Maximum affordable Estimated in - AMI Range rent (3 -person commuter need 2010 (additional 2015 (additional household)* (catch-up)** keep -up units) keep -up units) 50% AMI or less $900 - ° 184 to 367 ` := 85 . , )) ` : ", 87 50.1 to 60% AMI $1,080 35 to 69 16 )f 16 60.1 to 80% AMI $11,3414-`,.`62 to 123 : ' 28 29 80.1%-100% AMI $1,800 77 to 155 36 37 >100% AMI Over $1,800 138 to 277 64 66 TOTAL <80% AMI - 281 to 559 129 132 *Assumes no more than 30 percent of household income is used for rent. Shading represents areas of estimated primary need. **Range includes 25% to 50% of in -commuters. Shaded area indicates where the market is expected to be deficient in meeting needs. It is expected that the tight rental market for year-round occupancy in Avon (and Eagle County as a whole) may be affecting employers in Avon more significantly than housing for seasonal workers (though seasonal workers do strongly affect housing availability during the winter months). As work on the Gondola in Avon progresses and more seasonal attractions are added in Town (visitor accommodations, retail, etc.), seasonal worker housing should continue to be monitored to ensure that new development accommodates for the needs of the winter seasonal employment that may be required to operate new businesses. In summary: • A total of 568 to 846 rentals priced below 80 percent AMI would be needed to address catch-up needs from residents with housing problems (287 units) and 25 to 50 percent of in -commuters (281 to 559 units). Assuming that the development of Buffalo Ridge in 2003 filled some of this need (244 units), then total catch-up need declines to between 333 and 602 units. , • Seasonal units are not necessarily as significant a need as year-round rentals, but seasonal needs should continue to be monitored as "ski front" development (e.g., Gondola, accommodations, etc.) occurs in Avon. As more winter visitors are attracted to Town, this will most likely change the picture of seasonal worker needs among local businesses in the future. • Finally, production of an estimated 129 units by 2010 and another 132 units by 2015 for households earning less than 80 percent AMI would serve keep -up needs from future employment growth. RRC Associates, Inc. 60 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Total Rental Unit Needs: Residents, In -Commuters and New Employees, 2006-2015 Current Resident Needs Catch -Up Units Seasonal Keep -Up Keep -Up Rental Units (50 /° of households with (In -commuters)* (Workers) Units (2010) Units (2015) "housing problems") <50% AMI 205 184 to 367. 85 87^ 50.1 to 60% AMI 14 . F ' 35 to 69 ` :16 16 ` z` ;60.1 to 80% AMI 68 62 to 123 Over 80% AMI 76 215 to 432 100 103 TOTAL Need 363 496 to 992 229 235 Unmet Need 287 (units) 281 to 559 (units) Monitor 129 (units) 132 (units) (<80% AMI) Unmet Need (incl. 324 to 602 total units Monitor 129 (units) 132 (units) Buffalo Ridael** *Range includes 25% to 50% of in -commuters. ** It is important to note that, since the 2000 Census, Buffalo Ridge was developed in the Town of Avon. This development potentially served about 244 renter households earning under 80 percent AMI with more affordable and suitable housing accommodations. About 44 units are affordable to 1 -person households earning less than 50% AMI; 44 are affordable to 2 -person households earning less than 60% AMI (or 1 - person earning less than 80% AMI); 88 to 2 -person households under 80% AMI or 3 -person households under 60% AMI. Shaded area indicates where the market is expected to be deficient in meeting needs. Ownership Housing For purposes of understanding current gaps present in ownership housing provided by the Avon market, resident and in -commuter needs within different AMI affordability ranges were compared to the properties currently listed on the MLS (October 13, 2006). As shown on the following table, th a distribution of sales that occurred over the past year (September 20, 2005 to September 19, 2006) shows that property availability over the span of last year was more diverse in the lower price ranges than available on the current MLS. This is in part due to new deed -restricted unit construction, as well as turnover of lower priced properties throughout the year. Sales over the past year show a much higher percentage of units priced under about $320,000 (38 percent) than currently available on the market (15 percent). Conversely, about 89.1 percent of units on the MLS are priced over $318,952, compared to about 61.6 percent of properties that were sold last year. While the following "gaps" analysis compares current MLS availability to estimated resident, in -commuter and new employee demand to understand what the market is providing, it should be recognized there are several deed - restricted ownership properties in the Town of Avon and turnover of these properties is occurring. Provided deed restrictions serve the purpose of maintaining AMI affordability over time, the Town is building inventory of units that will remain affordable for entry-level and other buyers over time. RRC Associates, Inc. 61 ,: 1 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 100% y 80% `0 40% 200512006 Sales vs. MLS (10113106): Avon 89.9% 13 % Sales Last Year ®%MILS 61.6% s. S„ `s 6.5°�u 9.9% 10.8% 3.0%4.7% 3.4% 2.3°�a=73.9% 3.9% _ Less than 50 to 60% 60 to 80% 80 to 100% 100 to 120% 120% to Over 140% 50% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI 140% AM] AMI (Over ($113,918) ($136,694) ($169,760) ($227,823) ($273,388) ($318,952) $318,952) Source: Eagle County Assessors Data (2006); Eagle County MLS; RRC Associates, Inc. 'Dollar amount reflects affordable purchase price for a 3 -person household in each respective AMI range. Catch -Up Ownership Housing: It is estimated that about 129 units are needed to address current resident needs (owners with housing problems). This is based on the assumption that each new housing unit produced to address a local need results in serving a total of two households (given that each resident that vacates an existing unit frees up that unit, which can then be occupied by another household). The bulk of ownership needs are in the 100 to 140 AMI percent range (about 76 units). Estimated Resident Housing Needs: Avon Maximum Affordable Owner With "Housing Estimated Need Purchase Price Households Problems" (50% Gap) AMI Range (3 -person household)* # % # # Under 60% AMI $136,694 131 100.0% 131 NA 60.1 to 80% AMI t. $169,760 ';...., ?` r 9 > 66 :60.0°!0: 40 .,` 120 80.1 % =100%AMI . ;;`., .' $227,823 -' ... ° '. . ' '.178 . tit r ' 37.0% 66 n.. , ,"a. 33 ,100.1°!0 -.120%`AMI '" $273,388,)J? 197 50.0%'4 99 , X120.1%-140%AMI ;�3 $318,952,':`,,'1'- �`'� 92 ��57.1% 53 r. ".26�=�� r> Over 140% AMI Over $318,952 513 5.0% 26 NA TOTAL - 1,178 415 129 In addition to resident housing needs, workers that commute into Avon also produce demand for housing. The below table shows that about 202 to 403 units would be needed to serve in -commuters earning between about 60 and 140 percent of the AMI. Comparing current resident and in -commuter needs for housing to available units shows that: • The primary deficiency in the provision of housing occurs for entry-level homeownership units priced between about $227,823 and $273,388 (80 to 120 percent of AMI), with between about 210 to 350 units needed which are not currently supplied. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 j, OF • Resident and in -commuter need for housing also exceeds supply in the move -up housing range for households earning between 120 and 140 percent AMI (units priced between $273,389 and $318,952) by between about 57 and 92 units. • Evaluating just resident housing needs shows that current supply is not sufficient to meet the needs of current owners in the Town of Avon. About 100 more units priced between 60 and 140 percent of the AMI are needed to help resident households with housing problems. Serving these households will also provide some opportunities for local renters to purchase homes (60 b 100 percent AMI range primarily) and owners looking to move up to larger homes to meet family needs (100 to 140 percent AMI primarily). Catch -Up Ownership Housing Needs vs. MLS (1011312006) and RecentlPendina Development: Avon AMI Range Max Affordlable Purchase Price' Need Total Resident In -Commuter Need NeecF Supply 9114106 Recent MLS Development3 Catch -Up Needs 50% AMI or below $113,918 NA 37 to 74 0 0 NA 50.1 to 60% AMI $136,694 NA 12 to 25 0 0 NA 60.1 to 80% AMI,, $169,760 20 ; ; s.; 25 to 50 0 �'' 11 -34 to -59 `. 80.1 to 100% AMI ;.r": $227,823: 33; .; 67 to 134 '_ 3 °?::_ 6 -91 to -158 100.1 to 120% AMI , . '�,' $273,388, 50 <.'; 75 to 149.': 5 "." ��, 0 -120 to -194 120.1% to 140 AMI "� `,;,��, $318,952 � . , �.� 27 35 to 70 0 �'-57 to -92 140% AMI or more Over $318,952 26 194 to 388 74 0 -146 to -340 TOTAL 60 to 140% AMI 129 202 to 403 13 17 -301 to -502 Shaded area represents primary need. (Maximum purchase price for a three-person household earning within each income range. Assumes 5% down, 7.0% interest for 30 years and 20% of monthly payment for property taxes, insurance and HOA fees, with no more than 30% of household income used for housing payments 2Need calculated for 25% and 50% of in -commuters. 3Recent development includes 12 units of Grandview Condominiums and 5 units of Mountain Vista Condominiums in 2001. Future additions to the program include the potential for 256 more units at The Village at Avon, 8 units at Lot B, 9 units on Lot 61 and the potential for another couple dozen units as both commercial and residential projects are redeveloped in the core areas of Town, although these units have not yet been approved and specifics of affordability are not known. 4A negative value indicates that the supply of units is less than (or deficient in meeting) the number of units needed. Keep -Up Ownership Housing: Keep -up ownership needs, as determined from future job growth and employment requirements, indicate an additional 206 units will be needed to meet employee household demand by 2010 and 211 will be needed between 2010 and 2015. Of these, about 45 percent will need to be priced for households earning between 60 and 140 percent of the AMI (about 92 units by 2010 and 96 units by 2015). This rate of housing provision will allow Avon to keep -up with the current ratio of workers that are presently housed in Town (about 29 percent) as job opportunities increase in the future. RRC Associates, Inc. 63 .r J Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Keeo-UD Ownership Housing Needs: 2010 and 2015 TOTAL Units 206 211 Shaded area represents primary need. *Maximum purchase price for a three-person household earning within each income range. Assumes 5% down, 7.0% interest for 30 years and 20% of monthly payment for property taxes, insurance and HOA fees, with no more than 30% of household income used for housing payments RRC Associates, Inc. Maximum affordable purchase price* 2010 2015 Under 60% AMI $136,694 23 24 60 to 80%AMI.x; , < . , . x$169,760 12:=` 100%AMI ":'$227,823,--' 31 -." ' 32 `< ,100,1%=120%AMI $273,388 :-.4'': 34 35'` 120.1%=140%AMI 17,``' Over 140% AMI Over $318,952 90 92 TOTAL Units 206 211 Shaded area represents primary need. *Maximum purchase price for a three-person household earning within each income range. Assumes 5% down, 7.0% interest for 30 years and 20% of monthly payment for property taxes, insurance and HOA fees, with no more than 30% of household income used for housing payments RRC Associates, Inc. Staff Report PUD Amendment a of the VALLEY C 0 L 0 R :A D 0 December 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report date December 19, 2006 Project type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Legal description Wildwood Resort Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3 Current zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) Address NA (No addresses assigned) Introduction & Summary The applicant, Steve Isom, representing the owner of the property, Tanavon Corp, is proposing to amend the Cottonwood PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of five (5) lots and two tracts. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, is presently zoned as the Cottonwood PUD, and is platted as the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision (Exhibit A). The proposed amendments to the existing plat and PUD are focused primarily on re -subdividing the Wildwood Subdivision from three (3) developable lots into four (4); to introduce a new, optional Montessori School use; to introduce a new Science School use; and to reallocate the existing, permitted uses amongst the newly subdivided lots. Staff Recommendation At the applicant's request, staff is recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE the subject proposal to the January 16, 2006 hearing. Copies of correspondence to -date between the applicant's representative, town staff, and other pertinent agencies are attached for reference (Exhibit B). If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please contact me directly at 748-4002, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matthew R. Gennett, AICP Senior Planner Report Attachments: A. Vicinity Map B. Correspondence (Includes Comments from Planning and Engineering) Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 M n x x Wildwood Subdivision - Lots 1,2,3 and Tract BB 12/12/20,l36_17:21 9703266266 _._.ISOM AND ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT B ISOM A ASSOCIATES O Architecture Land Planning Project Management, RECEIVED December 12, 2006 DEC 12 2006 Hiatt Gennett Town of Avon, Senior Planner Community Development P. O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Buck Creek PUD Dear Matt: This letter will confirm our conversation of Monday, December 11, 2006, concerning the Buck Creels PUD. It was agreed at the meeting that the Applicant, Tanavop Corporation, for the Buck Creek PUD would request tabling at the meeting of the Planming and Zoning Commission for the Town of Avon on Tuesday. December 193 2006. The reason for the request for tabling is to allow time for the Applicant to address issues raised at the meeting on December 11, 2006. It is understood that you will still have a short presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission presenting the project and what we are requesting we will then do our presentation so that tbore can be input from the Committee. We could tbw address any concerns by the committee during the tabling process. I The tabling that is requested above would be to the third Tuesday in January which would be January 16, 2007, or another mutually agreed to date. This would give us time to complete additional information for the Town. If there are any questions concerning the above request, please contact this office. Sincerely yours, tephen In cc: Tanavon Corporation K602BucW,=kKMMaUGcm1cU121206 R0, Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (970) 328-2388 FAX (970) 328-6266 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (970) 328-8730 FAX: (970) 328-7185 Email: comdev@eaglecounty.us www.eaglecounty.us 11 December 2006 Town of Avon Community Development Attn: Matt Gennett, AICP P. O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81631 EAGLE COUNTY RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 Community 09yelopment RE: Buck Creek Planned Unit Development Amendment and Minor Subdivision of the Wildwood Resort, Lots 1, 2 and 3 Eagle County File No. IAR-00197 Dear Matt: Thank you for your referral of the proposed Amendment to the Wildwood Resort, Lots 1, 2 and 3, creating the Buck Creek PUD. The site is 16.297 acres in size and located immediately north of Nottingham Road and east of Mountainstar Road. We understand that permitted uses on the existing 3 lots include a 150 unit hotel, a private park (including a clubhouse) and 50 multi -family residential units. The Buck Creek PUD would re -subdivide the 3 lots to create a 4 1 developable lot and permitted uses would include, in addition to the above, a facility for a Montessori School or offices and an educational facility with residential accommodations for the Gore Range Natural Science School. The one comment we would offer is that, due to the proximity of the site to Buck Creek to the east, we encourage the Town to fully consider impacts to the stream, including the floodplain and wetlands/riparian areas. Adequate measures should also be taken to properly address stormwater management issues. Thank you again for allowing Eagle County an opportunity to respond to the referral. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincer Joseph Forinash, AICP Planner Cc: Board of County Commissioners Bruce Baumgartner, County Administrator Keith Montag, Director of Community Development Bob Narracci, Planning Manager G:\PLANNER FILESUoe\CurrentPlanning\InterAgencyRevie%r\I A R 00197 13uckCrcekPUD\Rcsponse.doc Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 Page 1 of 1 Matt Gennett From: Matt Gennett Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:00 PM To: Jeffrey Schneider Cc: Shane Pegram; Norman Wood Subject: RE: Wildwood PUD Hey Jeff - I am awaiting a letter from Johnson & Kunkel which Mr. Isom says answers most (all?) of the questions raised by your comments related to welands issues, floodplain, and everything else of concern. It should be here shortly and we can meet this afternoon... perhaps 3:00? Just let me know (cell: 390.2803). Thanks, MG From: Jeffrey Schneider Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:28 AM To: Matt Gennett Cc: Shane Pegram; Norman Wood Subject: Wildwood PUD When do you want to look at this thing today? 12/8/2006 Memorandum To: Matt Gennett, Senior Planner, Town of Avon From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 12/4/2006 Re: PUD Amendment, Buck Creek PUD, Avon The above project was reviewed for fire department concerns with the following comments: - The amended uses and addition of a Montessori school do not impact fire department service. - Access and circulation throughout the project will need to meet Town standards and accommodate the turning criteria for the most restrictive fire apparatus. Based on the building heights, that apparatus would be the department's ladder truck. Please have the developer contact Prevention to get a copy of those criteria. It appears the multi-family/duplex portion of the project has limited 'access to the east. Water line size and hydrant locations were also not identified. Based on these 2 items, additional life safety protection may be required within the buildings. If there are any other questions, please contact me at 970-748-4741. 12/05/2006'115:32 9703286266 ISOM AND ASSOCIATES j ISOM & ASSOCIATES 0 Architecture Land Planning Protect Management November 29, 2006 Matt Gennett Town of Avon P. O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Buck Creek PUD Dear Matt: PAGE 01 I am in receipt of your comments from Shayne Pegram sad, Jeffrey Schneider of November 14, 2006. It does appear that all the items are fairly minimal but I would like to address them in this letter. Most of the items will be addressed at Final Plat and/or Final Construction Drawings. 1. The name will be changed to "tract" instead of "track". 2. The reference to Metcalf Road hes been changed to Nottingham Road. 3. The references on Page 3 of the PUD Control Document have been changed to the appropriate lot numbers. 4. Page 5 of the PUD Control Document has been changed in the reference to Lot 3. 5. In the Minor Subdivision Letter the typographical error in the second sentence has been corrected from "miner" to `minor". 6. The Wetland Delineation Report in Paragraph 8H on page 4 is correct at 0.41 acres. 7. An application has been made to the US Army Corp of Engineers _for a revised letter on the Wetland Delineation. 8. The Delineation Wetlands is shown on the overall engineering plan by Johnson, Kunkel and Associates. 9. It is noted that the Subgrade investigation by CTL Thompson does refer to Morning Star Drive rather than Buck Creek Road. P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (970) 328-2388 FAX (970) 328-6266 12/05/2006 15:32 9703286266 ISOM AND ASSOCIATES PAGE 02 10. Site Specific Geotechnical studies will be prepared by soils engineers prior to construction of individual buildings. It is noted that the Seismic Risk Zone B is now appropriate for the site. 11. The attached letter from Johnson, Kunkel aid Associates addressas the difference between the 216 CFS shown in 1l a Town of Avon Masher Drainage Study of September 1994, and the new Floodplain Study'of Buck Creek dated October 2, 2006, by Johnson, Kunkel and Associates which uses 355 CFS. Preliminary Plan — Amended Final Plat and Consstmetion Plans 12. It is noted that the listed information will be included on the Final Plat to include street addresses, Section Township and Range on the vicinity map, Summary Table of acreage, Monuments and a note stating' whether lots/units may be used as time share units. 13. Approval letters from Eagle Riven water and Sanitation District, Holy Cross Electric, Excel Energy, and Qwest will be provided. 14. The vicinity map will be changed to refer to Buck Creek Road',', _. 15. There is no set back for Buck Creek Road. Actually, Buck Creek Road encroaches on Lot 2. 16. The fire hydrants will be adjusted in the Final Construction Plai 'SO, ` 17. The major tree masses will be shown on the engineering drawings per Avon Municipal Code 16.20.170 (3). Ia. The streets in question are all private streets maintained by the -- Owners Association and therefore not required to have all cut and fill slopes inside the street right-of-way. As a PUD the applicant would have the right to do the cuts and fill areas on the property as necessary to prepare the overall project for construction 19. The drainage swale fiom station 2+00 to 0+39 will be addressed. by Johnson, Kunkel and Associates in Final Construction Drawings. 20. The typographical errors will be corrected. 21. The testing on the roadway will be increased to a reasonable amount, say 200 feet. I • .till, 12/05/2006 15:32 9703286266 ISOM AND ASSOCIATES i 22. The plans will be forwarded to the Eagle River Fire Protection District for review. It is proposed to build a lot of the internal roads at the sauce time as the main access road is built which will allow for turn arounds inside the project and also hannmer-head turn arounds. PAGE 03 23. A geogrid mat will be shown for the typical road plans. 24. , The catch curb will show the tie-in to the culverts on the fined drawings. 25. It is noted that detailed soils reports will be required for all fugue buildings in the project 26. Permanent eases for the eventual improvements at the Buck Creek Road and Nottingham Road intersection will be shown on the Apaended FixW Plat. 27. As a PUD the applicant is showing development in the 30 foot set back which would be a variance from Avon Municipal Code 16.40.270. 28. The revegetation for the road cut area will be submitted as part of the funal plans by Johnson, Kunkel and Associates. The revegetation will be past of the overall development plans by the individual lot developers/owners at the time of submittal for the development which will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This addresses all of the concerns listed in the letter of November 14, 2006. It is noted that many of these changes will be made at the time of the Final Phd and Final Construction Drawings. cc: Johnson, Kunkel and Associates, Inc. Starbuck Surveyors Oscar Tang Jay Peterson Markian Feduschak Brian Sipes Km&b*crad MsthC,a,x#TOA112906 12/05/2006 15:32 9703286266 ISOM AND ASSOCIATES PAGE 04 kii'lJohnson, Kunkel & • CIVIL November 30, 2006 Matt Gennett Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 ciates, Inc. - ARCNRECTURA one sign ENGINEERING - MAPPING Re: Response to Comment #11 from Town of Avon comments dated November 14, 2006 Comment 11- It appears that the 100 -year flow used in calculating the 100 -year floodplain is inconsistent with previous reports. The 100 -year flow from Basins IV and V is shown to be 216 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Town of Avon Master Drainage Study, September 1994). The drainage report Included in the submittal titled "Floodplain Study of Buck Creek" dated October 2, 2006 uses 35S eft derived from a statistical analysis of similar basins in the county, and as such, results in several design issues, including but not limited to: larger floodplain areas, construction of flood control berms, and potential overtopping of the three 464nch culverts and flooding Nottingham Road. Response -The Town of Avon Master Drainage Study (September 1994) estimates flows for this drainage by the SCS Curve Number method. The results of this method are highly dependent on hydrologic soil group mapping. A large portion of -the upper reaches of this basin have not been mapped as of this date by the NRCS. The Master Drainage Study referenced US Forest Service maps to estimate hydrologic soil conditions in the area not mapped by the NRCS. Given this absence of accurate soil group mapping, it is my engineering judgment that the statistical method will provide a more accurate estimate of storm flows from this basin. Additionally, our client's proposed use for Lot 1 would also indicate taking a conservative approach. Steve L. Miller P.E. " Johnson, Kunkel & Assoc. Inc. P.O. Box 409. 1286 Chambem Ave. - Suite 200 • Eagle, Col wn& 81831 - Phone: (870) 328 -am -Fax: (87p) 329.1035 www.jkanda.com rs,.'L . .. 12/05/2006 15:32 G(10SS Ov A � z r 2 TO Sso�o 9703286266 December 1, 2006 Mr. Stephen Isom Isom & Associates PO Box 9 Eagle;'CO 81631 RE. Buck Creek P.U.D. Dear Mr. Isom: ISOM AND ASSOCIATES PAGE '05 3799 HIGHWAY 82 - P.O. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945.5491 • PAX (970) 945-4081 The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY 14L] a -4'a - Michael A. Mlkolic, Engineering Department 970-947.5435 MAM:vw W/0#06-19813:Buck Creek P.U.D. A Touchstone Furgy° Cooperative h•�-� 12/05/2006 15:32 9703286266 Isom .Associates ISOM AND ASSOCIATES °!'fid-' PAGE 06 From: Lemon-L'heureux, Debomh (Deborah Lemon-Lheureuxacable-MMast.com] Sent: Monday, Devember 04, 2006 5:08 PM To: isomawa8.net Do; Evans, David Subject: Here Is my contact info Franzy, Comcast will be happy to serve your new project called Buck Creek on Nottingham Road in Avon, CO, 81620. Please send us maps etc. and let us know when we can most to discuss further. Deborah Lemon-L'Heureux Business Services Group Manager I Mountain Area Comcast PO Box 439 0281,Metcalf Rd, #110 Avon, CO 81620 cell 970-418-0010 fax 970-949-9138 office 970-949-1224x105 1 Memorandum To: Matt Gennett, Senior Planner, Town of Avon From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 12/4/2006 Re: PUD Amendment, Buck Creek PUD, Avon The above project was reviewed for fire department concerns with the following comments: - The amended uses and addition of a Montessori school do not impact fire department service. - Access and circulation throughout the project will need to meet Town standards and accommodate the turning criteria for the most restrictive fire apparatus. Based on the building heights, that apparatus would be the department's ladder truck. Please have the developer contact Prevention to get a copy of those criteria. - It appears the multi-family/duplex portion of the project has limited access to the east. Water line size and hydrant locations were also not identified. Based on these 2 items, additional life safety protection may be required within the buildings. If there are any other questions, please contact me at 970-748-4741. HEART of the VALLEY MEMORANDUM To: Matt Gennett From: Shane Pegram; Jeffrey Schneider CC: Norman Wood; Eric Heidemann Date: November 14, 2006 Re: Buck Creek PUD COMMENTS: The following comments are in response to our review of the above referenced PUD Amendment and associated plans: PUD Amendment and Minor Subdivision Application 1. It appears that Numbers 6 and 7 on Page 2 of the PUD Amendment use the word `Track' instead of `Tract' when referring to Tracts AA and BB. 2. Items (2) and (4) on Page 3 and item (7) on Page 4 of the PUD Amendment appear to incorrectly refer to Metcalf Road instead of Nottingham Road. 3. Page 3 of the Planned Unit Development Control Document appears to contain incorrect references to Lot 1-B in paragraph (a) and Lot 5 in the paragraph (b) heading. 4. Page 5 of the Planned Unit Development Control Document appears to contain an incorrect reference to Lot 3 in the paragraph (b) heading. 5. It appears that the second sentence of the Minor Subdivision Letter dated October 14, 2006 contains a typographical error. `Miner' should read `minor.' 6. Section IV on Page 4 of the Wetland Delineation Report, dated July 1996, does not show a total wetland acreage. Moreover, it appears that there is a discrepancy between paragraph H on Page 4 and Table 2 in that the acreage of Wetland Area H is shown to be 0.041 acres, whereas the text in Paragraph H, Page 4 shows Area H to contain 0.41 acres. This is an important discrepancy that could result in over one-third of an acre of wetlands to be discounted, potentially raising the total acreage from 2.195 to 2.564 on Table 2. 7. It appears that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Wetland Determination Letter is no longer valid. The Letter states that verification is valid for 5 years from the letter date of August 21, 1996, therefore an updated letter must be provided. 8. Delineated wetlands represented on a map along with proposed development and grading would be necessary to ensure that a wetland mitigation program is not required for the project. 9. The Subgrade Investigation Letter from CTL -Thompson appears to contain incorrect references to `Morningstar Drive' rather than `Buck Creek Road.' 10. It appears that an update to the `Seismicity' section of The Preliminary Geotechnical Study provided by HP Geotech dated January 24, 1997 would be CADocuments and Setting s\mgennett\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK115\Buck Creek PUD Preliminary 11- 10-06.doc required since the adoption of the 2003 International Building Code and its designation of Seismic Risk Zone 2 for the proposed development. 11. It appears that the 100 -year flow used in calculating the 100 -year floodplain is inconsistent with previous reports. The 100 -year flow from Basins IV and V is shown to be 216 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Town of Avon Master Drainage Study, September 1994). The drainage report included in the submittal titled "Floodplain Study of Buck Creek" dated October 2, 2006 uses 355 cfs derived from a statistical analysis of similar basins in the county, and as such, results in several design issues at the site, including, but not limited to: larger floodplain areas, construction of flood control berms, and potential overtopping of the three 48 -inch culverts and flooding Nottingham Road. Preliminary Plan — Amended Final Plat and Construction Plans 12. The following items should be added before submittal of Final Plat: • Street addresses for each lot; • Section, Township & Range line on Vicinity Map if applicable; • Summary Table including total lots, total acreage and total acreage use; • Monuments; • Note stating whether lots/units may be used as time-share units. 13. Approval letters from ERWSD, Holy Cross, Excel Energy and Qwest will be required. 14. It appears that the vicinity map on the Construction Plans Cover Sheet incorrectly refers to `Morning Star Road' rather than `Buck Creek Road.' 15. It appears that the proposed new road encroaches into the setback line along Buck Creek Road in Lot 2. 16. It appears that fire hydrants are located in the roadway in Lot 2 and Lot 3. 17. Avon Municipal Code 16.20.170 (3) states that "major tree masses shall be shown on the plan." It appears that the large cottonwood/willow trees adjacent to Nottingham Road are not accurately represented, as well as many other areas of large tree masses. 18. Avon Municipal Code 16.40.090 (a) states that "all cut and fill slopes and retaining structures shown as a result of street constriction shall be located within the proposed dedication of street right-of-way or provided easements." It appears that Sheet 8 of 11 shows cut and fill slopes outside of the provided easement on several cross sections. 19. The swale that can be seen in the cross sections for stations 3+00 and 2+50 appears to terminate at station 2+00, well before the culvert at station 0+39.2. What directs drainage to the culvert and not the proposed roadway? 20. Sheet 11 of 11 contains several typographical errors: • Notes #11 and #12 are incorrectly overlayed together; • The word `subgrade' is misspelled in Benching Detail notes; • The word `needed' is misspelled in Utility notes. 21. Notes on sheet 11 of 11 list soil density test requirements at 1000 ft. intervals for road subgrade. With the length of proposed road being less than one -thousand feet, it appears that an increased testing frequency would be appropriate, C:\Documents and Settings\mgennett\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK115\Buck Creek PUD Preliminary 11- 10-06.doc 2 especially considering the apparent unsuitability of native soil material for roadway construction. Similarly, testing frequency for embankment and base course material should be increased. 22. The proposed road appears to dead-end at Lot 4, in order to allow vehicles such as snow plows and emergency service vehicles to turn around, a cul-de-sac with a minimum of thirty-six foot paved radius bulb may be required. Plans should be forwarded to Eagle River Fire Protection District for review to ensure that emergency vehicle ingress/egress from all lots on the proposed subdivision is acceptable. 23. The Soils Report dated September 12, 2006 by CTL Thompson recommend placing a geogrid mat over the soils that are not suitable to support pavements in the areas of their borings S-2 through S-5. The proposed road plans, cross sections, and typical sections do not reflect this requirement. 24. The roadway plans show a catch curb running the entire length of the proposed access road, but a detail is not provided showing the tie-in from the catch curb low point to the culvert at the low point at station 0+56.82. 25. The Soils Report from HP Geotech dated January 24, 1997 states that the soils throughout this area are not suitable to support foundations. Future foundation designs should directly address the limitations of this site. Foundation design throughout the PUD will require close scrutiny by the Town to ensure HP Geotech's recommendations are addressed, and individual soils reports for each proposed structure will be required by the Town of Avon Building Department prior to Building Permit issuance. 26. It appears that two required permanent easements for eventual improvements at the Buck Creek Road and Nottingham Road intersection are not included in the Amended Final Plat. The easements consist of the following: a. PE -101, located on Tract AA adjacent to Buck Creek Road; b. PE -102C, a storm drainage easement located at the headwall to the three 48 -inch diameter culverts on Lot 1. 27. Avon Municipal Code 16.40.270 states that a thirty-foot strip of land measured horizontally from the mean annual flood high water mark shall be protected in its natural state. The plans show the 100 -year post development floodplain, which could vary significantly* from the thirty-foot setback required by Code. 28. Avon Municipal Code 16.20.300 require that a revegetation and/or landscaping plan be submitted for any application proposing three or more units in any one project. It does not appear that a revegetation/landscaping plan has been provided. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 748-4114. CADocuments and Settings\mgennett\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK115\Buck Creek PUD Preliminary 11- 10-06.doc 3 HEART of the VALLEY Aeon... a smoke-free c'om a nit}' October 25, 2006 Isom & Associates Mr. Steve Isom PO Box 9 Post 01lic e Bux 975 100 Benrlrmccrk Road ;loon. Colorado •S/020 970-744-1000 970-9.19-c1 39 hil v Relay rc'rcc.vni-ed trtrntoeon.mg RE: Wildwood Resorts, Lots 1, 2, and 3 — Buck Creek PUD Amendment and Minor Subdivision Appiications Dear Steve: We have completed a preliminary review of the Buck Creek PUD Amendment application and the N'tinor Subdivision application for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Wildwood Resorts. The following is a list of comments to be addressed prior to finding the application(s) complete. PUD Amendment: 1. A stamped surve.- produced by a licensed surveyor within the last three (3) years is required for this application pursuant to Section 17.20.110.d. Lc; 2. Please thoroughly address the Design Criteria as outlined in Section 17.20.110A.2.1i; and 3. Please provide sketch elevations of the various proposed buildings for a better visual comprehension of what the project will look like upon completion. Minor Subdivision: No comments at this time. I look forward to discussing these comments with you should the need arise. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns regarding these applications by contacting me directly at (970) 748-4002. Memo To: Jeff & Shane From: Matt Gennett, AICP (New Senior Planner) CC: Norm Wood Date: 10/20/2006 Re: Minor Subdivision and PUD Amendment for Wildwood Resorts, Lots 1, 2, and 3 Hey Guys, I am referring to you for completeness review one copy of the proposed minor subdivision and one of the PUD amendment application proposed for the aforementioned property. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or comments (ext 4002 or mgennett(a)avon.ora. Thanks for your time and attention. Regards, Matt Gennett 1