HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS … · capstone project to assess, prioritize, and plan for three of the...

LAKE COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS

2019 SPRING MURP CAPSTONE

NORA BLANDSYDNEY PROVAN

JOHN FEATHERSTONE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 - 3TEAM OVERVIEW 5REPORT OVERVIEW 6REPORT ORGANIZATION 7

Table of Contents

Foreword Introduction Background Research

Existing Conditions Recommendations References and Appendicies

BACKGROUND 8 - 9PROJECT GOALS 10

LITERATURE AND PLAN REVIEW PLANNING DOCUMENTS 11 - 14ACADEMIC RESEARCH 15 - 20

RELEVANT CASE STUDIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 21 -24

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES GRANTS AND LOANS 25

LAKE COUNTY CONTEXT 26 - 28AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET STUDY 29 - 32ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 33ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 34 - 35COMMUNITY INPUT 36 - 40

SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CLIMAX & SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCELS 48 - 55WESTPARK PARCEL 41- 47

SITE SELECTION 56 - 57SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 58 - 65ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 66 - 68

WORKS CITED 69 - 70

APPENDIX I FUNDING SOURCE RESEARCH 71APPENDIX IFUNDING SOURCE RESEARCH 72APPENDIX IIURBAN FORM ANALYSIS 73 - 74

2

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary Lake County Affordable Housing

Project Introduction

Lake County was once a holdout of relative aff ordability among its resort-dominated peers in the central mountains of Colorado. Yet, as the region’s economy and population have grown in recent years, so too have pressures on Lake County’s limited housing stock. The symptoms of this growing shortage of safe, aff ordable housing are already being felt: many households spending over a third of their income on housing, local employers struggling to fi ll jobs, and distance of worker commutes increasing.

However, Lake County is uniquely positioned to facilitate the timely construction of the needed housing through its own land assets and those of community partners.Accordingly, Lake County Build A Generation (a division of Lake County Public Health) commissioned this capstone project to assess, prioritize, and plan for three of the County’s most feasible prospective housing sites.

Three Project Sites

Lake County Build A Generation commissioned this study of three sites in Lake County identifi ed as having the greatest potential to be developed into new housing. The three sites were originally identifi ed as potentially developable for aff ordable housing in the 2018 Housing Needs Assessment done by Economic Planning Systems.

Westpark Parcel

A ten-acre site adjacent to the Westpark Elementary School in unincorporated Lake County. The site currently has a baseball fi eld that serves junior and high school aged players. The site is owned by Lake County, but previously was the site of workforce housing for Climax Mine.

Climax Parcel

A roughly nine-acre site on the Western limits of the City of Leadville, where County Road 4 leaves the municipality toward Turquoise Lake. The parcel is owned by Climax Mine, who have given assurances that they will transfer ownership on the site to Lake County to develop housing.The site is currently undeveloped woodland.

School District Parcel

An over eleven-acre site, contiguous with the Climax parcel, and owned by the Lake County School District (LCSD). The district is unsure of the future of this site. However, they agreed to allow this site to be evaluated during this capstone project for development potential. The site is currently undeveloped woodland.

FIGURE 1: CONTEXT MAP OF THREE PROJECT SITES

FIGURE 2: WESTPARK PARCEL

FIGURE 3: CLIMAX & SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCELSProject Objectives

• Evaluate sites for housing development• Recommend best site for development• Better defi ne current housing need in

Lake County• Outline recommended nest steps for

creting aff ordable housing

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

Huck Finn Park

Ice Castle Park

��

��

��

��

��#��

��$�%��

�� !�� "��

&"��"��'��

��(��

��

��)��

)�

��)��

�

MC WETHY DR

8TH ST

37G

JAMES

ST

MINERAL BELTTRAIL

7TH ST

School District Site6.65 acres

Climax Site9.32 acres

¯0 100 200 300 400Feet

377GG

HAR

RISO

N AV

MO

UN

T ELBERT D

R

15TH ST

14TH ST

DR

Harrison Ballfields Site10.29 acres

¯0 100 200 300 400Feet

Westpark

Parcel

Climax

Parcel

School

District

Parcel

3

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background Research

Literature, Existing Plans, and Case Study Review

The proiject team analyzed existing plans, best practices, academic research, and relevant case studies relating to mixed-income housing developments. All of this research greatly informed the rest of the team’s research and analysis process.

Subject Expert Interviews

The project team also interviewed several subject matter experts to better understand how to build aff ordable housing, and the unique development challenges in Leadville.

Aff ordable Housing Market Assessment

In order to better defi ne housing need in the county, the project team conducted a market analysis. Below are a few of the key takeaways:

• 560 housing units needed in Lake County• 98 people on the county Section 8 Waitlist• Housing stock is old and lacks unit-type diversity• More senior and accessible units are needed

Site Evaluation

Data Collection and Interviews

The project team conducted interviews with local stakeholders and experts, and analyzed this along with data about the physiscal conditions of each site.

Urban Form Analysis

Collecting information from Zillow and site visits, the project team created an urban form analysis to better understand the existing neighborhood context.

Community Design Workshop

On April 10th the project team held a community design workshop in Leadville where the community gave input on housing issues in their community, future visions for each of the three project sites, and their preferences for layout and architecture.

Site Ranking

The project team synthesized all of the information from the processes mentioned above and created a weighted scoring system to evaluate each site. The points and a summary of the most important factors are included on the right side of this page.

Opportunities and Constraints

#1 Climax Parcel (103 pts)

• Contiguous with School District Parcel

• Proximity to Amenities

• Adjacent to Mineral Belt Trail

• Positive community feedback

• James and McWethy intersection issues

• Signifi cant water infrastructure needs

• Severe slope requiring design work-around

#2 Westpark Parcel (102 pts)

• High-value, county-owned parcel

• Relatively fl at

• Confl icted community vision

• Need to accomodate ballfi elds

#3 School District Parcel (97 pts)

• Uncertainty of land availability


FIGURE 4: PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Catalyst

Housing Needs Assesment 2018 (EPS)

Future of Project

2019 Summer Studio,Request for Proposals

Background Research

Literature, Plan, and Case Study Review, Interviews, Aff ordable Housing Market Assessment

Site Evaluation

Data Collection, Interviews, Urban Form Analysis, Community

Workshop, Site Ranking

Recommendations

Site selection, Policy, RFP ProcessSite Specifi c Recommendations

Capstone Project

• Contiguous with School District Parcel

• Proximity to amenities

• Adjacent to Mineral Belt Trail

• Positive community feedback

• James and McWethy intersection issues


• Severe slope requiring design work-around

• High-value, county-owned parcel

• Relatively fl at

• Confl icted community vision

• Need to accomodate ballfi elds

• Uncertainty of land availability


4

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS

Site Priority Recomendations

The project team recommends that in order to get aff ordable housing built on a desirable timeline, the County put out a request for proposals (RFP) for the development of the Climax parcel into aff ordable housing. This recommendation still leaves open the possibility for the Westpark and School District parcels to be developed in the future. However, since the county’s goal is to get aff ordable housing built in the next three to fi ve years, the project team believes Climax site is the most feasible site for this timeline.

The project team recommends that Lake County offi cials, Build a Generation, representatives from the School District, and the Housing Implementation team begin having regular meetings to form a partnership between these entities, understand how future housing can serve the school district, and discuss the future of the School District parcel. Similarly, the project team recommends that Lake County Build a Generation continue to conduct city-wide outreach about the potential of the Westpark site to provide housing.

Policy and Process Recomendations

• Be specifi c in request for proposals about what housing the proposal must include and ask for conceptual designs

• Streamline entitlement process for these sites

• Utilize deed restrictions on these sites for market rate and workforce housing to ensure year-round occupancy, local worker priority, or senior priority

Site Specifi c Recommendations

Climax Parcel

The climax site should be prioritized specifi cally for building subsidized aff ordable housing using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). To create a safe and comfortable environment for walking and biking, the project team recommends orienting development to connect with the adjacent mineral belt trail, and redesigning the James and McWethy intersection.

FIGURE 5: CLIMAX PARCEL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Westpark Parcel

The project team recommends that future development on this site include a range of housing types from lower density product near Harrison Avenue tapering into townhomes and 8-unit apartment buildings to the west. A new shared use path should be created on Harrison, creating safe connections between the new development, the elementary school, and the Mineral Belt Trail. Lake County should begin outreach now to create community concensus for the vision of this site.

School District Parcel

This large site can accomodate new density for the county. Any development of this site should connect to development on the Climax parcel. Open space should be used as a buff er to respect the intermediate school and the peaceful atmosphere of the Evergreen Cemetary. Similar to the Climax parcel, the School District site should prioritize new aff ordable housing and should orient pedestrian connections to the Mineral Belt Trail. Teacher priority housing may also be an appealing option to the district for developing housing on this site.

Harr

ison A

venue

14th St (extended)

FIGURE 6: WESTPARK PARCEL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

FIGURE 7: SCHOOL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

5

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS FOREWORD I TEAM OVERVIEW

Foreword Team Overview

This report is the capstone project of three master’s candidates in the Urban and Regional Planning program at the University of Colorado Denver. The capstone project is the fi nal achievement required for the graduate degree.

Nora Bland John Featherstone Sydney Provan

Nora is passionate about creating places + spaces that are beautiful, equitable, aff ordable, and sustainable. Through her studies and career, she looks forward to supporting communities achieve their goals by contributing strong leadership, relationship building, and creative problem-solving. Her background is in nonprofi t work and sustainability planning. She considers herself an urbanist, cyclist, and podcast enthusiast.

John is committed to supporting robust and equitable local economies through planning and the facilitation of safe, aff ordable housing for all, particularly in rural communities. Both in academia and in professional work, he aims to support communities to make informed decisions in line with their long-term goals and fi scal health. His background is in economic research and marketing. Outside of planning, John enjoys writing, board games, and soccer.

Sydney is interested in a range of urban issues, and housing is one that rises to the top. She is passionate about working towards safe and aff ordable housing for all people, which drew her to this capstone project with Lake County. In addition, Sydney is passionate about multi-modal transportation planning, and how connecting housing, land use, and transportation improves equity and quality of life in our cities. Outside of planning Sydney enjoys rugby, cooking, rock climbing, and being outdoors whenever possible.

6


The project client, Lake County Build A Generation, commissioned this study of three sites in Lake County identifi ed as having the greatest potential to be developed into new housing. The three sites were originally identifi ed as potentially developable for aff ordable housing in the 2018 Housing Needs Assessment conducted by Economic and Planning Systems.

Foreword Report Overview

1 West Park Site 2 The Climax Parcel 3 School District Land

A 10-acre site adjacent to the Westpark Elementary School in unincorporated Lake County. The site currently has a baseball fi eld that serves junior- and high-school aged players. The site is owned by Lake County, but previously was the site of worker housing for employees of the Climax Mine.

A roughly 9-acre site on the Western limits of the City of Leadville, where County Road 4 leaves the municipality toward Turquoise Lake. The parcel is owned by Climax Mine, which has given assurances that they will transfer ownership of the site to Lake County once it is ready to start the development process with a private developer. The site is currently undeveloped woodland.

An roughly 11-acre site, contiguous with the Climax parcel, this site is owned by the Lake County School District (LCSD). The district is not sure how they intend to use this land. However, they agreed to allow this site to be evaluated during this capstone project for development potential. The site is currently undeveloped woodland.

FOREWORD I REPORT OVERVIEW

7

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS FOREWORD I REPORT ORGANIZATION

Foreword Report Organization

Background Research

Analyzed existing plans, best practices, academic research, and relevant case studies relating to mixed-income housing developments. The project team also gathered information through a series of exercises:

Housing Market Analysis

Synthesized data from a variety of sources to determine who in Lake County needs housing, and what types of housing are needed.

Site Evaluations

Conducted detailed evaluations of the three sites, including physical characteristics, site context, and accessibility.

Community Design Workshop

Gathered community input through a public design workshop on site opportunities and constraints, site layouts, and architectural styles.

Final Recommendations

The background research and outreach conducted helped to inform recommendations made to Lake County in regard to three main areas.

Site Selection

Unit Types

Next Steps

8


Introduction Background

Lake County is a jurisdiction of roughly 7,900 residents located in Colorado’s central mountain region. Defi ned throughout its history by the booms and busts of local mining activity, the county is unique among its neighbors for its continued working-class character and relative aff ordability: a partial function of the lack of major in-county ski resorts.

Accordingly, Lake County - and particularly Leadville, its sole incorporated municipality - has long played home to both the area’s local workforce and the commuting populations of the resort-rich Eagle and Summit counties. Rents, real estate values, and median household wages in these counties have been almost double those of Lake County in recent years.

Since 2015, however, demand pressure across the region has led to a signifi cant shift in the county’s housing market toward second homeownership and short-term vacation rentals. This trend has created increased competition in the both the for-sale and rental housing markets that has created a tension between in-county residents and the regional workforce. This tension is most acute between relatively lower household incomes and wealthier out-of-region buyers and vacationers.

A unique community and local economy squeezed by regional housing pressure.

INTRODUCTION I BACKGROUND

FIGURE 8: LAKE COUNTY IN COLORADO

9


Housing Needs Assessment

Conducted by consultants Economic & Planning Systems, the Housing Needs Assessment performed three major roles:

1. Gathering the quantitative and qualitative data necessary for funding applications, consensus-building, and more fi ne-grain housing market studies.

2. Providing a road map for policy action (including an ongoing process to test the feasibility of a Lake County housing authority).

3. Identifying three priority sites for near-term aff ordable housing development.

Coupled with these acute changes are the chronic supply-side issues of Colorado’s central mountain region environment, all contributing to a limited supply of for-sale and rental housing in reach of Lake County’s regional workforce.

• A limited construction season.

• Labor shortages, with builders often demanded by primarily luxury developments.

• The opportunity costs of creating attainable or aff ordable housing, versus above-market-rate units.

Confronted by the growing societal and economic costs of these housing issues – namely employers struggling to attract workers, local employees opting to commute as far as two hours outside of the county, and a growing population residing in mobile homes – Lake County commissioned the 2018 Housing Needs Assessment.

This project takes the top three potential development sites from the Housing Needs Assessment and investigates their potential for development. Extensive research was conducted by the project team to better understand the physical and contextual facts of each site. In addition, the team held a community design workshop to collect

community input on the sites. All of this research was used to inform this report’s fi nal recommendations.

INTRODUCTION I BACKGROUND

FIGURE 9: THE PROJECT AS IT RELATES TO THE HOUSING PROCESS

Project Catalyst

Housing Needs Assesment 2018 (EPS)

Future of Project

2019 Summer Studio,Request for Proposals

Background Research

Literature, Plan, and Case Study Review, Interviews, Aff ordable Housing Market Assessment

Site Evaluation

Data Collection, Interviews, Urban Form Analysis, Community

Workshop, Site Ranking

Recommendations

Site selection, Policy, RFP ProcessSite Specifi c Recommendations

Capstone Project

10


Introduction Project GoalsAddressing housing issues through partnerships and the prioritization of available land.

Problem Statement

Lake County is experiencing housing aff ordability issues that are infl uenced by internal pressures, as well as those from neighboring counties. These pressures include the relative aff ordability of Lake County properties compared to those in resort communities like Eagle and Summit Counties, the aging housing stock, limited variety of housing options, lack of new aff ordable housing construction, and an increase in short-term vacation rentals. Lake County is uniquely positioned to address housing issues because of partnership opportunities with owners of prime developable land that could be made available for aff ordable housing.

Goals

The capstone project aims to achieve the following outcomes as a result of this report:

1] Prioritization

Provide Lake County with the relevant information and recommendations to make an informed decision on the prioritization of housing development over the three sites.

2] Road Map to Development

Create a road map for Lake County and its relevant organizations to facilitate a successful request for proposals (RFP) process and any subsequent development.

3] Building Consensus

Foster understanding and dialogue between Lake County community members about housing need and the development of one or more of the potential sites.

4] Design Visioning

Create standards of housing design that fi t the community’s vision for the future of Lake County.

5] Catalyzing Implementation

Generate momentum that ensures aff ordable and attainable housing in Lake County gets built within the next fi ve years.

INTRODUCTION I PROJECT GOALS

11


Literature and Plan Review Planning Documents

Relevant Plans

Leadville-specifi c, county-wide, and regional plans were all studied for the capstone project. They served as a signifi cant point of reference for guiding the team’s research and fi nal recommendations. The plan review shaped the project team’s understanding of contextual issues (such as housing and public facilities) and key populations to be served by future housing. The team assessed each plan for content relating to land use, site context, or broader housing issues within the county. Below are brief summaries of the assessed plans and their relevance to this project.

Comprehensive Plan (2015) - Lake County and Leadville

• Guiding document for the future of housing in the community

• Establishes the basis for evaluating housing need in the county

• Outlines how housing development fi ts into the broader vision for the community

First and foremost, the comprehensive plan is clear in its call for facilitating the development of a diverse range of housing types and costs. Moreover, the plan identifi es contextually sensitive areas with strong links to local employment, and commercial and service centers as the best candidates for this development. Signifi cantly for the Aff ordable Housing Market study conducted as part of this project, the plan establishes the HUD aff ordability standard (i.e. that rent or mortgage payments plus utilities should account for no more than 30% of household income) as the basis for evaluating need.

Analysis conducted as part of the comprehensive planning process found that some 54% of rental households were cost-burdened by this metric, whereas 20% of homeowners were cost-burdened. Further, when the County surveyed residents on the greatest housing-related challenges they faced, 64% of households found the inadequacy of their units’ energy effi ciency to be a challenge. This indicates that utility expenses are a major factor in the unaff ordability of Leadville’s existing housing stock, and that the sustainability of future developments’ rents will be heavily dependent on the energy effi ciency of their design.

Lake County Comp Plan.

LITERATURE AND PLAN REVIEW I PLANNING DOCUMENTS

12


Housing Needs Assessment (2018) - Lake County

• Assessment is the jumping off point for this project because of the data collected in the assessment and the potential development sites it identifi es.

• Compiles basic information about the potential development sites.

• Includes recommended action for addressing housing need.

The Lake County Housing Needs Assessment was the fi rst step in the site identifi cation and market evaluation process for Lake County to jump start this capstone project. The study informed the project team’s Aff ordable Housing Market Study and recommendations for development. The assessment identifi ed and ranked three sites as high priority for aff ordable housing. The team used these sites to model site design and housing typologies for future aff ordable development. Economic & Planning Systems assessed market demographics, housing conditions, market trends, aff ordability indicators, summary of issues, identifi cation of goals, and delineation of actions to identify the housing needs of Lake County. These largely informed the project team’s Aff ordable Housing Market Study.

Housing Feasibility Study (2016) - Lake County

• Recommends the construction of for-sale town homes for entry-level homeownership.

• Highlights the high cost of construction in Lake County that inhibits aff ordable housing development.

• Calls out the aging housing stock that should be considered as a factor of housing need.

The Lake County Housing Feasibility Study informed the project team’s Aff ordable Housing Market Study. The study identifi es the following key fi ndings about Lake County: the high share of renters compared to surrounding counties, the poor quality of housing stock, and high cost of construction. Better City LLC recommended the construction of a new 86-unit town home development, with units for sale between $175,000 and $225,000. This development would ideally enable this Lake County market segment to achieve homeownership in entry-level homes. The project team took this recommendation into account when quantifying the need for for-sale and rental units in the Aff ordable Housing Market Study.

Housing Needs Assessment.


13


Safe Routes to School Assessment (2015) - Lake County

• Addresses pedestrian and bicycle safety adjacent to project sites.

• Priority sites outlined in the assessment could be the target of Safe Routes to Schools improvements that would enhance and build support for future housing development.

Considering all three of the sites are in close proximity to schools, the Lake County Safe Routes to Schools Plan is an important reference for the work in this report. The plan identifi es high-priority problem areas that need to be addressed to better the active transportation connections to schools. Many of these high-priority areas are adjacent or near the project sites. In the site evaluation and planning phases, the team kept in mind connections to new improvements that came from this plan, as well as improvements not yet achieved in which future development could play a role. In particular, McWethy Drive, which runs adjacent to the Climax and School District sites, was identifi ed as having no shoulder or safe place to walk, as well as having a speed limit that is too high due to the proximity to the school. Near the Westpark site, the plan identifi es the need for an improved crossing of the Mineral Belt Trail across Harrison as well as the desire to work with CDOT to implement traffi c calming measures on Harrison.

Lake County Intermediate School. Westpark Elementary School.


14


Senior Master Plan (2017) - Lake County

• Investigates housing needs of Seniors in Lake County

• Provided resources for creating “age friendly” communities

• Details other issues facing Lake County’s aging population that should be considered when developing housing

The Lake County Senior Master Plan identifi es needs of the older adult community in Lake County, one of which is aff ordable and accessible housing. It also identifi es the trend that many seniors in the county wish to age in place. This plan also provides excellent resources for planning age-friendly communities. This plan helped inform the team’s assessment of types of units needed for seniors in the county. This plan identifi es the need for single-fl oor units that are accessible to older adults with mobility challenges, as well as aff ordable and accessible transportation options for seniors.

Services for an Aging Population: Regional Gaps Analysis (2016) - NWCCOG

• Outlines regional pressures on senior housing

• Identifi es specifi c housing needs in the regional senior community

This report of the needs of older adults in the rural resort region (including Leadville) informed the project team’s Aff ordable Housing Market Study. The report found that seniors that identifi ed as “very likely” to retire in the region were disproportionately non-white, lower-income, and 85 years and older. The report identifi es that there is a need for housing units that are physically accessible to older adults who are experiencing mobility challenges. Additionally, the report identifi es the need for housing into which seniors can “downsize,” in turn opening up their larger family units they are no longer willing or able to manage. This could open up more housing options for families. Additionally, the report identifi ed lack of aff ordable and accessible transportation and social isolation as key issues that are also linked. The project team recognizes it is important to consider transportation options for connecting senior housing to essential services and community hubs.


15


Literature and Plan Review Academic Research

Academic Research Review

The project team’s review of academic literature and best practices was guided principally by the unique challenges of aff ordable housing and the specifi ed priorities of the Lake County Housing Coalition and its fellow Lake County and Leadville organizations. The team’s academic research focused on the following categories:

FinancingThe primary issue for aff ordable housing development is the availability of suffi cient fi nancing. In Lake County, where regional labor, materials, and land costs are high, in addition to a short construction season providing further challenges. The literature explores specifi c fi nancing tools and methods for addressing these issues for a successful project.

Unit Type and Design

The type and design of units off ered by a project are signifi cant to its approval, long-term success, and ongoing public perceptions of aff ordable housing. The literature identifi es both approaches to communicating these designs, and the reception of diff erent housing types in communities across the nation.

LITERATURE AND PLAN REVIEW I ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Community OutreachWorking with the community to take on ideas, address concerns, and facilitate ongoing involvement in the process are key priorities for the aff ordable housing process in Lake County. The literature surveyed identifi es strategies for talking about aff ordable housing, staging community meetings, (to be added) addressing common concerns, and empowering residents to get involved in (and champion) aff ordable housing in their community.

Mixed-Income HousingOffi cials and staff within Lake County have expressed interest in promoting a mixture of incomes and housing types across a future development. The literature looks to case studies of past developments nationally to identify best practices and (to be added) to consider the merits of mixed-income projects.

16


Research Summary

As mountain towns’ real estate markets face increasing demand pressures - from a low supply of new aff ordable homes, second-homeownership and short-term rentals, amenity migrants, and job growth associated with recent expansion in the recreation and leisure industries - the ability to secure adequate fi nancing for aff ordable (<60% AMI) housing through a combination of state, federal, and local subsidies has become the primary means to achieve community aff ordability. In Rubin’s 2017 article, “Financing Low-Income Communities: Models, Obstacles, and Future Directions”, the author discusses the importance of “creative fi nancing” (the assemblage of multiple sources of credit and soft money in a developers’ capital stack), and the availability of Multifamily Housing Bonds to supplement low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC): which are an essential capital for the majority of aff ordable housing projects.

Financing

One of the greatest barriers to the creation of aff ordable housing is the cost: without the income stream of market-rate rents, developers must compensate for the gap between the traditional fi nancing that they can access and the total cost of the project.

The literature calls for creative fi nancing, combining “hard” capital (traditional loans, LIHTC), with “soft” capital (grants).

Material support for a development is best aimed at the pre-development phase, before construction has begun on the site: e.g. helping with approvals, infrastructure costs, planning/design fees.

1 2 3

While Multifamily Housing Bonds, a tax-exempt source of credit issued by states and underwritten by Fannie Mae, are no longer outstanding in Colorado as of 2013 (Shwartz, 2014; Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, 2018), Private Activity Bonds remain a similar, supplementary source to traditional mortgages and LIHTC monies. Private Activity Bonds - issued by either the local housing authority or municipalities (Colorado Department of Local Aff airs, 2018) - are available to private developers engaged in “new construction or acquisition/rehabilitation of housing for low- to moderate-income people” (Colorado Department of Local Aff airs, 2018), and can help to serve as another layer in increasingly lengthy capital stacks. In Lake County, where the hard costs of development are increased by the constrained regional labor supply due to “hot” surrounding real estate markets (Eagle and Summit Counties, in particular), Rubin’s call for a creative package of hard and soft capital sources is only likely to be intensifi ed.

Another discrete barrier Rubin identifi es is the period of pre-development (2017). During interviews with aff ordable housing developers, Rubin found that LIHTC was often not suffi cient to achieve costs reconcilable with aff ordable rents, and yet the assemblage of multiple sources of fi nancing was a lengthy and expensive process. Coupled with the costs of planning processes and site diligence, pre-development costs can prove one of the most signifi cant hindrances to building aff ordable housing, well before ground is broken. While Leadville’s streamlined planned unit development process is a step in the right direction, additional streamlining and security might be provided to would-be aff ordable housing developers through the acquisition of soft money (grants from state and federal institutions), and the subsidization, waiving, or delay of fees (Private Activity Bonds, 2019).


17


Unit Type and Design

Determining the demand for diff erent unit types and design is a diffi cult exercise, further complicated by the need for fi nancial viability. The literature surveys national trends and best practices in housing types and presents alternatives to the often-contentious decision between single-family homes (which rarely off er the economies of scale required for aff ordability) and dense apartment buildings (which may provoke community push-back and face political roadblocks).

“Missing middle” housing types (duplexes, town homes, apartment courts) have been found to off er a middle ground between the effi ciency/cost-savings of the largest building forms, and the widespread appeal of single-family housing.

1 2

Research Summary

For aff ordable housing to guarantee rents below the market rate, density and scale are necessary to reduce fi xed per-unit costs (Hoagland, 2019). Yet density is often a point of contention for local communities: aff ordable housing and higher units-per-acre counts often conjure up images of tenements and tower blocks that fail to reconcile with neighbors’ hopes for their neighborhood form (Nguyen, Basolo & Tiwari, 2013). In a 2019 report by the non-profi t Next City, Hurley (2016) examines the role of design in countering local fear and resistance toward housing development and identifi es an architectural “missing middle” between detached, single-family housing, and apartment complexes with more than ten units. In focus-group style interviews with communities, Hurley (2016) found that residents actively identifi ed duplex/triplex, row houses, and apartment courts as the kind of infi ll they wanted in their neighborhoods - despite densities of up to 40 units per acre. In Leadville,


examples of these “missing middle” forms are already fi xtures in the town’s traditional neighborhoods (such as Westpark). Hurley’s (2016) research indicates that a strategy identifying similar, dense forms may be eff ective in nullifying community concern and building support for contextually sensitive aff ordable development (Hurley, 2016).

Illustration from Opticos Design, LLC.

18


Community Outreach

Research Summary

Fear of the perceived social and economic consequences of aff ordable housing have often prompted resistance to aff ordable development in the United States (Nguyen, 2013). This communal and political backlash can present one of the greatest challenges to the provision of aff ordable units in suitable areas. In the Urban Land Institute’s 2007 report, “Ten Principles for Aff ordable Housing Development”, a panel of researchers, developers, and planners examined successful aff ordable housing developments across the nation and identifi ed the unifying strategies and attributes that maximized community buy-in and reduced opposition.

Foremost among these strategies is working to address concerns about who will be living in the development. While aff ordable developments are often beset by

Delays in the development approval process represent both risk and cost to the developers of aff ordable housing, whose fi nancing terms and initial equity outlays are often grounded in a predictable schedule. The literature surveyed off ers insights into eff ective messaging for aff ordable housing development and shaped the project team’s approach to the community outreach conducted as part of the project.

Outreach and messaging for aff ordable housing should emphasize its applicability/utility to a broad swathe of the population: in Lake County, especially, many local employees, seniors, families, etc. would qualify for and desperately need housing they can aff ord.

Successful projects communicate design elements early and allay community fears that a development will be insensitive to the context, regardless of density.

1 2 3

negative stereotypes, emphasizing the reality can help to allay fears and present a clear picture of the future residents:

“This market comprises a broad spectrum of individuals and families that may include elderly couples on a fi xed income, working families, and singles starting out in careers. Even the children or the parents of people living in the community may need aff ordable housing.” (Back et. al., 2007)

In Lake County, where a diverse array of community members have been identifi ed as particularly burdened by housing costs (or otherwise currently unable to live locally), ULI’s fi ndings suggest the effi cacy of highlighting the types of residents that are served by the intended aff ordable development (Economic & Planning Systems, 2018).

Another integral element of outreach ULI’s study identifi es is the communication of design. Successful projects displayed basic architectural renderings depicting scale, design, and anticipated fi nishes in community meetings in order to anticipate and address community concerns of inappropriate or context-insensitive form. Again, this speaks to a strategy in Lake County’s context of identifying high-quality aff ordable developments in equivalent mountain town communities and allowing the public to get an impression - early in the process - of the intended scale of development. Specifi cally, ULI’s suggested mediums of communicating design - design charrettes, computer models, workshops, community advisory groups, and press briefi ngs - suggest toward the effi cacy of an emphasis on visual, more tangible examples of the proposed development.


19


Mixed-Income Housing

Research Summary

Strong housing markets off er the potential to cross-subsidize aff ordable units using the profi ts accrued from market rate sales or rentals (Housing Counts, n.d.). Municipalities - and agencies such as HUD, through their HOPE VI rehabilitation program - have increasingly sought mixed-income developments due to the negative economic and social eff ects associated with geographical wealth stratifi cation and concentrated poverty, namely uneven investment fl ows, disparate political representation, and inequity of opportunity (Schwartz & Tajbakhsh, 1997).

In Brophy and Smith’s 1997 report, Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success, the authors surveyed seven major mixed-income housing developments across the United States. They discovered that the elements that underpinned successful mixed-income projects - i.e.

The desire for a mixed-income development was communicated throughout the project’s process by Lake County offi cials and staff . The literature surveyed identifi es best practices and potential issues in the design and fi nancing of mixed-income developments, primarily informed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s experiences with the HOPE VI mixed-income housing program.

The new income averaging mechanism (introduced in 2018) for LIHTC projects ensures that an aff ordable development can host a mix of incomes between 0-80% of the area median income.

A successful mixed-income project has to be able to attract buyers/renters that would otherwise select market-rate units without creating a substantially diff erent environment, units, or experience for the households/income levels housed.

1 2 3

those that attracted both income groups, resulted in upward mobility, and did not engender tensions - were design (specifi cally a high standard of design across the development); management (a model of management that did not segregate or separately program diff ering income groups); and the presence of a strong real estate market. Moreover, the disparate levels of success among the selected developments led the authors to suggest that another factor - enough higher-income residents to create a critical mass - was also essential to the functionality of a mixed-income development: both as a basis for cross-subsidization and fi nancial pragmatism, and as a requirement for attracting suffi cient levels of higher-income demand. One consideration that may arise from these fi ndings, in the Lake County context, is whether the acreage and acceptable densities of the sites will allow for this critical mass to be obtained without severely compromising the county’s objective

of aff ordable housing provision. Instead, rather than aiming for a proportion of higher rent market-rate units, Lake County might want to consider the AMI (area median income) fl exibility aff orded by recent revisions to LIHTC’s project income caps. New guidelines allow for higher incomes (above 60% AMI) to be balanced with lower incomes to allow for an average development AMI of 60% or below (Hoagland, 2019; National Low-Income Housing Coalition, 2018). This may be particularly suitable in Lake County, where roughly 42% of families are at or below the income limits for a three-person household (CHFA, 2018; US Census Bureau, 2017), and reconciles well with Brophy and Smith’s (1997) fi nding that mixed-income management is more eff ective in developments with gradually sloping - rather than highly bimodal - incomes.


20


In Shwartz’s chapter in the 2012 Encyclopedia of Housing, “Mixed-Income Housing”, the author largely corroborates Brophy and Smith’s fi ndings: while there has been little by way of statistics since the beginning of the HOPE VI program to prove the alleged income mobility benefi ts (reductions in crime and benefi ts to economy of living are more clear), the roots of success in mixed-income housing development have clearly emerged since HOPE VI’s creation in 1992. The success of mixed-income housing - i.e. the ability to attract a broad mix of household incomes - is dependent on high-quality design and maintenance comparable to the market-rate alternatives available to higher-income households. The question for Lake County - again - is whether the proposed benefi ts of mixed-income housing suffi ciently justify the probable additional expenditures and opportunity costs (reduced numbers of aff ordable housing units) that may be associated with providing these grounds for a successful mixed-income project (National Low-Income Housing Coalition, 2018).


21


Relevant Case Studies Affordable Housing Developments

Housing Best Practices Review

Lake County’s experiences with increasing demand pressures on its limited real estate market is not a new phenomenon among Colorado’s mountain counties. For many jurisdictions closer to major ski resorts, housing unaff ordability and associated attempts to provide relief have been a fi xture for decades.

Accordingly, the project team surveyed aff ordable housing developments from peer communities across the state in order to derive best practices and salient lessons in fi nancing, outreach, design, and process. Each case study researched is listed below with an explanation of its relevance to the project and key takeaways.

RELEVANT CASE STUDIES I AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Lumien Apartments courtyard.Lumien Apartments facade.

Lumien Apartments - Durango (2015 & 2018)

Takeaways

• Including supportive housing in a LIHTC development can make the development more competitive in the tax credit application process

• Developers can partner with local nonprofi ts to provide supportive housing services

• Private partners can be brought in to fund the supportive service

Identifying connections to existing transit can make the project more competitive for tax credits (CHFA, 2018). The Lumien Apartments (I & II) was chosen as a case study because it is an example of an aff ordable housing project in a mountain community fi nanced using competitive 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The Lumien Apartments include 86 units of aff ordable housing between 1-3 bedrooms (FCI Constructors Inc, 2019). Although Durango is a larger community than Leadville, this case study exemplifi es how an aff ordable housing project can fi t into a mountain community context. Additionally Lumien II provides a case study for creating public, private, and nonprofi t partnerships to integrate supportive housing into a housing development. Nine of the 36 new units will be permanently supportive housing for formerly homeless households. Support services will be provided by Axis Mental Health Systems and Housing Solutions for the Southwest and Wells Fargo is providing additional funding (National Council of State Housing Agencies, 2018).

22


Paradise Park Subdivision - Crested Butte

Takeaways

• Small lot subdivisions create a lower-density option for aff ordable or attainable housing

• Aff ordable, market rate, and workforce housing are mixed

• Can include a mix of housing types from single-family to quadplexes

• Piecemeal development allows for adjustments and fl exibility in a community and create a varied urban fabric

• Creates new housing slowly and will not address an immediate need eff ectively

Paradise Park is a small-lot subdivision where some lots are sold into the private market through a lottery system, and others are developed into aff ordable and workforce housing through an RFP put out by Crested Butte. This case study is relevant because it serves as another option for building aff ordable and attainable housing in a mountain community. This model may be suitable on land the county wishes to see develop slowly rather than all at once. Small-lot development could also be a way to cross-subsidize a denser aff ordable housing development on the same parcel (Town of Crested Butte, 2019).

Rendering of Paradise Park.


Wintergreen - Keystone, CO

Takeaways

• Mixing a LIHTC development with year-round workforce deed-restricted housing as well as seasonal employee housing to serve the unique housing needs of a community defi ned by a resort-focused economy.

• Community-informed site design ensures that the public is involved in the process of shaping their community’s future.

The Wintergreen neighborhood is a planned development in Keystone Colorado that began construction in 2018. It will consist of three housing types: seasonal apartments for Vail Resorts employees, multi-family tax credit homes, and year-round aff ordable workforce apartments. At 196 units total, the neighborhood will have a density of 20 units per acre. The site planning process involved extensive community outreach and input (Norris Design, 2018). This development includes both private investment and a public-private partnership. Summit County provided a $300,000 long-term loan in support of the LIHTC project. Gorman & Company manages the income qualifi cation and the local tenant selection process. This is a good model for the management of workforce housing and thoughtful, community-informed site design.

Rendering of Wintergreen apartments.

Wintergreen PUD site plan.

23


Wellington - Breckenridge, CO

Takeaways

• The construction of mixed-income housing with a combination of duplex and triplex units and market-rate units was extremely successful in the market in Summit County.

• The combination of deed-restricted units and market-rate units can help fi nance a project resulting in over 300 units of housing built.

The Wellington neighborhood is a mixed-income community of single-family, duplex and triplex homes. The units are owner-occupied, with 226 income-restricted and 56 market-rate units. The project was a private development on existing vacant land. The property was primarily dredge rock located in unincorporated Summit County. Through annexation, the Town of Breckenridge required 80% of the units to be deed restricted and 20% market-rate. Approximately $2,750,000 in Water Plan Investment Fees and planning fees were waived. The targeted AMI was 80% - 120%. This is a good model for duplex and triplex unit construction, as well as mixed-income housing development (Summit County, 2018)

The front porch of a Wellington home.


Lake Hill - Frisco, CO

Takeaways

• Creating a master plan for a site before it is acquired by a developer to ensure it includes a community-informed mix of housing types and design standards.

• The importance of holding community meetings and integrating feedback and concerns into site designs to align with community visions and goals.

Lake Hill is a planned development located outside of Frisco, Colorado. The master plan was completed in 2017, and the land’s deed states that this site is to be used as workforce housing. The conceptual neighborhood plan shows 436 units, each with access to a community greenbelt and trails, views, adequate parking and storage. The development will include a mix of housing types: multi-family, town homes, single family attached and detached. The planning process involved a stakeholder advisory committee, focus groups, community open houses, a fi eld trip, and Summit County and Town leadership meetings. The Master Plan recommends that the County and Frisco create PUD Development Standards. This can serve as a model for community-informed master planning for aff ordable housing, as well as site diligence reporting (Summit County, 2017).

Rendering of the Lake Hill neighborhood.

24


Collegiate Commons - Buena Vista

Takeaways

• Partnerships between school districts and municipalities interested in building aff ordable housing can prove integral in swapping land and receiving an award of LIHTC tax credits from CHFA.

• School districts in neighboring counties in Colorado have received funding for new schools and new recreation facilities to replace those lost in a land swap with the County for aff ordable housing.

Collegiate Commons is a 48-unit aff ordable housing development of rental units; with a 60% AMI or below income restriction. Urban, Inc., was the developer, a fi rm that specializes in aff ordable housing developments in small communities.

The project was largely made possible by a land swap with the Buena Vista School District. The site, three blocks south of the Avery-Parsons Elementary School, was owned by the Buena Vista School District and was formerly the school baseball fi elds.

In exchange for the land, the school received a new ball fi eld and a bond issue for a new school. Collaboration granted the project

Collegiate Commons facade.


CHFA funding - to build aff ordable housing in rural areas requires incentives from taxing authorities as well as waivers for water and sewer fees (Wondra, 2018). This project can be seen as a success story of the collaboration with the local school district and can be used as a model for a land swap.

The Farm - Buena Vista, CO

Takeaways

• Modular construction of town homes in the region is possible and profi table. This model is ideal for areas with unpredictable winters that experience premium pricing for the construction market and high labor costs.

• Home-buyers for relatively aff ordable starter-homes can custom-order their home from a variety of well-designed models that complement the surrounding the community while fi lling a gap in the housing market of Chaff ee County.

The Farm is a community in Buena Vista, made from modular construction that began in 2018. Plans for the neighborhood include 218 units, a mix of single-family homes and town homes, that are for-sale units targeting 77-124% AMI households. The developer, Fading West, designed a “pocket community” where homes are accessed from the back along one-way roads, and each home has a front porch that opens into community green spaces. The neighborhood is designed with a theme of “contemporary farmhouse,” and all homes are built off -site in Nebraska and shipped complete and placed on crawl space foundations and connected to utilities. Home buyers can custom-order their home and it will be move-in ready within eight months. The Farm can be used as a model for modular construction (Fading West, 2019).

Modular Construction on The Farm

25


Potential Funding Sources Grants and Loans

The project team also researched many diff erent channels for possible funding Lake County or a future developer can apply for. Currently Lake County is working with a private consultant team to more thoroughly consider options for funding and overseeing the development of aff ordable housing. Therefore, funding is a minor section in this report and further details about each source can be found in Appendix I. Below is a list of all of the applicable funding sources the team identifi ed:

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

Community Development Block Grants

Colorado Health Foundation Grants

Housing Program GrantsCommunity Health Grants

Energy Impact Assessment Fund

USDA Water and Environmental Program

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES I GRANTS AND LOANS

26


FIGURE 12: LAKE COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME

Population / Demographics

All data retrieved from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

The demographics, community assets, and regional context of Lake County, Colorado.

Existing Conditions Lake County Context

• Lake County Total population: 7,481.

• Figure 3 shows Lake County’s aging population: the number of residents 60 and older have almost doubled since 2000, from 11% of the population to 19%.

• Figure 4 shows a large Hispanic population: 37% of Lake County’s population is of Hispanic origin.

• Figure 5 shows an infl ux of higher income residents: those earning $100,000 or more has almost doubled since 2010 (9% to 17%).

63%37%

0

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

Household Income

20102017

Less than $15,000

$15,000 to $24,999

$25,000 to $34,999

$35,000 to $49,999

$50,000 to $74,999

$75,000 to $99,999

$100,000 to $149,999

$150,000 to $199,999

$200,000 or Greater

FIGURE 10: LAKE COUNTY POPULATION BY AGE

FIGURE 11: LAKE COUNTY BY HISPANIC ORIGIN

01020304050607080

HispanicNon-Hispanic

63%37%

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

Hispanic or Latino Origin

63%37%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

75 and older60 to 7435 to 5920 to 3410 to 19Under 9

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

Age

20002017

The percentage of Lake County workers employed in natural resources/mining and the hospitality/leisure industries (35%), indicates a vulnerability to which the current shortage of aff ordable housing stock (particularly rental) might only exacerbate. These industries are particularly sensitive to international market shifts, and susceptible to economic shocks. As this may not correlate with a decline in the US economy or the mountain region’s real estate market, the possibility of these

workers suddenly facing hard times in an expensive housing market is one for which the county should prepare. Especially considering mining/natural resource workers are currently the highest average earners in the county.

EXISTING CONDITIONS I LAKE COUNTY CONTEXT

27


Community Assets

Figure 6 shows an asset map of the sites in relation to various community assets.24

24

Huck Finn Park

Ice Castle Park

FIGURE 13: LEADVILLE COMMUNITY ASSETS


28


24

24

24

91

to Eagle County

to Turquoise Lake

to Summit County

to Twin Lakes

4

82

in the foreseeable future. This means Lake County will likely continue to be an aff ordable option for housing in comparison.

Further, the regional scale of the issue might speak to the need for an equally regional solution. Lake County’s current lack of aff ordable housing capacity (e.g. the absence of a local housing authority, limited past projects,

Regional Context

Figure 7 shows Lake County and its connection to adjoining counties.

Of all its neighboring counties, the population and economy of Lake County are most closely tied to the counties of Eagle and Summit. The real estate markets of Summit and Eagle have increasingly shifted to the demands of vacation homeowners, wealthy retirees, and short-term rentals due to the success of major ski resorts, a growing year-round recreation industry, and associated services. These trends are refl ected in the counties’ median incomes ($73,508 for Summit in 2017; $83,803 for Eagle), dwarfi ng that of the comparatively “local” economy of Lake County ($46,176).

Historically, these disparities have prompted many of Summit and Eagle County’s workers to seek the relatively attainable housing of Lake County. This pressure on Lake County’s limited housing units is only likely to increase. The 2016 Summit County Housing Needs Assessment estimated that the County had a catch-up need of 660 workforce housing units (i.e. units with rents attainable for those earning 80% of the AMI or below), and a keep-up need (accounting for job and population growth projections) of 1,025 workforce units. The 2007 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment estimated the county’s catch-up and keep-up needs at 4,446 and 8,060 workforce units respectively. While aff ordable housing projects have been either approved, built, or proposed in Eagle and Summit since the publication of these reports, they have not met the sheer scale of current and expected demand of these two job markets. Due to the many factors constraining construction and the supply of buildable, aff ordable land in the Central Mountain Region, it is also unlikely that they will manage to do so

and a comparative lack of designated public funding for housing) may be supplemented by those of Eagle and Summit counties (and their major municipalities), and workforce housing partnerships with fi rms like Vail Resorts (the ownership group behind the majority of the region’s ski resorts).

FIGURE 14: LAKE COUNTY REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP


29


Determining the housing need in Lake County.

Existing Conditions Affordable Housing Market Study

In order to determine the appropriate mix of income levels and housing types for the identifi ed sites, the project team performed an Aff ordable Housing Market Study for Lake County. The project team collected relevant data from a variety of sources to assess housing need.

Data Sources

• Lake County Housing Needs Assessment

(2018)

• US Census Bureau - American Community

Survey 5-year Estimates (2013-2017)

• Lake County Section 8 Waiting List

Aggregated Data

• Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

• Lake County Senior Master Plan

The team used housing assessment examples from surrounding mountain counties and a housing assessment workbook created by the Massachusetts Housing Authority (MHA) to create a structure for analyzing the collected data. The market study determined the supply

of diff erent housing types and the profi le of housing demand. These supply and demand profi les were compared with indicators of housing need identifi ed in the MHA assessment model. This assessment found that the greatest needs for housing in Lake County are for households that make between less than 50% the area median income, older adults, and local Lake County workers. Housing for these groups should be top priority for new housing developments initiated by the county. In addition, the market assessment illuminated other factors unique to Lake County that further exacerbate issues of housing aff ordability. All of these conclusions are discussed in depth in this section.

Overall Housing Need

Part of the market study was to understand the overall number of housing units that are needed in the county. Using Eagle County’s Housing Needs Assessment (2016) as a template, the project team combined current numbers of jobs, the number of vacant jobs, projections of future jobs, and the number of people currently commuting into Lake County. From this analysis the project team estimates Lake County has a housing need of about 560 units. This analysis is a rough estimate however and does not take into consideration the additional housing pressures Lake County is experiencing from the greater rural resort region.

Subsidized Aff ordable Housing

The need for subsidized aff ordable housing can be demonstrates simply by noting the number of people on the Section 8 waitlist of the county. There are currently 98 households on the Section 8 waitlist. Eighty-fi ve of these households make below 30% of the area median income, 11 make below 50%, and 2 make below 80% (see Figure 8).

This indicates there are a minimum of 98 people who would benefi t from subsidized aff ordable housing in the county (Central Colorado Housing, 2018). However, additional data collected shows this number is actually much higher.

Below 30% AMI

30% - <50% AMI

50% - <80% AMI85 People

11 People

2 People

FIGURE 15: LAKE COUNTY SECTION 8 WAITLIST

EXISTING CONDITIONS I AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET STUDY

30


Currently 489 households in Lake County, over a third of all renter households, make less than $35,000 per year and are spending more than a third of their income on rent. This means that over a third of all renter households in Lake County are currently housing burdened and could qualify for subsidized housing in a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project. LIHTC projects can include subsidized units for a range of incomes from 0-80% AMI, as long as the average income qualifi cation for those units is 60% or less (US Census Bureau, 2017).

Housing for these income brackets does not occur naturally in most housing markets and requires tax-credits (like LIHTC) and grants to build. One of the greatest costs of development is the cost to acquire land. Development on any of the sites proposed in this project has an advantage since the County either owns the land or can negotiate an agreement to acquire it. For this reason, and county-initiated development should include a large component of subsidized aff ordable housing. It is clear there is a great need for subsidized aff ordable housing in Lake County, and the County is uniquely positioned to address this need with future development.

In order for a LIHTC project to be competitive and be fi nancially feasible it generally has to have a minimum of 60 units (Hoagland, 2019) This number may change depending on a number of factors but planning for future development should estimate at least 60 subsidized units.

Senior and Accessible Housing

Almost 12% of Lake County’s residents are over 65 years and older (Lake County, 2017) and the State Demographer’s estimates show this number increasing as older adults choose to age in place in their communities. The Lake County Senior Master Plan (2017) identifi es housing as one of the most important issues facing Lake County’s seniors. This plan identifi es that many seniors in the community desire to age in place and that there are not many options for them to do so. The plan identifi es home maintenance and accessibility as major barriers to aging in place, and that there are few housing options currently in Lake County that can meet these needs.

The need for safe and accessible housing intersects with the issue of aff ordability. Currently 188 people 65 or older make less than $30,000 per year. If they needed to relocate from their current home due to mobility challenges or maintenance issues, there are few aff ordable and accessible options for them to transition to. There are currently only 24 units of senior housing in the county, though the American Community Survey estimates 84 households headed by someone 65 years or older that pay more than a third of their income towards rent in Lake County (see Figure 9).

3.5 senior households paying

> 30% of their income

1 dedicated senior

housing unit

:

FIGURE 16: LAKE COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING NEED

Older adults are not the only population in need of aff ordable and accessible housing, 36 of the 98 people on the Section 8 waitlist qualify as non-elderly disabled (Central Colorado Housing, 2018). Both aging adults and individuals with mobility challenges are not being adequately served by the private housing market. There is signifi cant overlap between these two groups, and they share a need for accessible housing for a range of mobility challenges. For these reasons, at least one third of any aff ordable housing developed in this project should be accessible to persons with mobility challenges or be built as “adaptable units” (FCI Constructors, 2019) to serve this need. Additionally, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development has interest-free capital advances for building supportive housing for very low-income seniors known as Section 202 (HUD, 2019).


31


Local Worker Housing

Shown in Figure 10, 74% of people living in Lake County work outside of the county. Of the out-commuters, about 50% work in either Eagle or Summit County (US Census Bureau, 2015).

FIGURE 17: IN AND OUT COMMUTING PATTERNS IN LAKE

COUNTY

However, Lake County’s median income is signifi cantly lower than those two counties, making it diffi cult for local workers to compete for housing with those working in these other counties. As the cost of living and median income continue to rise in these neighboring counties, this will increase the pressure on the housing market in Lake County, making it less aff ordable for Lake County workers. For this reason, some of the market-rate housing in any new development initiated by the city should require priority housing for the local workforce. This means that someone who works in lake county would get priority for an open unit. If after a certain amount of time the unit is not fi lled, non-local workers can apply for the unit.

Similarly, to ensure that new for-sale housing benefi ts local and regional employees, any housing built on county land should have an occupancy restriction. This would mean that all units on the property must either be occupied by the owner a majority of the year or be a long-term rental. This restriction is important to ensure none of the county-initiated housing is bought as a second home/vacation rental.

Additional Housing Pressures

Another pressure on Lake County’s housing markets is the age of most of the housing stock. As shown in Figure 11, sixty-one percent of Lake County’s housing stock was built before 1940. Lake County’s housing stock is signifi cantly older than surrounding counties and Colorado as a whole (see Figure 12).

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

Lake County Leadville

2010-2013

2000-2009

1990-1999

1980-1989

1970-1979

1960-1969

1950-1959

1940-1949

<1939Ye

ar B

uilt

Number of Housing Units

FIGURE 18: AGE OF HOUSING STOCK IN LAKE COUNTY

FIGURE 19: AGE OF HOUSING STOCK BY REGION

FIGURE 20: DIVERSITY OF LAKE COUNTY HOUSING STOCK

An older housing stock indicates that little new housing is being built, and the existing stock will require rehabilitation and maintenance due to its age. Furthermore, Lake County has a lack of diversity of housing types, with 72% of all housing being single-family detached housing (see Figure 13). Only 5% of all housing units in the county are single-family attached (up to 4 units) and only 8% of units are apartments (Economic & Planning Systems, 2018).

Single-Family

Manufactured Homes

4 units or less

More than 4 units72%

15%

5%8%

01 02 03 04 05 06 0

Pitkin

Eagle

Summit

Colorado

Lake County 53yrs

34yrs

36yrs

26yrs

32yrs

37yrs


32


A greater diversity of housing types naturally creates more attainable housing. This need was also identifi ed in the 2016 Lake County Housing Feasibility Study. This study focused particularly on the need for for-sale single-family attached housing (ie. townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, etc.).

Both the 2016 Housing Feasibility Study, and the team’s interviews with local experts identify the short thaw season and the cost of getting materials to Lake County as factors that increase the cost of new construction. Modular or partial prefabrication models are a new solution some local builders have been using to ease this construction cost. The premise behind these models is that some of the construction can be done off site and then assembled on site.

Recommendations for Addressing the Greatest Housing Need

Any County-initiated housing development should aim to meet the most pressing housing needs in the county. Based on the research and data collection done in the project team’s market study, this project recommends the county prioritize new housing development in the following order:

• Minimum of 60 units of aff ordable housing. This most likely will be achieved using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and serve households making 0-80% the area median income.

• One third of units as accessible or adaptable for persons with mobility challenges. These should be both market-rate units and aff ordable units to accommodate mobility challenged persons across a range of incomes.

• Senior Housing. This may be subsidized and supportive and use Section 202 capital advances or could be accessible market rate units that are deed restricted to give persons 65 years and older fi rst priority.

• Local Worker Priority. Market-rate housing should be required to give fi rst priority to persons working in Lake County. After a set period without a qualifi ed applicant, the unit can then be made available to someone working outside of the county.

• Multifamily and Single-family attached housing types. These types of market-rate units are limited in Lake County and can create more attainable options for both renters and home-buyers.

• Be open to creative solutions. Given the unique construction challenges in Lake County and an ever-changing market, developers may need to incorporate other types of housing into a development to make some of the goals above fi nancially feasible. This may include modular construction or small-lot single family detached units.


560 UNITSThe determined number of units needed for Lake County to make up its present defi cit.

33


Site Runoff

Lake County experiences an average of 156 inches of snow per year, and the removal and disposal of this snow is a major consideration of any development in the town. Not only must a site account for adequate snow storage, but the ultimate destination of snowmelt and its runoff . Salt, sand, and magnesium chloride (used to melt snow) and other pollutants can pose negative environmental eff ects to the areas in the path of runoff . Mitigation to prevent this runoff from leaving the site, or to fi lter the water, must be taken into consideration for any development.

Wildfi re Mitigation

Lake County’s Community Wildfi re Protection Plan (CWPP) identifi es that Leadville and adjacent areas as having a wildfi re frequency of fi re at intervals greater than every 35 years. Colorado State Forest Service’s Wildfi re Risk Assessment Portal classifi ed the Westpark site at minimal risk for wildfi re and the Climax and School District sites at moderate risk. The Climax and School District sites are at a greater threat from wildfi res as they border undeveloped woodland. Any new development should adopt existing best practices for wildfi re mitigation including creating defensible space around the development and using high-quality, fi re resistant materials in all building and landscaping. Occurrence

Lake County-specifi c environmental challenges and considerations.

Existing Conditions Environmental Considerations

and severity of wildfi res are predicted to get worse with changes in the climate and water availability.

Water and Sanitation Capacity

Any future development would represent increased demand on Lake County’s limited sanitation and water capacity. However, in the 2015 Lake County and Leadville Comprehensive Plan, the Leadville Sanitation District estimated that it had roughly 1,300 single family home equivalents of capacity left in its system, while the Parkville Water District estimated that the Evans Gulch Water Treatment Plant was at roughly half capacity, with further water rights available to the district should it need them.

EXISTING CONDITIONS I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

34


Architectural design styles in Leadville and surrounding the three sites.

Existing Conditions Architectural Style

It is important to consider the architectural style of the structures surrounding the sites in consideration for the development of housing to preserve neighborhood character and contribute to a sense of place. All of the potential development sites are located either within Leadville or surrounding Leadville’s city limits. For this reason, the project team investigated the architectural character of Leadville instead of Lake County as a whole.

Single family homes in Leadville follow a variety of architectural styles that each contribute to the City’s unique architectural identity. The neighborhoods surrounding the sites are home to a wide range of styles from ornate Victorian to log cabin (Wolfenbarger, 2015). Shown in Figure X are a few examples from the Leadville Historic Resources Survey Plan.

FIGURE 21: PROMINENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES

Log Cabins and Slab-Sided Wood Buildings Romantic Houses

Victorian Single-story CottageOrnate Victorian

EXISTING CONDITIONS I ARCHITECTURAL STYLE

35


Gable-front & Wing

Gable-front Houses Ranch Houses

Manufactured/Mobile Homes

EXISTING CONDITIONS I ARCHITECTURAL STYLE

36


Feedback and input from the Community Housing + Design Workshop.

Existing Conditions Community Input

Community Meeting Overview

The decision to stage structured community outreach, and to incorporate this feedback as a major infl uence on the project team’s fi nal recommendations was made for several reasons:

• Staging a community design charrette is one of the requirements that a project must meet to be eligible for the Enterprise Green Communities Certifi cation, a requirement to winning competitive low-income housing tax credits.

• To keep the community up-to-date with the planning process, and to off er them a clear roadmap of where the project will proceed. This allows the community to stay involved and engaged and lowers the possibility of community members being surprised by a development later in the process. To allow and encourage the community to participate in planning so they can communicate their opinions on what best fi ts their community’s needs. The solutions created in these exercises can serve them and their greater community.

• To gauge the community’s preliminary concerns and priorities. The surveyed literature illustrated the importance of a predictable entitlement process and a stable political landscape. Learning - and incorporating, where appropriate - these thoughts

early on in the process may help to avoid unexpected delays or resistance later on in the process, where money or the project’s viability may be at stake.

• To gather local knowledge about the physical and contextual considerations of each site and their contexts.

The Lake County Housing + Design Workshop was held on April 10, 2019; and consisted of three main components:

• A presentation where the team explained the project, their fi ndings from the Aff ordable Housing Market Study, and an overview of each of the three sites. The presentation included interactive polling to get to know meeting attendees and understand some of their community values.

• An exercise where the team had had attendees rank photographs of potential architecture and design elements for the development of housing in Lake County. The architectural style boards were placed around the room and attendees put colored stickers on styles that they liked and did not like.

• A design charrette, where attendees broke up into diff erent work stations at which project teammates could gather input and address concerns about potential site design. This process involved aerial maps with models of four housing types and densities, open space, amenities, and parking. Design teams were instructed to design the site with a minimum of 120 units with the required open space and parking, and to add any amenities they would like to see as part of the development. Community members also wrote strengths and weaknesses they identifi ed for each site on sticky notes and placed them on the maps.

EXISTING CONDITIONS I COMMUNITY INPUT

37


Interactive Polling Results

When asked to think of “one word for why Lake County is a great place to live;” the answers in (Figure 15) populated on the screen in a word cloud. Meeting attendees were encouraged to submit multiple answers, and words that were submitted multiple times appeared larger. A few highlighted words that many community members agreed upon were: community, mountains, outdoors, authentic, unique, lifestyle, small, and recreation.

FIGURE 22: “WHY LAKE COUNTY IS A GREAT PLACE TO

LIVE” INTERACTIVE POLL RESPONSE WORD CLOUD

To ensure that the community remains involved in this project’s progress, the team had meeting attendees sign in with their emails so that the Housing Implementation Team can send the fi nal report to those interested. The team also outlined in their presentation the role of the 2019 Studio class in continuing to involve the community in this project.

“The future of housing in this town will determine if my family is able to

stay here.” - Beverly Lochner, Leadville City Council


38


The fi nal poll question served to help the project team understand who was at the meeting. (Figure 16) shows the commuting characteristics of meeting attendees. It should be noted that although Census data shows that 75% of Lake County residents are employed outside of the County, 74% of those present at the meeting live and work in the County. The project team recognizes the challenge of engaging residents that commute for work, since many commuters drive up to 2 hours each way for work every day, and weekday meetings may be impossible for them to attend. The project team recommends that future community outreach eff orts be

FIGURE 23: “CHOOSE A CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES

YOU” COMMUNITY RESPONSES

FIGURE 1: “WHAT IS THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE

REGARDING HOUSING IN LAKE COUNTY?” RESPONSES

(Figure 1) shows meeting attendees’ responses when asked the question “what do you see as the most pressing issue regarding housing in Lake County?”. The most common choice was “aff ordability,” and other choices had similar response rates with the exception of “lack of housing for individuals with disabilities” which had a signifi cantly lower response rate.

focused on reaching community members that typically don’t show up to meetings and better understanding their housing challenges.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Not enough for sale housing

Not enough rental housing

Lack of housing accessible for individuals with disabilities

Age of housing stock

Few options of housing types

33%

18%

15%

15%

15%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other (e.g. unemployed, retired)

I work in Lake County but live outside

I live in Lake County but work outside

I live AND work in Lake County 74%

16%

8%

3%


39


Community Feedback: Architectural Styles

The community voted on architectural styles that they most liked and disliked among photos of diff erent LIHTC developments across Colorado. The photos were not labelled, nor were voters aware that all the pictured housing was aff ordable, subsidized housing. The ranked architectural styles are shown in (Figure 17).

FIGURE 24: RESULTS FROM ARCHITECTURAL STYLES ACTIVITY

Pinewood Village II: Breckenridge, CO

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Dislike

Neutral

Like 54%

25%

21%

Percent of participants

Virginia Placer: Telluride, CO


0% 10%2 0% 30%4 0% 50%

Dislike

Neutral

Like 50%

28%

22%

Truscott Phase 2: Aspen, CO

0%

14%


0% 20% 40%6 0% 80% 100%

Dislike

Neutral

Like

86%


40


Community Feedback: Site Evaluation and Addressing Concerns and Desires

During the community design activity, meeting attendees were prompted to fi rst discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each site based on their local expertise and perceptions. After this exercise, the project team had folks design the sites themselves; considering a minimum unit count, open space requirements, parking, and addressing community concerns and desires for amenities. This input is included in the site-specifi c evaluations below.

LionÕs Ridge: Vail, CO

8%


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Dislike

Neutral

Like

31%

62%

Aria Apartments: Denver, CO

Dislike

Neutral

Like 0%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18%

82%

Lumien: Durango, CO


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Dislike

Neutral

Like 50%

14%

36%


41


Physical and contextual conditions specifi c to the Westpark parcel.

Site Specifi c Conditions Westpark Parcel

For consistency in this report, the project team refers to these sites as 1) Westpark, 2) Climax, 3) School District.

The creation of site plans, and the assessment of unit suitability, and density were contingent on the comprehensive evaluation of the physical and contextual characteristics of the three sites. The project team - informed by consultation with developers, the City of Leadville, Lake County, and relevant public and private bodies - created the following criteria for assessment:

• Utility connections and capacity

• Street access and anticipated traffi c and road infrastructure impacts

• Topography

• Drainage

• Environmental considerations

• Existing structures and/or objects (e.g. tree cover)

• Neighborhood context: form, density, proximity

• Amenities and public services

• Transit, car, and pedestrian connections

Physical:

Contextual:

Overview

The Westpark site is located at the intersection of Harrison Avenue and Mount Traver Drive next to the Westpark neighborhood. The Ballfi elds site is 10.3 acres and currently owned by Lake County Board of Commissioners. The site currently contains a set of baseball fi elds that is used by the high school baseball team and summer softball tournaments. Before the ballfi elds the site contained apartments from the 1940s through the 1960s. Because of this past development and the previous location of a nearby motor-racing track, phase I and phase II environmental site assessments have been conducted on the property to determine any needed remediation. Additionally, the Westpark Elementary school is located next to the site to the south. The Lake County School District plans to replace Westpark with a new school on the same site in the next few years.

Land Use and Zoning

Current Zoning

The site is located in Lake County’s Urban Residential (UR) zoning district. The district regulations describe this context as:

“Intended to accommodate the urbanizing areas of Lake County, where moderate to high density residential and associated service development has occurred, is occurring or is desired to occur in the near future. “

The UR zoning district currently accommodates heights of up to thirty-fi ve feet, indicating that the Urban Reisdential zone would serve as a useful base district for a planned unit development (PUD). The PUD process could off er developers and the town the fl exibility to negotiate the siting and intensity of building massings, in order to both accommodate community concerns and mitigate viewshed impacts and to allow the town to seek higher development standards - possibly in the form of improved open space (e.g. a regulation high school ballfi eld).

Current and Future Land Use

The site is currently occupied by three small baseball fi elds, used for practice sessions and games by a local little league team. Apart from these improvements, the site is undeveloped.

SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS I WESTPARK PARCEL

42


Due to the site being owned by the Lake County Board of Commissioners, the future land use map for Lake County simply designates the site as being for public use. The 2015 Lake County and Leadville Comprehensive Plan, however, identifi es the site as being part of a broader recreation strategy, stating:

“Strategy C – Develop Harrison Field into a year-round outdoor recreation and sports-fi eld park, developed according to a master plan for this large property.”

Neighborhood Context

Density/Types of Housing

The project team conducted an urban form analysis to obtain a better understanding of the housing context of the site. Using data from the Lake County Assessor as well as real estate property data from Zillow, the project team took a sample of properties in a Study Area that surrounded the Westpark site within a two-block radius. The following attributes were analyzed: lot size, building height, building square footage, year of structure built, and number of bedrooms and bathrooms. The full analysis can be found in Appendix II.

The Westpark site is located on the west side of downtown in the Westpark neighborhood. The site is surrounded primarily by low-density residential houses. One- and two-story single-family homes on relatively small lots make up the neighborhood to the west, north, and east of the site. The lot directly south of the ballfi elds is currently vacant, although there are plans to build a new school to replace Westpark Elementary School. Mount Massive Manor, across West 12th Street to the south of

W 12th St

Mt. Traver Dr

Ha

rris

on

Av

e

Mt.

Elb

ert

Dr

24

FIGURE 25: WESTPARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT MAP

the site is a multi-family senior housing development. There is a planned community to the east at the Leadville Railyard, which will consist of mixed-use buildings

with commercial and retail, as well as residential. Plans for phase one of this development show 100 units of apartments, townhomes, and single-family houses.


43


Urban Fabric

Streets and Blocks

The Westpark neighborhood is characterized by long blocks running east/west, and most houses facing north or south with the exception of Harrison Avenue and Mt. Elbert Drive. The east/west blocks 13th, 14th, and 15th Streets are 600 feet long and 250 feet wide. Most streets are 35 feet wide, while Harrison Avenue is wider at 50 feet. The Westpark interrupts the street grid, resulting in numerous streets only existing for one block. It sits as a large empty lot in the middle of a well-established neighborhood.

Lots

Lot widths are relatively narrow, averaging around 50 feet wide for properties surrounding the Westpark parcel with the exception of the lots across the street on Harrison Avenue which vary in width. The estimated average lot size for Urban Form Analysis Study Area is 7,423 square feet. Most residences sit in the middle of their lot, so setbacks are consistent and provide homes with both front and backyards.

Buildings

Per the zoning the maximum building height is 35 feet, although most single-family residences in the neighborhood are one story, typically at a maximum height of 25 feet tall. Homes in the Westpark neighborhood in the Study Area vary in size, but an estimated average is a modest 1,204 square feet.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

5 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

3 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Num

ber o

f

Bedr

oom

s

Percent of Homes in Study Area

5%

5%

33%

47%

12%

FIGURE 26: URBAN FORM ANALYSIS; NUMBER OF

BEDROOMS IN HOMES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA


BATHROOMS IN HOMES WITHIN THE STUDY AREAN

umbe

r

of

Ba

thro

oms


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

3 Bathroom

2 Bathroom

1.5 Bathroom

1 Bathroom 56%

22%

17%

5%


44


Infrastructure and UtilitiesFIGURE 28: EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE SURROUNDING WESTPARK PARCEL


45


24

Ice Castle Park

FIGURE 29: ASSET MAP OF WESTPARK PARCELTransportation and Connectivity

Access to Amenities

The Westpark site is in a central location relative to many amenities in Leadville. Westpark Elementary and the public library are a couple of the site’s neighbors. The site is less than a 15-minute walk from both Safeway and downtown Leadville.

Transit

The site is located a third of a mile from stops for the both the regional commuter bus routes, the Summit Stage and Eagle County Eco Transit. This proximity gives a greater connection to regional employment opportunities and amenities and may reduce predicted car ownership or traffi c from a new development.

Pedestrian and Bike Connectivity (Trails and Sidewalks)

The site is located just a block away from the mineral belt trail, a separated multi-use pathway that serves as a major pedestrian connector in Leadville. However, improving the safety of the trail crossing at Harrison is a priority project identifi ed in the Lake County Safe Routes to Schools Plan. Additionally, there is no dedicated pedestrian infrastructure connecting the Mineral Belt to the potential site. Creating this connection could be a key benefi t that a new development at this site could provide. Some component of this project may be eligible for Safe Routes to Schools grants as it would improve safe routes to Westpark elementary school.

In addition to creating safe routes for children, all new pedestrian connections should address the needs of persons disabilities. Considering that 36 people on the section 8 waitlist are disabled, and new housing types may cater to older adults, ensuring that everyone can


46


take advantage of the pedestrian connections is key.

Road Conditions/Capacity

Harrison Avenue spans approximately 60 feet of right of way, so there is plenty of road space to handle additional capacity. However, a new development will need to create designated pedestrian and bike facilities to ensure that increases in car traffi c do not diminish pedestrian and bike connections in the area. The over 60 foot right of way should be plenty to handle all of these modes. Entrances and exits will need to be carefully considered and controlled in and out of the site for safety of cars, pedestrians, and bikes all using Harrison Avenue.

Parking

There is currently no parking on or around the site. All parking would need to be located on site. Where possible, units should be self-parked to avoid the site being taken up by surface parking. Lower parking standards should be considered for aff ordable housing as data shows these types of development tend to need less parking as the residents own fewer cars. Because of the sites proximity to established neighborhoods, parking is likely to be a contentious topic if the site is to be developed. Ensuring that there will not be spillover parking from residents and guests of a new development will be key to gaining public favor on a project. There may be potential to share parking with adjacent schools or other uses that have opposite hours of residential parking.

Snow Removal and Storage

Eff ective snow removal and storage will be a critical element of any successful development. A pervious area approximately 25% of the size of all impervious surfaces on a site should be planned as snow storage. Roads must be the appropriate width for a snow plow and

include either a connected circulation or a turn-around area. Roads and snow storage areas must be planned in conjunction to ensure they work together.

Physical Site Conditions

Terrain

The highest point of the site is the southeast corner at 10,152 feet in elevation and lowest point is the northwest corner at 10,111 feet, so it drops 41 feet from Harrison Avenue towards Mount Elbert Drive. The average slope for the site is an approximately four-percent grade.

Geology

Since the Westpark site has been used for recreational purposes for the past 50 years, there is little vegetation and the site is mostly graded. There is a small grove of trees at the northwest corner of the site, and the remainder is covered in packed soil.

Soil

The Westpark site is a brownfi eld site designated by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were completed for the Westpark site by Stantec in 2018. The following soil assessment is from the 2018 ESA:

The subsurface of the site consists of gravely sand with some cobbles and clay. The northwestern portion of the site’s subsurface consists of clayey sand with some gravel and cobbles. Arsenic was detected in samples at concentrations that exceed EPA residential and industrial RSLs. Lead was detected in samples that exceed the EPA residential RSL. Asbestos was not detected. Stantec recommends that soil removed from the site during

future development be disposed of at an approved facility. Prior to redevelopment of the site, preparation, and submittal of materials management plan (MMP) to the CDPHE that outlines soil management and best management practices during construction will be required (Stantec, 2018).

Drainage

There is currently no stormwater infrastructure on the Westpark site. Due to the site’s slope, water and snowmelt drain to the northwest corner of the site. The site is situated downhill of a residential neighborhood as well as the planned Railyard development, and community members have expressed concern with poor drainage in the Westpark neighborhood. When looking at development on the site, the collection and fi ltration of stormwater and snowmelt from the surrounding neighborhood and future development should be considered.


47


Community Input

Assets/Opportunities Constraints/Concerns Amenities/Considerations

Opportunity: Potential partnership with the School District who is planning a new facility on the lot adjacent to the site to share infrastructure cost, swap portions of the parcels for diff erent amenities, and share parking.

Concern: Loss of the ballfi eld or potential lapse of programming for a specifi c group of youth in the County.

Consideration: The inclusion of single-family homes to off er a transition zone between Harrison St. and placing higher density housing towards the West part of the site (lower elevation).

Opportunity: To improve the ballfi elds that are in disrepair and enhance with lighting.

Constraint: Less community support behind using this site for something other than recreational purposes.

Consideration: Reasonable density that complements the surrounding neighborhood character.

Asset: The site’s close proximity to schools, downtown Leadville, and the grocery store.

Concern: Protecting viewsheds and working with surrounding property owners when considering changing the use of this site.

Amenity: If replacement of the ballfi elds is necessary and feasible, ensure that phasing does not interfere with youth recreation.

Creative Ideas to Consider:

• Use the County-owned land next to Mount Massive Manor to build higher density housing to allow one larger ballfi eld to remain on the site while the housing need can is still met

• Partnership with the School District to coordinate eff orts for aff ordable housing and recreational facilities on site


48


Physical and contextual conditions specifi c to the Climax and School District parcels.

Site Specifi c Conditions Climax & School District Parcels

Overview

The Climax and School District sites are contiguous and located along McWethy Drive between James Street and County Road 4. Both sites are located south of the Evergreen Cemetery and east of the Lake County Intermediate School. The existing conditions for these sites are combined in this report due to their similar characteristics.

The Climax site is 8.8 acres and consists of land on both sides of James Street, including a triangle shaped median at the McWethy and James intersection. The site is currently owned by Climax Mine. Climax has given their permission to explore this site as a possibility for future housing development and indicated a willingness to gift the site to the County for this purpose.

The School District site is 11.1 acres and shares its western side with the intermediate school. The site is currently owned by the Lake County School District. The School District has given permission for this capstone project to explore the possibility for this site to be developed into new housing but are also considering other future uses for the site. This site is split by the Leadville City Limits which follows McWethy Drive.

Land Use and Zoning

Current Zoning

The sites are located in Leadville’s Low Density Residential (R-1) zoning district. The district regulations describe this context as:

“Established to accommodate relatively low density single-family and two-family residential development.”

The R-1 district allows densities of 9 dwelling units per acre and requires a minimum dwelling unit size of 600 square feet, excluding accessory and two-family dwelling units.

Current and Future Land Use

Both sites are currently greenfi eld, covered by dense vegetation/woodland.

The future land use map for Lake County identifi es the site for future residential infi ll, and this is supported by the text of the 2015 Lake County and Leadville Comprehensive Plan. Due to the areas’ location within the Parkville Water District, and their proximity to the infrastructure and amenities of Leadville, the plan identifi es the city periphery in which the site falls as:

...The most feasible for future growth with auto, bike and pedestrian transportation infrastructure. (Lake County, 2015).

Dozens of developable vacant subdivision lots exist in this area, but vacant lands in between developed subdivisions call for a deliberate approach for future development for connecting this developable land to culinary water and sanitary sewer and tying it into the City of Leadville and the regional transportation network.

The slope, existing vegetation, and opportunities for clustered lots and higher densities (to allow for the use of natural buff ers between the site and residential development to its south) suggest that housing development would benefi t from the fl exibility and higher development standards of a planned unit development (PUD) process.

SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS I CLIMAX & SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCELS

49


Neighborhood Context

Density/Types of Housing

The project team conducted an urban form analysis to obtain a better understanding of the housing context of the sites. Using data from the Lake County Assessor as well as real estate property data from Zillow, the project team took a sample of properties in a Study Area that surrounded the Climax and School District sites within a two-block radius. The following attributes were analyzed: lot size, building height, building square footage, year of structure built, and number of bedrooms and bathrooms.

The Climax and School District sites are located a few blocks southwest of the Westpark site, so the neighborhood context is similar. To the south of the sites across the Mineral Belt Trail is a neighborhood that is mostly single-family residential. There is multi-family housing on a parcel northeast of the sites off of Mt Massive Drive, (insert name of apartment complex) consists of 4 apartment buildings with a total of 28 units. To the north of the sites is Evergreen Cemetery, which is considered public open space. The parcel abutting the southwest side of the School District parcel is the Lake County Intermediate School, which has a playground and aquatic center. Across McWethy Drive is a park with recreation facilities and a community farm. There is planned residential development northwest of the site.

McWethy Dr

Jam

es S

t

4

W 6th St

W 7th St

W 8th St

FIGURE 30: CLIMAX & SCHOOL DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT


50


Urban Fabric

Streets and Blocks

Streets in this neighborhood do not follow the grid network of downtown Leadville, but have a curvilinear nature that forms oddly shaped blocks and dangerous intersections. McWethy Drive follows the curved shape of the Mineral Belt Trail, and meets James Street which is another road that jogs away from the grid to the south. McWethy Drive is 35 feet wide, and James Street is 30 feet wide until it splits at the intersection of McWethy Drive into two two-way, 35-foot wide roads. This forms a triangle-shaped parcel between the two roads that is part of the Climax site. The blocks south of the Mineral Belt Trail vary in size and shape since the street network responds to both the Trail and the grid network stretching west from downtown. There is no paved street network to the north of the sites because it is occupied by the cemetery.

Lots

The residential neighborhood to the northeast of the site is the Westpark neighborhood discussed in the Westpark section. The only subdivided land that is adjacent to the sites is to the south across the Mineral Belt trail and to the northeast where there are multi-family apartments. Lot widths are generally between 50 and 60 feet wide on W 8th Street. The estimated average lot size for parcels in the Study Area is 9,311 square feet. Setbacks are consistent with most residences in the middle of the lot.

Buildings

Per the zoning the maximum building height is 35 feet, although most single family residences in the

neighborhood are one story, typically at a maximum height of 25 feet tall. Homes within a two-block radius of the School District and Climax Mine sites vary in size, but an estimated average is 1,455 square feet.

The majority of homes in the Study Area are 3-bedrooms, and range in the number of bathrooms from one to three.


BEDROOMS IN HOMES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA


BATHROOMS IN HOMES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Num

ber o

f

Bedr

oom

s


2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

5 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

3 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

7%

61%

24%

5%

Num

ber

of

Ba

thro

oms


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

3 Bathroom

2 Bathroom

1.5 Bathroom

1 Bathroom 22%

27%

39%

12%


51


Infrastructure and UtilitiesFIGURE 33: INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR CLIMAX AND SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCELS


52


Huck Finn Park

Evergreen Cemetary

(3/4

mile

)

(3/4 mile)

FIGURE 34: ASSET MAP OF CLIMAX AND SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCELSTransportation and Connectivity

Access to Amenities

Both sites are within a quarter-mile from the intermediate school and the aquatic center. The sites are within a half-mile of the high school, C4 farm, senior center, and the hospital. It is 25 minute walk to Safeway, or a short drive.

Transit

These sites are about a 15-20 minute walk to Summit Stage and Eagle County Eco Transit Stops. These sites are not as transit accessible as the Westpark site which could impact car use during commute hours or car ownership.

Pedestrian and Bike Connectivity (Trails and Sidewalks)

The Mineral Belt Trail runs right beside both the Climax and School District sites. This bike and pedestrian path is a huge asset for future development and creating a connections and a safe pleasant experience on this trail should be a focus of new development. Aside from the Mineral Belt, these sites do not have any connections to existing pedestrian infrastructure. This may be a weakness of these sites, but also presents a great opportunity for development to drastically improve the pedestrian safety and comfort of the area.

The Climax site straddles the odd triangular intersection of McWethy Drive and James Street. Many community members, both local experts and community meeting participants, identifi ed this intersection as a problem area and expressed a desire to see it reimagined.

McWethy Drive and connections to the Evergreen Cemetery trails were both identifi ed as priority projects in the Safe Routes to Schools Plan. Improvements to walking and biking along these sites may qualify for Safe Routes


53


to Schools Funding. The county and a developer could work together to implement diff erent improvements to create a safer environment at these sites.

Improving connections to services and amenities for people with mobility challenges should be a major focus for connecting this site. Focusing on accessible pedestrian connections will ensure that residents of with a spectrum of ability levels can take advantage of the proximity of the site. This will be crucial both for older adults who will continue to age in these homes. Additionally, 36 people on the current Section 8 waitlist have disabilities, and this project would be a great way to ensure that lower-income folks with disabilities now only have access to housing, but that the community around that housing is also accessible.

Road Conditions/Capacity

McWethy Drive is in good condition for cars, but line of site and intersections are confusing and dangerous. This road is not comfortable or safe for other modes of transportation. Development could be a great opportunity to improve the safety of McWethy for everyone. McWethy can certainly handle the additional traffi c, and connects to County Road 4, another major road in Leadville. However, one consideration is that McWethy is currently the alternative route out of town for US-24. This would require working closely with the Colorado Department of Transportation during construction, and may require special permitting or accommodations. This could add time and cost to a project at either of these sites. In addition, because McWethy curves, intersections with new roads on the proposed sites would need careful consideration as they would not be typical right-angled intersections.

Parking

There is currently no parking on or around the site. All parking would need to be on site. Where possible, units should be self-parked to avoid the site being taken up by surface parking. Lower parking standards should be considered for aff ordable housing as data shows these types of development tend to need less parking as the residents own fewer cars.

Snow Removal and Storage

Eff ective snow removal and storage will be a critical element of any successful development. A pervious area approximately 25% of the size of all impervious surfaces on a site should be planned as snow storage. Roads must be the appropriate width for a snow plow and include either a connected circulation or a turn-around area. Roads and snow storage areas must be planned in conjunction to ensure they work together.

Physical Site Conditions

Terrain

The highest point of the two contiguous sites is on the Climax parcel at the intersection of the Mineral Belt Trail and James Street, at 10,080 feet in elevation. The grade slopes down from the Trail northwest, and the lowest points are on the School District site at 9,998 feet at the northwest corner of both the parcels to the north and south of McWethy Drive. From highest to lowest point, the sites drop 51 feet in elevation. The Climax site has an approximate average slope of fi ve percent. The average slope of the School District site ranges from three to six percent. The portion north of McWethy drive averages around three percent, where the southern portion is between fi ve and six percent.

Geology

The Climax and School District sites have never been developed, and are both densely wooded with primarily one species of tree.

Soil

According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s soil maps, this area’s soil is primarily sandy loam.

Drainage

There is currently no stormwater infrastructure on either site. Due to the sites’ slope, water and snowmelt drain to the northwest corner of the site. The sites are undeveloped and covered in pervious surface, so they likely collect and naturally fi lter runoff and snowmelt on-site. The sites are situated downhill of a developed residential neighborhood to the south across the Mineral Belt Trail, and uphill of the Evergreen Cemetery and undeveloped land. When looking at development on the site, the collection and fi ltration of stormwater and snowmelt from the surrounding neighborhood should be considered.


54


Community Input - Climax Parcel


Asset: Close proximity to schools, hospital, open space.

Concern: Traffi c on McWethy Dr. and James St. since they are highly traffi cked routes to school.

Amenity: This development could include “starter homes” as a transition between lower density and higher density.

Opportunity: To re-imagine traffi c fl ow on McWethy Drive and the intersection at James St. and McWethy Dr. to be safer, more pedestrian-oriented, but continue to serve a relatively high volume of cars during school hours. New development would replace the wooded lot that currently has poor visibility with a safer “eyes on the street” environment on the adjacent stretch of the mineral belt trail. This was noted as a particular consideration for safety of intermediate and high school kids getting to and from school.

Constraint: Upfront infrastructure costs are signifi cant, but the potential to acquire the School District site and create a community that is attractive and aff ordable is worth considering.

Consideration: The intersection at James Street and McWethy Drive and transportation network should be re-designed to consider pedestrian safety for children and adults. Although McWethy drive has been traditionally auto-oriented, the larger transportation network should be considered when re-thinking public ROW for multi-modal options.

Opportunity: To increase lighting and multi-modal transportation connections.

Opportunity: To phase development and continue building mixed-income housing on a connected site.

Concern: Parking & overfl ow into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Concern: Unsafe intersections for all modes of transportation.

Amenity: It would be ideal to enhance the pedestrian experience on both McWethy Drive and James Street. This could include re-imagined intersections, safe crosswalks, and attractive lighting. Particularly with safe routes to schools


• Align the site for solar access

• Include a daycare center as a job/workforce component

• Including a small market place/commercial element in the development to account for its distance from similar amenities

• Design a pocket park along the Mineral Belt trail that can be a stopping place for people using the trail


55


Community Input - School District Site


Asset: Great access; one block from community farm, hospital, playground, park, pool.

Constraint: The site’s main access road is McWethy Drive which is CDOT’s detour route for Highway 24.

Amenity: Internal pocket park with play equipment.

Opportunity: To improve sidewalks and pedestrian safety along McWethy Drive.

Concern: General traffi c concerns and safety since McWethy Drive bends and perpendicular connections will potentially pose a challenge.

Consideration: Sidewalk connections between the development, school, and Mineral Belt Trail.

Opportunity: Slope can provide opportunity to maintain views.

Constraint: The awkward triangle lot could prove diffi cult to design around and/or inhibit a grid street layout.

Consideration: Utilize the site’s slope to thoughtfully place density so as to not obstruct views.

Asset: Connection to the Mineral Belt Trail, making it safer for children (with lighting and activity as opposed to dark woods), as well as providing bike and pedestrian connections.

Constraint: Entitlement process could prove diffi cult since half the parcel is in Lake County and the other half in Leadville.

Consideration: This is *the only remaining* large parcel owned by the School District in Leadville. At some point in the future, if the School District needs to acquire land, the County could provide land for a swap or legal exchange.


• Utilize the slope’s capacity and timing as Phase 2 of development to implement design guidelines and include any deed restrictions, annexations, or other necessary tools to address the housing need as well as the needs of the School District.


56


Methodology

The project team used a weighted ranking system to analyze all of the existing conditions research that was conducted. In order to accomplish this, the project team rated each site on a one-to-fi ve scale for each factors considered. A one signifi ed the factor posed a challenge to development on the site, a fi ve meant the factor was not a challenge or may even be an ideal opportunity. Next, the team assigned a weight (one, two, or three) to each factor depending on their importance to the feasibility and ease of development. A one was the least

important, three was most important. Then each one-to-fi ve score mentioned above was multiplied by the weight number. Each site’s weighted score was then totaled and compared. The factors considered and their weights they were fi nalized with input from members of Lake County’s Housing Implementation Team (HIT). Below is a table showing the scores for each site across a variety of factors. The table is organized by highest weighted factors to lowest weighted factors.

Through the ranking process it is clear that all of the sites are extremely close and all make good candidates

for development. The school district parcel comes in signifi cantly behind the Climax and Westpark parcels primarily because of the uncertainty of the school district’s plans for the site. This is in addition to a few smaller challenges the site presents for development.

The Westpark and Climax parcels come out just a few points away from each other, with the Climax site receiving the highest score. The Westpark parcel comes out ahead of the Climax parcel on many physical aspects of the site, but Climax makes up for this in its alignment with adopted city and county plans, and the less

This section describes methods used to rank the sites and expands on the project team’s site selection recommendations

Recommendations Site Selection

FIGURE 35: SITE RANKINGS TABLE

SITE SLOPE

PLANNING

DOCUMENT

SUPPORT

SHARED

COMMUNITY

VISIONS

OWNERSHIPUTILITY

CONNECTION

EXISTING

ROAD

CAPACITY

SIZE

WALKING

DISTANCE TO

GROCERIES

EXISTING

PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES

MOBILITY

DEVICE

ACCESS

NUMBER OF

ADJACENT

NEIGHBORS

PROXIMITY

TO

HOSPITAL

CLEARED

PROXIMITY

TO OPEN

SPACE

WEIGHTED

TOTAL

Category Weight 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

ClimaxRaw Score 1 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 4 1 4 5 1 5

Weighted 3 15 15 15 6 8 8 4 8 2 8 5 1 5 103

WestparkRaw Score 3 3 2 5 4 3 5 4 2 4 2 3 5 3

Weighted 9 9 6 15 12 6 10 8 4 8 4 3 5 3 102

School District

Raw Score 2 5 5 2 2 4 5 2 3 1 4 5 1 5

Weighted 6 15 15 6 6 8 10 4 6 2 8 5 1 5 97

RECOMMENDATIONS I SITE SELECTION

57


contentious community vision for the land. Community resistance to development can cause major delays in the development process, which greatly adds to the cost of a project, especially considering Lake County’s brief window of acceptable conditions for construction.

Site Selection

The project team recommends that in order to get aff ordable housing built on a desirable time line, the County put out a request for proposals (RFP) for the development of the Climax parcel. This future development should be required to include a minimum of 60 units of aff ordable housing for households making less than 80% the area median income. Market rate, for-sale, and deed-restricted housing could also work in complement with aff ordable housing on this site, but securing aff ordable housing on the site should be the fi rst priority.

This recommendation still leaves open the possibility for the Westpark and School District parcels to be developed in the future. However, since the county’s goal is to get

aff ordable housing built in the next three to fi ve years, the project team believes Climax site is the most feasible site for this time line. The project team recommends that Lake County offi cials, Build a Generation, representatives from the School District, and the Housing Implementation team begin having regular meetings to form a partnership between these entities, understand how future housing can serve the school district, and discuss the future of the School District parcel.

Similarly, the project team recommends that Lake County Build a Generation continue to conduct city-wide outreach about the potential of the Westpark site to provide housing. Coming to a consensus with the community about the future of the Westpark parcel will take a considerable amount of time and the work should be started now. Nevertheless, while collaboration continues to form the visions for the Westpark and School District parcels, the process for developing aff ordable housing in the Climax parcel should begin immediately.

RECOMMENDATIONS I SITE SELECTION

58


Methodology

In order to thoughtfully illustrate how these sites could look once developed, the project team used data from the existing conditions report, community input, and consultation from design and aff ordable housing experts to produce potential site designs. The site designs include recommendations on the location of structures, parking, utilities, roads and circulation, and amenities. To create each site plan, the team went through an iterative process which began with a potential layout of the residential units on each site (based on the unit counts and typologies produced in the Aff ordable Housing Market Study), as well as the current and future zoning of the sites. The site plan was then adapted as they considered utility connections, parking, community spaces and amenities, view sheds, and all applicable site context and parcel specifi c information. Community input then further adapted the site plans and the team included desires and concerns of the residents of Lake County. Finally, architecture and design suggestions were produced based on neighborhood context and community input.

This section describes methods used to rank the sites and expands on the project team’s site selection recommendations

Recommendations Site Specifi c Recommendations

Landscaped sidewalk Parking lane Drive lanes Sidewalk

10’ 7’ 10’ 8’

45’ Wide Streets

PROPOSED STREET SECTION

FIGURE 36: STREET DIAGRAM OF INTERNAL STREETS IN PROPOSED SITE PLANS

RECOMMENDATIONS I SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

59


Option A:

Rebuild one ballfi eld on the Westpark site that fi ts the regulation size for juniors and seniors. This is an opportunity to improve the ballfi eld and add lighting, while ensuring that youth have access to recreation. The development of the site could be phased in such a way that there would be minimal lapse in time that a ballfi eld would be unavailable.

Option B:

Move the ballfi elds to another site; potentially the Climax or School district sites, or other County-owned land. The

Westpark Site

Site Layout and Amenities

The largest question when designing the Westpark site was what to do about the ballfi elds. They are currently underutilized, although removing them completely would leave certain youth in the community without a recreational asset. A few options were discussed during the community design charrettes and with elected offi cials:

Westpark Parcel

12th St Parcel

12th Street

Harrison Avenue

Westpark

Elementary

Mineral Belt Trail

�

constraints here are the lack of funding for construction of recreation and the potential lapse in time that a regulation-size ballfi eld would not exist.

The project team recommends Option A; if the Westpark site is developed with housing, it should include one ballfi eld of regulation size. To ensure that as many units of aff ordable housing are built to meet the housing needs of Lake County, the project team recommends that the County-owned parcel on 12th Street west of Mount Massive Manor (see Figure 34.) should be developed with higher-density housing. The ballfi eld should be rebuilt at the northeast corner of the site.FIGURE 37: MAP OF WESTPARK AND 12TH ST PARCELS

Harr

ison A

venue

14th St (extended)

FIGURE 38: HYPOTHETICAL VISION OF DEVELOPMENT ON WESTPARK PARCEL


60


Overall Recommendations

• The street grid should be continued where possible connecting 14th Street through the site.

• Lower-density housing should occupy the lots on Harrison Avenue to provide a transition zone and preserve views. This could include subdividing this portion of the site and selling the lots for the development of single family residences.

• The highest-density housing should utilize the site’s grade and occupy the parcels on the west side of the site.

• Lake County should partner with the School District to share cost of construction of utilities and create a safe and effi cient road network.

Unit Count and Type

• A mix of single-family residential houses, townhomes, triplexes, four- and eight-unit apartment buildings are recommended for this site to fi t with the surrounding neighborhood’s density and character. With the inclusion of the ballfi eld, between 60 and 80 units on this site seems appropriate.

• At least 25 units should be designed for families with children due to the site’s connectivity to Westpark Elementary.

• A LIHTC project should be considered on the County-owned parcel on 12th Street (next to Mount Massive Manor) since it would fi t better with the higher-density housing next-door. This would need to consist of around 60 units for the project to pencil out.

FIGURE 39: WESTPARK PARCEL POTENTIAL SITE PLAN


14th Street (extended)

Ha

rris

on

Av

e.

Harrison Avenue redesign

Density increases as the site slopes down from Harrison Avenue

Public open spaceDog park

Single-family unitsDuplex unitsTriplex units4-unit apartments

6-unit Townhomes

8-unit Apartments

61


New baseball field

Harrison Avenue

12’ 7’ 9’ 8’

55’ Right of Way

HARRISON AVENUE REDESIGN

Circulation and Connectivity

• Due to Harrison Avenue’s extremely wide right-of-way of 55 feet, a road diet could include a 12 foot-wide shared-use path that connects to the Mineral Belt Trail. This would allow for two driving lanes and one on-street parking lane, while providing a pedestrian and bike connection from the new housing, ballfi eld, and school to the Trail.

• Continue 14th Street through the site (east-west) and continue the road built by the school district (north-south). The School District is planning to continue 13th Street and connect to parking where the existing Westpark elementary building sits. These streets can have minimal on-street parking with wide sidewalks and pedestrian amenities.

• Partner with the School District to share parking for visitor overfl ow and ballfi elds.

FIGURE 40: RECOMMENDED REDESIGN OF HARRISON AVE

FIGURE 41: VIEW OF RECOMMENDED SHARED USE PATH AND SINGLE RENOVATED BALLFIELD


62


Climax Parcel

Since the project team identifi ed the Climax site as the most feasible for immediate development, both physically and politically, the team recommends that this site be prioritized for aff ordable housing using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). This will ensure that aff ordable housing for households making less than 60% area median income is built fi rst, as this is the least likely to be addressed by the private market. A minimum of 60 aff ordable units should be sought for this site to ensure the project is competitive for a LIHTC application. Including more than 60 units of aff ordable housing in a proposal should be considered a favorable factor in the bidding process.

Additional market-rate for-sale and rental units should be included to help fi nance the LIHTC project and site improvements. All for-sale units should include an occupancy requirement and have an appreciation cap written into the deed for future sales. An occupancy requirement would require either the owner to live in the unit full-time or rent it as a long-term rental. This measure ensures these housing units will not become vacation home or short-term vacation rentals. An appreciation cap on all for-sale properties would allow future sellers to make a capped return on their investment while ensuring the homes remain as attainable housing stock into the future.

FIGURE 42: CLIMAX PARCEL POTENTIAL SITE PLAN

12-unit Apartments

“Eyes on the street” feel on the mineral belt trail

Square off James St and McWethy Dr intersection to increase safety

Comfortable and accessible pedestrian connections within the developmentTown homes

McWethy Drive

Jam

es

Str

ee

t

Mineral Belt Trail

Quadplexes

8-unit Apartments Open space fronting the Cemetery

Evergreen Cemetery


63



• Greater density near McWethy, with density tapering toward the established neighborhoods

• Green buff er of established vegetation along the mineral belt and McWethy to create peaceful environment on mineral belt trail and from cemetery

• Layout leaves open the potential to connect to future development on the School District site

• Daycare center as an amenity lacking in the greater Leadville community

Unit Count and Type

• 111 units total

• Minimum 60 units of housing aff ordable to households making below 80% AMI

• Occupancy deed restriction for market rate housing to ensure housing cannot become vacation or short-term rentals

• Both aff ordable and market-rate units should be a mix of housing types


• James & McWethy intersection is redesigned into a more standard intersection

• Intersections at McWethy are designed to account for odd intersection angles

• Orient new pedestrian infrastructure to the Mineral Belt Trail.

FIGURE 43: VIEW OF CLIMAX PARCEL FROM MINERAL BELT TRAIL

FIGURE 44: ENVISIONED INTERSECTION AT JAMES AND MCWETHY

McWethy Drive

James Street

Mineral Belt Trail


64


School District Site

There were several recurring ideas for the layout of the Climax site from both the design charrette and a meeting with some elected offi cials.

The site planning exercise saw the community direct the highest densities away from the school, while leaving a buff er of open space next to the cemetery. Community members (especially parents) felt that the presence of housing along the Mineral Belt Trail near the school could be a positive in that it would provide peace of mind to parents whose children might walk to school.


• Greater density away from school and cemetery

• Community thinks the site is a good opportunity for a pocket park/play area.

• Similarly to the Climax site, the community would like to see the site’s slope used in conjunction with diff erent building heights to preserve view sheds.

Figure X: View from Mineral Belt Trail

Mineral Belt Trail

FIGURE 45: SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL POTENTIAL SITE PLAN


65


• Identifi ed as a good opportunity to expand and improve pedestrian connections between the school, the site, the Mineral Belt Trail, and the cemetery.

Unit Count and Type

• Whereas the Climax site off ers the best opportunity for providing LIHTC development aimed at the lower incomes with the highest/most urgent need, the School District as a second phase might be a good opportunity for senior housing and some of the small lot development that will help to provide a diversity of housing types across the whole development and create more of a neighborhood feel.

• Defi nitely amenable to both the densities and open space/amenity requirements of a LIHTC project, fairly similar to the Wintergreen context.

• The proximity to the hospital makes the site a good candidate for some level of senior housing.


• New pedestrian connections link the Mineral Belt Trail with the Evergreen Cemetery and its adjoining open space, to allow for safer pedestrian access.

• Pedestrian and bike infrastructure is added to McWethy.

• Pedestrian crossings and intersections on McWethy are designed to account for sight lines and safe crossings at all hours. Mineral Belt Trail

McWethy Drive

FIGURE 46: VIEW ACCROSS SITE LOOKING NORTH

FIGURE 47: POTENTIAL CONNECTION FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE TO MINERAL BELT TRAIL


66


Expedited Entitlement Process

One measure Lake County may wish to explore alongside its current housing reforms is the establishment of a permit expediting policy, for developments with a given minimum percentage of units below a specifi ed AMI. Moving these applications “to the front of the line” in zoning, planning, and building permit processing can save developers months: reducing risk and the fi nancing costs of construction loans by allowing aff ordable housing developers to bring their development to market more quickly.

For example, San Diego’s aff ordable/infi ll housing expedite program off ers priority processing to projects with at least 10 percent aff ordable units. The program off ers access to specialized city staff , shorter staff review times, and priority on hearing dockets among other things. In just over 10 years, the program expedited processing for more than 300 projects including 2,800 aff ordable homes. Participating projects are generally processed in half the time of a typical local project.

In Lake County, where the capacity of the planning department and the level of development is much lower than a large city like San Diego, the simple enshrining of priority in policy alone may be suffi cient to lower the entitlement process costs for future aff ordable housing development and to ensure the attractiveness of an RFP.

The project team compiled recommendations for future policies and requests for proposals from the information gathered from interviews with subject experts and existing literature.

Recommendations Additional Recommendations

What to Include in an RFP

• Description of the site, the community, and Lake County’s goals for the project.

• Manner of disposition (sale, lease).• Target populations (seniors, families,

etc.) and levels of aff ordability desired.• Desired unit types.• Submission requirements.• Design guidelines (e.g. architectural

and material examples are acceptable to include in an RFP, although over-prescription of design elements may discourage creative bids).

• Evaluation criteria (designers and developers consulted for this project highlighted the use of evaluation criteria to signal the prioritization of good design, and to encourage these elements in the bidding process).

• Scheduling (for site visits, interviews, selection).

• Forms and certifi cations.

Urban Residential

Multi-Family ResidentialBusiness

Urban Residential

rial

R-1

R-2

RC

R-2

TC

TR

C

R-1 Conventional Residential

R-2 Traditional Residential

Transitional Retail and Residential

Transitional Commercial

Retail Core

Commercial

Historical Conservation Boundary

LEADVILLE ZONING

Climax

ParcelSchool

District

Parcel

Westpark

Parcel

FIGURE 48: MAP OF LEADVILLE/LAKE COUNTY ZONING

RECOMMENDATIONS I ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

67


Deed Restrictions

Income and Appreciation Caps

Income-based deed restrictions generally set a maximum allowable income of buyers/renters, set maximum allowable sales prices on the future sale of restricted properties, and require that the owner occupy the property as a primary residence. In Denver, the Aff ordable Housing program has used the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (passed in 2002) to restrict a percentage of units, from new development of residential properties hosting over 30 units, to AMIs of 80% or lower (varying according to the size of the household). Buyers are required to undergo income checks, and are prohibited from leasing the property unless they remain occupants. Further, sales prices are limited by the covenant to allow for a set rate of appreciation year-on-year, modifi ed by the local market.

Deed restrictions of this type are typically set for a minimum of 20 or 30 years, although they can be applicable in perpetuity.

Income-based deed restrictions may be a consideration for a future development in Lake County, in order to ensure that new housing stock remains attainable and occupied, while allowing for more fl exibility of use, tenure, and income occupation than outlined by the restrictions of units built using low-income housing tax credits.

Local Worker Priority

Deed restrictions can also be put in place to simply require that occupants are employed in the County for a minimum number of hours a week. This allows for the provision of market-rate units that are ensured to

address the issue of fi nding existing and prospective employees suitable housing in Lake County, without necessarily prescribing an income cap. In Lake County, where many workers of major employers, like the Climax Mine, earn in excess of 100% AMI and still struggle to fi nd housing, “work-live” deed restrictions may be eff ective in preventing labor shortages and the associated losses for the Lake County economy.

Employer First Priority

Multiple of Lake County’s public sector employers (e.g. police, fi re, the School District) have expressed concern for the ability of their workers to secure housing within the county. Right of fi rst refusal deed restrictions for the employees of these essential public services would aff ord

their employees fi rst priority for a given period of time in the event of a vacancy: allowing these departments to house employees if necessary, or for the units to be occupied by other users if no internal demand is present.

FIGURE 49: VIEW OF THE SAWATCH RANGE FROM LEADVILLE


68


This section includes a summary of the project team’s fi nal recommendations and recommended next steps.

Conclusions Next Steps for the Future

Recommendations Summary

The project team recommends that in order to get aff ordable housing built on a desirable time line, Lake County put out a request for proposals (RFP) for the development of the Climax parcel. This future development should be required to include a minimum of 60 units of aff ordable housing for households making less than 80% the area median income. Market rate, for-sale, and deed-restricted housing could also work in complement with aff ordable housing on this site, but securing aff ordable housing on the site should be the fi rst priority. This recommendation still leaves open the possibility for the Westpark and School District parcels to be developed in the future.

Important Next Steps

Develop Climax Parcel

• Create agreement with Climax for their site and needs

• Create RFP for development of that site

• Streamline entitlement process for development of this site

Future of Westpark and School District Parcels

• Start positive outreach campaign to build community consensus for the future of Westpark site

• Begin regular in-person meetings between the school district, Lake County elected offi cials, and Build a Generation, to create a partnership for building new housing and envisioning the future of the school district parcel.

Summer Studio Potential Tasks

• Conduct community outreach to engage people who live in Lake County but work outside.

• Draft potential RFPs for Climax Parcel• Create more detailed site plans for each

site• Analyze possible development costs

diff erent between the sites• Estimate diff erences in future

maintenance costs for each site• Create a master plan and phasing

alternatives for the eventual development of all three sites as housing


69


Works Cited Bach, A., Gupta, P. K., Haughey, R., Kelly, G., Pawlukiewicz, M., & Pitchford, M. (2007). Developing Aff ordable Housing, 36.

Better City Llc. (2016). Housing Feasibility Study. Retrieved January 26, 2019 from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/795c37_015d17ff 964247c3a7ddb9ca91e93d2d.pdf

Carswell, A. T. (2012). The encyclopedia of housing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

Central Colorado Housing. Section 8 Waitlist Data (2018). Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments.

CHFA - 2018 LIHTC Round Two Awards. (2018). Retrieved February 16, 2019, from https://www.chfainfo.com/arh/lihtc/Pages/2018-roundtwo-awards.aspx

Colorado State Forest Service. Colorado’s Forests in a Changing Climate. 2019. Web. https://csfs.colostate.edu/colorados-forests-changing-climate/#1475778323849-01cfbca6-642d

Colorado State Forest Service. Colorado Wildfi re Risk Assessment Portal. 2019. Web Application. Accessed April 2019. https://co-pub.coloradoforestatlas.org/#/

Colorado State Forest Service. Protect Your Home, Property, & Forest from Wildfi re. 2019. Web. https://csfs.colostate.edu/wildfi re-mitigation/protect-your-home-property-forest-from-wildfi re/

Down payment assistance. (2018, November 07).Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://www.chfainfo.com/homeownership/down-payment-assistance

Economic & Planning Systems. (2018). Lake County Housing Needs Assessment. Lake County, Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.lakecountyco.com/buildinglanduse/sites/lakecountyco.com.buildinglanduse/fi les/Lake%20County%20Housing%20Needs%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

Fading West. (2019). The Farm. Retrieved from https://thefarmatbv.com/

FCI Constructors Inc. Lumien Apartments Aff ordable Housing. (2019). Retrieved February 16, 2019, from https://www.fciol.com/portfolio-items/lumien/

Hoagland, K. (2019). Informational Interviews.

Housing Counts. Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed Income Communities. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2019, from http://www.housingcounts.org/toolbox/fi nance/use-cross-subsidies-to-support-mixed-income-communities/

Hurley, A. K. (2016). Will US Cities Design Their Way Out of the Aff ordable Housing Crisis?. Next City. https://nextcity.org/features/view/cities-aff ordable-housing-design-solution-missing-middle

HUD. Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. (2019). https://www.hud.gov/program_offi ces/housing/mfh/progdesc/eld202

Lake County. Community Wildfi re Protection Plan (2006). Amended 2015. (p. 7) Web. https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2014/02/Lake-CountyCWPPAug2014rev928_reducedsize.pdf

Lake County Build a Generation. Senior Housing Master Plan (2017). PDF. Accessed January 2019 from http://lcbag.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2018_LCPHA-Senior-Master-Plan_FINAL.pdf

Multifamily Housing Insured Mortgage Revenue Bonds (No Longer Outstanding). (2018, May 06). Retrieved February 25, 2019, from: https://www.chfainfo.com/investors/Pages/bond-archive-multifamily-revenue.aspx

National Association of Home Builders. Common Misconceptions Regarding Accessibility at LIHTC Properties. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2019, from https://www.nahb.org:443/nahb-priorities/accessibility/common-misconceptions-regarding-accessibility-at-lihtc-properties.aspx

WORKS CITED

70


National Council of State Housing Agencies. Lumien II Breaks Ground in Durango. (2018). Retrieved February 16, 2019, from https://www.ncsha.org/hfa-news/lumien-ii-breaks-ground-in-durango/

National Low-Income Housing Coalition. New LIHTC Income Averaging Option Outlined in NHLP Webinar. (2018, July 16). Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://nlihc.org/article/new-lihtc-income-averaging-option-outlined-nhlp-webinar

Norris Design. (2018). Wintergreen PUD Revisions. Keystone, Colorado.

North West Colorado Council of Governments (NWCOG). (2016). Gap Analysis of Home and Community-based Services for an Aging Population in the NWCCOG Region. Retrieved January 22 from http://nwccog.co.networkofcare.org/content/client/1128/NWCCOG-Gap-Analysis-Report-Final.pdf

Nguyen, M. T., Basolo, V., & Tiwari, A. (2013). Opposition to aff ordable housing in the USA: Debate framing and the responses of local actors. Housing, Theory and Society, 30(2), 107-130.

Ownership Opportunities | GVRHA. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2019, from http://gvrha.org/homeownershipland-opportunities/

Private Activity Bonds. (2019, January 16). Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://www.colorado.gov/pacifi c/dola/private-activity-bonds

Rubin, J. S. (Ed.). (2007). Financing Low Income Communities. Russell Sage Foundation.

Schwartz, A. F. (2014). Housing policy in the United States. Routledge.

Schwartz, A., & Tajbakhsh, K. (1997). Mixed-income housing: Unanswered questions.

Levy, D., McDade, Z., & Bertumen, K. (2013). Mixed-Income Living: Anticipated and Realized Benefi ts for Low-Income Households. Cityscape, 15(2), 15-28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41959107

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (2018). Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Westpark Site. (Environmental Assessment Report No. BF-96828101-0). Leadville, Colorado.

Summit County. (2018). Building Housing: Community Preservation, Economic Health, & Sustainability in Summit County, Colorado. Summit County, Colorado: Summit Combined Housing Authority.

Summit County. (2017, July 7). Lake Hill Master Plan. Retrieved from https://co-summitcounty2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/18907/Lake-Hill-Master-Plan?bidId=

Town of Crested Butte. 5 year Aff ordable Housing Plan 2019-2024. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.crestedbutte-co.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B6058FFBB-CB06-4864-B42F-B476F794BE07%7D/uploads/Aff ordable_Housing_Update_2019_Read-Only.pdf

Town of Crested Butte. Aff ordable Housing Guidelines. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.crestedbutte-co.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B6058FFBB-CB06-4864-B42F-B476F794BE07%7D/uploads/Town_of_CB_Adopted_Guidelines_Feb_1.pdf

Town of Crested Butte. Aff ordable/Work Force Housing. (2019). Retrieved February 16, 2019, from https://www.crestedbutte-co.gov/?SEC=F9CA8442-B3B9-488D-8018-DACFFF57D855

US Census Bureau. American Communities Survey 5-year estimates. (2017). Web. Retrieved March 2019 from https://factfi nder.census.gov

US Census Bureau. LEHD on the Map. (2015). https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Wondra, J. (2018, September 21). BV Earns Grant to Proceed with Housing Project. The Chaff ee County Times. Retrieved from http://www.chaff eecountytimes.com/free_content/bv-earns-grant-to-proceed-with-housing-project/article_e6b689d2-802f-11e6-99ad-5f20157cd3b3.html

Wondra, J. (2018, August 31). First Collegiate Commons Building Ready for Occupancy. Ark Valley Voice. Retrieved from https://arkvalleyvoice.com/fi rst-collegiate-commons-building-ready-for-occupancy/

Wolfenbarger, D. (2015, June). Leadville Historic Resources Survey Plan. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacifi c/sites/default/fi les/atoms/fi les/Leadville_HistoricResourcesSurveyPlan_rev2.pdf

WORKS CITED

71

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS APPENDIX I I FUNDING SOURCE RESEARCH

Appendix I includes summaries of key funding sources for building affordable housing and resources to support new housing

Appendix I Funding Source Research

Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)

The LIHTC is the largest federal program for the production and rehabilitation of aff ordable housing. Each state receives a certain allocation of tax credits from the federal government to distribute to aff ordable housing developers, who in turn exchange these tax credits with investors for a limited partnership investment in the project. The number of tax credits for which a project is eligible is determined by a “qualifying basis”, i.e. the proportion of the building costs going to the construction of 60% AMI (area median income) units. In Colorado, LIHTC are administered yearly by the Colorado Housing and Finance Association (CHFA).

There are two levels of LIHTC: competitive (the 9% tax credit) and non-competitive (the 4% tax credit). In recent years, applications for the 9% tax credit have become increasingly competitive, and successful applications are often those that display additional merits: e.g. programming (particularly that associated with a holistic approach to tackling inter-generational poverty, such as adult education); additional amenities; widespread community support; or exceptional need. This is often critical, as the 9% tax credit can often fi nance up to 90% of the construction costs.

Typically, developers using the LIHTC must make 40 percent of units available to households earning 60 percent of the AMI, or 20 percent of units available

to households earning 50 percent of the AMI. These restrictions must remain in place for at least thirty years.

In 2018, Congress approved a bill that created a new “income averaging” mechanic for LIHTC. This allows developers to include units with rents set aside for up to 80% AMI in their qualifying basis as long as the total units average out to 60% AMI. The diagram below illustrates some of the many possible permutations:

For Lake County, where the real estate market is increasingly infl uenced by demand from beyond its local economy (and, accordingly, its area median incomes), income averaging presents the opportunity to cater to both residents who earn over 60% AMI (but who may still struggle with their combined housing and living costs) and those earning below 30% AMI, for whom LIHTC previously did not specifi cally cater for.

The signifi cance of LIHTC to an aff ordable development’s fi nancing portfolio, and the disparity between the fi nancing gap presented by non-competitive and competitive tax credits, should inform a holistic strategy from Lake County and its various public organizations. Strategies for supporting a successful and fi nancially viable aff ordable housing development will be discussed with the recommendations.

Community Block Grants

CDBGs are a federal grant eligible for the acquisition, design/engineering, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation of public improvements or public facilities. Administered in Colorado annually by the Department of Local Aff airs (DOLA) to units of local governments (including counties), the funds must be used for activities that either benefi t low- and moderate-income persons, or that prevent or eliminate slums or blight. CDBGs are fairly competitive, as DOLA generally has less than $3 million to award state-wide.

CDBGs may be considered for Lake County’s prospective aff ordable housing development for two reasons:

1. The two sites on McWethy Drive (the Climax site and the School District site) will require a signifi cant expansion of public infrastructure in the form of both a water main extension and a water pressure valve. CDBGs could help to alleviate these costs and reduce the cost burden of a future developer, while making the project more attractive to bidding partners.

2. The use of CDBGs to improve infrastructure around the sites would be a clear indication of material community backing for the project: a factor looked upon favorably by the competitive LIHTC process.

72


Colorado Health Foundation

The Colorado Health Foundation (CHF) has various grants that government agencies or nonprofi t organizations can apply for across a variety of topics. Applicable projects are those that aim to improve health in traditionally underserved populations. Grants are awarded on a yearly cycle.

Housing Program Grants

CHF’s Housing Program Grants fall under the theme of “Strengthen Healthy Communities”. Applicable projects for these grants “Increase access to programs that deliver services to help maintain or increase aff ordable housing opportunities for low-income Coloradans.”

Other Health Related Grants

There are various other grant opportunities through CHF which the county or a local nonprofi t can apply for. Funds could assist programs or amenities to address public health issues, that the community wishes to see developed in conjunction with a housing development.

Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Fund (EIAF)

EIAF funds are available to political subdivisions that are impacted, either socially or economically, by energy production or mineral extraction. The funds are largely drawn from the state severance tax on energy and mineral production.

EIAF has two tiers: Tier I funds (up to $200,000) and Tier II ($200,000 to $1 million). Additionally, administrative funds are available outside of the application cycle for planning and design costs, but these grants require

a 50/50 match. The statute for EIAF calls for DOLA to use the funds to promote sustainable community development, and to increase the livability and resiliency of eligible communities. As mineral resource extraction is a major (and fairly volatile) component of the Lake County economy and workforce, tying the development of aff ordable housing to building communal resilience could be a compelling narrative for a grant application by the jurisdiction - particularly if a proportion of future units are reserved for employees of the industry.

For a future aff ordable housing development in Lake County, EIAF may be another avenue for fi nancing the costly infrastructure (particularly utility) improvements that would otherwise present barriers to development.

USDA Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program

USDA’s Water and Environmental Program (WEP) off ers fi nancing to rural communities with populations of 10,000 or less to develop, construct or improve public water and wastewater infrastructure. Typically, this fi nancing takes the form of long-term, low-interest loans with up to a 40-year payback period. The Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants program is another possibility for fi nancing the water infrastructure needs of a future development on McWethy Drive.

APPENDIX I I FUNDING SOURCE RESEARCH

73

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS APPENDIX II I URBAN FORM ANALYSIS

Appendix II includes the data collected for the urban form analysis which the team used to understand existing neighborhood character.

Appendix II Urban Form Analysis

Proximity Address Lot Size Stories Bedroom Bathroom SF Year Built

Surrounding Neighbor-hood

1218 Harrison Ave 4,300 2 3 3 1,704 2007129 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 1 1 1 624 19371313 Mount Elbert Dr 6,098 1 3 1 1,222 1957116 E 14th St 5,227 1.5 3 2 1,664 18881104 Mount Elbert Dr 6,969 1 5 3 2,580 19571505 Mount Elbert Dr 7,405 1 3 1 924 19511405 Mount Elbert Dr 7,405 3 1 912 1953110 E 14th St 5,227 2 1 798 1888111 E 15th St 12,504 3 1,223 1900114 E 15th St 15,681 3 1 1,196 1956126 E 15th St 13,068 1 1.75 1,495 1913120 E 14th St 5 2 1,322 1977117 E 14th St 5,227 2 1 947 1888109 E 14th St 7,841 2 1 1,010 1888110 E 13th St 5,227 2 1 826 1888110 W 12th St 7,841 4 1 1,390 1898


Properties Directly Surrounding the Westpark Parcel

1318 Harrison Ave 4,792 1 2 1 962 18881300 Harrison Ave 4,356 1 3 1 2,206 1888104 Mount Traver Drive

6,534 1 3 1 839 1935

132 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 2 2 2 1,506 19351500 Harrison Ave 7,405 1 4 1.5 1,031 19611414 Harrison Ave 12,632 1 3 1.5 1,318 19561510 Harrison Ave 7,405 1 3 1.5 1,270 19641518 Harrison Ave 10,019 1 3 1.75 1,040 19671400 Harrison Ave 2 3 2 1,410 18881219 Harrison Ave 5,663 1 3 1 1,100 18881215 Harrison Ave 3,485 2 2 2 1,076 19001520 Harrison Ave 8,712 1 3 1 1,046 1938108 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 2 1 842 1935112 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 2 1 672 1935116 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 1 2 1 1,030 1935120 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 2 1 804 1935124 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 2 1 494 1935128 Mount Traver Dr 6,534 2 1.75 672 1935200 Mount Traver Dr 9,583 4 1.75 1,856 19351401 Mount Elbert Dr 7,405 4 2 1,204 19531309 Mount Elbert Dr 6,098 3 1 925 19571509 Mount Elbert Dr 9,583 3 2 1,795 19351513 Mount Elbert Dr 4 1 1,856 19351521 Mount Elbert Dr 8,712 2 1.5 1,320 19351425 Mount Elbert Dr 7,405 3 1 1,236 19511421 Mount Elbert Dr 7,405 3 1.5 1,200 1953

Westpark Parcel

74

LAKE COUNTY I AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS Appendix II I Urban Form Analysis

School District and Climax Parcels


Surrounding Neighborhood

616 W 7th St 8,712 1 3 2 2,050 1957508 W 8th St 9,147 2 3 3 1,920 19791200 Mount Massive Dr 6,534 1 3 2 1,304 19571105 Mount Massive Dr 6,969 1 3 2 1,334 19571000 Mount Massive Dr 11,761 4 2 2,200 1957608 Dexter St 7,840 1 5 3 3,695 1996604 Dexter St 8,712 1 4 1.75 1,920 1962608 W 7th St 6,969 4 2 2,016 1957522 W 7th St 7,405 1 2 1 1,268 18981304 Mount Massive Dr 6,534 1 3 1 1,021312 Mount Princeton Dr 16,117 1 3 2 1,111 1974322 W 9th St 6,970 3 1 928 19561100 Mount Massive Dr 6,534 3 1 925 1957127 Mount Massive Dr 2 1 880 1981340 Mount Princeton Dr 11,326 3 1.5 1,295 19571008 Mount Massive Dr 8,276 3 1 1,056 1957617 Dexter St 17,859 2 1 864 1958613 W 8th St 8,712 3 1.5 1,125 1965609 W 8th St 7,841 4 1.5 1,300 1965605 W 8th St 7,841 4 2 1,550 1965705 W 8th St 33,977 1 2 848 1999601 Washington St 8,712 3 1.25 1,125 1965819 Maple St 12,197 3 2 1,382 1900504 W 8th St 9,148 3 1.5 2,283 1888603 W 8th St 8,276 4 3 1,600 1965607 W 8th St 11,326 3 1.5 1,550 1965611 W 8th St 6,970 3 1.5 1,550 1965344 Mount Princeton Dr 7,841 3 1 1,295 1957336 Mount Princeton Dr 9,148 3 1.5 1,200 1957


Properties Directly Sur-rounding the Climax + School District Parcels

622 W 8th St 6,534 1.5 3 2 1,896 1977813 Clarendon Ave 9,583 1 3 2 1,210 2004600 W 8th St 9,589 4 2.5 950 1965604 W 8th St 7,841 3 1.75 950 1965608 W 8th St 6,098 3 1.75 950 1965612 W 8th St 6,098 3 1.5 950 1965616 W 8th St 6,098 4 1.5 1,225 1965620 W 8th St 6,098 3 1.5 950 1965624 W 8th St 6,534 5 2.75 3,061 1978626 W 8th St 6,534 4 2 1,806 1978628 W 8th St 8,276 3 1.75 1,204 1979630 W 8th St 13,504 4 2.75 1,920 1980

HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS … · capstone project to assess, prioritize, and plan for three of the...

Documents

Transcript of HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS … · capstone project to assess, prioritize, and plan for three of the...