Meeting affordable housing needs in resort communities

Material Information

Meeting affordable housing needs in resort communities
Vecchio, Sally T
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
41, xxiii leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Housing -- Planning -- Colorado -- Snowmass Village ( lcsh )
Housing -- Planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Snowmass Village ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sally T. Vecchio.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
21498726 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1989 .V42 ( lcc )

Full Text
Sally T. Vecchio
M.U.R.P., University of Colorado, Denver, 1989
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Urban and Regional Planning
The Department of Architecture and Planning

This thesis for the Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree by
Sally T. Vecchio
has been approved for the
Department of
Urban and Regional Planning

A. Historical Perspective 3
B. Existing and Future Housing Demands 6
C. Land Use Regulations 7
D. Snowmass Village Housing Authority 10
E. Master Plan Policies 13
F. Development Application and Review Process 14
A. Flexible Zoning 18
B. Development Application and Review Process 21
C. Master Plan Policies 23
D. Public Finance Programs 24
A. Zoning and Density Changes 28
B. Development Application and Review Process 29
C. Town Plan Policies 30
D . Public Finance Programs 32
E. Snowmass Village Housing Authority 35
A. Snowmass Village Demographics
B. Land Use Regulations From Other Communities.
1. Breckenridge, Colorado
2. Boulder, Colorado
3. Hilton Head, South Carolina

Name Page
1. Snowmass Village Total Unit Breakdown 5
2. Snowmass Village Residential Zone Districts 8
3. Restricted Ownership Unit Affordability 12

Resort communities can encourage affordable housing
development through the local planning process. Given the high
housing costs, the pressure for architectural control, and the
sensitive natural environment in many resort communities, land use
regulations generally require more detail and sophistication than
in most other communities. These regulations may create increased
land and development costs which result in more expensive housing.
If a resort community is committed to maintaining an economically
and socially balanced permanent population, then local official
must respond to affordable housing development in an active manner,
based on flexible, comprehensive regulations and policies.
The purpose of this thesis is to determine the most effective
planning tools available to resort communities to encourage the
development of affordable housing. The planning tools most commonly
used include the master plan, land use regulations, and the
development application and review process. Financial investment
through a local housing authority can also assist in the
production, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable housing.
This thesis examines the regulatory tools and techniques used in
Snowmass Village, Colorado and their effectiveness in providing
affordable housing opportunities.
This thesis is organized into three sections. The first
section addresses the local regulations which have affected housing
costs and development in Snowmass Village. The second section
outlines the experiences of other communities and resort towns

which have attempted to encourage and maintain more affordable
housing opportunities through the local regulatory process. The
third section suggests alternative regulatory techniques for
Snowmass Village to further encourage the development of affordable

A. Historical Perspective.
The following goals and objectives were included in the 1983
Master Plan for Snowmass Village, Colorado, to give direction to
future housing growth and development.
OBJECTIVE: Strive to achieve an appropriate balance of residents and visitors.
OBJECTIVE: Comfortable and affordable employee housing, including a mix of long-term rental,
seasonal and ownership units, reserved for employees on a continuing basis.
Providing more affordable housing for local residents and
employees has been a concern in Snowmass Village since its
incorporation in 1978. A number of well documented housing studies,
surveys and planning documents have been produced over the years.
Based on this information, a local housing authority was created
in 1978, and over two hundred government-financed affordable
housing units were built. Despite favorable regulations, housing
costs in Snowmass Village have continued to increase, and
affordable housing developments have experienced the least growth
among all housing types (Appendix A). The result has been a higher
percentage of renter households among the permanent residents and
an increasing number of Snowmass Village employees who commute from
affordable housing markets in adjacent Eagle and Garfield Counties.

Because of this housing shortage, Snowmass Village has been
unable to develop into a dynamic year-round community. The town
still lacks basic community facilities such as schools, churches,
parks and recreation centers. A major question in the Town of
Snowmass Village is why existing regulations have not encouraged
more affordable housing developments, and what changes need to be
made to realize the master plan's affordable housing objectives.
Other resort communities throughout the United States have
faced similar housing problems and have attempted to institute a
number of traditional approaches, along with some innovative
techniques, to promote the development of affordable housing.
Housing experts agree that local policies do affect the cost of
housing. Local land development regulations and restrictions,
growth management controls, zoning laws, and administrative
procedures can either contribute to or hinder the production of
affordable housing in a community. "Effective intervention is only
possible through new legislation to amend the town and county
planning acts, or through a greater allocation of public financing
to enable local housing authorities to provide adequate housing for
those priced out of the market" (Shucksmith,1983,192).
Snowmass Village was established in 1967 as a ski resort and
second home community. Since then, the area has experienced
significant growth. Today it is considered one of the premiere
resort towns in the United States. Located in the Rocky Mountains,
approximately 200 miles west of Denver and 10 miles east of Aspen,
Snowmass Village has matured into a full-service, year-round

The town has approximately 1,300 permanent residents. The peak
population during the winter is 10,000. Construction over the past
15 years reflects the demands of the ski market, with extreme
growth in the number of lodge units in comparison to moderate-
income and permanent housing (table 1).
Table 1
1979 1,977 7 63.8% 1,437 72.6% 464 23.4%
1986 2,789 215 7.7% 1,906 57.6% 965 34.6%
(Source: Town of Snowmass Village Planning Department, 1987)
Note: PMH: Permanent Moderate Housing Units
FREE MKT: Free Market Housing Units
There is a high demand for all types of real estate in
Snowmass Village; buyers are seeking property for either
investment, speculation, or primary-resident purposes. Residential
demand includes a primary housing component made up of local
employee and permanent resident households and a secondary
component which is tourist oriented. Given the limited supply of
residential real estate in Snowmass Village, the demand for housing
has pushed the price of housing to extraordinarily high levels.
The limited supply of housing results from two factors. First,
most of the land in Snowmass Village is publicly owned and most of
the remaining vacant, privately owned, land is affected by
topographical constraints or wildlife migration corridors.

Compounding the natural supply limitation is a complicated and
restrictive zoning ordinance and a growth management plan imposed
by Pitkin County.
B. Existing and Future Housing Demands
The demand for affordable single-family housing for permanent
residents in Snowmass Village exceeds the present supply. In 1980,
the average price of a single-family home in Snowmass Village was
over $230,000 (United States Census,1980). The income necessary to
qualify for the purchase of an average home (qualification income)
was well' above the median 1980 family income of $37,587.
Demographic trends over the past 20 years indicate that people are
residing longer in the area, getting married and raising families.
This profile indicates a desire for single-family homes. Many
married couples and families have moved to Garfield and Eagle
Counties in order to find affordable housing although most would
prefer living in the Aspen/Snowmass Village area (Aspen/Snowmass
Housing Report, 1986, 41). In 1986, only 50 percent, or 588 of the
1,177 persons employed year-round in Snowmass Village, lived in the
Based upon the growth management plan approved for Snowmass
Village, between 1,945 and 2,151 persons could be employed in the
town by 1992 (Snowmass Village Housing and Population Report 1986,
46). In order to meet the goal of housing 70 percent of the town's
employees, between 592 and 655 total housing units would be needed.
Subtracting the existing and proposed affordable housing units, an
additional 94 to 157 housing units will be required. Affordability

is defined as rent or mortgage not exceeding 30% of household
C. Land Use Regulations
New development in Snowmass Village must provide for
"comfortable and affordable housing in suitable locations to
accommodate such persons and their families, employed as a result
of the construction, operation or use of any development."
(Snowmass Village Land Use Code, 1978). However, the land use
regulations lack language detailing how these policy requirements
will be enforced. The land use code has not been completely revised
since 1978 and pre-dates the current master plan objectives, as
well as innovative zone techniques and land use regulations related
to affordable housing.
The land use standards have been designed to appeal to the
part-time resident or resort developer, while assuring the
preservation of the natural environment. The concern for providing
affordable housing is consistently mentioned in the Snowmass
Village land use code, but appropriate requirements and standards
to include affordable housing units as part of a development
proposal have not been established. The result has been
inconsistent compliance from the private development sector.
Snowmass Village has eight traditional zone districts permitting
residential development, plus three types of Planned Unit
Development (PUD) districts. Table 2 outlines the development and
site requirements for each of these districts.

Table 2
MF Multi- Family 6,000 50' 32' .75 None
MU Mixed Uae 3,000 50' 32' 1.0 None
NC Neigh.Comm. 3,000 50' 32' .5 None
R-6 Single Family 6,000 50' 28' .4 2,400
SF-15 Single Family 15,000 n/a 28' 2,400
SF-30 Single Family 30,000 n/a 28' 3,900
SF-150 Single Family 150,000 n/a 28' 6,000
DU-30 Duplex 30,000 n/a 28' - 4,500
(Source : Snowmass Village Land Use Code, 1988)
The Residential Zone Districts.
Of the six single-family and duplex zone districts, four
require a minimum lot size over 15,000 square feet. The other two
districts have minimum lot standards of 6,000 square feet.
According to recent reports on affordable single-family detached
housing, the minimum lot size appropriate for affordable housing

developments falls within a range of 3,600 to 5,000 square feet
(Sanders,Getzels,Mosena & Butler,1984,6).
Between 1967 and 1980, the floor area in new homes in Snowmass
Village more than doubled and lot sizes also increased. The
existing floor area ratios in Snowmass Village have generally
discouraged smaller dwelling units by permitting allowable floor
areas to range from 2,400 square feet to 6,000 square feet,
depending on lot size. According to the Snowmass Village planning
department, the average size of a single-family house in 1987 was
4,000 square feet. The median size of a new single family detached
house built in the United States in 1982 was 1,520 square feet.
Most affordable housing projects fell within the 800 to 1,000
square-feet range (Updegrave, 1984,199).
Lot widths and setbacks are determined as part of a site
review process for the subdivision approval. This allows the
developer the flexibility to work around restrictive slope and view
shed standards. It is unlikely that this policy will change because
of unique topographical constraints in most of the town.
Allowable floor areas in Snowmass Village are based on a ratio
to the lot size. The floor area ratios determine the maximum size
of the structure allowable for the lot. Given the high cost of
land and construction, most developers build to the maximum. In the
past, reducing the allowable floor area and lot areas have not been
received favorably by the community. Subdividing existing large
lots for the' purpose of creating smaller lots is prohibited under
current regulations, as is multi-family development in

single-family zone districts.
Caretaker Units.
One of the most innovative features of the Snowmass Village
land use code is the caretaker unit provision. A caretaker unit is
an accessory apartment attached to, or within, a single-family
dwelling unit. Under the regulations of the land use code, a
caretaker unit is permitted in any of the single-family zone
districts. Occupancy of a caretaker unit must be limited to
qualified employees within Pitkin County or persons related to the
owner of the principal unit. Units are limited to 500 square feet
and must be secondary to the principal use. The town code also
indicates that occupants of caretaker units should not be required
to pay more than the median rent in the town, although there are
no regulations to monitor this provision. In 1987, there were 50
registered caretaker units in Snowmass Village. These units have
provided an excellent affordable housing alternative for permanent
0. The Snowmass Village Housing Authority
With housing becoming increasingly more difficult for the
average household to afford, town officials began to recognize the
importance of assisting both the permanent resident and the
seasonal employee with housing in order to maintain a sound
population and employment base. The Snowmass Village Housing
Authority was created by the town in 1978 to develop a program of
constructing and managing affordable dwelling units. Over the past
ten years, the Authority has taken increasing responsibility for

housing the Village's permanent low- to moderate-income population.
Today, the Authority provides services to buyers and sellers of
restricted properties, including advertising and sales assistance.
As of 1987, there were 166 restricted housing units under the
control of the Authority. Of those, 128 units (77%) were rental
units, while 28 (23%) were ownership units.
As can be seen in Table 3, the typical two-bedroom restricted
ownership unit in the town was priced at both ends of the
affordability scale. The units at Creekside are the most affordable
in the area and, according to the data generated in the 1987
employee survey, 54 percent of the surveyed households can afford
these units. In comparison, the County Club Townhome units were
affordable to only 13 percent of the households. The median price
of restricted ownership units throughout the county was $37,627,
meeting the affordability range of 40 percent of the households in
Pitkin County.
The 1987 Employee Survey generated a significant amount of
data regarding ownership and rental status of employees. The survey
showed that the majority, or 61.6 percent, of Snowmass Village
residents are renters. This compares to 56 percent in the Aspen
area. In contrast, 65.5 percent of all employee households living
down valley own the housing in which they live. Nearly 50 percent
of all owner-occupied units are located down valley.

Table 3
Creekside* $ 617 $30,850 54%
Hunter Creek 660 33,000 50
Lone Pine 765 38,250 38
Midland Park 850 42,500 33
Highland Villa 855 42,750 32
Centennial 875 43,750 30
Club Townhomes* 1,200 60,000 13
Average Unit $753 $37,627 40%
* Denotes units located in Snowmass Village.
Note: Unit is typical two-bedroom dwelling. Sales cost assumes
10 percent down, 10 percent interest, and a 30-year
fixed rate. Price is the average cost determined by
recent sales. Housing cost should not exceed one-third
of a household's income.
(Source: 1987 Employee Survey; Snowmass Village Housing
Authority; Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority.)
The Snowmass Village Housing Authority has no full-time staff
to administer the housing program. As a result, present or would-
be residents receive little or no assistance in finding affordable
housing. Policy and rent control enforcement is virtually
non-existent, which may be one of the factors contributing to the
housing shortage for lower-income households. In addition, the
Housing Authority does not participate in the Colorado Housing
Finance Authority (CHFA) single-family mortgage program, nor is
there an active local finance program to assist with home ownership
or rental housing. It seems that the Housing Authority is more
reactive than proactive, dealing with problems on a case-by-case

basis rather than developing and implementing a comprehensive
housing program.
Although Pitkin County and Snowmass Village together completed
a housing survey in 1986, the information readily available to the
Housing Authority for planning purposes is inadequate. For proper
planning, policy makers need information on important aspects of
housing. An information system which would permit monitoring of
the housing market within the municipality would be of great help
to local policy makers (Wheaton,Milgram & Meyerson,1966,10).
Information concerning the determination of what constitutes
a low- or moderate-income family and how these figures are
translated into housing prices (rent or sale) are nonexistent in
Snowmass Village. It was recently determined by the Pitkin County
Commissioners and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority that lack
of adequate, updated data had greatly deterred the Pitkin County
Housing Authority from properly monitoring the existing housing
stock. The result was epidemic abuse of rent controls, quality
controls and code violations, and sluggish condominium sales.
E. The Master Plan Policies
Snowmass Village's efforts to manage growth began in the late
1970's. The town was incorporated in 1978 and a master plan was
prepared and adopted. The most recent master plan update was
completed in 1983. The revised plan identified the lack of
affordable housing for permanent residents as a significant growth
problem. The pattern of development that overlooked affordable
housing was seen as a threat to the social and economic fabric of

community. In response, the master plan established several
objectives to encourage the development of affordable housing. The
following objectives are particularly notables
1. 70% of Snowmass Village employees should live in town by
2. The desired rental/owner-occupied housing mix is 65%
(rental) to 35% (owned).
3. Providing affordable housing units to first-time buyers
is a priority.
4. Housing costs should not exceed one-third of an
employee's income.
Although the town established these policies for affordable
housing development, there is little data concerning market trends
and forecasts. The plan offers no direction for municipal capital
expenditures such as transportation, water, sewer, and public
buildings, which determine the location and pace of housing
F. Development Application and Review Process
When Snowmass Village was incorporated in 1978, the county's
growth limit of 181 units per year, and the approved master plan
for the town, remained in place. The town became more detailed in
its development review process, requiring more careful analyses of
slopes, floodplains, critical elk migration paths, transportation,
air quality, and moderate-income housing. "The new land regulations
were intended to provide the town with rational and dependable
rules in advance of land development, and the flexibility to

respond to changing demands of individual sites" (Aspen Times,
The Snowmass Village development review process has three
basic elements:
1. Pre-application. Generally, before the formal submission
of an application, the developer and the planning staff will
discuss the merits of the proposed project. The purpose of this
meeting is to share information, discuss the application process
and make a preliminary judgment of the project's merits.
2. Technical Staff Review. The developer submits a formal
application, along with plans, drawings and technical information
for review by the staff. Developers must provide marketing
feasibility and transportation studies, slope and vegetation
reports, and architectural models. This process requires the input
from various departments including engineering, public works, and
fire and police. Revisions are made to comply with the regulations
and policies of the municipality. Staff then makes a formal
recommendation to the local public officials.
3. Public Review. The project proposal is submitted for public
comment, usually at a public hearing. Elected and appointed
officials review the proposal and may then impose additional
conditions before voting to approve or deny an application.
Snowmass Village land use regulations have always relied on
the flexibility to negotiate with a developer as a tool to ensure
regulated growth, architectural control and balanced development
requirements. Local developers who have participated in the review

process argue that the requirements are inconsistent and vague,
providing unspecific criteria and design guidelines. For example,
a typical residential subdivision proposal may require an air
quality report, slope analysis, site plan, water/sewer report, an
analysis of moderate-income housing need, energy conservation
study, transportation study, open space and landscaping plan, and
schematic architectural drawings. This process is costly for the
developer and time consuming for the staff to review. Furthermore,
a growth management analysis of the town's resources has never been
developed; consequently each project is reviewed and evaluated on
individual merit without reference to a series of acceptable
standards and policies. The result has been that many technical
reports submitted by the developer, have not been adequately
analyzed against existing conditions or future needs.
Other factors which have further complicated the regulatory
process in Snowmass Village include:
1. As the permanent population of the town increased, citizen
participation has become more active, helping to make local
decision making more responsive to local concerns. This has also
led to delays and greater risks for the developers who had to
become more accountable to the community.
2. In addition to complying with basic zoning criteria, all
residential housing structures and accessory buildings within the
corporate limits must pass an architectural and design review by
the Snowmass Homeowners Association prior to a plan review by the
Building and Planning Departments. Applicants must submit detailed

architectural plans including drawings, elevations, floor plans,
landscape plans, color and material samples, and schematics. Many
applications also include architectural models. This process can
be very costly and time consuming. In addition, the design review
does not require compliance with the town zoning and building
codes. This often creates confusion and misunderstandings.

A. Flexible Zoning Techniques
Traditional zoning ordinances were enacted to encourage
orderly municipal growth and to protect the natural environment
and residents from negative impacts caused by inappropriate
development. When zoning and subdivision regulations go beyond
these objectives, they can discourage cost-saving innovations in
land and housing design and can effectively exclude affordable
housing opportunities (Brooks,1972,3).
A year-long study by the American Planning Association found
that the biggest cost savings in housing development resulted from
higher densities achieved by smaller lot development. Higher
densities allow land and improvement costs to be spread over a
larger number of units. In addition, reduced frontage and
front-yard setbacks allowed for less pavement and sidewalk per
unit, shorter utility runs and reduced material costs (Sanders
If administered properly, flexible zoning techniques have
proven to be useful tools for increasing affordable housing
opportunities. Many communities have applied flexible zoning for
this purpose, e.g., Breckenridge and Boulder, both in Colorado.
"There is considerable literature and case law dealing with
attempts of communities to escape from the rigid patterns of
segregated land uses imposed by traditional zoning. Concepts and
procedures that enable local zoning ordinances to be administered
flexibly to meet changing needs and desires of communities have

been developed as population pressures have grown (Franklin,Falk
& Levin,1974,113). Some of the more common flexible zoning
techniques uses in resort communities include: inclusionary,
overlay, zero lot line and performance zoning and planned unit
developments (PUD'S).
Inclusionarv Zoning
The City of Boulder, Colorado, has been administering an
inclusionary housing program since 1973. Affordable housing was
originally a part of the city's development point system, creating
an incentive for the provision of such housing. This incentive
approach has been replaced by mandatory performance standards which
all new development must satisfy. These standards vary depending
on when the land to be developed was annexed. For residential
projects proposed on land annexed on or after December 1973, at
least 15 percent of the units must be for moderate-income
residents, or 7.5 percent for low-income persons. For projects
proposed on sites annexed before that time, the requirement drops
to 10 percent for moderate-income or 5 percent for low-income units
(City of Boulder, 1985).
Overlay Zoning
Overlay zoning is another flexible zoning technique which
imposes a set of requirements in addition to those of the
underlying zoning district. In an area where an overlay zone is
established, property is placed simultaneously in the two zones,
and the land may be developed only under the conditions and
requirements of both zones. Overlay zoning is an opportunity to add

elements of flexibility to the traditional zoning regulations.
Overlays have been particularly effective for environmentally
sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep slopes and wooded areas.
Overlays also have been used to maintain the integrity of historic
areas, to preserve views, to restrict areas to public use and to
limit building height.
Hilton Head, South Carolina has developed an overlay zone to
encourage affordable housing development. An island off the South
Carolina coast, Hilton Head, has been developed as a resort
community starting in the 1950's. In an effort to manage urban
growth and mitigate the effects of high housing costs, the town
adopted the Land Management Ordinance (LMO), setting forth specific
policy statements to guide future growth and development on the
island. The LMO makes use of several overlay zones, including the
affordable housing overlay zone in which density bonuses are
offered to projects that incorporate low- and moderate-income
housing in their plans.
Zero Lot Line Zoning
Zero Lot Line (ZLL) zoning permits better use of small lots
by allowing detached houses to be built right up to one or two
sides of a lot. This provides larger usable yard space and the
higher density development helps reduce land cost. A developer in
Dade County, Florida, using ZLL zoning, reported that the higher
density allowed for savings of about $18,000 per lot in land and
improvement costs (Sanders,1984,47). Research has shown that
successful ZLL projects have included substanial changes to site

development standards that were originally designed for larger
lots. Otherwise, many of the advantages of single-family detached
housing would have been diminished (Sanders, 1982).
Performance Zoning
The intent of performance zoning is to replace the traditional
use specifications with a broad set of numerical standards. If a
proposed development meets these standards, it is permitted to
build on a given site. Breckenridge, Colorado, a small ski resort
community with housing problems similar to those of Snowmass
Village, has successfully administered performance zoning
standards. Under the category of "Social Community," point
assessments are made based on the extent to which employee housing
is incorporated into a proposed project. For example, all
residential projects greater than 10,000 square feet are given 4
points if employee housing units are equal to or greater than 10
percent of the proposed gross dwelling area (Town of Breckenridge,
undated, 6-16). A project will receive negative points if the
provision of employee housing is less that 3 percent of the gross
dwelling area. Commercial and industrial developments have similar
employee housing criteria.
B. Development Application and Review Process
The Task Force on Housing Costs sponsored by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development, issued this statement
as a principle of regulation:
"Local governments now have sufficient powers necessary to
help reduce housing costs. Through more creative use of their
regulatory controls, more sensitivity to their activities
direction, land use and more emphasis and stream-lining

procedural requirements, a positive effect on cost can be
realized." (26)
Most local regulatory systems have been revised and amended
over the past 50 years in response to growing public concerns and
the desire for more flexibility and community input in the
decision-making process. The result has been increased protection
of public health and safety, protection against nuisances from
neighbors, development and maintenance of the community
infrastructure at reasonable costs, and protection against
inappropriate land uses. In many cases, however, the proliferation
of regulatory agencies and procedures has created a system which
has become increasingly unresponsive and confusing, often creating
a greater degree of uncertainty and delay for the developer
(Vranicar,Sanders & Mosena,1982,5).
A study in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area found that
government regulation was one of the major contributors to the rise
in the cost of housing. Different levels of regulation federal,
state, regional and local resulted in duplication of work, delay,
decreased production and increased prices. A study in Jacksonville,
Florida, covering 1970 to 1976, revealed that increased regulatory
standards were responsible for a 4.4 percent increase in housing
prices (Hershey & Garmise,1983,36).
Resort communities need to be particularly sensitive to
administrative processes and procedures. Resort development is a
high-risk business. In addition to the traditional risks associated
with residential development, the resort industry is sensitive to

changes in national and international economic conditions, the
availability and price of fuel, airfare and financing. Although
streamlining administrative procedures cannot single handily bring
down housing costs, regulatory simplification should be an integral
part of any strategy to address the quality, availability and cost
of housing.
C. Master Plan Policies
A master plan is the instrument by which elected officials
establish long-range general policies and goals to guide a
community's overall physical growth and development, in a
coordinated and unified manner. The master plan is the foundation
of a community's land use regulations and zoning provisions.
To underscore the need for a more detailed housing plan,
Martin Meyerson, a noted housing authority, has argued that plans
which exposed their factual background, the reasons for the
forecasts, and the reasons for the recommendations, and which
demonstrated with reasonable clarity that the plan was in fact
obtainable, could have an enormous effect upon the development of
affordable housing opportunities by providing reliable data on
which to base project determinates and resulting need.
According to Michael Meshenburg, "Communities which have
developed an impact-analysis find that they have an information
base that they previously did not have, and this increased
knowledge has direct application to their land use systems:
1. It provides more refined data from which to establish

districts and from which to define compatible activities within the
districts. When a community is able to describe better what it is
trying to control, it is able to determine better how to impose
2. Some of the impact measurements have been incorporated into
the actual controls in order to create performance zoning or impact
3. The impact information has given the community an
independent information base from which to negotiate with
developers within the context of flexible zoning techniques."
D. Public Finance Programs
With decreasing funds from the Federal government for housing,
state and local governments have begun to devise innovative finance
programs to compensate. Several techniques that have been tried
with some success throughout the United States as part of a
comprehensive affordable housing program.
Increased Property Taxes
The revenue from increasing property taxes can be used to fund
construction of affordable housing. Although increasing taxes is
not popular in most communities, it can be approved if voters are
convinced that the housing need exists. The success of getting
voter approval for increased taxes relies on a strong effort from
local housing activists. In addition, the municipality must create
a strong coalition with housing and business interests to develop

the political support needed to fund at least a portion of the
projects costs.
Municipal Bonds.
Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, housing officials were
able to take advantage of tax-exempt interest rates to make
low-interest loans to private developers. Developers could then
build mixed-income projects where a fixed percentage of units were
priced to be affordable. Because of the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
housing bonds can be issued only in limited amounts, and investors
might be subject to taxation of the interest. The tighter
restriction has made bond financing of affordable housing
unattractive to private developers. The lack of interest on the
part of the private sector has encouraged local governments to
experiment with other forms of financing which work around the new
Many local governments have begus to use publie-purpose bonds
to help finance affordable housing projects. "To do this they
(municipalities) must eliminate the private, for-profit developer
from a project and substitute a non-profit developer. Because the
private sector no longer participates in the equity of the project,
the bonds have not been subject to the onus restrictions and income
targets of the private-purpose bonds." (Lemov, 1988, 54) One of the
concerns with this type of bond financing is the elimination of the
private sector expertise in both the financial and technical areas.
In order to maintain this connection with the private sector,
non-profit groups have worked with support groups such as Brother

Redevelopment in Denver and Colorado Housing Assistance Council.
This type of publie-private partnership ensures a well-developed
housing project, while meeting the requirements of the
private-purpose bonds. A good example of this type of partnership
is a housing program in Dade County, Florida. The non-profit
developer or owner hired a private development team made up of
companies representing various development skills. The team members
agree to take lower than usual fees which are paid when the project
is up and running. The fees are based on the development' s
profitability. This two-tier fee system keeps initial costs low,
which in turn lowers the amount to be financed.
Housing Trust Funds
Housing trust funds are defined as a dedicated source of
revenue available to help low- and moderate-income people achieve
affordable housing (Rosen, 1987, 1). Housing trust funds can
provide a variety of financing assistance, from production of new
units to loan guarantees. Because these funds require a permanent
dedication of a specific amount to the provision of affordable
housing, planners and local officials are able to develop a long-
range housing program which includes construction and investment
schedules. Generally, trust fund revenue sources have been derived
from either publically-dedicated revenues or privately-he Id market-
based sources. Both fund sources may be cosist either of annual or
a one-time contribution.

Given the high cost of land and development in most resort
communities, a housing trust fund would assure a continuous and
predictable amount of revenue for affordable housing needs.

A variety of techniques have been used by other communities
to promote the development of affordable housing. The following
recommendations described the first steps Snowmass Village can take
to further promote the development of affordable housing.
A. Zoning and Increased Density.
High density zoning provides more affordable housing
opportunities. There has not been enough land planned and zoned
for higher density housing development in Snowmass Village. This
has had a detrimental impact on multi-family development. As long
as there is a strong demand and profit in single-family
construction, private developers will not build higher-density
housing unless incentives are provided. Snowmass Village should
modify its zoning regulations to increase densities for several
1. Increased density reduces the per unit cost of providing
amenities such as recreational areas and a community center. For
the past five years, town residents have been trying to fund a
community center and improve the local bike trail. So far, only
part of the funding has been available. Spreading the cost over
more housing for full-time residents could expedite the development
of these much needed facilities for the community.
2. Increased density could preserve local land resources and
environmentally fragile areas such as deer and elk migration areas,
steep slopes and flood plains. Most of the vacant developable
parcels in the town are adjacent to, or part of, fragile areas. The

master plan has identified these environmentally sensitive areas
as least desirable for development. Higher density, clustered
developments could reduce the amount of land needed for new
residential development. Careful site planning could mitigate the
impacts on these sensitive areas.
3. Increased density may encourage diversity in the housing
market by keeping unit costs at levels that allow for a broader
range of structural and design options. The design element of a
project is very important in Snowmass Village. Stringent guidelines
have been established and are reviewed by the Snowmass Design
Committee, the Planning Commission and the Town Council. Increased
density could reduce other costs of the project, thereby allowing
additional funds to be spent on aesthetic improvements.
Increasing density could be implemented in several ways:
o Establish additional site specific high density multi-family
zoning classifications) to encourage apartment development.
o Provide bonus density credits for developments that include
affordable housing.
o Develop criteria for allowing higher densities on designated
"infill" parcels of smaller than average acreage size.
o Maximize the use of existing single-family housing by
encouraging Caretaker units by special exception.
B. Development Applicant and Review Process
Numerous regulatory provisions, infrastructure requirements,
site development costs, materials and labor factors have a
significant impact on the cost of housing in Snowmass Village.
Planning and zoning review and approval procedures can be lengthy

and complicated. Availability fees for utilities also increase the
basic cost of providing water and sewer facilities. These, coupled
with construction and land development costs, contribute to
inflated housing costs. All of these factors affect the economic
feasibility of affordable housing developments in Snowmass Village.
Snowmass Village could reduce the total development costs for
affordable housing projects in the following ways:
o Develop consolidated review procedures for affordable
housing developments, e.g., allow joint Planning Commission
and Town Council public hearings.
o Work with the Water and Sanitation District to provide water
and sewer fee reduction or abatement for affordable housing
o Consider the impositions of "sunset" provisions for rezoning
in order to reduce speculative rezoning which inflate land
values and results in increased development costs.
o Develop specific standards and regulations, consistent with
the goals and objectives of the town plan policies concerning
affordable housing and growth management.
o Develop a formula identifying the housing unit demand
created by a commercial development application in order to
determine on- or off- site land dedications or monetary
donations to the Housing Authority.
C. Town Plan Policies
The purpose of the goals and objectives of the plan were to
give direction to future growth and development in the town.
Several of the goals and objectives are related to the provision
of housing and the permanent population base of the community. An
action plan to implement the phasing and development of the
affordable housing projects was never created, leaving both the
developer and the community unsure of the future of affordable

housing in Snowmass Village.
Snowmass Village would benefit from a updated policy plan for
growth management. If the town had consistent guidelines under
which to review a proposal, the uncertainty and risk which
presently exists might be eliminated. In addition, a comprehensive
low- and moderate-income housing analysis should be developed.
The Snowmass Village Land Use Code requires all new residential
development to include affordable housing units as part of the
development. However, the code lacks any specific requirements as
to how a developer must meet this obligation. The result has been
that the supply of affordable housing has not kept pace with the
overall growth in the town. If Snowmass Village hopes to achieve
its goal of housing 70% of the persons employed in the town through
a mix of public and private developments, than specific criteria
need to be established which will effectively implement an
inclusionary housing program:
o Update the Town Plan to identify specific locations and
locational characteristics which are suitable for higher
density residential development
o Develop affordable housing policies and guidelines for the
Town Plan.
o Establish a policy that specifies a certain percentage of
affordable housing units to be included in development
o Establish a policy encouraging mixed use developments.

D. Public Financing Programs
Infrastructure Improvements
When Snowmass Village was planned, little thought was given
to future development. The infrastructure for the new town was
simplified to keep initial costs down. Streets were designed below
standard, with little consideration for expansion. Recent
infrastructure and road improvements have been made, with more
capital improvement funds being allocated to infrastructure
upgrading each year. Although the town does not generally extract
impact fees from new development, new projects generally provide
extensive infrastructure improvements both on and off site, often
connecting to sub-standard roads and utilities.
The town has recently approved the construction of a new
public works building on a five-acre parcel abutting a large
portion of vacant land. At the time of construction the town could
program the expansion of roads and utilities to provide no less
than three or four times the amount of land ready for development
in that area, thereby eliminating substantial improvement costs.
The town could work with a private developer to create a small
single-family housing development designed for moderate-income
Mortgage Assistance Programs
If Snowmass Village is reluctant to assume the cost of housing
development, there are alternative programs which simply enhance
housing affordability for local residents. A recent report of
affordable housing (Dreier,Schwartz & Greimer, 1988), described

three types of affordability programs:
1. Mortgage-guarantee and insurance plans. This plan would
allow the town to act as the mortgage insurer or subsidize a
mortgage insurer to guarantee lower rates. The mortgage-guarantee
program would include acquisition of an equity interest in homes
on which employees default, thereby minimizing the risk to the
The town could also purchase private mortgage insurance for
buyers, possibly getting a volume discount. Assuming such insurance
costs 1 percent of the average $100,000 loan, the savings for the
buyer could be $1,000. "The University of Pennsylvania offers free
100% mortgage insurance on any loan made by a Philadelphia lender
to a permanent university staff member for a home in targeted
neighborhoods around the campus. Because the guarantee program
lowers, and in some cases eliminates, down-payment requirements,
it dramatically increases the number of people able to buy homes.
Moreover, the program has been default free for a decade". (Dreier
et al., 1988, 56).
2. Group mortgage origination and buy-down programs. These
types of programs would involve a negotiated volume discount on
mortgage interest with local lending institutions. The result could
be a 1 percent to 3 percent savings in monthly morgage payments,
which would open the door to home-ownership for many previously
unqualified home-buyers.
3. Down-payment loans and grants. This type of program would
require the town to offer down-payment loans or grants to

home-buyers1 while holding a second mortgage on the home, with a
deferred payback over a contracted period of time. The town's lien
on the home greatly lowers its risk, while the deferred payment
gives moderate-income home buyers an opportunity to buy a house.()
Each of these programs can increase the buying opportunities
in Snowmass Village and helps the town deal with the housing
Non-profit Organization
The affordable housing needs in Snowmass Village cannot be met
by local government working alone. Present and foreseeable market
conditions are not conducive to private sector developers meeting
the need for this type of housing. A public/private partnership
should be created in order to provide affordable housing. Non-
profit housing organizations are crucial to the development and
long-term maintenance of both rental and ownership units.
With support from the business community and developers, a
non-profit organization can build housing units substantially below
current market rates. Real estate tax exemption alone would reduce
monthly operating costs, and the organization's non-profit status
would also permit operations with minimal over-head costs.
In addition to savings in operating costs, a non-profit
organization may be able to save money by acquiring land through
private donations. Cost-free land would reduce development costs
which would translate into lower rental rates and mortgages.
Donated land could be provided by developers as part of their
contribution to the affordable housing program.

A non-profit organization in Snowmass Village could be
implemented in the following ways:
o Form a non-profit organization to serve affordable housing
needs by building units of modest design and amenities. Such
an organization would be autonomous yet work in alliance with
the Town Council on general policy matters.
o Encourage the non-profit organization to use all available
sources of funding, including seed money from state and
federal housing agencies and different types of bonds to build
affordable rental housing
o Encourage the non-profit organization to utilize tax credits
and fund-raising abilities to achieve its purposes.
Housing Trust Fund
A housing trust fund can be both a generator and conduit of
funds for the development of affordable housing. It can act as a
stimulant to the private sector to build needed housing and can
provide seed money for the non-profit organization. Snowmass
Village could establish a trust fund now with Real Estate Transfer
Tax (RETT) monies and impact fees.
Housing trust funds could be used for interest rate buy-downs
for projects meeting affordable housing criteria, second trust
financing, land cost buy-downs, water and sewer tap fee reductions,
rent supplements and seed money for non-profit developments.
E. Snowmass Village Housing Authority
In order to fulfill the goals of the housing program in
Snowmass Village, the scope of the Housing Authority must be
broadened and given a more significant place within the town
government structure. Implementation of the housing program will
require continued research, concerted community-wide advocacy,

policy development and legislative initiatives. The Housing
Authority is the key to the successful administration of the
housing program. The Snowmass Village Housing Authority must be
prepared to play the central role in the housing program and
perform a variety of functions which include:
Central Coordination. The Housing Authority must serve as a
liaison to all other groups including local lenders,
developers, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and the
local residents.
Project Development. Identifying development opportunity, help
in securing support from local lenders, prepare grant
applications, review zoning and regulation procedures.
Represent Town Interest Designating uses for the housing
trust fund such as interest rate buy downs, land cost buy
downs, water and sewer tap fee reductions and seed money for
non-profit developers. The Housing Authority should review and
endorse all low- and moderate-income housing proposals prior
to final approval from the Council.
Maintenance. The Housing Authority must develope a mechanism
to ensure that the units specified or set aside as moderate-
income housing will remain committed to the purpose. This may
also include market analysis, promotion and grievance
procedures for residents.

Affordable housing in resort communities can be affected by
the planning process. The most effective planning tools include the
master plan policies, land use regulations and the administrative
process and procedures. Flexible zoning, incentive point systems
and overlay zone districts such as those used in Boulder Colorado,
Breckenridge, Colorado and Hilton Head, South Carolina, should be
essential part of an affordable housing program in resort
communities. However, it is important to realize that the planning
process can only encourage the provision of affordable housing.
These techniques cannot assure that an additional supply of such
housing will be built. "Local leaders can create more affordable
housing opportunities by pursuing local regulatory techniques with
more vigor. But they must also be ready to make an investment in
new development and assistance programs" (Meyerson, 1962, 330). If
the needs of a resort community include maintenance of the existing
housing stock, construction of new housing units or mortgage
assistance for prospective buyers, than the community must explore
financial assistance programs, such as housing trust funds and
mortgage assistance.
Snowmass Village, Colorado can improve affordable housing
development by revising its local regulations which have limited
growth and encouraged more expensive housing development.
One goal of the 1983 Snowmass Village Master Plan was to
"strive for a year-round community balanced economically,
culturally and socially." In order to facilitate that goal.

Snowmass Village will need a more diverse mix of housing, more
affordable to the average household. Fast developments have
emphasized resort-oriented housing, which has been too expensive
for the average-income household in Snowmass Village. Meeting the
housing needs of local residents and employees in Snowmass Village
will not be easy. Because the cost of land and development in the
area is well above the affordability level of most households, town
officials will need to take an active role in promoting the
development of more affordable housing through the local regulatory
process. A comprehensive housing program in Snowmass Village should
begin with a housing needs analysis, revisions to the existing
zoning ordinance to permit smaller lots and houses, land use
regulations and housing policies which clearly and specifically
reflect the goals and objectives of the master plan. In addition,
a housing trust fund, administer through the housing authority
would assist prospective moderate-income home buyers and encourage
the development of additional affordable housing.

Aspen Times. "Snowmass adopts master plan policy". October,
19, 1978
Brooks, Mary E. 1972. Lower income housing: the planners
response.Chicago. IL.s American Planning Association.
Colorado. Aspen/Pitkin County, Snowmass Village 1986. Housing
Colorado. Boulder. 1985. Department of Planning and Zoning.
City of Boulder zoning ordinance.
Colorado. Breckinridge. Department of Planning and Zoning.
Town of Breckinridge zoning ordinance.
Colorado. Housing and Finance Authority. 1987. Annual report.
Colorado. Snowmass Village. 1978. Land use code.
Colorado. Snowmass Village. 1978. Master plan.
Colorado. Snowmass Village. 1987. Housing and population
Dreier, David Schwartz and Ann Greiner. Sept.- Oct. 1984.
"What every business can do about housing." Harvard
Business Review.
Franklin, Herbert, David Falk, Arthur Levin. 1974. In Zoning.
Washington D.C.: The Potomoc Institute.
Hershey, Stewart and Carolyn Garmise. 1983. Streamlining local
regulations: a handbook for reducing housing and
development costs. Washington, D.C.: International
Management Association.
Lawrence, Jill and Lesley Watson. November 1988. "Two by two."
Lemov, Penelope. November, 1988. "Home affordable home"
Governing the states and localities, pg 52-58
Meshenberg, Michael J. 1976. The administration of flexible
zoning technigues. Chicago, IL.: American Planning
Meyerson, Martin. 1962. Housing, people and cities. New York,
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mosena, David R. Jan. 1984. "Downsizing Gracefully".
National Governors' Association. 1986. Decent and affordable
housing for all: a challenge to the states. Washington,
Porter, Douglas and Susan Cole. 1982. Affordable housing: 20
examples from the private sector. Washington. D.C.: Urban
Land Institute.
Rosen, David. 1987. Housing trust funds. Chicago, IL: American
Planning Association.
Roudehush, Janice and Leslie Wells. 1980. Low and moderate
housing parts 1 & 2. Chicago, IL.: American Planning
Sanders, Welford, Judith Getzels, David Mosena, and Jo Ann
Butler. 1984 Affordable single-family housing: a review
of development standards. Chicago, ILs American Planning
Sanders, Welford. 1982. Zero Lot Line Development. Chicago IL:
American Planning Association.
Sander, Welford and David Mosena. 1982. Changing development
standards for affordable housing. Chicago, IL.: American
Planning Association.
Shucksmith, D.M. April 1983. "Second homes: a framework for
policy" Town Planning Review Volume 54 Number 2. pp 184-
Updegrave, Walter L. January 1984. "Goodbye to the detached
house?" Builder, pp 198-202.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census. 1980, 1984,
1985. County Business Patterns. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1987,
Affordable residential land development, a guide for
local governments and developments. Washington D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1979.
Reducing the cost of housing: actions for state and local
governments. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing
Vranicar, John, Welford Sanders, David Mosena. 1982

Streamlining land use regulation. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Wheaton, William, Grace Milgram, Mary Ellen Meyerson. 1966.
Urban Housing. New York, New Yorks The Free Press.
Weitz, Stevenson. 1982 Affordable housing: how local
regulatory improvements can help. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.


Table of Contents
A. Planning and Development
B. Early Growth 1967-1978
C. Incorporation 1978
A. Population
B. Economic impact of labor force
C. Place of residence and work
D. Household and family income
E. Household composition
F. Length of residency
A. Housing stock
B. The Permanent moderate housing program
C. Current housing need assessment
A. Population projections
B. Employee projections
C. Future housing needs

A. Planning and Development
Opened in 1967, Snowmass Mountain is one of the premiere ski
resort complexes in the United States. Development studies of the
area were started in 1957 and by 1965 construction of the ski
resort and community was underway.
By the fall of 1967/ five chair lifts were in place and over
50 miles of ski runs had been prepared. Parking lots and
restaurants were completed along with a new road connecting the ski
area to Highway 82.
The area officially opened on December 17, 1967. Approximately
$10 million had been invested in the West Village base area. This
included five lodges, 120 condominium apartments, a dozen private
homes, a conference center and a movie theater, four heated
swimming pools, twenty-one retail shops, and six restaurants. Real
estate sales had topped $4 million, and by April 1968, Snowmass-
at-Aspen development company had acquired a total of 11,800 acres
of land, making the group the largest single land owner in Pitkin
B. Early Growth 1967 1978
During the first part of the 1970's, Snowmass-at-Aspen
experienced a healthy growth in development. By 1972, 570
condominium units had been built at the resort, along with 120
single-family homes. Over 500 condominium units and 482 single
family lots had been sold. Lodge and condominium capacity reached

Snowmass Village

4,700 persons; land prices ranged from $5 to $10 per square foot
for condominium sites and from $3,400 to $4,000 per lodge unit;
single-family lots ranged from $15,000 for a half-acre to $37,000
for a full acre; and condominium units were selling from $23,000
for a studio unit to $119,000 for a three-bedroom unit.
When skier days topped 440,000 during the 1972-1973 ski
season, the Aspen Ski Corporation announced a $2 million expansion
program for the mountain. Shortly thereafter, Snowmass-at-Aspen
began seeking approval for development which would accommodate
16,000 more guests. At this point, the Pitkin County Commissioners,
along with the anti-development groups in Aspen, began questioning
future development proposals at the resort," and a proposed ten-year
development plan for the area was revised to 25 years. The
Snowmass-at-Aspen Development Plan was finally approved by the
Pitkin County Commissioners in November 1976, five years after the
original date of submission.
By the mid-1970s, the political stance in the Aspen area had
shifted from a pro-growth to a limited, controlled growth position.
To implement the concepts of controlled growth, Aspen and Pitkin
County adopted their first Growth Management Policy Plan (GMPP) in
1975. The goal was to preserve the nostalgic beauty of the area and
to avoid the "planned, computerized homogeneous and controlled
development that occurred at Snowmass resort" (Aspen Times
September 2, 1976). An immediate consequence of the limited growth
position was a shortage of affordable housing, with increasing
numbers of local employees being forced to move to neighboring

communities to find affordable housing, or to live in substandard
conditions in areas close to the ski mountain.
C. Incorporation 1978
In 1977, members of the eight Homeowner Boards in the Snowmass
area began investigating the idea of incorporation. Generally,
incorporation was seen as a preferred alternative to county
control. Snowmass property owners felt that more localized control
over growth, employee housing, infrastructure improvements, and
police protection, would better serve the community.
Initially, the Snowmass Company was concerned that the
commitments made through their county-approved Development Plan
would not be protected by incorporation and refused to allow its
property to be annexed into the newly formed Town limits.
Eventually, negotiations between the Town and the Snowmass Company
proved fruitful, with the Town agreeing to adopt the previously
approved Development Plan.
Integral negotiations and joint planning efforts between the
two primary landowners Snowmass Company and Benedict Cattle and
Land Company resulted in a unique agreement which was approved
in Ordinance 17, Series of 1978 and Resolution 4, Series of 1979.
Under the provisions negotiated with the Town, the respective
developers were committed to the provision of housing for the local
low- and moderate-income employees. In each instance the specific
details of mix and price range were purposefully vague to allow a
more detailed look at local housing needs and preferences as
projects were submitted (Snowmass Village Master Plan,1979). The

Town established a Housing Authority to regulate both sale and
rental programs for Permanent Moderate Housing (PMH) units. For the
units being sold, employee income qualifications and re-sale price
controls were established. For rental housing, the authority
established rental rates conforming to income, established
guidelines for annual incremental increases in rent, and
established employment qualification policies.
From the beginning, development in Snowmass Village was
dominated by resort-oriented housing units. As of 1987, the
majority of units in Snowmass Village, nearly 80 percent, were
lodge or part-time resident units, while only 7% were moderate-
income housing units. Since the majority of development was
controlled by one company through the regulations and agreements
set out in Ordinance 17, the Town had very little control over the
pacing of various projects, including low- and moderate-income
housing projects. The result has been an overall imbalance of
housing types and price ranges in Snowmass Village, which has
forced many of the moderate-income permanent residents to relocate
out of the area where more affordable housing opportunities exist.

The demand for additional housing in a market area is a
function of population growth, household formation, and existing
housing characteristics. The purpose of this demographic analysis
is to understand the basis for defining planning goals and
objectives for affordable housing development in Snowmass Village.
The ultimate objective is the development of affordable housing
through public leadership.
A. Population
The 1980 Census reported a permanent population in Snowmass
Village of 984. By 1986 the permanent population of the town
increased 35 percent to 1,333 (Housing and Population Report,
Population trends between 1980 and 1986 indicate a stable and
maturing population in Snowmass Village. Between 1980 and 1986,
Snowmass Village's annual rate of increase in population of 5.8
percent was dramatically higher than Aspen's and Pitkin County's
of 1.2 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively.
Table 1
Aspen Snowmass Village Pitkin County
Age 1980 1986 % 1980 1986 % 1980 1986 %
0-19 618 640 3 189 223 18 2,096 1,948 -7
20-39 2,287 2,317 1 590 764 29 4,340 5,616 29
40-64 685 1,151 68 186 320 72 1,836 2,468 34
65 + 126 147 16 19 28 47 278 252 -9
TOTAL 3,716 4,255 14 984 1,333 35 8,550 10,284 20
Source: State of Colorado, Division of Local Government, Demography
Section, 1987; Snowmass Village Planning Department; Aspen/Pitkin
County Planning Office. 1987

B. Economic Impact of the Labor Force
The makeup of the local labor force and trends in employment
have a strong influence on the growth and stability of the housing
market. The labor force in Pitkin County consists of two groups:
the year-round employee and the seasonal employee. Due to the
transient nature of seasonal employees, it is difficult to develop
a data base for this group.
There were 7,849 full-time employees in Pitkin County in 1986;
this is a 22.7 percent increase from 1980. Employment in the County
has increased ah a 3.5 percent average annual rate since 1980.
Employee wages have a very significant economic impact on the
area. Data generated in a 1987 employee survey conducted by the
Aspen and Snowmass Village Planning Departments suggests there was
as much as $166.1 million earned by employees in Aspen-Snowmass
Village area in 1986. However, because of the distribution of
employees within the county, a significant amount of these wages
were taken down valley, to Eagle and Garfield Counties. It was
estimated that employees working in the Aspen-Snowmass Village area
who lived down valley earned $52.1 million, or 33.3 percent of all
employee wages generated in the Aspen Snowmass Village area in
C. Place of Residence and Work.
Of the 7,849 full-time employees in Pitkin County in 1986, 83
percent worked in or around Aspen, while only 15 percent worked in
Snowmass Village and only two percent worked down valley. By
comparison, 56 percent of the county's permanent population resided

in Aspen or in the unincorporated fringe areas around the town, 33
percent lived down valley and only 11 percent called Snowmass
Village home. Less than one-half of the 1,777 employees working in
Snowmass Village actually lived in the town. Although the number
of employees living in Snowmass Village has been increasing, the
growth has been slow. For example, according to the 1985 Snowmass
Village Housing Report, 45 percent of the town's employees lived
in the town in 1981, just slightly below the 47.5 percent who lived
in the town in 1985.
Table 2
Location Percent Number Percent Number
Aspen Area 56.0 4,411 83.0 6,514
Snowmass Vlg. 11.0 864 15.0 1,177
Down Valley 33.0 2.574 2.0 158
TOTAL 100.0 7,849 100.0 7,849
(Source: 1987 Employee Survey; 1987 Snowmass Village Business Survey
D. Household and Family Income.
According to the 1980 census, the median family income in
Snowmass Village was $37,587, compared to $21,279 in the State of
Colorado. The median family income in the United States was
$19,917. In other words, the family income in Snowmass Village was
nearly 50% higher than the median income in the United States and
43% higher than in the State of Colorado.


Table 3
Snowmass Village
Pitkin County
United States
$25,323 $37,587
$20,979 $25,464
$18,056 $21,279
$16,841 $19,917
(Source: United States Census, 1980)
In comparison, the median household income in Snowmass Village
in 1980 was $25,323, 33 percent higher than the median income in
the United States and 29 percent higher than the median income in
E. Household Composition
The 1987 Employee Survey revealed that 40 percent of the
county's rental households consisted of unrelated persons. The
National average is one percent. According to the Snowmass Village
Planning Department, there appears to be three factors contributing
to this trend: the cost of housing has increased too rapidly;
availability of housing has not kept pace with need; incomes have
not maintained a pace consistent with increased housing costs. This
point is illustrated by comparing the median value of housing and
income in Pitkin County in 1970 to the 1980 data. In 1970, the
median value of a house in Pitkin County was $48,400; by 1980 the
median value had more than quadrupled to over $200,000. By
comparison, the median family income in Pitkin County increased

from $11,763 in 1970 to $25,464 in 1980. In other words, over the
ten-year period housing values increased 313 percent while the
average family income increased only 116 percent in Pitkin County.
There has been a significant percentage increase in married
persons living in the county. In SnOwmass Village, the married
portion of the permanent population increased from 28.2 percent in
1981 to 43.49 percent in 1987, a 2.5 percent annual increase. The
married portion of the permanent population in the entire county
increased at a lower annual rate of 1.9 percent. The majority of
renter households comprised of married persons (with or without
children) live down valley, and 41 percent of the owner-occupied
households with children also live down valley.
Most of the down-valley households comprised of married
persons, whether renting or owning, live in a single-family or
duplex unit. Including mobile homes, the percentage is much higher.
The majority of Aspen/Snowmass Village married households also live
in a single-family or duplex unit; however, the majority of those
renting are living in apartments or condominiums.
F. Length of Residency.
Survey data also indicated that residents are staying longer
in the area. Length of residency has increased since 1981 (Table

Table 4
1981 and 1987
(in percent)
1981 1987
One Season 0.0 18.5 1.7 13.3
Less than 1 year 0.0 13.3 4.2 8.0
1 -4 years 26.6 41.0 10.8 24.4
5 + years 73.4 27.2 83.3 54.4
(Source: 1981, 1987 Employee Surveys)
A. Housing Stock
There were 984 permanent residents in Snowmass Village in 1979
living in 540 dwelling units, or 27 percent of all existing units
(lodge and non-lodge). Of the 540 units, 76 were restricted or
permanent moderate housing (PMH), while 464 were free-market
housing units.
By 1986 the permanent residence housing, both free market
and PMH units, represented 42 percent of the housing units in
Snowmass Village. PMH units comprised 18 percent of all permanent
residence units.
Table 5
1979 1986
Total % of % of Per.Res. % of
Units PMH Total Lodae Total Free Mkt Total
1979 1,977 76 3.8% 1,437 72.6% 464 23.4%
1986 2,789 215 7.7% 1,906 57.6% 965 34.6%
Source: Snowmass Village Planning Department, 1987

In 1980 the average price of a single-family house in Snowmass
Village was $230,000. The qualification income for the purchase of
a median-priced home was $61,800. The actual median family income
at the time was $37,587. Therefore, the affordability ratio of the
median family income to qualification income was .61. When the
ratio is 1.0 or above the market is generally considered to be
affordable. Clearly, this ratio indicates a housing market which
is extremely unaffordable to the majority of the households living
in Snowmass Village in 1980.
B. Current Housing Need Assessment.
Rental units
In 1987, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, along with
the Snowmass Village and Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Departments,
prepared an assessment of housing needs in Pitkin County.
The report estimated that there were 707 households in the
County which could afford to pay up to 30 percent of their income,
or $400 per month, for rent. However, there were only 651 units
available in the area renting for $400 or less per month,
suggesting a deficit of 106 units. Almost 56 percent of all renter
households in the County with incomes under $20,000 had to pay more
than 30 percent of household income for rent. The survey also
showed there are 1,150 renter households in the County with incomes
between $20,000 and $40,000 which could afford to pay between $400
and $800 per month for rent. There were 1,360 units available in
the area in this rental range. In this instance there was a surplus
of 210 units.

The surpluses and deficits in rental units have probably
occurred for several reason. Many middle-income renter households,
possibly because of their length of residency, have found the less
expensive rental units and in effect bumped the lower-income renter
households from the affordable units.
Ownership Units
In 1986 there were 1,200 ownership units in the County
affordable and available to households with incomes below $30,000,
but only 700 households in this income range. This implied a
surplus of 500 units. The report also revealed that 43 percent of
the households in this income category were applying more than 30
percent of their income to housing payments. The survey also found
that there were only 440 affordable units available to households
in the $30,000 $40,000 income category, but 570 households in
this income category. There were 360 units in the County affordable
to 630 households in the $40,000 $60,000 income category.
These data suggest that households tend to gravitate toward
the less expensive housing, regardless of income. The result is a
significant deficit in affordable housing for households with
incomes below $40,000 yet a substantial supply of housing available
to households with incomes above $40,000.
Housing Trends
Housing development trends since 1980 identified several
important changes which occurred in Snowmass Village. In terms of
market share, the PMH units have experienced the greatest increase
in total development, and by 1986 represented nearly 8 percent of

all units in the town. Free market units, both single-family
detached and attached, increased 108 percent from 464 units in
1980 to 965 units in 1986. These trends represent a shift from
lodge and short-term rental unit development to permanent housing
Although housing development has been strong since 1980, the
number of affordable units being built in Snowmass Village have not
kept pace with the need. The lack of affordable housing in the
area has resulted in many households using more than 30% of their
income for mortgage or rental payments. Of those households with
incomes up to $30,000, 43 percent have housing payments exceeding
30 percent of their incomes, while 65 percent of those households
in the same income range use more that 30 percent of their income
for rent.
According to Ordinance 17, 1978, Snowmass Village has an
annual growth capacity of 181 per year, as well as a maximum unit
growth potential for the entire town at buildout. Buildout was
defined in the Growth Management Plan as 2,424 approved housing
units by 1992.
A. Population Projections
By 1986 there were several development projects which had been
completed or were in the process of being reviewed. In addition
there were 160 remaining undeveloped single-family lots in the
town. If developed, these projects could add 811 units to the
existing housing stock and, in effect, could increase the

population capacity of the town by approximately 2,245 people,
consisting of 314 permanent residents, 1,436 guests, and 495 part-
time residents. This would bring the total population capacity of
the town to 11,474 persons. Table 7 describes the impact of the
specific projects.
In addition to the proposed development already mentioned, a
large amount of land within the Town limits is subject to
development review per Ordinance 17, Series of 1978. This Ordinance
established a development limit of up to 1,226 unrestricted units,
along with a provision for at least an additional 267 restricted
housing units. Using this data, the Snowmass Village Planning
Department projected the following population capacity scenarios
for the Towns
Projection 1. The first projection scenario assumes
construction of zoned but not built units listed in Table 7 and
the mix of all remaining unrestricted units subject to the
provisions of Ordinance 17, Series of 1978. This is consistent with
the housing mix which existed in 1986 in that short-term rental
units and lodge units represented the greatest portion of total
units within the town. This scenario, as shown in Table 8 projects
an additional population capacity of 4,897 resulting from future
development. Thus, the population capacity of the entire town at
build-out would be 16,644. This would consists of 2,445 permanent
residents, 3,122 part-time residents, and 11,077 guests.
xv i

Table 7
Parcel A (Rental) 9 4.83 43
Parcel A (Non-rental) 36 2.40 86
Parcel B (Rental) 10 4.83 48
Parcel B (Non-rental) 41 2.40 98
Parcel B (Employee) 4 2.60 10
Parcel C (Rental) 40 4.83 193
Parcel C (Employee) 2 2.60 5
Parcel D (Rental) 67 4.83 324
Parcel D (Employee) 2 2.60 5
211 812
Employee Housing 51 1.76 90
Employee Dorms 59 1.00 59
Hotel Rooms 211 2.40 506
Hotel Suites 12 4.83 58
322 713
Hotel Rooms 110 2.40 264
Employee Units 8 1.00 8
118 272
(Source: Snowmass Village Planning Department, 1986)

Projection 2. The second projection scenario also assumes
construction of zoned but not built units, and that trends between
1980 and 1986 will continue to affect future development. Based on
these assumptions, the population capacity of the town would reach
15,707, See Table 25. This would consist of 2,388 permanent
residents, 4,192 part-time residents and 9,127 guests (Table 9).
Projection 3. The third scenario assumes the construction of
zoned but not built units. It also assumes that the full build out
scenario will occur and that the trends between 1980 and 1986 will
affect future development. Based on these assumptions, the
population capacity of the town would reach 17,369 (table 10). This
would consist of 2,509 permanent residents, 3,190 part-time
residents, and 11,670 guests.
Unless the Town changes its land-use policies, the first
scenario is not consistent with development trends since 1979,
where permanent resident housing development exceeded lodge
development. The second and third scenarios appear to be more
feasible, the difference depending on the level of lodge
development occurring in the town.
B. Employee Projections
In 1986 there were 1,177 year-round employees working in
Snowmass Village, when assuming a peak population of 9,505.
Assuming population is a function of employment, there could be
between 1,945 and 2,151 year-round employees in the town during
the peak periods. Given the three scenarios, employment can be
expected to increase in the town by 65 percent to 82 percent at

Table 8
Population Projection Scenario 1.
Avg. Persons Population
Unit Type Per Unit Capacity
289 Lodge (Short-term rentals) 2.40 689
445 Condo (Short-term rentals) 4.83 2,149
262 Condo (Non-rental) 2.40 629
34 Single-Family (Short-term rentals) 8.00 272
205 Single-Family (Non-short term) 3.00 594
174 Employee (Rental) 1.76 306
93 Employee (Sale) 2.78 258
2,789 Existing Units 9,502
811 Approved But Unbuilt 2,245
5,093 TOTAL 16,644
Table 9
Population Projection Scenario 2
Avg. Persons Population
Unit Type Per Unit Capacity
223 Lodge (Short-term rentals) 2.40 535
136 Condo (Short-term rentals) 4.83 657
628 Condo (Non-rental) 2.40 1,507
-4 Single-Family (Short-term rentals) 8.00 -32
243 Single-Family (Non-short term) 3.00 729
174 Employee (Rental) 1.76 306
93 Employee (Sale) 2.78 258
2,789 Existing Units 9,502
811 Approved But Unbuilt 2,245
5,093 TOTAL 15,707
Table 10
Population Projection Scenario 3
Avg. Persons Population
Unit Type Per Unit Capacity
1,400 Lodge (Short-term rentals) 2.40 3,360
71 Condo (Short-term rentals) 4.83 343.
346 Condo (Non-rental) 2.40 830
0 Single-Family (Short-term rentals) 8.00 0
175 Single-Family (Non-short term) 3.00 525
174 Employee (Rental) 1.76 306
93 Employee (Sale) 2.78 258
2,789 Existing Units 9,502
811 Approved But Unbuilt 2,245
5,093 TOTAL 17,369
(Source: Snowmass Village Planning Department, 1987)

build-out. This assumes the construction of all units identified
previously. The employee generation projections are shown in Table
C. Future Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Needs
At present, the Town accommodates 50 percent or 588 of the
1,177 year-round employees in the town. The Master Plan has a goal
of housing 70 percent of the town's employees by the end of 1992.
(This assumes the buildout of the town as contemplated in Ordinance
17.) The current restricted housing program has a capacity of 330
persons. When including all other identified unrestricted low- and
moderate-income housing units, there is a capacity of 405 persons.
Therefore, the free market is housing the remaining 183 or 31
percent of the town employees. Using the current average of 2.3
persons per household, there is an additional need for 174
affordable units in Snowmass Village, assuming the Master Plan goal
of housing 70 percent of the town's employees.
As demonstrated, there is a significant amount of development
that could still occur in the Town, including both zoned but not
built units and units subject to Ordinance 17. Depending on
development scenarios, between 1,945 and 2,151 employees will be
working in the town at buildout. In order to meet the goal of
housing 70 percent of the town's employees, between 592 and 655
housing units would have to be provided. Subtracting the existing
and proposed PMH units, there will be a need for an addition 94 or

157 affordable free market housing units, with affordability being
defined as not requiring more than 30 percent of a household income
for rent or a mortgage payment.
Table 11 .
Village Existincr Zoned but Not built Total with Scenario 2 i Total with Scenario 3
Employees 1,177 278 1,945 2,151
70% Goal 824 195 1,362 1,506
(Source: Snowmass Village Planning Department, 1987)
Table 12
Scenario 2 1,362 2.3 592 498 94
Scenario 3 1,506 2.3 655 498 157
* Existing and proposed units
(Source: Snowmass Village Planning Department, 1987)

Aspen Times. September 2, 1978
Colorado. Snovnnass Village. Master Plan. 1978.
Colorado. Snovnnass Village. Housing and Population Report.
September, 1987.
Colorado. Division of Local Government/ Demography Division.
Population Reports. 1980, 1986.
Colorado. Snomwass Village. Employee Survey, 2987.
Colorado. Aspen/Pitkin County, Snovnnass Village. Housing Report
Colorado. Snovnnass Village. Land Use Code 1986.
Colorado. Snovnnass Village. Ordinance 17, 1978. Approving the
Master Plan for the Snovnnass Company Planned Development.
United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census
of Population and Housing, Colorado. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1982.


(a) Employee Housing. It is the policy of the Town of
Breckenridge to encourage the provision of employee
housing units within larger commercial, industrial, and
residential developments to help alleviate employee
housing impacts created by the proposed uses.
1. Point Assessments.
a. Residential The following points will be
assessed against all residential projects of
greater than 10,000 square feet proposed within
the Town of Breckenridge.
4X +1 The provision of employee housing units equal
to or greater than 10 percent of the proposed
gross dwelling area of the proposed project.
+0 The provision of employee housing units equal
to 5 percent to 9.99 percent of the gross
dwelling area of the proposed project.
-1 The provision of employee housing units equal
to 3 percent to 4.99 percent of the gross
dwelling area of the proposed project.
-2 The. provision of employee housing units equal
to less than 3 percent of the gross dwelling
are of the proposed project.
b. Commercial/Office The following points will be
assessed against all commercial or office projects
proposed within the Town of Breckenridge greater
than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.
4X +1 The provision of employee housing units equal
to or greater than 15 percent of the density
of the proposed project.
+0 The provision of employee housing units equal
to 10 percent to 14.99 percent of the density
of the proposed project.
-1 The provision of employee housing units equal
to 5 percent to 9.99 percent of the density of
the proposed project.

HILTOJN H1SAJJ,buu i n uaauuaha
Section 16-7-490. AH Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
(a) Purpose.
It is the intent of this zone to encourage the development*
of low and moderate income housing for the island. The
Town of Hilton Head shall provide opportunities for the
construction of housing affordable by households with modest
incomes by providing density bonuses and encouraging
economies in site preparation and building construction
cost. It is intended that the market place determine the
need for this type housing and therefore not the intent of
the town government to subsidize said housing beyond the .
provision of incentives in its zoning code.
(b) Permitted Uses.
Residential units up to fifteen (15) units per net acre, as
conditioned by area regulations of this distict. Accessory
uses such as the following:.
Recreational uses
Institutional uses such as day care/educational
Co-operative or commercial food purchasing and
distribution centers serving and of a scale
commensurate to the size of the affordable ,
housing development
Community clubhouses or meeting centers commensurate
to the size of the affordable housing development
Laundry facilities, management and maintenance
offices and storage
(c) Area Regulations.
Households of low or moderate income are defined as follows:
(1) Low-Income Households: a household with an annual
income less than seventy-five (75) percent of the
median income of Beaufort County.
(2) Moderate-Income Households: A household with an
annual income which is seventy-five (75) percent to
one hundred and fifty (150) percent of the median
income of Beaufort County.
For purposes of this definition, the median of household
income for Beaufort County shall be that determined by the
most recent decennial census conducted by the U.S. Bureau
of the Census, or as estimated by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development for purposes of its housing
assistance programs, whichever is more recent.
The Town shall encourage housing proposed for low and
moderate income households which includes a wide variety of
housing types, architectural styles, and physical

distribution. The proposed development shall be subject to
review by the Co.rridor Review Committee.
Residential rental units up to 15 units per net acre
may be permitted, if, through a recorded legal agreement
with the town, rental dwelling units are provided on the
open market at a price not to exceed 25% of the income for a
low income household as defined above.
Residential rental units up to 12 units per net acre may be
permitted if, through a recorded legal agreement with the
town, rental dwelling units are provided on the open market
at a price not to exceed 25% of the income for a moderate
income household as defined above. If rent levels are not
enforced by the mortgagor, then the Town will enforce them
on an annual basis.
Standards governing area regulations shall be those
designated for the particular zoning district in which the
housing is proposed. Applicants proposing housing for low
or moderate income households may propose departures up to
20% from design and performance standards for the purpose
of achieving a higher density and obtaining cost economies.
The Town, as part of approving this overlay district, may
waive attainment of specific standards up to the 20% limit
on a case-by-case basis, provided the waiver will not
endanger health, safety, welfare considerations and will
enable an appreciable cost savings which will further the
economic feasibility of the housing.
Decisions by the Town on proposals for low or moderate
income housing and any consideration for compliance or
departure from specific standards shall include a finding
that the housing, as planned, will be compatible although
not necessarily similar to surrounding land uses.
Smaller projects that harmonize and blend well into the
neighborhood shall be preferred. Projects with more
than 50 units shall not be permitted. Proposals for low or
moderate income housing shall comply with all requirements
of this overlay district.
Proposals for low or moderate income housing shall comply
with the requirements for impact evaluation, per Article VII
of this chapter. Town approval of rezoning proposals,
including a density increase, shall include all procedural
requirements for an amendment to the Official Zoning Map as
required in Article VI of this Ordinance.

9-7-1 9-7-2
Chapter 7 Moderate Income Housing1
Section: 9-7-1 Legislative Intent
9-7-2 Construction of Moderately Priced
9-7-3 Housing Required Credit for Units Offered Beyond
9-7-4 Requirements Resale Price Limitations
9-7-5 Housing Authority May Administer
3-7-1 Legislative Intent
[t is the purpose of this chapter is to promote the
ievelopment and preservation of housing in the city
hat is affordable to persons of low and moderate in-
:ome by requiring that all new residential
levelopments provide at least fifteen percent of the
lumber of such units for moderate income sales or
ental housing or seven and one half percent of the
lumber of such units for low income sales or rental
lousing if the land was annexed on or after December
.8, 1973, and ten percent of its units for moderate
ncome or five percent of its units for low income if
he land was annexed before December 18,1973. Pro-
sets of less than ten units will be allowed to either
irovide units or make a cash payment to the hous-
ng authority of the city of Boulder which reflects the
tortion of the cost of a moderate income unit required
0 be provided by the development. The council finds
hat, without such a requirement, low and moderate
lousing will not be produced and maintained in
unounts sufficient to meet the need for such hous-
ng. Since the citys policy is to disperse low and
noderate income units throughout the city and in-
egrate them into the general community, it is the
ouncils intent that the units provided under this
hap ter be within the boundaries of each new develop-
nent. But under special circumstances, the housing
mthority may permit some such units to be located
>ff-site or may permit a developer to meet this obliga-
ion through alternative means. It is also the coun-
t's policy to assure that units sold to persons of low
ind moderate income under this chapter remain
ivailable to low and moderate income purchasers for
1 period of five or ten years, respectively, through the
ise of resale controls.
Ordinance 4929 (1985).
)-7-2 Construction of Moderately Priced Hous-
ing Required.
a) Any person who develops a residential develop-
ment of more than one residential unit shall:
(1) Offer for rental or sale at least fifteen per-
cent of the number of such units at or below
rents or sales prices prescribed by subsections
(d) and (e) of this section for moderate income
households if the development is on land annex-
ed to the city on or after December 18, 1973; or
(2) Offer for rental or sale at least seven and
one-half percent of the number of such units at
or below rents or sales prices prescribed by
subsections (d) and (e) of this section for low in-
come households if the development is on land
annexed to the city on or after December 18,
1973; or
(3) Offer for rental or sale at least ten percent
of the number of such units at or below rents
or sales prices prescribed by subsections (d) and
(e) of this section for moderate income
households if the development is on land annex-
ed to the city before December 18, 1973; or
(4) Offer for rental or sale at least five percent
of the number of such units at or below rents
or sales prices prescribed by subsections (d) and
(e) of this section for low income households if
the development is on land annexed to the city
before December 18, 1973; or
(5) At the option of the housing authority, make
a cash payment in lieu of constructing the re-
quired moderate income unit(s), or portion
thereof, in accordance with a schedule of
payments adopted by the authority and revis-
ed semi-annually with the revision of sales
prices and rental ranges; or
(6) Offer an alternative program that is approv-
ed by the housing authority of the city of
Boulder, that accomplishes the purposes of this
chapter, and that imposes a similar duty upon
the developer.
(b) In reviewing the developers proposal to the
housing authority shall consider, without limita-
tion, the following factors:
(1) The number of units of low or moderate in-
come housing proposed;
(2) The size of the proposed low or moderate in-
come units;
(3) Whether the units will be rental or sales
(4) The sales or rental ranges proposed for the
\dopted by Ordinance No. 4S38. Amended by Ordinance Nc 4692. Derived from Resolution No. 115 and Ordinance No. -J4S5

b) (5) The phasing or time schedule for the con-
struction and side or renting of the units; and
(6) Evaluation of the methods proposed by an
applicant to guarantee the satisfactory comple-
tion of the developers commitment.
If an applicant does not adhere to a previous
commitment to provide low or moderate income
housing, the authority may recommend to the
planning board that it revoke any outstanding
allocations granted under Chapter 9-6, B.R.C.
1981, the applicant may have as well as
withhold future allocations.
(c) The developer of the units offered for sale or rent
under this section shall provide them within the
boundaries of the development, unless the re-
quirement will be met through the cash pay-
ment system authorized above. But if the hous-
ing authority finds that unusual circumstances,
such as zoning requirements or the location or
size of the development make it unfeasible to
offer any or all such units within the develop-
ment boundaries, and the cash payment option
is not exercised, the authority may authorize the
developer to use units outside the development
boundaries to meet the requirements of this
(d) To meet the requirements of this section, ren-
tal units shall be rented for least ten years from
their date of initial occupancy at or below the
rents established semi-annually by the housing
authority, including without limitation associa-
tion fees.
(e) To meet the requirements of this section, sales
units shall be:
(1) Sold at or below the prices established in the
rental and sales ranges set semi-annually by the
housing authority; and
(2) Subject to the resale price limitations
prescribed by Section 9-74, B.R.C 1981, unless
exempt therefrom.
(f) The housing authority is authorized to revise its
rental and sales ranges semi-annually on the
basis of the Boulder County median income
levels or other economic indicators that the
authority deems to be relevant to establish sales
prices and rental ranges that are affordable to
low and moderate income households.
(g) Before the city manager may issue a building
permit to any person subject to the requirements
of this section, such person shall obtain hous-
ing authority approval of such persons plan for
meeting the requirements of this section.
(h) A developer who offers sales units under this
chapter shall notify the housing authority when
it obtains the building permit for such units.
(i) A developer who offers rental units under this
chapter shall report annually to the housing
authority the rents charged and tenants
(j) In calculating the number of dwelling units to
be provided pursuant to this section, the follow-
ing bedroom configuration equivalency conver-
sion table shall apply:
Configuration Equivalency Conversion
Efficiency Living Unit .5 Unit
One Bedroom .75 Unit
Two Bedroom 1.0 Unit
Three Bedroom 1.25 Unit
Four Bedroom 1.5 Unit
(k) For purposes of this section, a bedroom" shall
mean a room intended for sleeping, not contain-
ing a stove, a refrigerator, or a toilet, and con-
sisting of a minimum of eighty square feet of
useable space.
Ordinance No. 4880 (1985). Ordinance No. 4896
(1985). Ordinance No. 4929 (1985).
9-7-3 Credit for Units Offered Beyond Require-
(a) If any person required to comply with Section
9-7-2, B-R.C. 1981, offers more than the number
of moderately priced rental or sales units re-
quired to comply with this chapter or with any
other ordinance of the city, such person may
credit for five years any of such units, up to a
maximum of twenty-five units, toward such per-
sons obligation to comply with Section 9-7-2,
BiLC. 1981, on future projects.
(b) No person with credits under subsection (a) of
this section may transfer such credits to another
person unless the credits are first credited to a
new project being developed by the person to
whom the credits were originally issued and the
other person thereafter obtains the original
developers interest in such project.

b) nent improvements made to the unit, and
the increase in median income levels for the
Oenver-Boulder Standard Metropolitan Sta-
tistical Area.
(c) No person shall be subject to compliance
with the resale price limitations provided in
subsection (b) of this section if such person
demonstrates to the housing authority and
the authority finds that:
(1) The initial price of the unit offered for
sale under this chapter is equal to or more
than ninety percent of the fair market value
of the unit; or
(2) The unit offered for sale under this
chapter is part of a development in which
seventy-five percent of the other units are
offered for sale within ten percent of the
price of the units offered for sale under this
(3) A purchaser or developer may notify the
authority of the fact that such person has
made a good faith effort to sell a unit here-
under for a period of at least six months and
that, despite this effort, a sale has not
occurred. If the authority determines that
this effort did extend for at least six months
and was conducted in good faith, within
thirty days of that determination it may con-
tract to purchase the unit or arrange for
another party to contract to purchase the
unit, and, if it does not agree to purchase the
unit or have another party agree to purchase
the unit within that period, it shall forth-
with release the developer or purchaser from
the resale price limitation of subsection (a) of
this section.
3-7-5 Housing Authority May Administer
rhe housing authority of the city of Boulder is
luthorized to administer this chapter and adopt
egulations to implement its provisions.