WSP11863 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fH12167 3. Housing a. Alternative One This alternative would not allow developnent of Natiop.al Forest $ystem land, and, therefore, would not in and of itself require construction of employee housing units or tourist beds at or adjacent to the proposed Wolf Creek Valley Project. b. Alternatives Two and Three (1) On-Site Housing The housing development program on private land is based on the approved Wolf Creek Valley PUDM in Mineral County. The PUDM allows a maximum number of units by dwelling type as shown below. Single Family Detached 304 Single Family Semi-Detached 125 ~IDlti-Family Moderate Density 769 MUlti-Family High Density 1,257 Mixed Use ~ Total Units 2,939 Under Alternatives Two and Three the housing developnent program is phased in concert with mountain capacity and the expected growth of destination skiers over time. The units developed by type are shown in Table IV-22 below. Single family units are assumed to be built out to a maximum of 80 percent of the total platted lots and the !emaining unit types are assumed to be built out completely by 2020. Using a ratio of 20 percent of the single family and five percent of the multi-family units (plus all employee units), year round units are estimated at 63 units in 1995, 148 units in 2005 and 284 units in 2020 for Alternatives Two and Three. The year round occupied units would be 10.9 percent of total housing units not including hotel units by 2020. (2) Although 113 housing units are planned as employee units and a small percentage of the remaining units are expected to be purchased or rented by permanent residents, the majority of the new residents generated by the direct and indirect employment of the proposed project are expected to reside in Archuleta County. 217